To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to modify the regulations governing the occupational safety of the crews of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels fishing in and outwith United Kingdom territorial waters. [13018]

The occupational safety of crews in United Kingdom fishing vessels is being pursued through the development of regulations to implement European Union health and safety directives.

May I remind the Secretary of State of the death of a Scottish fisherman caused by an unsafe winch? At this very moment, a court case is under way relating to the disgraceful and tragic foundering of the Pescado.

I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate in the House. Any regulations would have to go through the usual procedures. He rightly pointed out that a trial is under way in, I think, Bristol, so we must be careful in what we say. It is true that, in the maritime sector, the United Kingdom will have to implement the framework and 10 relevant daughter directives, including a specific directive on fishing vessels, which build on the existing domestic regulations that apply to fishing vessels. It is a matter to which I attach a high priority. I should like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's specific point about maritime suits.

Is it not necessary for the Government to ensure that not too great a burden is placed on fishermen? Should not a balance be found that ensures practical guidance to enable fishermen to go about their business properly and in safety, while at the same time not placing too many burdens on them?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the potential costs of compliance. A cost compliance assessment will be published with a formal consultation document on each directive. That document will be an opportunity for both the owners and those who work on the fishing vessels to comment on what is proposed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the bypasses on the A419 for (a) Blunsdon and (b) Latton. [13019]

The A419 Latton bypass is included in the first tranche of DBFO—design, build, finance and operate—contracts and preparatory works have already begun. The A419 Blunsdon bypass scheme has been placed in the longer-term category. It is too early to say when it may be rolled forward into the main programme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the villagers of Latton will be delighted to hear that, at long last, they can look forward in the near future to relief from the heavy vehicles that have pounded through their village for so many years? I ask my hon. Friend not to forget the villagers of Blunsdon, who live athwart the same road and who, in my view, are entitled to the same consideration. I urge on him the hope that, in the not too distant future, those villagers will get the same sort of relief.

My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that all schemes on the route are extremely popular with the communities that they are intended to serve. The Blunsdon bypass was at a very early stage of its preparation and not ready to be included in the tranche of DBFOs, which include three other schemes on the route. The longer-term category means that a scheme will possibly be required at some future date but is not of sufficient priority to be proceeded with at the moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the relevant local councils in London about the effect on their local environments of his Department's major road schemes on which work has already started; and if he will make a statement. [13020]

We hold regular discussions with local authorities as part of the process of designing, developing and constructing all road schemes.

After saying that the M11 link road through my constituency was an urgent matter, fighting with demonstrators at great cost, evicting local people from their homes and demolishing those homes, will the Minister explain why the Government have halted the programme and left the route a mudheap? The leader of the council has described the situation as the worst of all worlds and the Civic Society has said that the Government seem to have a vendetta against Leytonstone. Why does his Department's policy make the art of the absurd look like social realism?

We remain convinced of the merits of the excellent Hackney M 11 scheme. It will provide the link from the docklands to the motorway system, relieve communities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of the intolerable pressure of traffic from which they suffer—he and I know about that at first hand—and give us the opportunity to do a great deal of work there that will much improve conditions for local residents. Tenders for the next two contracts in the scheme—contracts 1 and 3—are to be invited in a few weeks' time in April. Work is on-going. The scheme will be completed and the funding for it will be provided.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the decision to defer the Henlys corner scheme, which is part of the north circular road scheme, was welcomed by many residents of the area? Indeed, if he comes forward with a more modest scheme, he will be even more popular than he is today.

I always welcome invitations not to spend money, but on this occasion I fear that, for once, I shall disappoint my hon. Friend. In the fulness of time, we will complete works on the north circular road, because only when the scheme is complete will all Londoners receive the full benefit of that internal bypass through London, which can help to remove so much rat-running traffic, not least through my hon. Friend's constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on bus deregulation in the Burnley and Pendle area. [13021]

Deregulation has brought great benefits to bus travellers in Burnley and Pendle, as it has to those elsewhere in the country. Generally, there are more operators running more bus miles at lower cost, with new buses on many routes, and involving significantly less public subsidy than before.

