To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to encourage operators of buses to switch to cleaner fuels. [30587]

The Department is collaborating with bus and haulage operators and with other organisations on a series of trials of alternative fuels to provide Government and operators with a sound basis for assessing the relative merits of those fuels.

Does the Minister realise the very considerable environmental advantage in buses using compressed natural gas? When the Secretary of State for Transport launched Green Transport Week on Friday, in Leeds, what measures did he propose to give incentives to bus companies such as Southampton City Buses, which has made a considerable contribution to air quality in Leeds by operating 10 per cent. of its fleet with compressed natural gas? What incentives will he give to help bus companies first to convert and, secondly, to set up compression stations so that they can use gas?

As parliamentary consultant to the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, the hon. Gentleman will know that the recent changes in duty rates have provided a considerable incentive to operators, particularly public transport operators and municipal vehicle operators, to convert their fleets. They realise the environmental advantages on offer and now find themselves in a much more sympathetic tax environment.

I very much welcome any moves towards cleaner fuel, particularly in buses, and the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister about greater efforts in enforcing emissions standards. I am sure that he will have noted when travelling around London that most of the worst pollution that one experiences comes from buses. Will he assure the House that tougher measures will be taken against bus operators who fail properly to maintain their vehicles?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All buses from London bus companies that tender to London Transport Buses are checked very regularly. However, my hon. Friend will know that it needs only one injector to be slightly out of tune to produce an awful lot of emissions. The important thing is that that type of mistuning is corrected at an early opportunity. The accent in the work of London Transport Buses and, generally, by outside private bus operators is on producing cleaner emissions and better quality air.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to welcome Green Transport Week? Will he also concede that a state of the art clean and green bus can cost almost £100,000? Will he admit that it is less likely that bus operators will invest in such vehicles if a charabanc belching black smoke can intercept their route, arrive perhaps one minute ahead and undercut them in price? Will the Government introduce proposals to ensure stability in the industry, particularly by ending on-the-road competition? There will be plenty of legislative time, come October, so will he introduce those proposals? If he does, he will have the support of Opposition Members.

That proposal should worry the Opposition because it is very silly. As it happens, I am keen to endorse Green Transport Week. It is an excellent initiative and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the launch. Hon. Members on both sides were delighted that it was so well received.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess the impact on traffic congestion in London of doubling the number of cycle lanes. [30602]

The Government are committed to funding a range of measures, including cycle lanes, to help cyclists in London through the London cycle network. Their impact will be monitored as the network is implemented.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am also grateful to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their great support for National Bike Week last week. I am delighted to hear of the support that they are giving to Green Transport Week this week. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we move the debate along in terms of aiming for less fumes and more green transport it is important to encourage local authorities—along with the cycle-friendly infrastructure, another initiative that my hon. Friend has launched—not just to mouth platitudes, but to proceed in the debate and to get more people on to their bicycles and out of their cars?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As a late and unlikely convert to the bicycle, I am convinced that it has a major role to play—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members have envisaged me in lycra and have decided that that is a matter of some amusement, and they are entirely right. As an unlikely convert—unlikely converts are among the worst zealots—I am absolutely convinced that we should be cycling as much as all our European counterparts. When those who do not pay much interest to these matters say, "Well, Holland is flat and that is why they cycle," they perhaps forget Switzerland which, whatever one thinks of it, is not flat and where people cycle about five times more than they do in this country. That is a big challenge for us. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who leads the all-party cycle group, has been such an enthusiastic endorser of our policy.

Does the Minister agree that one of the views of cycling converts, both old and new, and of those who use cycles regularly is that the appointment of a cycling officer for each London borough, as we have in the London borough of Newham, is a means of getting suggestions from the public which meet the needs of short-distance journeys? Can the Minister give figures to show that in London most motor car journeys are relatively short? I think that he will agree that a third or a half of those journeys are capable of being achieved by cycle.

There is no older convert in this place than the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him because I have no doubt that the reason why he is as fit as he looks today is that he cycles so much and that the reason why I look so unfit is that I cycle so little. That is a great tribute to the hon. Gentleman, and long may he continue.

