To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to promote the use of rail travel. [34682]

The best way to get more people to use trains is to make rail services more attractive to customers. Inviting the private sector to run the railways has, for the first time since the war, introduced strong commercial incentives to promote rail travel. That is already bringing additional services, extra investment and better customer care.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since Prism took over running the London-Tilbury-Southend line it has introduced new initiatives to attract more passengers to the line, including station improvements, increasing personal safety by providing guards at every station, extending booking office hours, and even introducing new rolling stock? Does he agree that those are the types of initiative that we need to get more people on to the railway, and that those initiatives with privatisation represent a good deal for the taxpayer, for passengers and particularly for the environment?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am glad that the change in culture at LTS is already beginning to manifest itself and that we are already seeing the type of improvements that he has outlined. I am sure that his constituents and all who use the line will welcome the at least £14 million of investment in station improvements, improved car park and station security, better facilities for disabled customers, automatic ticket gates, closed circuit television and customer help points at all LTS stations. That is the new culture that the private sector is introducing into our railways.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deplorable state of Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road stations in my constituency, even though some money has now been given through the safer cities programme? Is he aware that what the public are most concerned about—and the factor that is most likely to get them back on to our railways—is safety, and that the matter of staffing must therefore be considered? Will he tell the new privatised companies that staffing must be a priority, and that even if we manage to get the stations cleaned up, until there are staff at the stations people—and particularly women at night—still will not use them?

I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady says, and I agree that safety is a key factor in winning back customers for the railways. If she examines some of the proposals made by those who have won franchises, she will find that they are putting more staff at the sharp end for precisely the reason that she outlined. One of the recent franchises—I think that it was Chiltern Railways—proposed to have more staff in the waiting rooms on the stations, and Gatwick Express is certainly putting more staff on trains. Safety is a key factor, and I hope that it will not be a source of disagreement between Government and Opposition. Whether we are talking about the Underground or the railways, we want more passengers, and security has a role to play in that.

As for rail travel on the tube, is it not a fact that the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has ignored the agreed disputes procedure in the current dispute? Is not my right hon. Friend puzzled as to why ASLEF is taking so long to reply to the invitation to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to try to get this matter sorted out so that my constituents can travel to work in a reasonable way?

I very much regret that ASLEF has taken industrial action again today, which is causing unnecessary inconvenience to millions of commuters and Londoners. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) will respond to the invitation extended to her some time ago to deplore the strike. I very much regret that ASLEF has refused the invitation to arbitration extended by London Underground. I hope that it will think again, because many of the other unions have already come to a satisfactory agreement with London Underground and there is no reason why ASLEF should not do so as well.

Having walked from Euston to my office in Millbank with a very heavy bag, I can tell the Secretary of State that I hope that the strike will be settled as soon as possible. Are not his claims that rail use would expand under a privatised model belied by the statements in the Railtrack prospectus that

"Railtrack income is unlikely to benefit materially from any increase in passenger use",

"opportunities for expansion of freight operations are limited"?

I listened with surprise to what the hon. Lady has just said because when she launched Labour's transport document, "Consensus for Change," she said:

"There is little point in denouncing the present government's record."

I am worried about my feet.

We are all worried about the hon. Lady's feet. If she used her influence to persuade ASLEF members to go back to work, her feet and those of everyone else would be spared much pain.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's estimate of future levels of investment in the United Kingdom rail network. [34683]

Investment in the rail network has been at record levels in recent years and is expected to rise following the privatisation of Railtrack and other rail businesses.

Will the Minister admit that privatisation has been an absolute disaster for the rail network in the United Kingdom and that the £500 million spent on reorganisation and lawyers' costs should have been spent on infrastructure such as the west coast main line? Is it not time for the Minister to recognise that the rail network should work for the public interest rather than for the fat cats on the railway privatisation train?

