To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the reports on air quality when public inquiries are held on major roadway developments; and if he will make a statement. [24716]

Environmental statements for trunk road schemes, including air quality assessments, are prepared in accordance with current best practice, as set out in the design manual for roads and bridges. The manual is updated in the light of new developments in assessment methodology.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, at a public inquiry held last year on the realignment of the A1 and the junction of the M62 at Ferrybridge, questions were asked about the environmental assessment relating to vehicle pollution, and the inquiry was told that no such assessment had been made? The interchange is within 200 m of a junior and infants' school where the majority of children suffer from asthma; more than 200 were admitted to hospital in Wakefield last year. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Department should be more involved in obtaining assessments of air pollution when motorways are so near to schools, and will he ensure that such assessments are available at public inquiries for public scrutiny?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is difficult for me to comment on the scheme, as a public inquiry has been held. The inspector has submitted a report, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are now considering. I shall study it carefully before reaching a decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman gave evidence at the inquiry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that natural gas-powered vehicles are one alternative that could improve the control of pollution from vehicles, especially public service vehicles? Will he congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on reducing the tax on that source of fuel, and will he encourage him to do the same this year?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be grateful for the plaudits heaped on him by my hon. Friend, and I know that he will take my hon. Friend's recommendations into account when he crafts his next Budget.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is aware that recent medical research carried out by hospitals in England shows a direct relationship between the volume of traffic on trunk roads, and their closeness to urban areas, and the incidence of admission to hospital of patients with respiratory illnesses? What plans has he to include a calculation of health disbenefits in the overall calculation of benefits and costs for major highway schemes?

I think that improving air quality should be an objective in its own right, regardless of the specific economic factors to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is worth restating that air quality is improving, and that transport emissions are forecast to halve over the next decade as a result of improvements in vehicle emission standards and the enforcement measures that are already in place. My Department is playing an active role in improving the quality of the atmosphere and health standards, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in that objective.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to secure provision of a westward rail link from Heathrow to the London—Swindon line. [24717]

A possible westward rail link from Heathrow airport to the Great Western main line is one of number of schemes being examined in the Government's London airports surface access study.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of enthusiastic support for the concept of a westward link from Heathrow to the Great Western railway line on environmental grounds? It would make access to the airport from the west—from Wales, and from my constituency in Swindon—a great deal easier, and would encourage people not to travel on the M4, which, as my hon. Friend well knows, is already congested at peak times. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that, if the access study team comes up with a proposal for such a link, the private sector is given every encouragement to bid for the project at the earliest possible stage?

It is encouraging to hear such good, common sense from Swindon. Those who visit Swindon to make speeches do not always utter such sensible ideas. Proposals for improving rail access from Heathrow to the London-Swindon line are among the studies for schemes by BAA and Railtrack. Railtrack-BAA train operating companies and the London borough of Hillingdon are also looking at proposals for a new station north of Heathrow—the so-called Heathrow gateway north station. Either of those projects could be taken forward by the private sector in the new private sector railway.

Is it not foolish that, in advance of receiving the surface access study relating to Heathrow, the Government are embarking on widening the M25? They should pause and reflect, and abandon that crackpot scheme until the whole question of surface access to Heathrow can be looked at and the issue of Terminal 5 determined. It is wrong to go ahead with the widening without a public inquiry into air quality and other matters at the same time as contemplating a rail link—

Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance, but he has gone wide of the mark.

Over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) announced our proposed approach to the M25 and access to Heathrow and said that we would be presenting a balanced transport package that would involve modest widening, and an enhancement, of the M25' s capacity, and studies into improving surface access by rail. Both elements of the policy are being taken forward expeditiously.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce which contractor has won the main contract to build the Newbury bypass. [24718]

Tenders are still being assessed for the works. The contract will be awarded as soon as possible.

Following the appalling amount of misinformation that has been put about by some of the protesters about the Newbury bypass, and the suggestions that there may be alternative methods of improving Newbury's environment, will the Minister make sure that the contractor who is finally given the contract is aware of the importance of publicity and makes sure that everybody in the country recognises that the bypass is the best—indeed, the only—way to improve Newbury's environment?