I am not a convert, but perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend what is the use of local authorities such as Richmond upon Thames putting down more cycling tracks and then allowing people to park their cars on them so that they cannot be used. It is also very alarming to many of my constituents and to those of other hon. Members when people come whizzing up noiselessly behind them on bicycles. People feel that that is dangerous. What has happened to the good old-fashioned bicycle bell?

We have the makings of new campaign there: defenders of the bicycle bell. The great thing about bicycle bells is that if one has one fitted one may as well use it. That is probably the most effective use for it, and would probably deal with the circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined. There is much joy in heaven for every sinner who repenteth, and I am sure that people in his part of the world in Richmond and Twickenham would be delighted if some day he chooses to join them on two wheels rather than four.

Does the Minister accept that bus lanes in the wrong places and at the wrong times can sometimes increase congestion, as the remaining non-cycle transport is forced into a smaller space? The building of bypasses might free up some road space and provide an unprecedented opportunity to introduce cycle lanes which, I hope that he will accept, all those who are in favour of cycling would be wise to support.

I wondered why the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was on his own, but then I realised that it was because he was a Liberal defending a bypass. We are all delighted to see him, and delighted at his solid support. I am sorry that he will be able to give it to us only for another year. He makes a serious point about cycle lanes and their enforcement and policing. He is absolutely right that there is no point in drawing either cycling lanes or bus priority lanes on the road if they are promptly ignored by motorists. They need to be enforced, and that is a challenge for local authorities. To some degree, the extent to which those lanes constrict private car traffic is an important component in persuading motorists that there is a greener alternative and a more efficient way to make their journey. So I do not entirely consider the reduction in available road space a disadvantage.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to enlarge the network and improve the efficiency of public transport. [30603]

The Government are seeking to increase private sector involvement in the funding and operation of public transport, which we believe will provide the modern, efficient systems that this country needs.

How much money will be saved as a result of the slashing of the roads programme? And how much, if any, of the money saved will be spent on new and improved forms of public transport? Or is the whole exercise merely a device to try to appease the green lobby and to store up money for tax handouts in the run-up to the next election?

The Government set out their priorities clearly in the previous public expenditure round. Against a background of the need to contain public expenditure, we safeguarded investment in public transport and took the reduction in the publicly funded road programme. However, as a result of our commitment to the private finance initiative, we were able to carry forward about £1 billion worth of roads through the design, build, finance and operate scheme to make progress with necessary investment in the road infrastructure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that anybody who travels on one of the newly privatised train systems, as I had occasion to recently, is immediately aware of the improved reliability and increased efficiency of such services? Will he give an assurance that I and many of my constituents who commute daily on South Eastern trains to London will be able to enjoy the benefits of privatisation before too long?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are making good progress with the franchising of South Eastern trains. He and his constituents will be pleased to know that, as a condition of awarding the franchise, the bidders will have to renew the rolling stock. That is a good example of the benefits of privatisation—once the investment programmes take place outside the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement, one can meet needs such as those of my hon. Friend's constituents without exerting any upward pressure on the PSBR.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the fact that in the recent Green Paper the Government have understood that to deal with the growing problems of congestion and pollution it is essential to enhance the quality and reliability of public transport and to persuade people to use their cars more selectively. The House will welcome the fact that the Government have seen the error of their ways. As the Minister for Transport in London said, it is always good when a sinner repents. Will he apologise to the country for 17 wasted years, during which the Government exacerbated congestion and pollution problems by planning and then cancelling a massive roads programme and by their prejudice and hostility to public transport? Will he apologise for the damage that deregulation and privatisation have done? Does he agree that for there to be true repentance, there must be an expression of real remorse?

