To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consultations he has had over the routing of cycle paths within London. [15688]

My Department attends regular meetings with London borough councils and representatives of cycling groups to discuss development of the 1,200 mile London cycle network.

Admirable though it certainly is to provide and extend cycling facilities in London, is it not absolute nonsense in a Labour-controlled borough such as mine for more than £300,000 to be spent on a new track which has brought chaos to residents, car drivers and bus drivers, dismay to the police and, above all, danger to cyclists? Should not Merton council have ensured proper consultation and worked towards practical pedalling rather than posture politics?

My hon. Friend forwarded to me correspondence from Councillor Margaret Brierly, who expressed on behalf of residents in Raynes Park in my hon. Friend's constituency concern about the way in which that particular part of the cycle route had been implemented. The case underlines the fact that, however desirable cycling may be—I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the principle—it is vital that local authorities proceed on the basis of proper consultation with residents so that we get sensible value for money out of the exercise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the amount of subsidy from national Governments to their national airlines within the EC; and if he will list the latest available figures for each member state. [15690]

Since 1991, the European Commission has approved £5.3 billion of state aid from member states to their national airlines. Almost half this aid was awarded to Air France. The UK Government have opposed all these subsidies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is outrageous, not least because half of it goes to one airline? Will he undertake to publish the details of the subsidies to every other airline in Europe? Does he agree that, apart from being worried about the record of fraud and mismanagement that go on in the Community, many people in Britain will be dismayed to think that others whose livelihoods and jobs depend on the free market which we are supposed to have joined will seriously question the purpose of what they are in unless that free market is established?

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, since 1991, Sabena has received £450 million, Iberia almost £600 million, Aer Lingus £170 million, TAP of Portugal £710 million, Olympic Airways about £1 billion and Air France about £2.4 billion. All that distorts the single market, as my hon. Friend says. All of it is unfair to British Airways and other British carriers, which compete without the benefit of state aid and do so much more effectively than most of the airlines that receive state aid. It is also unfair to the passengers. For all those reasons, the Government have opposed all those state aids. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to be robust in the future, as we have been in the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to promote greater usage of London's surface railways. [15691]

In London, as elsewhere, giving the private sector the opportunity to operate existing services and introduce new ones is the best way to bring about the further improvements to services which passengers clearly want to see and to attract more passengers.

Does the Minister not recognise that imaginative management of London's railways would provide far greater passenger opportunities on many underused freight lines or underused passenger lines, such as the Barking to Gospel Oak line? Is he aware that the principles of the internal market mean that, to save Railtrack from paying penalties, re-routed freight trains are sent down the Barking to Gospel Oak line, passenger trains are cancelled and passengers are taken off the trains and told to take a bus? Railtrack does not therefore lose any money from its freight income, but it inconveniences the passengers, who receive no compensation because that line is not included in the compensation package.

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that £300,000 has been contributed towards refurbishment of stations on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. As for rail freight, he will be pleased to learn that the freight companies were vested successfully this weekend. I believe that in the private sector they will offer greater innovation and better marketing and secure an increasing share of traffic for rail freight at the expense of road freight.

I recently travelled from West Ealing to Greenford and back using British Rail. Many passengers travelling in both directions to whom I spoke said that the service was extremely good and comfortable. Will my hon. Friend make absolutely sure, however, that the service from Ealing to Paddington is maintained at all times?

The franchise for the Thames services is not in the first eight, but I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend's constituents think. I am sure that he shares my confidence that, as franchises are offered in the private sector, we can expect improvements in the standard even of those services that people already find satisfactory.

Is it not clear that, although the Government have a so-called national roads programme, they have no national rail programme whatever—unlike every other major European country? When will the Minister understand that the private sector will not stump up capital for either crossrail or Thameslink 2000 until the Government give a lead by being prepared to invest public money in them?

Railtrack has oversight of the entire rail network, rather as the Highways Agency has oversight of the trunk road and motorway network.

I thank the Government for their commitment to London's surface railways. Is my hon. Friend aware that in constituencies such as mine, in Enfield and Edmonton, surface rail is very important because we have no tube services? Does he agree that private investment in British Rail provides the best opportunity of guaranteeing an improved service for my constituents in the future?