I am not sure that I see that as part of the role of the selected contractor, but it is certainly important that the voice of the majority of people in and around Newbury is heard and that the views of unrepresentative minorities are not given undue weight. The environment is not just about furry animals and plants: it is about the conditions in which people in urban areas live. There is no doubt that the bypass would bring about a substantial improvement in the environment for the people of the town of Newbury.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of bus speeds and usage in London; and if he will make a statement. [24719]

London Transport estimates that, in 1995–96, the average speed of buses in central London was about 8 mph in peak periods and 9 mph in the daytime off-peak. Almost 1.2 billion passenger journeys were made on London Transport bus services last year.

Is the Minister not ashamed to announce that bus speeds in London are hardly any more than they have been over the past 50 years? Indeed, they are getting slower. Is it not time to put some money into bus priority measures throughout London, including high-technology schemes that allow traffic lights to be changed in favour of approaching buses? Above all, is it not nonsense for London's 32 boroughs to compete with each other in planning London's transport needs when, rather than the existing chaos, the city needs what it once had—an overall transport authority, accountable to the people of London, that puts money, resources and imagination into public transport?

We have an elected transport authority for London and he is sitting beside me. As for resources, I agree and, this year, we are putting more financial support into the London bus priority network. Support and supplementary credit approvals total £9 million—a higher level than last year. I would like buses to run faster. London Transport predicts that, on completion of the London bus priority network, bus speeds should increase by 15 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the introduction of the red route system, bus speeds and timings have improved, and that accidents have been reduced? If all that is the case, will he push ahead with the undoubted success of the red route scheme?

Like my hon. Friend, I am a London Member of Parliament. In my post this morning, I received, from the Association of London Government, a publication on red routes, and I was pleased to read in paragraph 3.4 that survey results showed that illegal parking was drastically reduced, that traffic delays were reduced, with journey times down by an average of 10 per cent., that variability of journeys fell by one third and that casualties—to pick up my hon. Friend's point—fell by 17 per cent. The results also showed that average traffic speed had increased, so the scheme is already yielding benefits, and we are determined to ensure that those benefits are further extended throughout London.

Will the Secretary of State pass on best wishes to his colleague the Minister for Transport in London for the work of the bus working group, which he has set up to consider this problem and others in relation to the bus industry's deregulation? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a growing consensus, with the Select Committee on Transport and the Chartered Institute of Transport, that the Government should consider bus reregulation to take away the worst effects of bus deregulation? Will he therefore press on his hon. Friend the case for finding parliamentary time to introduce some sensible proposals that will be supported by Labour Members? If he does not do that, will he be assured that we shall find time to do so when we take over on the Government Benches?

Those are idle promises. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, there is no move towards a reregulated system. The Select Committee did not suggest that the bus system be reregulated, but, within the context of a deregulated system, my hon. Friend the Minister is seeing what extra measures can be taken further to drive up the standards that bus passengers enjoy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since deregulation, London buses get into all the corners and parts of London, which they never hitherto did, and give a much better service? What does he think an elected or nominated mayor of London could achieve that has not been achieved?

My hon. Friend is right. There is no role for an elected authority in London between the London boroughs and the Department of Transport where, as I have already mentioned, we have a Minister for Transport in London who is making good progress in improving the quality of transport in London. My hon. Friend will know that the countdown system is being piloted along the Uxbridge road in Ealing and that we are in the process of evaluating that to find out whether there is a case for extending it throughout London.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of crossrail. [24720]

As my right hon. Friend has told the House, crossrail has its place in the sequence of major London projects. The Government are committed to it going ahead as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution.

Many people and many organisations in London, including London Pride Partnership, the Corporation of London and the Association of London Government, were bitterly disappointed by the Government's announcement a few weeks ago. As Londoners, we feel that crossrail has been delayed unnecessarily and we hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government remain firmly committed to crossrail's implementation at an early date, as it is necessary for our city's economic vitality and for journeys across the city, because it links our main railway stations. May we have that assurance?