Does the Minister accept that the Liberal-controlled Pendle council's sale of its 50 per cent. stake in Burnley and Pendle Transport to Stagecoach will mean that Stagecoach will have a virtual monopoly in the running of transport in the Burnley area? Should that not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will the Minister confirm that whether Burnley council should sell its 50 per cent. stake is completely for it to decide?

Far be it from me to intrude on private grief, but, as it happens, the regulatory authorities—not my Department—are satisfied that there is no impediment to Pendle council's sale of its stake. The position that Burnley chooses to adopt is entirely up to it. It is under no compulsion to sell, although logic and common sense should have advised it to sell a long time ago.

Does the Minister accept that bus deregulation has led to serious problems in Burnley and Pendle and, indeed, in many other cities and towns? Will he join us in discussing the appropriate shape of re-regulation in Burnley and Pendle and elsewhere with the bus industry, local authorities and passengers, so that we can develop a stable, long-term framework for the bus industry over the next decade? Does he agree that the need for an expanding bus industry should be placed over short-term, ideological dogma?

One of the hon. Gentleman's endearing characteristics is his ability to get to the point about five months after everybody else—not least, these days, members of his own party, who, in their local authority guise, and as members of the bus working group which I chair, have agreed with me on a way forward. It is significant that neither they nor the all-party Select Committee report on the bus industry proposed going back to the old days of regulation, because it is recognised by all that those were not days to which anyone interested in developing the bus industry would wish to return.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the promoter for the channel tunnel rail link. [13022]

We expect to announce soon the name of the winning consortium in the competition to select a private sector promoter for the channel tunnel rail link.

My right hon. Friend will be more than aware of not only the battering that the current promoter, Union Railways—a British Rail subsidiary—has taken from people in north-west Kent in relation to the possible damage to the environment but the opportunities in terms of jobs, and so on, that are to be gained from the Ebbsfleet station. Is he aware that we need a decision now on a promoter so that we can ensure that our environment is safeguarded and, above all, that the opportunities deriving from Ebbsfleet are realised as soon as possible?

It is an important project for the nation—it has been supported by both sides of the House—and for my hon. Friend's constituents, who will gain access to a quick link to St. Pancras station. As I said in my initial response, we hope to make an announcement soon.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he makes that announcement, he will also announce the Government's decision on intermediate stations? Will he further confirm that, in making that decision, the Government will honour the commitment made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1991 that the rail link will bring economic regeneration to east London?

It is indeed my intention when I announce the name of the successful competitor to make a simultaneous announcement about the locus of Stratford and the CTRL.

Will the Secretary of State please assure the House that, when the channel tunnel rail link is constructed, it will allow the operation of large-gauge freight trains and that links will be made to allow them to operate on an improved and upgraded west coast main line track?

My understanding is that there is an optional provision for loops for freight traffic. The link is primarily intended for passenger traffic into St. Pancras.

Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government's obsession with rail privatisation has caused long delays in the building of the channel tunnel rail link, and that those delays have meant prolonged blight for many families and a failure to use the opportunity created by the channel tunnel to get more freight on to the railways? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House more about the allegations of financial misbehaviour at Union Railways? Is he aware that the national joke is now about train delays being caused by thieves on the line?

On the hon. Lady's first question, had we not engaged in dialogue with the private sector, and if the project was to be financed entirely by the public sector, it would have taken significantly longer to be realised.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his criteria for the future funding of new capital public transport provision in metropolitan areas. [13023]

Funding criteria are set out in Department of Transport circulars 3/89 on section 56 grant and 2/95 on transport policies and programmes guidance to local authorities, both of which are in the Library.

Does the Minister agree that the scheme for a tramway in Leeds meets the criteria set down by his Department, and that it has the support of all parties in Leeds and strong support from the private sector? Will he assure us that, when he comes to decide on the future funding of the tramway in Leeds, he will bear in mind the length of permission issued by the House for its construction?