I entirely agree that opening up rail services to investment and management by the private sector provides the best guarantee of improved services well into the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to proposing changes to the laws on compensation for people and businesses affected by (a) underground and (b) overground railway works; and if he will make a statement. [15693]

The relevant legislative framework—which was most recently extended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991—is kept under review.

When the review is next considered—and the matter is urgent—will the Minister take account of two specific problems? They arise from the Jubilee line works, welcome though those are.

As the hon. Gentleman will realise, compensation arrangements for particular schemes such as the Jubilee line extension are a matter for discussion between London Transport and those who consider that they have been adversely affected. I understand that some traders are negotiating with London Transport about compensation in connection with the construction works, and I am sure that that is the right way for them to proceed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is present, and has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Given that all the new underground routes planned pass through the constituency of City of London and Westminster, South and as those who are sited above them, either commercially or residentially, suffer blight in general and personal disruption in particular, will my hon. Friend bear constantly in mind the fact that the routes of those lines are more likely to be smooth if there is a sensible system of compensation that everyone recognises?

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Will the Minister consider the position of people who are faced with compulsory purchase and who have negative equity on their properties, particularly commercial properties? Such people are forced to sell their properties at a time when, given the opportunity, they would not have sold but would have waited so as to recover their investment. Will the hon. Gentleman look at that serious problem?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult point which we will look at sympathetically when there is a further review.

Will my hon. Friend please consider extending compensation to farmers and market gardeners in Kent whose crops will be damaged and visually destroyed by chalk dust emanating from the construction of the channel tunnel rail link?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents who feel that they may be so affected will make full use of the statutory provisions available to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that standards higher than the European Union crash standards for cars are promptly introduced. [15695]

No. It is vital that crash test standards are set within the context of the European Union.

Does the Minister not realise that more improved, stringent tests could save up to 90,000 lives across Europe and 9,000 lives in the United Kingdom and that the motoring organisations are concerned about the recommendations being too loose?

The hon. Gentleman is right. When we reach the stage 2 standards, they will offer the prospect of substantial life saving. Of course these test standards have to be introduced on a sensible time scale which allows the manufacturers to develop products that are set to the stringent standards. I underline that I think there is general agreement throughout the House that the construction standards must be properly set within the framework of the European Union. They offer British manufacturers the opportunity of knowing the standard to which they build so that they can sell their products throughout the Union.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase the number of regional commuter train services. [15696]

Privatisation can be expected to bring improvements to regional commuter train services as well as to passenger services generally. The Government also welcome the support that local authorities have given to developing local services in their areas.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that among the proposals of the Greater Nottingham rail strategy is one for a line that crosses the county boundary into Derbyshire and for additional small commuter stations at Ilkeston, Sandiacre and Long Eaton in my constituency. What action can his Department take to forward that proposal, as it utilises better the existing midland main railway line, to the benefit of commuters?

Yes, I am aware of the proposal and of my hon. Friend's support for it. Any application to the Department for funding would need to be accompanied by a full appraisal that demonstrates that the scheme would provide value for money and better prospects for relieving traffic congestion, perhaps by encouraging transfer from private cars, rather than having, say, an express bus service. We are open to such a proposal and would look carefully at it should it emerge.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on what would happen to commuter services into Edinburgh from Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy if rust were to take hold on the Forth bridge? If that happened, one impregnated lattice structure would make it impossible to use that bridge, which is vital to the area north of the Forth. It is also the greatest monument to British engineering of the 19th century and is the picture postcard image of Britain. What are the Secretary of State's responsibilities in this matter?

Certainly, the hon. Gentleman is right. I share his appreciation of the engineering feat that the bridge represents. It was part of the best of 19th century engineering in Britain. I have no reason to believe that any of the hon. Gentleman's concerns are well founded. As he will recall from evidence that I gave to the Select Committee on Transport, we are asking some experts to have another look at the bridge.

My right hon. Friend will know that the chairman of one of the main banks has said that he expects there to be 50,000 redundancies in the banking world. There has been a host of similar developments during recent years. Will my right hon. Friend share with the House, either now or on a subsequent occasion, the Government's latest thinking on the effect that technological change will have on commuter patterns over the next few years?