The Railtrack fat cats, as they are described, have committed themselves to spend £8 billion on the rail network in the next five years. Both Chiltern and Midland Mainline are buying additional rolling stock to provide extra services, while London-Tilbury-Southend and Prism are replacing two thirds of their rolling stock by November 1999, and through the cascading of modern rolling stock they will have replaced the other one third much sooner than that. The Labour party's record in government was not very good: in constant price terms, over four years, the average expenditure under the previous Labour Government was £924 million; over a comparable four years, from 1990–91 to 1993–94, expenditure under this Government was £1.35 billion—an increase in current prices of 46 per cent. I am not talking about lawyers, but about investment in rolling stock and infrastructure.

Did my hon. Friend hear the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on the expansion of the rail network? Does he not have more confidence in the private sector's ability to raise investment for maintenance, improvement and expansion of the rail network than anything that he has seen emerging from the Opposition?

Of course I have much more confidence in the private sector than I do in the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend will recognise new Labour, new danger.

Do the Minister's estimates include the investment needed to renew the 2,500 mark 1 carriages still in daily use around the country? He may recall that they were the carriages that the report on the Clapham rail crash stipulated should be taken out of service by 1997. Will he instruct the franchising director not to issue any more franchises which do not provide for the renewal of mark 1 carriages within five years from now?

No such instruction is required. When inviting bids for the South East Trains franchise, the franchising director has said that a 15-year franchise requires a programme to replace the existing rolling stock. Moreover, it is clear from my answer to an earlier question that private sector franchise operators are volunteering to provide new rolling stock; they do not have to be forced to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the new theory test for learner drivers. [34684]

I am confident that the new theory test, which has received wide support from motoring and road safety organisations, will improve road safety and reduce the accident rate among newly qualified drivers.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the introduction of the new theory test, which will make an important contribution to road safety. Will he ensure that standards are kept high so that it is regarded as an important part of the preparation for driving? Will he further ensure that the test makes it clear to those taking it that speed is dangerous and that they must be careful in their first few months and years of driving?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the new theory test; his views are shared by all hon. Members and by people outside. He is right to say that if the theory test is to have any value it must be sufficiently stringent to ensure that new motorists are aware of the important issues that it covers, such as attitude, road awareness, road signs and hazard perception. The key to success is to indoctrinate people with the right attitudes to speed at a very early age. The tragedy is that 1,000 people a year die in accidents where the driver is between 17 and 25. The theory test addresses that key group.

Although the theory test is a move in the right direction, does the Minister agree that it fails to address the problem that in most parts of the country a driver can pass the test at 11 o'clock and at 12 o'clock drive on the motorway without any experience, because they cannot gain such experience as an accompanied driver before passing the test?

The hon. Gentleman identifies a worrying problem which he will appreciate is not capable of immediate resolution. If learner drivers are allowed on motorways, they will be a potential hazard not only to themselves but to other road users. However, it will be possible to develop interactive technology—some examples already exist—to enable us to give drivers experience of motorway conditions without necessarily exposing them to unwarranted danger.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the impact on passenger rail services of the proposals of Central Railway plc. [34685]

We have received more than 13,500 representations in total, many of which refer to the effects on existing passenger services.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the managing director of Chiltern Railways has said that Central Railway's proposals are incompatible with the present level of passenger services and, indeed, with assurances given under franchise arrangements for the minimum level of passenger services in the future? Will he undertake to bring the order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 before the House as quickly as possible so that we can dispose of Central Railway's half-baked proposal and send it where it belongs—into oblivion?

My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has announced that he hopes to arrange a debate on the proposal before the House rises for the summer recess. I confirm that we have received a representation from Chiltern Railways about the effects of the proposed new railway on passenger services on the line. Central Railways should urgently contact Chiltern Railways to see whether the concerns that have been expressed can be allayed.

Is it not strange that a company which is already blighting property from the channel tunnel to the midlands is not, so far as I can make out, financially viable to pay the compensation that it will need to pay if the proposal does not get the go-ahead? I understand that it will have to pay compensation after a certain period has elapsed. I received a letter from it a few days ago in which it refused to answer that point. Is it not time to review the 1992 Act to stop companies going ahead with such proposals when they have neither the capital for the project nor the capital to pay for blighting compensation?