The Government have nothing to apologise for, and therefore no remorse. We have published a clear transport strategy for the future. In particular, we have a clear vision of a modernised railway and we have identified the sources of finance for that modernisation. The hon. Lady and her party have totally failed to come up with a vision of the railway for the year 2000 and beyond, or any sources of finance. With some humility, I must tell her that it is she and not I who should apologise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received urging the introduction of road tolls at the entrance to cities. [30604]

In response to representations from the local authority associations, we set out in the transport Green Paper our intention to discuss with them the case for taking the legislative powers necessary to enable interested local authorities to implement experimental charging schemes.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he does not intend to introduce road tolls into London? My constituents in Sutton and Cheam would be alarmed if their freedom of movement were hindered. Road tolling would penalise the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and those less able to pay. In short, it would be a tremendously unfair city tax.

There is currently no technology available that would allow such a system to be introduced, whether it was required or not, and I doubt whether such technology will be available for at least 10 years. More importantly, while recognising the various academic arguments in favour of charging systems, the Government have been alive to precisely the issues that my hon. Friend raises. Huge social and economic issues are raised by urban congestion pricing, not least its impact on marginal car users—those people who need a car to access a job, whatever the quality of public transport. It would be a tragedy if a result of such a policy were to put those people out of their jobs. It is interesting that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have bought the urban congestion charging proposition uncritically and are intent on introducing it in London and elsewhere. The Government are rightly more sanguine and cautious.

Before anyone says anything more about road tolls, will they come to my constituency between 7 am and 9 am and between 4 pm and 6 pm to see tolls in operation on the Forth road bridge? These are, in effect, tolls for entering the city of Edinburgh, and congestion is caused to the extent that people are talking about a second bridge, although that is completely unnecessary. If these tolls—for a bridge that has been paid for—were done away with, congestion would be much alleviated.

The congestion is not caused by the tolls, but by the fact that people have to stop before they cross the Forth road bridge and pay the toll at a toll gate. Modern tolling systems abolish the need for toll gates, as the tolling is done automatically by reference to a smart card in the vehicle. Such a system is up and running and available to regular motorists in Dartford. One of the propositions at the forefront of the technology trials on tolling systems generally has been the idea that we could not possibly afford to introduce toll booths on every access road to every city. It would be wholly impractical. The proposition that the hon. Gentleman quite understandably puts forward is not at odds with the concept of tolling; it illustrates vividly and graphically that there should not be physical toll booths at which vehicles have to stop. That is the way in which technology is moving and it will not be many years before it is taken for granted.

I thank my hon. Friend for his cautious approach. May I remind him that market towns are not cities and often need people to come by car to shop and then to go away? If people cannot do that, they will use out-of-town shopping centres where parking is free.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. That would be a counter-productive response. In any event, it would overlook the fact that local authorities can take a great many measures to alleviate town centre congestion—such as bus priorities, traffic calming, park and ride, and cycle improvements, all of which can produce the result that my hon. Friend would want for his towns and villages without the expensive infrastructure and the real difficulties to which he has just referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the guidelines for the trans-European transport networks. [30605]

The common position on the guidelines adopted by the Council of Ministers in September 1995 identified

"the integration of the environmental concerns into the design and development of the network"

That may appear to be an encouraging answer, but may I press the Minister more forcefully to ensure that the Government fulfil their international obligations to sustainable development and that strong environmental protection measures are included in the guidelines for each trans-European network, such as a strategic environmental assessment or a corridor analysis for each scheme? In addition, because the Council meets in secret, it is quite possible for it to thwart the pressure from the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure for that environmental protection and for the Government not to own up to that. I hope that the Minister will press for those environmental protection measures at that meeting.

The hon. Gentleman misses the point that existing legislation requires rigorous environmental assessment for any transport infrastructure project. Hon. Members will have seen the extent of that assessment in the channel tunnel rail link project, for example. Schemes on a trans-European network comprise individual schemes and, if they are cross-border, individual member states, all of which are subjected to rigorous environmental assessment under existing legislation.

Bearing in mind people's entitlement to a reasonable environment, as set out in the report, does my hon. Friend agree that the Transport Select Committee report advocating that Northolt airport become a satellite of Heathrow would be totally unacceptable to the people of Northolt, Ealing and the surrounding area and would destroy their lives, given their proximity to Heathrow airport? Will he give an assurance that it will be thrown out, as it should be?