First, I have no responsibility for banks. Secondly, the technological change to which my hon. Friend referred will not happen just in the future; it is happening now and it is being reflected in our policies as we seek to develop the railway industry in the private sector and to make the best use of developing technology in this country's other transport infrastructure.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long Railtrack's feasibility study team has been analysing whether to modernise the rail network. [15697]

At any time, Railtrack will be assessing the merits of a range of investment projects.

Given the shambles since November on the Euston-Coventry-Birmingham line, and in view of what happened today, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will speed up the modernisation proposals, that he will investigate what has been happening on that line since November and that he will abandon the privatisation proposals? Although the staff give of their best, they are demoralised by the privatisation proposals and, consequently, the railway line between Euston and Birmingham is a shambles.

The hon. Gentleman's comments about the effects of privatisation are total rubbish. However, I shall reflect on what he has said about the problems on the line to which he referred.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is an urgent examination of the west coast main line? Is he aware that many of us would like to use it regularly but do not because it is so unreliable? I happened to use it this morning for the first time in months and I was delayed by two hours. There was total chaos. It is a wholly unacceptable position.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the upgrading of the west coast main line is probably the biggest of the upgrading projects being considered. The first phase project study was completed in December. A couple of weeks ago, I announced that the Government had given approval for the letting of the contract for the development of a new signalling system, which is at the heart of the upgrading proposals. The release of funds that will follow will provide funding for the core investment programme that the line most urgently requires.

Is the Minister aware that whenever Members of Parliament raise questions about services at risk, especially services to the peripheral, more remote areas—for example, sleeper services—Railtrack or the franchising director says that their future is a political decision? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the buck must eventually stop with the Department of Transport in respect of those services and the costings on which their future is to be based?

The hon. Gentleman should stop arousing unnecessary fears in the minds of his constituents and those of hon. Members who represent Scotland. He well knows that sleeper services to the west country and to Scotland will be safeguarded, for the very first time, by their inclusion in passenger service requirements.

Will my hon. Friend remind those scaremongers who complain about the potential consequences of privatisation that wherever industry has been privatised, that has resulted in much greater investment and much better quality of service? That will be as true with the railways as it is elsewhere.

Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier to the contrast between British Airways in the private sector and the nationalised airlines of some of our continental partners.

Does it not show the Government's priorities that they still refuse to fund a penny of the £1 billion required for the desperately needed modernisation of the west coast main line, while at the same time they are quite prepared to shell out £5 billion sweeteners in debt write-offs and capital allowances to ease the privatisation of the railways? Is it not absolutely clear that the Government are far more interested in funding their dogma than in providing higher-quality services for passengers?

What it shows is that the hon. Gentleman does not think that any investment is worth while unless it is paid for by taxpayers. The first stage of the upgrading of the west coast main line can be funded in the private sector, so I find no reason why he continues to argue that taxpayers should pay for the upgrading. It can be funded without dipping into taxpayers' pockets.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the use by EU countries of restricting airspace as a means of restricting competition. [15698]

It is the Government's policy to oppose any measure that unduly restricts competition in the air transport single market.

When British Midland was given enough slots to become the second British carrier to fly to Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels, fares dropped by about a third and the percentage share of passengers using those services went up from about 40 to 60 per cent. Will the Minister therefore consider using, if not public money, then money raised from the private sector, to invest in the necessary technology to provide new and additional slots out of London? In that way, additional British carriers could fly on the other trunk routes—which have only British Airways here and the state airline at the other end in Europe—and so provide increased competition and reduced fare prices to the consumer.

If my hon. Friend is talking about flights in Europe, he will be pleased to remember that the 1993 liberalisation package, behind which we were a major moving force, has provided opportunities precisely to enable greater competition and greater access for British carriers to the transfer of passengers in other European countries. If he is talking about services beyond Europe, I assure him that, as we pursue bilateral liberalisation arrangements with other countries, we always seek to enhance British carriers' prospects.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that one of the greatest restrictions on airspace is its reservation for military use both in this country and in the European Union? Does that not restrict commercial carriers in obtaining the additional slots that they require? Has he assessed that position recently? If he has, will he advise us on the outcome of that assessment? If he has not, is he about to assess the position?