As this is the first substantial proposal to be introduced under the Transport and Works Act 1992, it may be a little premature to consider a review of the legislation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received many representations from my constituents about the effects of the proposals on the environment, particularly problems arising from noise pollution?

I can confirm that I have received representations of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers.

I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be helpful to the House, and to the large number of families whose homes are blighted by Central Railway's proposal, to know the views of the Opposition. The Labour party is strongly committed to getting more freight on to the railways, but believes that we would achieve far more by investing about £300 million to enable the west coast main line to carry lorry trailers—in what is known as the piggyback system—than by spending £3 billion or more on this new freight line. We doubt whether the project is financially viable, and we hope that the House will shortly take the opportunity to kill off the scheme, thereby relieving large numbers of families from the great fear of blight.

I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying at least one aspect of Labour policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on motorway and major trunk road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices. [34686]

At constant 1994–95 prices, £1,479.4 million was spent in 1993–94, £1,459.9 million in 1994–95 and £1,254.2 million in 1995–96. These figures relate to the construction of all trunk motorways and all-purpose trunk roads.

In view of the congestion on motorways and major trunk roads, does the Minister agree that those figures fall short of what is required? Is he in a position to tell us the cost to industry of road congestion?

There is no absolutely accurate assessment of congestion costs, but many people will have heard the Confederation of British Industry estimate, which is in the range of £18 billion. As to the adequacy of the provision, my hon. Friend will be aware that decisions on priorities for public expenditure are taken by the Government looking at all competing claims in the round. It is the job of the Department of Transport to target the available resources on improving conditions where they most urgently need such improvement.

Anyone who gets stuck in congestion on our roads experiences the truth that the Conservatives have slashed central Government spending on road maintenance and new roads by a third, and have savaged local authority spending on the roads programme by a third as well—all to help pay for a puny pre-election bribe. Will the Minister admit to the House, and especially to Conservative Back Benchers queuing up for their bypasses, that the roads programme is a con? It includes 114 schemes, but only one scheme went ahead last year. Instead of such fantasies, will the Minister use his last few months in office to devise an honest roads and maintenance programme and then stick to it, so that the construction industry and drivers may have some certainty about the future?

It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to come up with what he calls an honest policy because the Labour party's policy as set out in "Consensus for Change" is to impose a moratorium on new road schemes and to scrap plans to widen the M25.

"Part of our policy will be the upgrading of road and rail".

What percentage of the past three years' spending on motorway construction has been funded by the private finance initiative and what percentage does my hon. Friend expect in the future? Is the Minister simplifying and speeding up PFI procedures so as to provide us with a good, modern road infrastructure?

In the past three years there has been little expenditure on "design, build, finance and operate" schemes because they were not in the pipeline. We now have 37 main trunk road schemes in the three tranches of DBFOs, and they will be carried forward much more rapidly using private finance than if they were procured conventionally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total bus miles travelled in London in 1995; and what is his forecast for 1996. [34687]

London Transport Buses' estimate for 1995–96 is 204.4 million bus miles. Its forecast for 1996–97 is 207.6 million bus miles.

Is the Minister not disappointed that the increase in proposed bus miles between this year and next is so small? Does he accept that it would help to improve bus use in London if bus lanes were strictly enforced, if bus priority measures at major junctions were rapidly improved, if the franchisees running those routes had good quality new buses, and if bus drivers were not under extraordinary pressure to work ever longer hours for ever lower wages? Would not those measures give confidence to bus operators and passengers in London?

I am delighted to hear what sounds to me like a broad endorsement of the Government's policy. It is particularly welcome from the hon. Gentleman. I always knew that a closet Tory was lurking deep beneath that unlikely—but charming—exterior.