We do indeed recognise that the tram system in Leeds fits well within the package of measures proposed by the authority. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when we met the week before last, the weight of demand on available resources meant that we could not fund the scheme this year. Not least among those demands was the Midland metro, which received the go-ahead this year, and the prospect of our entering into a similar commitment, subject to the quality of the bids, on the Croydon tramlink. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not least among our considerations are the time constraints laid on Leeds by the statutory process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the most cost-effective capital projects he has planned for London; and when each will be implemented. [13024]

The Government's annual report on expenditure on transport over the next three years will be published next month. We are also preparing a document for publication later in the year specifically setting out our transport strategy for London.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most cost-effective capital facilities in London would be a central London river service, the capital costs of which would be but a fraction of the £80-odd million costs of the single station on the Jubilee line at Westminster? Will he confirm that he received a report about a year ago from the transport on water working party, of which the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and I are members, which advocated such a service?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for the considerable effort and expertise that they brought to the Transport on Water proposals for a river service on the Thames. The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about such a service, and I hope that he will accept by way of an answer today that, from the day in 1931 that Sir Alan Herbert mooted the idea of a river service, a great many people who have uttered the immortal phrase, "We should do more about transport on the river," have run up against the practical difficulties that anyone operating such a service at anywhere near financial viability encounters. That being said, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government office for London has, with my distinct approval, invited London First and KPMG to study the business case for passenger transport on the Thames. They are, as the hon. Gentleman says, due to report shortly. I will consider their findings in detail, and I hope to be able to take matters forward from there.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that capital investment programmes for public transport in London are at a record level, and that, even if the Jubilee line extension project were excluded, investment would be about 10 times more today than it was in 1979?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. That frequently embarrasses the Labour party, but it is one of those uncomfortable statistics with which it will have to live. My hon. Friend's constituents are a long way from the River Thames, and, although they would no doubt appreciate such a service, they might query the wisdom of providing a large public subsidy for a service that, by definition, few would be able to appreciate. We must compare the costs of such a project with the demands from his constituents and many others throughout London for more investment in the bus and underground rail infrastructure.

If the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) is entirely right, why are there so many clapped-out old buses on London's roads? I suggest that the Minister go outside and see how many filthy and dirty old buses that should have been taken off the roads years ago are belching out fumes and suffocating tourists and Londoners. It is all right for the Minister, who goes around in an air-conditioned chauffeured limo, but those who have to breathe the air know how filthy it is. How much has been spent on new buses in London during the past 12 months?

I have it on fairly good authority that my chauffeured limo is not as large as that of the hon. Gentleman when he was chairman of the Greater London council, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies in precisely that direction. The other day, I looked at a table that showed the tremendous increase in orders for buses nationally that the private sector has been able to institute. The table provided a rather invidious comparison with the very poor record of the industry when it was under national control in 1985. In London, the largest single trial of cleaner fuel buses has been undertaken at substantial public expense by London Transport Buses, and was inaugurated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposal of Central Railway for a new rail link between the channel tunnel and the midlands. [13025]

My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations about the Central Railway project.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the anger and frustration among large numbers of my constituents at the continuing refusal of Central Railway to make clear either the likely environmental impact of its proposals or the possible effect they will have on existing passenger rail services? Can he impress on the company that it must either take seriously its obligation under statute to public consultation, and to provide details soon of its proposals, or withdraw the proposals completely and relieve my constituents of the blight that is afflicting them?

No application has been made so far. If the company proceeds with its intention of making an application, it will be required to include an environmental assessment in the deposited information. The guidance about Transport and Works Act 1992 applications stresses the importance of proper consultation with local authorities and other affected bodies.

Should not talk of new rail links on old routes remind the Minister and the Government of a salutary lesson? Just 30 years ago, the vandalism of the Beeching era and its obsession with so-called market forces resulted in the closure of many lines that would have provided priceless means of communication today. Will the Minister give an assurance that, whatever happens to the privatisation of British Rail, no significant route miles will be closed? Will he also assure us that routes of lines that have been closed recently will be protected? As sure as eggs is eggs, one day they will be needed again.