There we go again: anything to reduce the country's defence capabilities finds an echo on the Labour Benches. But perhaps that is not surprising from the party that has just brought forward a new rewording of clause IV, which inadvertently happened to omit NATO from its words.

To ask Secretary of State for Transport what efforts are being made to liberalise air services to and from the United Kingdom. [15699]

The United Kingdom played a lead role in bringing about the liberalisation of air services in the European Community, which came into effect on 1 January 1993, and about which I have just spoken. Outside the Community, we shall continue to seek to liberalise air service agreements on a bilateral basis.

Although I welcome the discussions between the UK and the United States of America, does my right hon. Friend hope that new practical and liberalised arrangements will emerge that are of benefit to both countries?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's question and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in those discussions between the United States and the UK. I pay tribute to Secretary Peña who, with me, agreed an agenda for those discussions. We have made good progress. They have been genuine negotiations. The talks will recommence in Washington on 10 April and continue until 12 April. I am hopeful that an arrangement will eventually emerge that will benefit the travelling public both in the United States and in the UK.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the objective for the channel tunnel rail link announced by the former Secretary of State in 1991, with special reference to economic regeneration in east London. [15700]

In selecting the easterly route for the channel tunnel rail link, the Government recognised the potential that it offered to encourage regeneration in the east Thames corridor, now known as the Thames gateway. Such regeneration remains an important objective for the rail link project.

May I remind the Minister that when the former Secretary of State made the announcement in 1991, he was explicit that his commitment was to regeneration in east London, where it is most needed and where, as the Government's own figures confirm, the levels of urban deprivation are highest? Do the Government remain committed to regeneration specifically in east London, as announced in 1991, through the rail link project?

I am confident that the whole of the Thames gateway will benefit from the rail link project. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to view the proposed site of the Stratford station, which I did recently on a very wet day—it was probably the only time that anyone has described me as a wet. However, the enthusiasm of the promoter group was undiminished by the weather. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of the station at Stratford is still open and we shall reassess it in the light of the bids from the four consortiums, which are undergoing assessment.

May I remind my hon. Friend that the reference was to the east Thames corridor and that we in north-west Kent are therefore grateful for the decision immediately to proceed with the Ebbsfleet station, which will bring considerable regeneration and also make more viable any opportunities that Opposition Members see in respect of east London?

It is gratifying that hon. Friends and hon. Members representing both sides of the Thames recognise the value of this project to regeneration prospects.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to improve provision for cyclists and pedestrians. [15701]

The responsibility for making safe provision for cyclists and pedestrians rests principally with local highway authorities. They are able to bid for appropriate funding in their annual transport policies and programmes submission to the Department of Transport.

Is the Minister aware that three quarters of all journeys are less than five miles long and that, at present, only 1 per cent. of them are made by bicycle? What is he doing to ensure safe networks on which parents are prepared to let their children travel and to encourage more people to cycle?

The hon. Lady is right, although it is about 2.5 per cent. of all journeys in this country that are made by cycle. That compares with an average throughout Europe of about 15 per cent. Although our road safety record generally is excellent, the prospects of being injured as a cyclist are substantially higher in this country than in some countries where cycling is more central to local transport provision. The hon. Lady is on to a very good point which I have strongly endorsed myself. The mechanisms for delivering what she seeks are the TPP submissions from local authorities which are being guided by the Department in its transport supplementary grant guidance to ensure that, when packages are put together by local authorities, they include a significant cycling element.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend supports cycling, but will he hold discussions with his colleagues at the Department of Health and the Department for Education to encourage schoolchildren to bicycle or walk to school? We are told that children are getting fat and unfit because they sit on their backsides too much and do not take exercise; we are told that they are getting unhealthy and developing asthma because of air pollution; and we can all see the congestion for ourselves. This is a very serious issue, and I hope that my hon. Friend will respond accordingly.