As the most significant handicap to bus travel is its unpredictability, can my hon. Friend, whose championship of transport in London is widely admired, say how many projects will be financed by the £9 million that he is putting into bus development this year?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in such matters. I cannot tell him the precise number of schemes, but the £9 million to be spent this year is accompanied by a further £9 million, which London Transport Buses will spend on bus priority. The benefits of that are being seen in my right hon. Friend's constituency. He is right that if buses are held up by congestion and are, as is so often the case, the victims rather than the cause of that congestion, we shall be unable to get the advantages of better public transport that he and I both want.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold urgent talks with the railway inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive to agree new mechanisms for monitoring railway safety. [34688]

I am satisfied that the independent Health and Safety Executive already has appropriate mechanisms for monitoring railway safety. Provisional HSE figures for 1995–96 show that the number of passenger and staff fatalities on the railway was the lowest on record.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, following privatisation, there is now a clear conflict of interests between Railtrack, which is responsible for safety, and the fact that it is also responsible for safety on behalf of the other companies? A difficult problem may evolve if the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept that fact and ensure that the HSE changes its way of working to reflect it.

It is not necessary, because the Health and Safety Commission recommended a safety regime which took into account our belief that Railtrack should be privatized—and it has been implemented in full. Therefore, the clash of interest that the hon. Lady outlined does not occur.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the track suggested for use by Central Railway for its freight line in Ealing, North is regarded as totally unsafe for such a purpose and that the project will in any case be damaging to the health and safety of the people in the area and is not acceptable to them?

My hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads answer a question about Central Railway a few moments ago. Like my hon. Friend, I have a potential constituency interest in the matter. I have therefore asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to handle the matter in the House.

What is the Secretary of State's position on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? Is it that a clash of interest has not taken place or that a clash of interest can never take place?

The key point is that the Health and Safety Executive remains an independent safety regulatory body with full enforcement powers. It sits above Railtrack and has all the powers that it needs to enforce safety on the railways.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the number of road rage incidents in recent months. [34689]

I have received a small number of representations about road rage. My Department and the Home Office support recent advice to drivers by police and motoring organisations.

Today millions of Londoners have been forced to abandon the Underground and to drive their cars to work. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Labour party's friends in the rail unions are making road rage much more likely and that there are therefore increased dangers on the roads as a result of frustrated tempers, all because the Labour party will not condemn the strikes? Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to take firm action and have a clear policy in relation to the strikes?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I condemn the strike because the union concerned has not exhausted the negotiating machinery, and other unions have accepted the deal that is on offer. Today, we are witnessing an outrageous piece of blackmail in London. I, too, would like to hear the Labour party condemn that sort of conduct. That having been said—

Order. The substantive question was about road rage, and I would like to hear the Government's view on it.

There are reports of motorists hitting each other over the head with starting handles in the 1920s. So far as we know, the only recent development is a convenient expression to describe an age-old phenomenon. There is no evidence that road rage is on the increase. Our advice to drivers is clear: to stay patient and calm, and not to act in an aggressive way, particularly if they are outraged on the road.

Does the Minister accept that if we are to resolve road rage we must make the penalty fit the crime, particularly where killing is involved? People guilty of road rage should be penalised to suit the damage that has been done. Until that occurs, there will be further cases of road rage. Will the Minister support the campaign to ensure that people who are guilty of road rage receive the proper penalty?

It is appropriate that people who commit violent offences receive the appropriate penalty. I emphasise that this is not a matter of traffic law or a matter of regulation on the road; it is a simple matter of the application of the criminal law. I am sure that the courts will respond accordingly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new road theory test will help to curb road rage, which in my youth would have been known as temper tantrums? Does he agree that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's decision to select locations for the theory tests only on census figures is wrong? Should it not take into account constituencies such as mine, which has two higher education establishments—ancaster university and the University College of St. Martin's—here thousands of students want to take the test during term time and should not have to go to Blackpool, Preston or Barrow?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her ingenuity in asking a supplementary to Question 3. More important, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend on her birthday. If I were in a position to offer her a birthday present, I would do so, but as I am an uncustomed and curmudgeonly person, I am not sure that I can oblige. However, I shall look carefully at the situation in Lancaster. If there is evidence that we have misapplied the criteria that establish theory test stations, we shall act accordingly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop strategies for the more efficient management of Britain's transport needs. [34691]

Greater involvement of the private sector and targeted public investment provide the key to a more efficient transport system.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the importance of the transport industry in my constituency? Does he recognise also that his policies have resulted in aging systems, aging trains on the network and the development of gridlock? Local authorities are unable to meet requirements because of Government policies. When will we have a coherent transport policy? Does the Secretary of State believe that the dogma of privatisation and deregulation is adequate for our transport needs?