The Department has only recently received the report from the Select Committee, which is being given careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be replying to the report in due course in the normal way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the sale of Railtrack. [30606]

The Government's offers of Railtrack shares were successfully completed on 20 May, when dealings started on the London stock exchange. The share offer was highly successful and secured gross proceeds of some £1.93 billion.

Does the Secretary of State recall the Government's pledge to the House that rail privatisation would improve the quality and frequency of services? Has he seen the franchising director's draft passenger service requirement for InterCity cross-country trains, which would allow a private operator to cut the number of trains from York to the south-west from 11 a day to three a day? Unlike the east coast services, those trains are highly subsidised and, without a requirement, they are likely to be axed. As 700,000 tourists a year arrive in York by train, will he guarantee that services to York from the south-west will be protected if privatisation proceeds?

In view of the hon. Gentleman' s knowledge of the industry, I am surprised that he makes the elementary mistake of confusing passenger service requirements with the services ultimately provided by those who win the bids. I invite him to look at the successful franchise for the midland main line, under which 22 extra services per day, over and above those now provided, will be offered from St. Pancras to Leicester. That offers the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of Railtrack has offered us the best possible chance to have the west coast main line upgraded? Does he further agree that any restrictions imposed upon Railtrack, as suggested by the Labour party, would delay or even stop that much-needed improvement to infrastructure in the north-west?

My hon. Friend will know that about £1 billion will be invested by Railtrack in the modernisation of the west coast main line. I regard that as one of the most important current projects for Railtrack. My hon. Friend will also know that two initial signalling contracts have been awarded. Further contracts will follow this year, with work on the substantial contract beginning in 1997.

Has the Secretary of State noted that Railtrack, which will take more than a year to put in place safety requirements at Euston station which are essential to the running of the west coast main line, has nevertheless immediately managed to put on the market the air above Victoria station to any property developer who wants to buy it? It has done so because its priorities always have been, will be and are absolutely plain—to put property first and safety second?

Railtrack has been allowed a year by the Health and Safety Executive to do the work at Euston station, and I hope that it will be completed before that year is up. As to the hon. Lady's second point, I thought that it was agreed by those on both sides of the House that it makes sense to focus new office developments at major transport interchanges so as to minimise the use of cars and maximise the use of rail and buses. I am amazed at the outburst that we have just heard from the hon. Lady.

Does the Secretary of State agree that to meet the future transport needs of Britain we must have more investment in rail so as to increase the number of passengers on it and the amount of freight that is moved by it? Now that the flotation has happened, may I ask the Secretary of State to be honest about the likely consequences of privatisation? Is it not true that the £10 billion to be invested over 10 years is no greater than the level of investment that we had historically under British Rail and that that investment is inadequate to achieve the rail network that we need? Will he also admit to the House that the prospectus says—so it must be true because it is legally binding—that there is no expectation of any significant growth in passenger or freight use of rail under the privatisation arrangements? They are therefore deeply damaging to the national interest.

On the hon. Lady's first point, the investment figures are £8 billion over five years, which in my view is a higher level of investment than would have been afforded had the railways remained in the public sector. The hon. Lady needs to explain how she would find £8 billion if we pursued her policies to put Railtrack back in the public sector. Would she put up the fares? Would she put up taxes? Would she cut services? Would she take money out of the health service to find that money?

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the use of bicycles. [30607]

We have taken a number of initiatives designed to give people confidence to cycle more. We have asked local authorities to look at how they can contribute to a national target of doubling the level of cycling by the year 2002. The national cycling strategy to be launched on 10 July will set out common objectives and a range of actions to achieve the target.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most important cycling routes in London is Parliament square and the approach roads to Parliament? Those of us who want to arrive at our place of work with our trousers tucked into our socks find it incredibly dangerous to do so. I was knocked off opposite St. Stephen's entrance. Can the Minister use his muscle—for the last time before he retires to sell second-hand bikes in his new career—to have a word with his friends at Westminster city council to introduce cycling lanes in Parliament square and on the approach roads to Parliament?