My hon. Friend is right. Cycling is environmentally sound and healthy and it is a thoroughly desirable form of transport, but most people would not exactly relish the prospect of challenging a 40 ft articulated lorry for priority on the road. The reality is that we have to create conditions in which thoroughly un-lycra people such as me might be tempted to improve their health substantially by cycling. My hon. Friend's enthusiasm is legendary and much to be welcomed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the future ownership and funding of Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement. [15702]

I have received a number of representations about the future ownership and funding of Manchester airport from hon. Friends and others. I believe that the airport's future would be better served in the private sector.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should allow pension funds to pay for tarmacking the second runway at Manchester airport so that councils are free to spend more on schools and caring for the vulnerable?

My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to comment about the second runway for obvious reasons, but I strongly endorse his view that the flexibility and investment that Manchester airport needs and of which, on the basis of its past history, it could make good use, is much more likely to come effectively from the private sector, thereby freeing up resources for the council to use in other ways as my hon. Friend pointed out.

I think that the Secretary of State made a mistake because Manchester is a highly efficient airport, which is growing every year and is not only providing high-quality management but contributing to the very best in the region. I thought that the Secretary of State was in the business of trying to sell off those broken-down bits of British Rail that his friends want for other reasons.

I am happy to confirm that Manchester is indeed a good airport, but I believe that it can be even better—and it is much more likely to be better and to provide the increasing range of international services that people want if it is given the opportunity to be in the private sector. I point the hon. Lady to the British Airports Authority. No doubt when the Airports Bill was going through the House she was against that as well.

While I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that Manchester airport is very efficient—I often fly there and enjoy the facilities—does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments made by Samuel Goldwyn junior when the Select Committee on National Heritage visited him in Los Angeles in a very unpublicised trip last year, when he said that public subsidies make for lazy film-makers? Is that not also the case with airports?

I am pleased that we have agreement across the Floor of the House that Manchester is a good airport. I think that we also have agreement across the House that it can be an even better and more significant airport. Unquestionably, that will happen if it gets into the private sector. I hope that that decision will be taken locally because I am sure that that is the best place for it to be taken, but I would not rule out the possibility that that decision might have to be taken centrally at some time in the future, on the basis of legislation.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Manchester airport's success is due to the fact that for 50 years it has been an example of municipal enterprise and that politicians of all political parties in Greater Manchester have nurtured it and built it up? Having achieved such a success, which even the Minister concedes, why spoil it now by taking it away from the local authorities?

It is encouraging to know that the Labour party, despite all its warm words and clich's, has not changed its instinct for the public sector over the private sector, irrespective of the benefits that the latter can provide. We have heard that view from the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), and from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on the Back Bench. All we need now is for it to be confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition and we shall have a clean slate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress to reduce the environmental impact of road transport. [15703]

A wide range of measures has been introduced to reduce the environmental impact of road transport, within the Government's overall aim of sustainable development.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that included in that statement there is a genuine interest on the part of Government to reduce the development of asthma in children and in the population in general? Will he give an assurance that new motorways will not be built near infant and junior schools? Does he agree that there has to be a distance of half a mile, or a mile, between a motorway and a school to ensure the health and safety of children in our schools?

I understand the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to clean air. I hope that he will accept that, in the nine months that I have been in this job, I have tightened vehicle emission standards on two occasions and have paid particular attention to putting in place arrangements that will add to those already in place as regards cleaning the air. As to new roads, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a genuine concern about the A1 (M) and proposals for new routes, the effect that those might have on the Ferrybridge-Pontefract corridor and whether the route ought to go to the east of Knottingley. He will appreciate that a variety of issues have to be taken into account in making such a judgment. He has made one of those points very eloquently today. I hope that he will accept that a number of others have to be borne in mind before a final decision is reached.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the M3 has been an outstanding success, as its use by the public has cut out many huge traffic jams of the past? None the less, the environmental side needs some attention. As a result of the sheer construction of the gap, almost 1,000 contractors' caravans are still in place. Should not a little environmental detail now be approached to make the M3 a real success?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the M3 and the whole motorway network have been a success. Some motorways have been a little controversial at the time of construction but, as people reflect on what we now have in place, they agree that the system is to the great advantage of the travelling public, business and industry. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the environmental aspects of the M3 and I will report his concern to the Highways Agency.