As to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, following completion of the Hooton-Ellesmere Port rail electrification, design work is being completed. Planning permission has been secured to provide greatly enhanced access to Ellesmere Port railway station direct from Westminster road bridge. There are several other schemes in the pipeline with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that efficient management of air transport forms a part of Her Majesty's Government's overall transport strategy, particularly greater use of existing airports such as Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, Heathrow—hopefully with a fifth terminal—and Farnborough? The latter should have corporate aviation facilities; trying to turn RAF Northolt into an airport makes no sense.

I know my hon. Friend's views about the matter, which are shared by some of our hon. Friends in neighbouring constituencies. I understand that a meeting has been arranged with my noble Friend Viscount Goschen, at which they will have an opportunity to make their views even clearer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for ensuring efficient strategies for managing Britain's rail network. [34692]

The Government's strategy is based on the successful privatisation of the railways, especially Rai ltrack.

Will the Minister confirm that £500 million was spent on lawyers and consultants during the privatisation process? The result is a fragmented network in which profits come before passengers and shareholders before safety. How is that in the interests of efficiency?

On the contrary, there is no fragmentation of the network. It was decided as a deliberate matter of policy to keep the ownership and the management of the rail network in one set of hands—Railtrack's.

When talking about efficient strategies for the rail system, will my hon. Friend describe the effect of rail privatisation on the level of public subsidy to passenger rail services?

The evidence of the first eight franchises to be let shows that, by the seventh year—which is the end of the normal franchise term—the subsidy paid to private operators will be less than one third of the grant paid to British Rail in the past year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cyclists were killed or injured last year in the United Kingdom. [34693]

Cycle fatalities are at one of their lowest levels since records began in 1927. Last year, 217 cyclists were killed and 25,081 were injured.

Is the Minister aware that those of us who have used bicycles as a means of transport for the past 30 years or so welcome his recent conversion? Is he aware also that many people are discouraged from cycling because it is a hazardous activity, as the figures demonstrate? What action will he take to ensure that the number of cycling accidents is reduced and, therefore, cycling becomes more attractive to more people?

The hon. Lady is right, and I commend her. I am sure that she was a cyclist long before me. I did not mean to imply that she is older than I am—few hon. Members are older than me. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. not a word will pass my lips. I may not have long to go, but I am going to stick with what I have got.

My hon. Friend will know from his experience of cutting up and down the roads of London on his bicycle that the attitude of motorists is the biggest cycle safety problem. Will he therefore consider raising the profile of explaining to motorists the danger that they create for cyclists? Will he consider using my 1993 Cycling Safety Bill as one way—and only one way, and possibly not the best—of ensuring that motorists pay due regard to cyclists, who are their fellow road users?

It is kind of my hon. Friend to mention my cycling experience, although all I seem to get is obscenities from London taxi drivers. He is right; the major problem is the attitude of motorists. We must tackle that not only by physical measures on the road but by education—-not only of cyclists but, more important, of drivers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received in the past 18 months on the subject of socially necessary railway services; and if he will make a statement. [34694]

Since the beginning of January 1995, my Department has received some 6,500 letters about subsidised passenger railway services, mostly from members of the general public.

I thank the Minister for that reply. May I remind him how vital some rural lines are? The most popular and vital services are not necessarily those that make the most profit. Two lines in a sparsely populated area of my constituency, the Conway valley line and the Cambrian coast line, are vital to the local economy. Will he ensure that socially necessary services are preserved and enhanced?

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that every passenger service requirement has protected every station and line currently served by British Rail. He will have noted that, in the letting of franchises, service levels, far from being diminished, have been maintained and enhanced. He can have every confidence that the services that are so important to him and his constituents will be safeguarded under privatisation.

My hon. Friend knows that one of the most socially and commercially necessary lines in the country is the west coast main line from Euston to Glasgow. Will he ensure that he puts all the Government's efforts behind those who want the line to be upgraded at the first opportunity?