I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman's unfortunate experience of being knocked off in Parliament square—although that may not come as a surprise to Government Members. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of Westminster city council because those roads are its responsibility. We must give people a safe place to cycle if we are to give them the confidence to cycle. A great deal of the basic groundwork will go into those elementary safety measures to help us to achieve the national target. The measures will enable people who are too scared to cycle—particularly in large cities such as London—to cycle.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage businesses to promote cycling by their employees. [30608]

My Department, along with most other Whitehall Departments and some local authorities, provides a range of facilities to help staff who wish to cycle to work. These include secure parking, showers, changing facilities and assistance with bicycle purchase. Obviously, the decision to provide such facilities is a matter for individual employers, but I hope that the Government's lead will result in similar facilities in the private sector.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the World Conservation Monitoring Centre—which is in Cambridge—which has managed to persuade 40 per cent. of its employees to cycle to work? Will he also congratulate Cambridge Econometrics, which has an almost 100 per cent. cycling work force? In fact, it has changed its car park into a garden. That should be a great encouragement to other employees who could cycle to work.

I warmly endorse what the hon. Lady has said. It is marvellous to hear of that sort of initiative being taken. It underlines the concept of the green commuter plan which, for example, cities such as Nottingham have introduced. The accent is on allowing the company that provides a more environmentally friendly and efficient way for its employees to travel to work to use its car park for whatever purpose it regards desirable, such as a garden. That sort of scheme means that this is not simply a pro bono contribution by a company; it is a perfectly cost-effective way of improving the environment and the health of the employees. It is also beneficial to the company's accounts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of bus deregulation outside London; and if he will make a statement. [30609]

Bus deregulation continues to be a success, with more operators running more bus miles at lower cost and with significantly less public subsidy than previously. There are also encouraging signs that the long-term decline in bus patronage is beginning to flatten out.

Does the Minister realise that my constituents were able to enjoy good public transport on bank holidays for well over 100 years—since bank holidays were introduced—and to get to the many events that are organised on such occasions? Can he imagine their horror when the bus operators that supply many of the routes in Denton West under the deregulated bus service chose not to put on any services over Easter and the spring bank holiday?

What the operators do is a matter for them. However, on the face of it, that seems to be an extraordinary decision. The operators might like to take note of the fact that there is a large untapped market on a bank holiday. To suggest that deregulation results in fewer services is absurd. There are currently 29 per cent. more bus miles being run outside London because private and deregulated operators are going to where people want to be taken from and taking them where they want to go. That is the key advantage.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many individuals were successful in their application to buy Railtrack shares. [30610]

Some 650,000 applications from individuals were successful in the Railtrack share offer.

The Minister has not told us that 10 per cent. of the shareholders sold their shares within one day of the announcement, at an average profit of £100 per person for taking no risk and making no effort. Is that not an example of what a rip-off the privatisation process has been?

Certainly not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that 9,000 employees of Railtrack bought shares in their company. If the Labour party believes in a stakeholder society, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have given Railtrack employees the opportunity, for the first time, to have a stake in their industry's success.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the state of the nation's transport network; and if he will make a statement. [30611]

The nation's transport networks have improved significantly as a result of public and private investment over the past 17 years, and will continue to benefit from the policies outlined in the Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward".

That is the answer of someone who does not travel regularly between London and the north-west of England. Does the Secretary of State accept that both road and rail links between London and the north-west are inadequate? Will he give an assurance that the franchise for the InterCity west coast main line will include a specification to upgrade the line so that it can take high-speed trains, which will cut the journey time between Manchester and London to two hours?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the core modernisation programme includes the introduction of a modern train signalling and control system, improved power supply and track renewal, which will bring improved reliability and some increase in capacity to the west coast main line route. An upgrade will depend on negotiations between Opraf and those who are interested in bidding for the franchise.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when considering extensions of the rail network, people can often be as opposed to such developments on environmental grounds as they are to extensions of the road network? Is it not significant that, in her two trips to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) was unable to make any commitment about funds that a Labour Government, were there to be one, might use to extend the rail network? Is it not more sensible to ensure more effective use of the existing rail network as a precursor to its extension?