I recall that the Beeching approach was a policy continued by the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970, who closed more route miles in that one period of office than any other Government have done.

Given the uncertainty that Central Railway appears to have shown in regard to the exact route of the line—for instance, having stirred up residents of South Nutfield in my constituency by telling them that the line would go through their village, it subsequently discovered that it would not—will my hon. Friend look askance at any future applications from Central Railway for waivers, and bear in mind the need to produce detailed and adequate maps so that local authorities and other local people who are affected can have a proper look?

I assure my hon. Friend that, if any application for a waiver is made, details will be placed in the Library of the House. We shall also consult the local authorities that would be affected about the adequacy of the information to be supplied.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he has met to devise through ticketing provisions on the west coast main line between various operators. [13026]

None. That is a matter for train operators, who must comply with the approved through ticketing arrangements under the terms of their passenger train operators' licence as granted by the Rail Regulator.

The Minister's answer will disappoint many commuters in my constituency of Nuneaton. My local railway station is served by trains from Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Holyhead; if there is no through ticketing agreement between the various operators, all the stations on the route are likely to be closed. Will the Minister undertake to get involved to ensure that the network and my constituents are protected?

The hon. Gentleman's constituents should not be disappointed. The licence condition is that train operators should maintain the current service at the 1,300 stations that are capable of issuing through tickets. The regulator will permit variations from that only if he is satisfied that a higher, not a lower, standard of service will result. The hon. Gentleman's constituents should be reassured: through ticketing can only become better on the privatised railway than it was on the so-called publicly owned and publicly accountable railway.

Now that the Opposition transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), has made it clear that she prefers nationalised railways and wants those that have been moved into the private sector moved back as soon as possible, will my hon. Friend ensure that the west coast main line moves into the private sector as soon as possible, so that, at the next general election, people can see the benefits of privatisation as they are already seeing the benefits of the Stagecoach service to Weymouth?

We intend to bring forward the franchise for the west coast main line in the course of this year.

Does the Minister share the Prime Minister's surprising view that fraud involving hundreds of thousands of pounds represents no more than misbehaviour which should not be allowed to stand in the way of the privatisation dogma? Does he recognise that problems with through ticketing are part and parcel of the same problem that gives rise to fraud by one operator against the others—the fragmentation of the railway network? Will he join the Rail Regulator in at least apologising for the near collapse of the national rail inquiry system? Fraud, the collapse of the information system and the near collapse of through ticketing are all the results of fragmentation. Which of the three does the Minister defend?

I note that the hon. Gentleman adds a good few noughts on to the end of any figures that have been quoted as the possible cost of the irregularity on the London-Tilbury-Southend line, which was discovered very rapidly as a result of the routine procedures that were put in place for the privatised structure.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Lady shakes her head. She continues to mislead the public in her interviews, when she knows very well that what she has said is not true.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I take points of order after questions.

Is it in order for the Minister to say that what I said was not true?

The Minister is responsible for his own comments in the House, as we all are.

I was referring to the hon. Lady speaking through the broadcast media. What I have said is true and fair comment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times the River Thames working group has met in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement on its work. [13027]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest programme of initiatives to recommence a riverbus service on the Thames. [13029]

The River Thames working group has met once in the last 12 months, on 11 July, to consider progress on the recommendations contained in its report published in December 1994 and it will meet again this week on 15 February. My hon. Friend will know that the group was set up to examine the potential for developing freight and passenger traffic on the river.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, with the minutes ticking away to the millennium, the unique opportunity of establishing a central London river service as a permanent monument and lasting benefit for Londoners becomes daily more pressing? Will he undertake, as a matter of urgency, to bring together the best of the proposals made to him, including the distinctive ideas put to him by the Transport on Water working party with the aim of achieving a river component of a through ticket travelcard transport system for Greater London in good time for the next century?