In view of the measures which the Secretary of State says are so important, when will he take full account of the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and the report of the royal commission? When will environmental appraisal be at the root of all road schemes and transport policies? When will he introduce air quality monitoring, both nationally and as a requirement for local authorities?

I should have hoped that the hon. Lady would know that, since 1985, environmental assessments have been at the heart of decisions on whether new roads should be built. The SACTRA report made it clear that induced traffic consequences of road building happen only on some roads but could not say in advance which roads those would be. It recommended that we should do more research to pursue that matter further and I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we shall do so.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many economists are employed by the National Audit Office. [15738]

The National Audit Office employs some 550 staff, who either have accountancy qualifications or are training for them. Of those, 60 have degrees in economics, although none are full-time professional economists. The office conducts a wide range of studies. When specialised advice is needed on relevant economic issues, the NAO uses external experts.

Will my right hon. Friend ask one of those highly trained individuals to discover why we have computer-readable passports but inadequate computers at ports of entry?

I am familiar with the report to which my hon. Friend refers and I understand that the Public Accounts Commission has already considered it. It shows the good work which the National Audit Office does for the House and for Parliament generally in inquiring into administration rather than policy. It has also revealed that the index of suspects, which has some 340,000 names on it, is held in a manual that is updated by hand every day. It is hoped to move to a computer index soon, though some hon. Members may consider that that should have been done before.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking within the EU to resist the payment of illicit subsidies to (a) Air France, (b) Iberia and (c) Olympic Airlines. [15704]

The UK has opposed the granting of state aid by national Governments to Air France, Iberia and Olympic Airlines, and we have applied to the European Court of Justice to annul the Air France decision.

Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to remind his opposite numbers in Europe that, to use Lord King's words, within less than a decade British Airways went from awful to awesome as a result of privatisation, cutting overmanning and achieving more efficient management, and that if their national airlines cannot achieve that without massive subsidies they should be allowed to go out of business?

I listened closely to what my hon. Friend said and I think that his words will resonate throughout the House and outside. State aid merely shores up inefficiency, distorts competition and undermines European airlines' ability to compete in world markets.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the public subsidy likely to be required to (a) construct the channel tunnel rail link and (b) operate services on it. [15710]

The level of public sector support for the construction of the channel tunnel rail link will be determined by the competition currently under way to select a private sector promoter for the rail link. The Government do not intend to subsidise the private sector operation of international services.

Is the Minister aware that Eurorail, whose chairman is Lord Parkinson, has put in a bid to construct the rail link? Is that not strange and remarkable behaviour from the noble Lord, given that he spiked the project five years ago, when he said that it should receive no public subsidy whatever?

I do not find it in the least strange that any one of the four consortiums should have put in bids to build the link.

Bearing in mind the fact that the north Kent line is subsidised, along with the other commuter services in the London area, is not one advantage of the channel tunnel rail link that it will cut commuting speeds from Gravesend from 50 minutes to 19 minutes on the high-speed rail link?

My hon. Friend has pointed out one of the important domestic benefits that flow from the construction of that link.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans he has to make refreshment facilities available for visitors. [15718]

In its first report of 1992–93, "Refreshment Provision for Line of Route Visitors", the Catering Committee recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should he converted to a visitor centre, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative has been found for the present lunchtime users of that cafeteria. The House agreed the report on 12 July 1994.

I thank the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee for that reply. I am glad to hear that some progress has been made. Is he confident that when I am visited by children in the future, as I was recently by 80 children from Arbury county primary school of Cambridge, those children will be able to sit and eat their sandwiches inside instead of having to go outside and eat them in the rain?

I entirely agree that that is very much to be desired. The Director of Works is currently preparing design options, which will have to be considered by the various Committees of the House. The serious problem is that between 400 and 450 people already have meals in the Westminster Hall cafeteria. Some suitable alternative must be found for them before much else can be done.

As one of the bars to extending facilities in the House is the lack of space, is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of rooms are currently used by policy advisers to the Labour party and are therefore now redundant?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would be kind enough to refer that matter to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make financial provision for the publication at monthly intervals of a list of dining room bookings, giving the names of organisations and hon. Members. [15719]

The provision of such information is a matter for the Catering Committee, following the implementation of the structure set out in the Ibbs report.