My hon. Friend poses, in his eloquent way, the key questions that everyone wants to know about Labour's transport policy: first, what is it and, secondly, how will it pay for it?

Let us return to the west coast main line. Is the Minister happy that the Opraf director has said that it will take 12 years to upgrade the west coast main line and it will be seven years before there is any new rolling stock on that line? Can the Minister remember the Chancellor's 1993 Budget, which provided money to upgrade the west coast main line? Why has not that money been spent?

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) earlier, Railtrack is moving forward with a substantial £1 billion core modernisation programme on the west coast main line. It has awarded two parallel contracts for the signalling and control systems and will begin the main contract letting in 1996; it is estimated that work will start early in 1997. What we all want to know from Opposition Members is how they will find the resources for the contract if it is not funded by the private sector, to which they are opposed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce toll roads. [30613]

Our policy remains as set out by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), in December 1993. The assessment of available technology and systems will provide the basis on which to decide when to go ahead with motorway charging and, at an appropriate time, we will introduce the necessary legislation for Parliament to consider.

Does my hon. Friend agree that toll roads offer the opportunity of increased private investment in roads, particularly for bypassing large cities? Does he accept that there is still a demand, notwithstanding the green lobby, for towns and cities to be bypassed? Given that the Treasury may not always be forthcoming with the necessary funds, does my hon. Friend agree that toll roads offer the opportunity of taking traffic out of our towns and cities?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that there is a continuing demand for bypasses to relieve towns and villages. Privately promoted toll roads, for which there is already legislative provision, may be one of the ways of meeting that demand.

Will the Minister confirm that the A 13 through my constituency will be a shadow toll road to enable the upgrading of that road to take place?

There are several schemes on the A13, some of which will be taken forward as part of a proposed design, build, finance and operate scheme and others that will be part of a conventionally funded programme. All the schemes relating to the A 13 remain in the main road programme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the refreshment facilities provided at motorway service stations. [30614]

None.

Will the Minister accept that deregulation has meant that more motorway service stations have been given the go-ahead to rip people off, that most food is overpriced and disgusting and that a price of £1 for a cup of tea is scandalous? What will he do to ensure good value for money?

The effects of deregulation and the promotion of new motorway service areas by the private sector mean that more are being provided. Three have been provided since deregulation and 11 planning permissions are outstanding. That will mean more competition and, therefore, more choice for motorists. Because motorway service area operators are required to provide free access to toilets, rest areas, picnic areas and parking for members of the public, those who choose to take food and drink with them can make use of the areas without paying the prices that the hon. Lady finds unacceptable.

When will my hon. Friend introduce rest areas on motorways, as they have on the continent, where drivers who are a little tired can stop for a few moments? Those areas are a great safety feature on the continent and they are not expensive to provide. Why do we not have them?

As I have just explained in reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), motorway service operators are required to provide such facilities for all motorists free of charge. It is better for supervised areas to be provided on the trunk road and motorway network than to make unsupervised provision which, in view of experience elsewhere, might suffer vandalism and other such problems.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy concerning car design and pedestrian safety; and if he will make a statement. [30617]

The Department strongly supports improvements to car design which reduce the numbers of pedestrians killed or injured in road accidents.

What will be done to get rid of the obscene practice of placing bull bars on cars and vans? Will our Government or the European Union take action? If it is the European Union, the Government need to make it clear that they will not block action under qualified majority voting and that they will not try to form a blocking minority. Is the issue being moved between the Government and the European Union so that nothing gets done?