I certainly undertake to consider carefully the proposals that the London First study produces, and to seek to find whatever agreement is possible between its report and that which the Transport on Water working party, of which my hon. Friend is a senior representative, has submitted to us. I will not repeat the caveats that I have already suggested must exist in respect of such a service. My hon. Friend speaks of integration into the travelcard system; if he were to talk of integration on the same fare basis that exists for buses and the underground, it might be a different proposition from the idea of incorporating the service into the travelcard system. On that latter front, I know that Peter Ford, the chairman of London Transport, has shown a willingness to consider ways in which we could, perhaps through that mechanism, achieve much wider awareness of riverbus services.

Further to both the earlier questions on this subject, now that the London First report has been published, we have all the research that we need. We have three catamarans, owned by P and 0, idling in St. Katharine's dock ready to do the job. Can the Minister—I put this as a serious proposition, because there is huge interest in the issue—collect together the authors of the report, the Port of London authority, the National Rivers Authority, London Regional Transport and interested hon. Members from the locks at one end down to the estuary at the other, to find out whether he can sort out the difficulties that remain? Some people need a kick up the backside and the Minister needs to kick them, but the report suggests that it can be done and we need to get around the table to work out the best and most economical way of doing it.

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's continued interest in this subject. He will acknowledge that I am keen that we should produce concrete proposals to build on the work of the studies. I have accepted that if that requires the involvement of my Department, or, indeed, other sources, it is a proposition that I would be prepared to consider. We have all been seeking to ensure that there should be a service that is, ostensibly at least, viable at the operating level. If that can be established—the early work seems to show that it can—I believe that we have the ground on which we might be able to build.

My hon. Friend will know that the River Thames does not flow close to Leicestershire, but he and I share much the same attitude to the scheme for river transport. Will he confirm that, when he produces proposals, he will study closely the question of enabling legislation, particularly in relation to piers? With the last scheme, if one caught a boat at Chelsea Harbour, the next stop was Charing Cross. That was a ludicrous situation, because invariably one had to use some other form of transport. Will my hon. Friend look into that closely?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the major weakness of previous schemes, which is that they have had to rely entirely on sufficient stopping-off points linking with the public transport infrastructure. In other words, one has to have a system which takes people where they want to go. The transport on water study, and KPMG, for London First, identified the number of locations that it will be necessary to consider. It is not appropriate to elaborate at this point, but my hon. Friend is right in his observation.

Does the Minister agree that thousands of people are frustrated every day as they sit in traffic jams and watch an empty M11 wind its way through London? Further to the question of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does the Minister agree that we also need a change in planning so that, if planning permission is to be given, any major office development along the river must include the building of a pier?

As to the first half of the hon. Lady's question, I am not sure that I agree, because all the studies show that the river is a very inefficient mechanism for conventional commuting—it does not go in a straight line, it has a 7 m rise and fall, and there are many technical difficulties with establishing such a service. There is, however, a market for a service using the river, particularly building on its tourism potential, which could be valuable for London, Londoners and jobs in the capital.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines and advice he has issued to (a) manufacturers and (b) purchasers of buses about access for disabled people since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.[13028]

The Department of Transport has set up working groups with both manufacturers and operators of buses to discuss the regulations that will be drawn up under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Also, we shall shortly be publishing the first in a series of information bulletins which will report the progress that we are making in implementing the transport provisions of the Act. Bulletins will be circulated widely to manufacturers and operators, as well as to local authorities and disability organisations. When regulations are made under part V of the Act, we will issue separate detailed guidance to all those affected.

I am grateful for that answer. Does the Secretary of State recall that, during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill and the two similar Back-Bench measures, there was substantial demand from people with disabilities for buses to be made much more accessible to them, as well as for the spin-off benefits for young parents with push chairs, people with heavy luggage, and so on. In passing, does the Secretary of State agree that the bus industry often gives the impression of turning passengers away, rather than trying to attract them? Can he assure the House that he will keep up the pressure on that issue, given that, when measures to help people with disabilities have passed through the House before, the provisions have often been left on the shelf to gather dust?

Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is a subject to which I attach high priority. He is right to point out that it is not merely the disabled who will benefit from the particular features on the buses. They will help many other people, including women or men with young children, and the elderly. He will be pleased to know that 90 per cent. of new buses now have at least some of the features that were recommended by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DIPTAC—and which make it easy for ambulant disabled and elderly people to use the buses. I hope to see further progress.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smooth driving of buses is of the utmost importance for disabled people, and will he emphasise that to all involved in driving buses?