May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make suitable representations to the Catering Committee? As the Nolan committee is examining the interests of Members of Parliament, their parliamentary consultancies, and so on—about which there has been tremendous public concern—is there not a case for greater transparency and openness, so that people outside know exactly which Members of Parliament are booking how many rooms for outside organisations?

The hon. Gentleman can urge the Catering Committee, as no doubt he did before it gave a parliamentary written answer on that very subject on 1 February at columns 671–72. He has also no doubt urged his hon. Friends on the Committee, on which the Opposition are well represented by the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan).

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what has been the cost of energy efficiency measures in the parliamentary estate in the last three years. [15720]

The amounts spent specifically on such measures were £32,000, £168,000 and £130,000 in 1992–93, 1993–94 and the current financial year.

I just wonder whether enough is being done to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and whether the House is doing enough by setting an example of how we behave in that respect. Bearing in mind the fact that we have a tremendous predominance of staff—many people think that we are overstaffed—in the Palace and its surrounding accommodation, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should be possible to get some of those employees to go round turning the radiators down, so that rooms like mine do not reach a temperature of 82 deg F, as it did last week, which is more suitable for a sauna than for an office?

I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman has to say. The House has already achieved a saving of 7 per cent. in gas and electricity consumption and is on course for a target of 15 per cent. by 1996. It hopes to achieve a major reduction in fossil fuel burning by installing a combined heat and power plant in the Norman Shaw buildings and has various technical devices by which it seeks to avoid excess heat being produced. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that Members and staff can draw attention to practical means of cutting energy waste.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that brilliant toys which somehow or other do not work are very dangerous, and that at present the House has a great tendency to have a series of lights which click on very effectively after one has passed out of the corridor that they are meant to illuminate? That is not only exceedingly dangerous, but will cost a fortune in compensation when someone is hurt as a result.

I understand that automatic sensors can lead to considerable energy savings and that they are used in the House in places where it is thought safe to do so—not, for example, where there are steps or stairs. However, if the hon. Lady or other hon. Members know of places where their use could lead to danger, they should refer them to the appropriate authorities.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee how much it is planned to spend on House of Commons services in the coming year; upon which main projects; and if he will make a statement. [15721]

The estimates for the House of Commons administration and works services for 1995–96 were laid before the House on 23 March 1995, making provision of £73.3 million and £49.9 million respectively for the two votes. Major projects are identified in the annual reports of the Commission.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to find room in that £82 million of expenditure to apply for planning permission for the Terrace marquee, so that it may be open all the year round instead of only eight months a year? [Interruption.] Is my right hon. Friend aware, and is the House aware [Interruption.]—perhaps the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is not—that that facility is popular, and that it can be used all the year round because there is heating in it? Might it he used to accommodate the children and other people who want to eat their sandwiches at some times of the day?

My hon. Friend's interesting suggestion has met with a mixed reception from the House. He may like to refer the matter to the Chairman of the Catering Committee who, I am sure, will be only too anxious to consider it carefully.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this year is the 700th anniversary of the summoning of the first Parliament by Edward I, on 27 November 1295? If there is money available for projects, should it not he devoted to improving the facilities for those who visit the House? We still call them "strangers" rather than "electors", so we have not even caught up with 1832, and we still allow them to freeze in the streets when they come to visit Members of Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and several other hon. Members earlier raised points akin to his. The Director of Works is preparing proposals. I should be misleading the House if I suggested that that will happen quickly, but I take note of the fact that an influential and large number of Members wish to press ahead with it at the earliest date.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what further representations the Commission has received about financial provision for access for the disabled to the Palace of Westminster. [15722]

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps he is taking to improve financial provision for disabled access to the Palace of Westminster. [15724]

Following the comprehensive review of disabled access carried out by the Accommodation and Works Committee, projects have been included in the works programme shared between both Houses. Provision of about £240,000 was made in the previous financial year and £372,000 has been approved for the current year. A list of the completed and planned items of work has been placed in the Library.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this building is an obstacle course for the disabled, and that it is high time that it was improved?