If Londoners are disappointed, it is probably largely because they have relied on the disinformation about the status of crossrail which has been spread by the Opposition. The reality is that, in London, we are proceeding with the Jubilee line extension which is due to open on 28 March 1998—book your tickets now—and we have already announced that the £650 million Thameslink 2000 scheme will follow thereafter, to be followed by the channel tunnel rail link, which is a scheme of around £2.7 billion. We have made it clear that, from a financial and logistics standpoint, it is right that crossrail should follow those projects. That is prudent and sensible government, something that Londoners understand when they are exposed to it but something that I do not expect Opposition Members to begin to understand.

While I accept the logic of the Government's position, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have prolonged the already considerable blight along the line of rail? Have the Government ventured any consideration of the French method of compensation in such matters which seems, for a disproportionately low investment, greatly to accelerate the conduct of affairs?

My right hon. Friend is right in the sense that one regrets any blight on properties necessarily involved in a scheme of such magnitude continuing for one day longer than necessary, especially when the status of the proposals is as it is. I hope that he will accept that I must resist his blandishment to discuss the relative merits of French compensation systems. Certainly, we are keen to ensure that people whose properties are affected by crossrail understand that the Government remain committed to the scheme and will see it happen, but we shall see it happen according to an orderly and sensible timetable that takes account of affordability and of the impact on the streets of London itself.

Is the Minister aware that crossrail provides the equivalent of 28 lanes of road across London, that it is an enormously valuable project, and that recent reports show that perhaps half its funding could be provided by the private sector? Will he now admit what he has not told the House—that the scheme has been delayed deliberately because, if it went ahead and licences were sought, it might endanger the flotation of Railtrack? Does he agree that the enormous damage being done to London, yet again, is part of the destructive consequences of rail privatisation?

I suspect that the difference between us is that I do not work with that kind of conspiracy theory constantly in my mind. To any objective observer, it is the most absurd notion one can imagine in relation to the flotation of Railtrack. Crossrail is, of course, a large and important scheme, and we remain committed to it. When planning such investments in public transport infrastructure, the key criterion has to be affordability. As I said, I do not expect the Opposition to understand that, but it is how tough and real decisions are made. It is, and has always been, the case that Railtrack will look at crossrail as a private sector entity to take account of the risks and rewards attendant on it, and will respond accordingly. That is entirely right. In addition, it ensures that the financing of crossrail is properly transparent and offers the best possible deal to taxpayers.

Not true.

I shall ignore what the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, as that might not be parliamentary, but what I said is patently the case.

It could not have been unparliamentary, or I would have stopped the hon. Lady.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest figures for fatal accidents on roads in England and Wales. [24721]

The provisional figures for 1995 are among the lowest since records began. They show that 3, 319 fatal accidents caused 3, 665 deaths in Great Britain as a whole.

Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will know that a number of those fatal accidents recently occurred on the stretch of the A2 opposite Gravesend. I thank him for commissioning, in response to my representations, a study of safety on that stretch of road to be carried out by Kent county council, our local highway authority. When can we expect a report?

As my hon. Friend says, he advised me of his particular interest in the A2 scheme in Kent. The Highways Agency is discussing the scope of that study with Kent county council, which is our agent. Although the scheme is dependent on funding, we still expect it to go ahead this financial year.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Law Commission on its recent report on involuntary manslaughter in so far as it affects death on the road? When can we expect some primary legislation to bring about the important changes that are needed to deal with that difficult area of law?

No, I will not join him in that because I do not think that it would be reasonable to do so before we have a chance to study the report. We acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's genuine interest in the matter. We also accept that penalties across the whole range of traffic offences have their place in discouraging inappropriate behaviour. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have to bear in mind that if unduly severe penalties are related to specific traffic infringements, one of the dangers is that the courts will not press those charges for fear that there might be acquittal. We welcome the report, we shall certainly look at it and we shall come forward with our findings on it in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department has given to encourage freight off the roads and on to the railways. [24722]

By giving rail freight operators the commercial freedom and incentive to win traffic from road, we are ensuring a bright future for that important industry. We have made good progress with the sale of British Rail's freight businesses. We continue to provide targeted support for the industry through track access grants and freight facilities grant.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall his recent visit to my constituency, when he opened the new Government-funded railhead at Buxton Lime Industries, which is the largest quarry in Europe? Does he agree that such a combination of privatisation with Government grants and incentives will make it possible for freight to be transferred off the roads and on to railways? Will he assure my constituents that, wherever possible, it will be the Government's objective to achieve precisely that, and to stop huge lorries rumbling through small villages that were never intended for such traffic?