Yes.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the enthusiasm he expresses does not seem to be shared by the Government? It took us several months to persuade the Government to include access for disabled persons to buses in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Will the Secretary of State tell us why he cannot present a timetable today, and why he is not using parts V and III of the Act so that disabled people can gain access to buses, trains, bus stations and rail stations? Will he accept that, on the evidence, one of the obvious reasons for the Government's stalling is the chaos caused by bus deregulation and the equal chaos caused by the Government's determination to privatise rail transport?

The hon. Member will know that transport infrastructure is covered by part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We have introduced implementation dates for those parts of the transport industry for which the technology exists to achieve accessibility. For example, for rail rolling stock, the implementation date is 31 December 1998. For other transport modes, there are a wide variety of possible solutions, some of which will be available earlier than others. I will bring forward implementation dates as soon as we and the industry are satisfied that they are achievable and sustainable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the cost of upgrading the Central line. [13030]

London Underground's latest estimate is that the total cost of upgrading the Central line will be £802 million at October 1995 prices.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that that enormous investment will lead to the provision of extra trains during the morning and evening peaks? Will he also confirm that, in the current year, more than £1 billion will be invested in the London underground, and that that is in sharp contrast with the figure four times lower in real terms which was invested by the last Labour Government? Does that not show that the Conservative party is the party that is committed to London transport for the benefit of Londoners?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. The 35 per cent. increase in operating performance is a result of the substantial investment in the Central line and, of course, there is more to come throughout the system. I remind the House, as my hon. Friend invited me to do, that in 1978, for example, the level of investment—at 1995 prices—was £198 million, while the same figure for 1995 was £1, 088 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of changes in the total work force following privatisation of the railways. [13034]

None. Staffing levels are a management matter for the railway industry.

Will the Secretary of State admit that one of the main ways in which the new, privatised railway companies intend to make money is by getting rid of staff? Many women already find it difficult to travel on trains late at night because of the de-staffing of stations that has already occurred. They are worried about crime. That situation can only get worse unless we can guarantee that staff will be in place to protect passengers.

I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the announcement by Stagecoach on Monday, when it took over one of the newly franchised services. It has decided to invest £3 million in improvements to station and passenger facilities, including security, lighting, waiting rooms and information services. If companies want the public to use their trains, they must provide a secure, efficient and safe environment. I believe that that is what the private sector wants to do.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that privatisation and holding down fares will get more passengers on to trains, and that that will work wonders for employment on the railway?

My hon. Friend is quite right that it will not only improve employment prospects but improve security for other passengers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to discuss access to public transport. [13036]

My Department has regular meetings with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the transport needs of disabled people. I will be seeing the chairman on the day of the June quarterly meeting.

Is it the case that the draft European directive on bus and coach construction would prevent the Government from requiring that buses and coaches be made accessible to disabled people? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will insist that the terms of the draft directive are altered so as to ensure, as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that as soon as reasonably practicable buses and coaches are made accessible to people with disabilities?

I am very anxious that there should be no obstruction to extending access to buses by disabled people. Further discussions and consultations will take place on the European directive to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects provision of on-site child care facilities to be made available in the House. [13050]

In the light of a survey of demand for child care facilities, and following a debate in the House, the Commission decided to introduce a child care voucher scheme in April 1995 for its staff. It provides financial support to qualifying staff who wish to use any of a range of child care facilities at locations which they find convenient. So far, the responsible domestic Committees have not be able to identify a suitable location for on-site facilities in the parliamentary estate, and have not put forward any proposals.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that answer is unbelievably pathetic? The House can apparently manage to find a great deal of money for the refurbishment of the Strangers' Bar, Annie's Bar and the refreshment and dining facilities that are provided ad nauseam, often for private catering, while the only children's facilities in the entire building consist of one shelf of out-of-date children's books in the Members' Family Room. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that we should get into the 20th century before the 21st century overtakes us and provide a fully staffed on-site nursery in this building for Members' and staff's children just as any other sensible institution would provide for its staff?