The hon. Gentleman is right. When the building was designed, thought was not given to the way in which disabled people might obtain access to it, and much work is going into discovering ways in which that can now be achieved. The expenditures that I have described are part of that process, but there will be much more as the Accommodation and Works Committee considers the matter further.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when that money has finally been spent, the whole building will he fully accessible to all the people who come here who suffer from any type of disability?

The sums that I have already described will be only part of the process. I have already indicated that more proposals will be needed to achieve the objective described by the hon. Gentleman—if, indeed, we can ever achieve perfection in a building which was not purpose-built with the concerns of the disabled in mind, as I believe our new building over the way will be. The staff of the House have made every effort, not so much to provide special permission as to give special and appropriate assistance. A variety of measures is being considered to ensure that disabled people may have access to all parts of the building.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee on the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [15728]

I have no plans to propose the setting up of such a Committee.

Is not the appalling truth that the highest echelons of the United States Government and the Crown Office simply do not want to confront the truth about Lockerbie? Had they done so, would they not have been far more assiduous in carrying out their duty under Scottish law to investigate any leads which might result in the exculpation of the two Libyan suspects or, indeed, any other suspects? They simply have not carried out their legal duty under Scottish law in following the leads. I will not say that they have been bone idle, but they have not carried out their duty. In those circumstances, will the Lord President tell us what wretched excuse is now being given for not going ahead with the second best, which is a Select Committee of this House?

On the first point, I can only say that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate remains satisfied that the evidence supports the charges against the two accused and against no other individuals. On the second point, I shall simply say that there have already been numerous inquiries into the Lockerbie disaster and it seems to me that the appropriate course is to seek to pursue the case which is to be mounted against the two people who have been accused, rather than to engage in further inquiries.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the current level of parliamentary broadcasting. [15729]

Parliament makes available coverage of all the proceedings from the Chambers of both Houses and some Committees. The use made of that material is a matter for editorial and scheduling decisions by the broadcasters. Most viewers see coverage of Parliament in daily, national or regional news programmes. There is also some live coverage and a number of daily or weekly programmes using parliamentary material.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that there has been a fall in the amount of coverage given by television to proceedings in this Chamber? Is it not partly because of the restrictions placed on broadcasters, which prevent panning shots and reaction shots—for instance, to the comments that I am making now—and the need for greater access and editorial freedom to enable broadcasters to show the totality of the proceedings in this Chamber, rather than just the person who is speaking? Will he also bear it in mind that the Committee Rooms in which a number of important Committees sit do not have cameras? Those Committees should be reported on television, but it is not possible because the technology is not there.

The hon. Gentleman will know that some relaxations in the rules covering the use of reaction shots were introduced in 1991. The Select Committee on Broadcasting, which I chair, took a further look at the rules recently and felt that the necessary consensus did not exist, either in the Committee or in the House, to justify further changes at this stage. Given the amount of coverage that is devoted to occasions when the rules are at their most restrictive, I rather doubt the hon. Gentleman's assumption that such rules inhibit coverage.

What powers has the Broadcasting Committee to take action against broadcasting organisations when they flagrantly break the rules that this House has set? For instance, in an incident not long ago Channel 4 News used slow-motion shots of this House when a Division was taking place. What action can be taken when the rules are broken?

The Broadcasting Committee could propose a range of actions to the House. In that case, the matter was taken up with the television companies concerned; they have said that they accept that what happened was outside the rules and I would not expect it to recur.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to improve business questions and answers. [15730]

It is not, alas, in my power to improve the questions. I continue to work on the answers.

As a third of the time devoted to business questions is wasted on the meaningless ritual of asking for debates and then having them refused, and as a large amount of the time for points of order is equally wasted, when Members try unsuccessfully to persuade Madam Speaker that their patently bogus points of order are genuine, should we not follow the example of the Indian Parliament, which has introduced a period known as "zero hour" when Members can raise issues of concern without necessarily seeking replies to them, although they sometimes get them? That would avoid wasting time but would still fulfil the function of allowing about a quarter of an hour each day when Members can raise important and urgent matters.

First, I would raise an eyebrow at the hon. Gentleman's nerve in asking that question, as I have with me a list of subjects that he has raised at business questions in the past few weeks. Secondly, as it happens, I have arranged a zero three hours for next Wednesday morning.