I recall with affection my recent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. He was good enough to arrange for me to be transported by a steam train and to be greeted by a brass band on my descent. I must say that that is not a reception that I receive in every constituency that I visit. The grant to which my hon. Friend referred is one of the largest ever awarded to a company. It ensures that the town of Buxton is spared 125 lorry movements a day for at least 10 years. Yes, it is indeed the Government's policy to continue to make grants available in suitable circumstances to win traffic off the road and to put it back on the railways.

The Secretary of State would like to come to Crewe and Nantwich, I could arrange for at least two brass bands to give him a very suitable fanfare, making the right kind of noises. Perhaps he could then explain to my constituents why the Conservative party chairman, having told us all at great length how it was necessary to split the freight system to get competition into the rail system, apparently went to America and handed over vast numbers of assets to a particular American firm, which has insisted that it should have total control? Is that correct, and is it why the Secretary of State received a fanfare when he went to the constituency of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry)?

I am interested in the auction that is developing to see who can provide the most brass bands with which to greet the Transport Secretary. On the suggestion concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the competition was open, it was comprehensive and I have absolute confidence in its propriety. On the gist of the hon. Lady's comments, Trainload Freight was indeed split into three. We then gave the market an opportunity to decide whether it wanted to bid for it in three parts or in its entirety. It was clear from that competition that the market would prefer to buy it in one go. If one takes the view that real competition comes from road rather than rail, there is much to be said for having one well-resourced, effective provider in the rail industry in order to compete effectively with the road industry.

Although new investment in the railways is desirable to build additional freight lines, especially as that removes freight from the road on to the railway, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that any proposals do not do so at the expense of the destruction or blight of many houses, as is likely under the proposal by Central Railways?

I know how strongly my hon. Friend and other hon. Members feel about the potential impact of the Central Railways Group proposals. He will have seen that I recently refused the application for waivers that was lodged with my Department. The ball is now in the court of the Central Railways Group, which will have to decide whether it will proceed with that proposal.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the projections of congestion, we must get more freight on to rail? We are down to just 6 per cent. now. Does he agree that the opening of the channel tunnel gives us a real opportunity to get more freight on to rail because it can travel much greater distances? Is it not, therefore, a tragedy that track access charges have been set so high, to give a high income stream to Railtrack, that we shall not get that expansion? Will the Secretary of State admit that the pathfinder prospectus makes it clear that the opportunities for an increase in freight on rail are limited and, therefore, that the Government have no expectations that we shall get the expansion that we need?

I do not think that the hon. Lady does justice to the Government's progress in this matter. We have liberated access to the railways and as a result, two companies, National Power and Direct Rail Services, are now running their own rail freight services under the open access powers in the Railways Act 1993. Since 1979, we have awarded 146 grants with a total value of £100 million at today's prices, securing traffic to rail equivalent to more than 2.5 million lorry journeys per year. I am convinced that, with Wisconsin—an experienced operator, which will bring new ideas, new practices and new successes to rail freight—we shall make further progress in winning traffic back on to the railways and away from the roads.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that only 6 per cent. of freight goes by rail is a crushing indictment of British Rail? Does that not underline the case for privatisation rather than the status quo?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the regime that we are introducing, there is, for the first time, a commercial incentive to win traffic back on to the railways. Wisconsin has that incentive, but that incentive did not, and could never, exist within the nationalised industry. That is why I am confident that the new regime will lead to a reversal of the decline to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will conduct an environmental assessment of Railtrack's recent decision to require staff to use cars rather than trains when travelling to certain business appointments; and if he will make a statement. [24723]

No.