I do not think that the staff using the child care voucher scheme find it pathetic; indeed, they find it helpful. The hon. Gentleman's other points must be passed on to his hon. Friends serving on the Committees that I mentioned.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the work of his Committee and on providing a voucher scheme for nursery education? I wish that he could encourage some county councils to do the same thing. Has he found that people using the vouchers prefer to send their children for nursery education close to their homes rather than to this building, which may be a long way from their homes?

Some people find it more convenient to use facilities nearer to their homes. The Commission hopes to establish the general picture when it reviews the scheme next month, a year after it came into operation.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made in the last 12 months for compliance with the law relating to listed buildings. [13055]

Financial provision for conservation requirements is included as part of the cost estimates for individual new works and maintenance projects.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety caused by the appearance in the House—temporarily, one hopes—of replacement internal doors which look like a job lot purchased at a do-it-yourself store on a wet Saturday afternoon, and also by the flashing red industrial-type lights which appear in the corridors during Divisions? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that at all times our concern will be less for the exercise of bureaucratic zeal and more for our obligations as custodians of Parliament as a priceless part of our national heritage?

The House has a good and improving record of attention to the conservation requirements of this important building. I am pleased to say that one of the doors, within my sight at this moment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred has already been replaced by its original. The House staff pay careful attention to the need to keep the fittings and furnishings and the building itself in good repair.

Does the listed status of the building impose any additional costs or difficulties when replacing the plumbing? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on reports made earlier in the year that some listed bacteria were present in parts of the hot water system? Can he assure us that, as a result of action taken, there is now no danger of Legionnaire's disease being present in the hot water system of the House?

I have been advised that there is no danger of Legionnaire's disease being present in the hot water system of the House. However, I shall arrange for a detailed written reply to be given to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the problem arose because of the listed status of the building.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths and injuries there were arising from road accidents in 1995, 1994 and previous years. [13037]

The number of people killed and seriously injured in road accidents has fallen from the 1981–85 baseline average of 80,130 to 50,181 in 1994, and provisionally to 49,778 in 1995. Slight accidents have increased from a baseline of 241,782 to 265,008 in 1994, and provisionally to a similar level in 1995. That is immensely encouraging, given that the volume of traffic increased by 44 per cent. during the same period.

I welcome the general decline in the accident rate. Can my hon. Friend say whether the introduction of speed cameras has had an effect? If so, will he give the House an assurance that speed cameras are positioned on roads where there are likely to be accidents, rather than where they are likely to lead to the greatest revenue?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. For example, as a result of the west London trial, the number of deaths in that corridor has been reduced from 21 to 7. That evidence is compelling. However, there may be evidence that the longer a speed camera site is in operation the less it is respected. That is a common phenomenon with this kind of installation. The Government will monitor the situation with care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that Railtrack provides improved access and facilities for disabled passengers at railway stations under its control. [13039]

My right hon. Friend will be bringing forward regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which will require that all new trains be accessible by disabled passengers. Stations are covered by the requirements of the Act, which gives a right of access to disabled people.

Does the Minister appreciate that removing staff from stations, as is happening at the moment, makes many stations inaccessible? There is no point in having a ramp installed at a station if no one is there to put it in position. Many disabled passengers are being disadvantaged by that situation.

Some train operators have on-board ramps, which are operated by staff on the train. As a result, access can be provided even at unmanned stations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that facilities for the disabled have improved since privatisation of the British Airports Authority and British Airways? Does that not augur well for the privatisation of British Rail?

It does not surprise me in the least that services to passengers of industries which have been privatised have improved. Like my hon. Friend, I look to the privatisation of the railways to improve the situation further.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about public transport in Greater Manchester. [13041]

Public transport in Greater Manchester is primarily a matter for the local authorities and the operators concerned. Subject to financial constraints, the Government will continue to consider funding worthwhile public transport schemes in Greater Manchester.