No. We are clear that aggressive bull bars are unnecessary and unacceptable and a potential cause of serious accidents. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's sensible question is that we need to have powers in domestic legislation—those have existed since the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use Regulations) Act 1986—to bring about the necessary changes, but if those powers are to be effective, they have to fall within the scope of the appropriate European directive. The external projections directive can be amended and the Commission has produced a form of words, which we are contemplating. I hope that we shall be able to reach agreement shortly. Once that has happened, it will go a long way to enabling us to get rid of aggressive bull bars. In due course, the draft policy for a directive on pedestrian protection will offer us a final and complete solution, but, in the meanwhile, a perfectly adequate form of words is available under the external projections directive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve transport links in East Sussex. [30621]

We recognise the case for improving transport links to and along the south coast. Our trunk road programme contains a number of important schemes in East Sussex. We are also supporting improvements to the county council's local road network.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the level of support in my constituency for sensible, necessary and environmentally sensitive schemes, such as the A22 Polegate bypass and the A27? In addition, I assure him that many rail travellers in my constituency are looking forward not only to the benefits of the Thameslink 2000 rail link to Eastbourne, but to the tangible benefits of rail privatisation in our area.

My hon. Friend has been extremely eloquent on other occasions in expressing his support and that of his constituents for sensible road improvements and for the tremendous benefits that rail privatisation will bring to rail passengers and freight users.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the success of the rail sell-off; and if he will make a statement. [30622]

The team had a good result.

He was held up on the journey.

Well, for once, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is absolutely right—I am delighted that I am here in time because I was held up. Is the Secretary of State aware that I was held up by British Rail in getting here this afternoon? Is he aware that I waited at Euston station last Thursday to return home to Stratford-upon-Avon by way of Coventry and that there was a 55-minute delay—yet another of the Euston break-ups because of the points system outside Euston? How can he possibly claim that any price paid for those decaying services can be worth it for the suffering of the British people?

With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the main point. The key question is: which regime will provide the resources that are necessary to improve the quality of service and the reliability of the trains on which he travels? It is our very strong contention that the regime that we have introduced will ensure that in a few years the hon. Gentleman will not be detained in the way that he was today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are very encouraged by the rail sell-off and rail franchising? We are looking forward to seeing SouthEastern trains moving rapidly into the private sector, particularly in view of my right hon. Friend's requirement that the provision of new carriages on the Kent coast line through the stations of Meopham and Sole Street in my constituency be a part of the franchise.

I am sure that many organisations are looking forward to the results of franchising. I hope that the existing trade unions that invested in nationalised industries when we privatised them will also invest in Railtrack in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the costs of privatisation of the railways. [30624]

By the end of 1995–96, total Government privatisation costs are estimated to be some £145 million and some £325 million for British Rail and Railtrack, including some investment in assets or asset management systems. Those costs should be viewed in the context of proceeds in excess of £4 billion and of substantial benefits to rail users as a result of privatisation.

What has the privatisation of the railway system to do with market forces? As I understand it, the Government have always believed that the market forces philosophy would rule. Yet, through the dogma of privatisation, the Government have decided to privatise the railways while calling upon the taxpayer to find about £850 million per year to allow that privatisation to continue. I remind the Minister that one argument is still prevalent in the Labour movement: a Labour Government's best answer would be to take the network back into public ownership without any compensation.

I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has heard her hon. Friend's comments about the policy of any future Labour Government. The fact is that, with seven franchises operating in the private sector, the costs to the taxpayer in the seventh year of those franchises will be less than a third of the grant paid to British Rail to operate those services in the past year. In the hon. Gentleman's area, the competitive bidding process for the midland main line franchise has ensured a winning bid that will require no subsidy from the taxpayer at the end of the franchise period. A completely new fleet of trains will be purchased in order to increase service frequency to Loughborough, Derby and Nottingham. They are the facts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the level of tolls to be charged for the use of roads built under the private finance initiative. [30625]

Estimated expenditure on shadow tolls for design, build, finance and operate road schemes is published in the transport report 1996.

What advice can the Minister give to my constituents on the proposed link between the M1 and A1 in the Rothwell area of Leeds, when shadow tolls will be paid by the Government out of taxpayers' money? Has he any information as to what will be the estimated charges?