Railtrack's senior management are considering forcing their staff to switch from the railways to the roads, which will cause more pollution and more congestion on the roads. That is a savage indictment of the operation of Britain's railway system, which talks money while we choke. Britain's roads will become more congested and more polluted. How can Minister—or the Secretary of State, with his well-known commitment to the environment—justify that when rail privatisation is directly causing more pollution and will lead to an increase in traffic on the roads, which will be disastrous?

The hon. Gentleman should not believe his party's propaganda. There is no change in policy. Just as with British Rail, Railtrack's predecessor, there are no specific instructions regarding any mode of travel in preference to another. Railtrack does not require travel by car, but, like any other sensible and well-managed business, it requires its staff to consider cost-effective methods of travel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the advantages of a statutory 20 mph limit in urban residential areas. [24724]

Properly constructed 20 mph zones, with "self-enforcing" speed-reducing features such as road humps, have reduced casualties by 56 per cent., and child casualties by 74 per cent., on average.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He will already be aware that the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit is desirable in reducing danger, especially the danger to children playing in the streets. Is he also aware that a recent study has shown that both fuel consumption and vehicle emissions are also reduced by a lower speed limit? Will he therefore look towards replacing the 30 mph speed limit more generally in residential roads, with a standard 20 mph speed limit that might encourage us all to drive a little more slowly and safely?

I understand the logic behind my hon. Friend's point. There is all-party agreement that we have seen the value of 20 mph speed limit zones, about 250 of which are now in place, but, from experience, I am sure that the key to limiting speed is setting the limit at a sensible level that is appropriate to the surrounding conditions. For example, when it is patently obvious that a 20 mph speed limit could safely be exceeded, such a limit is likely to lead to more abuse of the system and less regard for the sensible levels at which speed limits are normally set. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I greatly welcome his support for the concept, but I believe that the way in which we are introducing a lower speed limit—in selected areas in which it will make a real difference—is right.

Although the Government and all the others responsible deserve congratulation on the considerable reduction in the number of fatal accidents, especially those involving children, the Minister knows that a car, even if travelling at 20 mph, will fatally injure a child if it is fitted with a bull bar. After hearing representations from his own side, has he changed his mind about my Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill? Will he now allow it to go through Parliament? Can he tell us when his favourite alternative to that Bill, the European ban, is likely to be enacted, and what percentage of bull bars it will remove?

I have seldom encountered an exercise more cynical than that mounted by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Bill, the contents of which, as I suspect he knew perfectly well, were already entirely covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reiterate the fact that I entirely share his view on the principle that aggressive bull bars are not only unnecessary but should be banned. The hon. Gentleman will know that I reported to the House when I had received some proposed wording from the Commission for amending the external projections directive—and that I look forward to being able to agree a suitable form of words with the Commission in the near future, and to ensuring that that is implemented as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the right way to proceed, rather than trying to use spurious legislation that would add nothing whatever to the United Kingdom's ability to make the change that both he and I wish to bring about.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made over the privatization of the LTS line. [24725]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that bids for the LTS franchise were submitted on 17 April.

As the Minister is aware, Southend is one of the few areas in Britain in which, because of the wholly inadequate service that we have had in recent years, people are looking forward to privatisation. Can he give us some idea of when he expects the new operators to come forward and how they will communicate to the public the benefits that will accrue? Finally, does my hon. Friend see any merit in the idea of holding a public meeting in Southend to enable the new operators to explain their proposals?

The award will be made as quickly as possible; my hon. Friend will have noticed that such matters are processed with considerable speed. In considering proposals, the franchising director will have particular regard to contractual commitments to improve the level and/or quality of service beyond that which he specifies. An approach from my hon. Friend inviting the new franchise operator to attend a public meeting to explain the proposals will probably be welcomed by that operator—although of course I do not yet know his identity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve safety at roundabouts. [24726]

In line with the Government's policy of reducing all road traffic accidents, safety at roundabouts is kept under constant review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent years, many roundabouts have been decreased in diameter? Is he conversant with research that shows that, while that may increase the flow of traffic, it also increases the chances of vehicular collision? Will he seriously consider reviewing that policy?