Does the Minister accept that the MetroLink in Greater Manchester has been a huge success? However, if it is to thrive it needs to have four or five lines added. Does the Minister welcome the current consultations about extending the MetroLink towards Tameside? However, it is no good having permission to build the extra lines if the money is not forthcoming.

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we believe that the viability of the system and its usefulness to Manchester is greatly enhanced as it expands, but I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that affordability is the key constraint. I cannot give him a commitment at this moment as to the funding of extensions to the system which already have statutory approval or those which are in various stages of preparation, but I can say that we shall continue to consider them as part of the package of proposals made by Greater Manchester.

With regard to public transport in the Manchester area and the effect of fraud in relation to public transport, has not the greatest fraud been the great nationalisation experiment perpetrated by left-of-centre Governments, which has failed, and should we not look forward to the end of nationalisation?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The bus industry has never thrived as it thrives now, entirely in the private sector, and long may it prosper. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention that all the criticisms so often levelled by the Labour party at the railway system in this country are criticisms levelled at a nationalised railway, and that outside this place the general public cannot wait for the advantages that the private sector will bring to enhance the quality of rail services.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to review the functions and role of the Privy Council. [13057]

I have no plans to do so.

Will the Lord President consider taking powers to abolish the Privy Council oath? Does he appreciate that that arcane mumbo-jumbo of an oath has now been totally devalued by the Government's failure to entrust my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the Scott inquiry report on Privy Council terms for a period during which he could read, digest and absorb its contents? Does he agree that the Privy Council oath is justified only on the rare occasions when approaches can be made to the other side in politics on Privy Council terms, but that on this occasion the Government have failed to do so? Is it not time that that arcane oath was abolished and done away with because it is absolute nonsense?

No.

Is it not highly appropriate that a recent oath was uttered by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?

I did not quite catch that question, but my hon. Friends obviously think that the answer is yes. I shall take further advice.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reports from the Procedure Committee are awaiting debate on the Floor of the House. [13059]

In the current Parliament, the Procedure Committee has produced 17 reports. Five have been debated either on their own or in the context of related business. Of the remainder, six required no resolution of the House or have been implemented wholly or in part by other means.

That still leaves several reports that we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House. It is a bit depressing to sit in a Committee producing reports only for them to gather dust on a shelf. Specifically, the whole House would be interested in the Committee's recommendations about Prime Minister's Question Time. Prime Minister's Question Time gets most of the criticism from outside this place, much of which is unfair, and the House should have the opportunity to discuss the proposal to have closed questions on Thursdays to see whether that improves the position. May we have a debate on that as quickly as possible, as I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to be in place as Prime Minister to see the new arrangements through?

I indicated in a relatively recent answer that that report is still being studied by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. For my part, the more I think about the matter, the more I think that it may be difficult to achieve a change that would meet the convenience of both sides of the House and therefore command the necessary agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that there should be a debate about the implications of the Nolan committee recommendations as to what interests can and cannot be registered in the House? My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that, for Question Time today, despite the fact that the House now wants registered interests marked on questions, 14 Labour Members with relevant trade union interests have tabled questions and not one of them seems to regard that as a registrable interest.

On the latter point, I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that it would be proper, perhaps, to put the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. On my hon. Friend's wider comments, I am Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is actively considering such issues.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to speed up voting procedures; and if he will make a statement. [13061]

None, Madam Speaker. If my hon. Friend has any particular cause for concern, he may wish to draw it to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Will my right hon. Friend consider those days when the House can be delayed if it is pursuing, perhaps, a run of six Divisions? Sometimes it can be delayed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for example, as a result of being delayed in one of the Lobbies. Could not different arrangements be made on such occasions—for example, taking the first Division in the normal way and subsequent ones by the pressing of buttons or something of that sort?

In its third report of 1992–93, the Committee recommended that the Chair should have discretion to appoint Tellers at any time up to two minutes after the Question was first put, in the sort of circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. That recommendation was agreed to by the House. However, I believe that I am right in saying that you, Madam Speaker, have not felt it right to exercise that discretion.