Not specifically on that route, but the figures set out in the report are £41 million in 1996–97, £97 million in 1997–98 and £123 million in 1998–99.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Chiltern line. [30626]

The franchising director has today announced that M40 Trains Ltd., the management buy-out team, has been selected as preferred bidder for the Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd. franchise.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and draw his attention to comments made to me by the managing director of M40 Trains Ltd., who is responsible for operations in Chiltern, that the approach of privatisation had, for the first time, forced railway managers to concentrate their minds on what their passengers actually wanted in the way of a service? Is not that the key message of the advantages of privatisation for fare-paying passengers: the service will be provided ever more in their interests?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The total focus of passenger train operating companies is on increasing their business by providing better services for their passengers.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce a supervisory body to assess independently the efficacy of parliamentary procedures relating to the answering of questions. [30632]

I have no plans to do so. The efficacy of our procedures falls within the remit of the Procedure Committee.

Does the Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott's suggestion, made a few weeks ago in the annual Blackstone lecture, that a parliamentary watchdog is necessary to ensure that Ministers answer Members of Parliament's questions, which Sir Richard Scott still believes they are not doing on a wide range of questions, including those on arms sales? Is it not time that, if Ministers are not prepared to give answers, someone else ensures that they do?

I am aware that a suggestion, I think somewhat similar to that to which the hon. Lady refers, has been made in evidence to the Select Committee on Public Service, but, as someone who would count himself a parliamentarian, I would be wary of any proposal that cuts across what should be, and is, the central line of Ministers' accountability in the House.

I agree profoundly with my right hon. Friend. Ministers are accountable. We do not want any outsider coming in and telling them how they should behave. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents come to Question Time, and that they all find it absolutely enthralling and go away with considerably more enthusiasm for the House of Commons?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her doughty support. I always find her contributions enthralling.

Do you mean that?

Of course I do.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce proposals to shorten the summer recess. [30633]

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the length of parliamentary recesses; and if he will make a statement. [30635]

I cannot yet give the House the proposed dates for the summer Adjournment, but I have no plans to make any radical departure from recent practice.

That is unfortunate. What possible justification is there for having a three-month recess, which will commence shortly? Surely in this day and age, the summer recess should be much shorter, bearing it in mind that the House of Commons is already on a short-term week and that, often, voting takes place only on two days out of the five?

The point is that Members of Parliament have a wide range of duties other than attendance in the House and that this Parliament already sits longer than that of, I think, any other major western democracy. The balance between our sitting and our non-sitting days is about right.

Some people think that Members of Parliament are a waste of time, and perhaps one or two are, but are we not all a waste of time if we do not have a Parliament? If a Parliament is not sitting for three months or more, and no formal avenues are available for the asking of questions and the probing of the Executive, what is the point of having an elected Parliament? Can we not spread the parliamentary year so that the breaks are shorter and therefore do not matter so much?

I am aware that suggestions such as that have been made from time to time. Let me point out, however, that it is not very long since the House received, and subsequently debated and made decisions on, a report from a Select Committee of the House which examined all those matters carefully and made no such suggestion.

Is not the House unique, in that we have constituency responsibilities? Do not most Members of Parliament spend the recesses at work in their constituencies, getting very close to their constituents? Perhaps those two questions are a reflection on the two hon. Members concerned.

Different Members of Parliament observably have different ways of going about the job. My hon. Friend is certainly assiduous in the interests of his constituents, and I am sure that he will continue to be so on whatever occasions the House is sitting.

May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) back to the House following his recent illness? I am delighted to see him. Having said that, however, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agrees that the country is infinitely better governed when we are not sitting? It has always struck me that that is so.

I hesitate to agree with that proposition, but I note that it is my hon. Friend's view.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noted that, in replying to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister for Transport in London chose to mention his official consultancy. I am not in any way opposed to that, but I wonder whether that same Minister approached you in an attempt to extend Transport questions by at least another hour. If we are to mention all the consultancies held by Conservative Members, we shall require at least as long as that before any questions are answered.

That being the case, perhaps we should not rise for the summer recess until the end of September.