Our research suggests that the number of collisions at roundabouts is declining in line with the reduction in collisions generally. I shall, of course, consider the research to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, but I am satisfied from the evidence that I have seen so far that safety at roundabouts is being dealt with as part of an overall road traffic strategy and that no significant safety issues are involved.

Will the Minister consider the use of mini-roundabouts, which are over-used and often cause more safety problems than did the measures that previously existed at junctions?

The hon. Gentleman points to the importance of local authorities, which are responsible for such traffic schemes, bearing in mind the most appropriate way of dealing with traffic problems when they plan schemes. I suspect that, in many cases, he is right. The greatest enemy of common sense in such matters is the assumption that a particular method is a panacea, when it patently is not. An array of traffic calming and directing techniques is available. The hon. Gentleman is right—it is important that local authorities should seek the one that fits the circumstance, not a technique that replaces one problem with another.

Mini-roundabouts or major roundabouts, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to whoever invented the roundabout? Is he aware that many states in the United States are investing in roundabouts and have renamed them circulatories? Despite the odd name, does not that demonstrate that Britain still leads the way in many things?

No, I am not sure that it does. I can claim neither authorship of the roundabout nor the slightest insight into its lineage. I should not be surprised to find that Roman charioteers worked out how to circumnavigate Gates's corner, but in the absence of positive identification, I fear that I must resist my hon. Friend's blandishments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial decisions he has made arising from the work of his Department's working party on the use of the River Thames. [24730]

The River Thames working group was set up to provide advice on ways of maximising the use of the river for transport purposes. I shall consider sympathetically any proposals that may be put to me for furthering that objective.

Has the working group considered the support of provision and maintenance for piers? Does the Minister agree that that would be a major way of reviving the Thames, which we all want? They would cost less than some recent estimates have suggested and could help with seasonal traffic from Greenwich to Hampton court and the central London riverbus service proposed by Transport on Water. Would not such an investigation be superior to the possible sell-off of the piers proposed by the Port of London Authority?

I thought that the Labour party was in favour of abolishing peers. To revive passenger transport on the Thames, it is important to ensure that people can access the services sensibly and that services call at the places that people want to go to and from. That is one of the major inadequacies of the present arrangements. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman understands that the river's meandering route through the capital and its tidal rise and fall make passenger transport on it less viable than we would like. The work that his Transport on Water organisation has done on that is bearing fruit and is being paralleled by, for example, the recent KPMG-London First report that showed that a hopper service for passenger transport on the Thames was practical. I look forward to hearing more about ways in which that can be translated into reality. If that requires support, then, without giving any commitment at this stage, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average number of children (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road accidents per day in the last three months. [24732]

Despite a 4 per cent. decrease in the last quarter of 1995, compared with the same quarter in 1994, 86 children were killed and some 1, 500 seriously injured; nearly one death and 16 serious injuries a day.

Does the Minister agree that those figures need the widest possible publication? Is not it a fact that the greatest fear for parents when their children walk the streets is not crime, but road accidents, and that that prevents parents from letting their children walk or cycle to school? Is not it high time that we asked ourselves, as a society, whether that is a price worth paying?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I often reflect on the fact that 10 people are killed on our roads every day. While the fact that the figure is substantially less than the 14 or 15 who were killed seven or eight years ago is welcome, it still represents an appalling loss of life. We have become so used to glossing over it that, whereas one death in other unfortunate circumstances can give rise to reams of media interest, these deaths, which happen every day, particularly the harrowing deaths of children, are almost unremarked. The first lesson that we must draw from that is that 95 per cent. of accidents involve human error. They may be errors by drivers or by pedestrians, but where children are concerned, drivers need to understand that a child will not necessarily have the same understanding of road safety and road speeds as an adult and the need for particular care has to be indoctrinated into drivers in those circumstances. We do not have the best record on child casualties, despite our good record overall, and I am concerned that we should undertake research to find out how we can reduce that dreadful total.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects the Commission to respond to the opinion survey carried out on behalf of the Serjeant at Arms into hon. Members' views on the services of the House. [24746]

The Commission has not been directly involved in the Serjeant at Arms survey. Any response to the results of the survey will be a matter for the Serjeant in the first instance and for the Domestic Committees in respect of any matters that fall within their areas of responsibility. The Commission is likely to become involved only if Committees recommend significant new expenditure or services.

I am grateful for the response, but I am sure that the Commission would like to comment on one suggestion that came to light during the survey—that members of the public visiting the two Houses should be charged £5 a head. Hon. Members who regularly conduct people around this place or organise guides would be horrified if they thought that schoolchildren were going to be charged £5 a head.

I understand that the £5 a head suggestion, which has never been considered by the Commission, was merely a report of one of the things said by respondents to the survey. I would not be willing to support such a proposal. As far as possible, the House should make itself available without cost, especially to young people. On catering for members of the public, it is the intention of the House authorities that provision should be made in the new Westminster Hall visitors centre, but the relevant committees have recommended to the Commission that that not be done until alternative provision can be made for staff who use the Westminster Hall cafeteria.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House is extremely well served by the Serjeant and his staff? The only real criticism that one can make is of conducting a survey of that sort, which merely tends to produce crackpot suggestions, create much dissatisfaction and solve no problems whatsoever.

As hon. Members will find if they look at the survey, it revealed a number of services that the Serjeant at Arms would be glad to try to improve, but the staff in the Department will be glad to have the hon. Gentleman's kind words.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that, although a lot of things still need to be put right in the House of Commons, the Serjeant at Arms has one great cross to bear—the fact that there are some fairly intolerable Members of Parliament and, from time to time, some pretty awful staff? The Department deals with that extremely well and quite kindly.

That is not a subject on which the Commission would be wise to comment.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission how many child care vouchers have been issued since their inauguration; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [24747]

There have been 6, 984 child care vouchers issued to 52 employees in the first year of the scheme's operation. The scheme was introduced by the Commission for its staff as part of its policy of equal opportunity employment. The policy was reviewed at the end of March this year, and the views of users and the trade union side were sought as a part of that review. The review's outcome showed that the vast majority of users were satisfied with the scheme, which is meeting their needs by making a wide choice of child care facilities at convenient locations accessible to them. Some suggestions for minor changes in the scheme will be considered by the management.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive reply. Can he tell us how the Commission views the scheme's future? Does it cover hon. Members, or only staff of the House? Are there sufficient qualified child carers available to meet the possible demand by House staff or those who qualify for the vouchers? It has been suggested that some staff have difficulty finding qualified child minders.

The survey showed that many of our staff are able to find suitable means of using the vouchers and that the vouchers are popular with them. Whether the scheme will be extended to hon. Members' staff will depend partly on hon. Members—who can, if they wish, use the office costs allowance for that purpose—and partly on the Leader of the House and whether there is any demand for an extension of the allowance for that purpose or for the extension of the scheme to the children of hon. Members.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals he has to improve the working conditions of staff in the Members' Dining Room. [24749]

The refurbishment of the Refreshment Department, which the House has approved, will lead to improvements of the working conditions of its staff. Work to improve the central kitchen and the dining rooms it serves, which include the Members' Dining Room, is scheduled to commence next year.

That was not quite the answer that I had in mind. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that hon. Members are concerned not only about their pay and conditions but about the pay and conditions of the people who make life more tolerable for us in this place. Will he look into the pay and conditions of the people who serve in the dining rooms—particularly those who work split shifts and do not have adequate rest room facilities? Their rest room facilities have, in fact, got worse.

The pay and conditions of members of the Refreshment Department staff compare favourably with those of the rest of the catering industry. The conditions in the kitchens, however, have not been ideal, and that is one of the reasons for the substantial refurbishment I have described.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that some members of the Refreshment Department staff are paid more than Members of Parliament?

And the Prime Minister?

Yes, in respect of Members of Parliament.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss alternative options for the Watford-Harrow-central London rail and tube routes with the management teams before Railtrack's privatisation in May 1996. [24735]

London Underground will be giving me a presentation on its proposed Croxley link on 20 May.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the deplorable proposal that the Watford-Euston commuter service should operate every 40 minutes instead of every 20 minutes by the end of this year, which is outrageous and unacceptable to many of my constituents in Harrow, will he give full support to the alternative plans that would link up the tube and the BR lines before privatisation sets everything in concrete and makes it too difficult to go back to that idea? Will he receive, with me, an urgent deputation of the officers of the Harrow Public Transport Users Association to discuss these matters?

I shall certainly see my hon. Friend and a delegation, if he wishes to bring it to me. I am aware of the proposition that the Croxley link should be constructed to feed the Watford services into the Metropolitan line more expeditiously than is currently the case. There is a variety of provision in my hon. Friend's constituency. I accept that it has been suggested that some of them could be run more frequently. My hon. Friend should not take the view that the transition of the train operating companies to the private sector will mean that, thereafter, it will be more difficult to effect commonsense service changes which benefit customers. All the evidence that we have underscored, for example the midland main line announcements of substantial service enhancements by National Express, suggests that, under the new regime, it will be infinitely easier for my hon. Friend to obtain the improvements that he wants than it has been for half a century under nationalised British Rail.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to streamline parliamentary procedures. [24751]

Following the Jopling experiment last Session, the House agreed on 2 November last year to a wide range of Standing Order amendments. I have no further proposals to make at present. If the hon. Gentleman has anything specific in mind, he might like to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Was the Lord President present in the Chamber last Wednesday to witness a remarkable and possibly historic event—an hon. Member asking a genuine point of order? As most points of order are found not to be points of order and most business questions are not intended to seek a debate the following week, should not we reorganise our procedures along the lines of those in other Parliaments, which have a zero hour in which Members do not have to go through this rigmarole? While we should avoid the objections to the zero hour in the Indian Parliament to which you have referred, Madam Speaker, it is surely not beyond our wit to have a period of the day in which Members can raise matters of current importance without going through the nonsense of pretending that they are points of order or business questions.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will read the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest. After 22 years here, I rather doubt that, whatever new opportunities we create, we shall stop Members of Parliament using the opportunities that they have made for themselves by free enterprise over the years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is increasingly clear that it is a Herculean task to sustain British interest in the European Union? To that end, will he consider the procedures of this Parliament so that the House of Commons can increasingly add its voice and its votes to guide the Government on our policies in Europe so that, once again, it will be seen that this House speaks for Britain?

As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the Scrutiny Committee is at this moment conducting an inquiry into matters of scrutiny here. I am due to give evidence to it tomorrow and I believe that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will do so some time early next month. I shall confine myself, in response to my right hon. Friend this afternoon, to saying simply that I shall study with interest, as is proper, any conclusions and proposals that it makes in due course.

To return to the original question on streamlining our procedures, will the Lord President acknowledge that some measures which might not appear at first sight to do so would make our work in Parliament more efficient and effective? I am thinking of measures such as improved pre-legislative consultation and greater use of Special Standing Committees. As there has been so little discussion of such proposals, and as the Jopling reforms have been so much welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House tell us what steps he is willing to take to advance our shared interest in making Parliament work more effectively?

The hon. Lady knows, from the many constructive discussions that she and I have had since she has occupied her present position, that I always try to respond constructively to thinking of that kind. As I have said on a number of occasions, in ways that are open to the Government and that are welcome to the Opposition, we have manifestly advanced the cause that she has referred to by increasing considerably the publication of Bills in draft form at an early stage—in many cases, even in the Session before we think it may be possible to present them to the House. I shall seek to build on those improvements.

Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to listen to the Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting Bill? Is he aware that, because of the constraints that you laid down, Madam Speaker, even privy councillors had to limit themselves to speaking for only 10 minutes? I believe that that limit meant that they were able to concentrate their minds better, and that they were able to make concise and precise speeches. Does my right hon. Friend think it worth considering a 10-minutes rule for all debates and, possibly, suspending the House if the debate finishes before the allotted hour? Hon. Members could then be present to vote when the Division was called.

I am not sure whether the idea suggested by my hon. Friend is good. The pressure to speak in debate varies quite significantly, so it is necessary to have some flexibility. I think that the way we do business on Thursdays often enables business to proceed for a shorter time, irrespective of whether many hon. Members want to speak. That is, perhaps, a sensible move in the direction that my hon. Friend is advocating.