Yes. My hon. Friend will know that Railtrack is already progressing the core investment programme to restore standards on that line and is in discussions with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and my Department on upgrade options for it.

Does the Minister realise that the early passenger service requirements required private operators to maintain 90 per cent. of the service on their lines, but that the new passenger service requirement for cross-country trains allows all four daily trains that originate from York to be axed and shortens the journeys for three of the remaining seven services by excluding any transport south of Birmingham? How can that be efficient and protect the needs of travellers from York to the south coast and the south-west?

The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that every franchise is of a similar character. Those which have protection close to the existing service levels are those that contain the highest proportion of socially necessary services, while those that specify services at a lower level are those where the majority of the services are commercial. That is the difference between inter-city and regional services and it has been reflected in all the franchises that have been let so far.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in London, the socially necessary lines are those provided by London Underground? Will he therefore welcome the fact that GEC Alsthom will later this year start delivering 106 new trains to upgrade the Northern line? Will my hon. Friend contrast that policy of improving public transport in London with the silence of Opposition Members, who seem to be more concerned that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen should sponsor their constituency parties than about the disquiet and suffering of their constituents?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend on every point that he has raised except one: I do not accept that London Underground delivers all of the socially necessary services in London. Many such services are provided by heavy rail. As for my hon. Friend's central point on the silence of the Opposition in the face of a blackmailing strike in the underground system, their silence speaks much louder to the people of London than—

We support shorter working hours.

I hear the voice of new Labour from the Opposition Bench below the Gangway in support of the strike.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the preparation of the new contract with HMSO. [34712]

As I announced on 22 May in a written answer, Official Report, column 191, a copy of the draft contract between the House and HMSO for the provision of printing and publishing services was placed in the Library on 4 June. Discussions with HMSO to finalise certain outstanding details are now approaching completion, and it is expected that the contract will be signed before the end of July.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure the House that HMSO will be paid in full for the contracts into which it has entered to supply education materials to the agencies of some foreign Governments? Will it be paid in full, or will it not?

I cannot comment, because that is not a matter for the Commission. It is not something over which we have any control.

Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely certain—can he give an undertaking to the House—that any such contract will protect the interests of Members, and the public interest in the control of parliamentary papers, which is fundamental to the working of the House?

Yes. You, Madam Speaker, set out in a letter that was printed in Hansard the basis on which the House authorities needed to be satisfied. Officers of the House have gone to great pains to ensure that the conditions set out in that letter are satisfied in the contract. As far as it is possible to do that, I believe that the House authorities have satisfied the obligation.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the cost of the child care voucher scheme for Commission employees. [34714]

The scheme was introduced on 1 April 1995. Expenditure on child care vouchers to date is £58,877. Fifty staff have participated in the scheme since its introduction.

Given the limited number of staff who have benefited from the scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Commission cannot undertake a survey of all staff and others employed in the building to ascertain the need for on-site child care facilities? It is nonsensical that a very large number of people are employed in this building and that their employer is way behind any other large employer in London or anywhere else. Employees have no child care facilities, yet they are desperately needed. The provision of such facilities would send out a signal that we are serious about looking after people who have small children, people who sometimes cannot get to the House because of the illness of their children, for example, or because there are no facilities for their children in other workplaces, which there ought to be.

The Commission ensured that a survey was carried out, and a full review, the results of which suggested that the child care voucher scheme was meeting many of the requirements of those employed by the Commission. Indeed, there was no evidence that a larger number of people would have their requirements met by on-site facilities.

Bearing in mind the old adage: people should put their money where their mouths are, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many hon. Members ask the House authorities to issue child care vouchers at the expense of their office cost allowance?

That question would have to be directed to the Leader of the House, but it is a useful reminder that Members of Parliament could use the office allowance to extend the child care allowance to their staff. If hon. Members feel that the office allowance is inadequate for that purpose, opportunities might arise later in the week to raise the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money has been spent on upgrading and modernising the rolling stock and railway infrastructure of the (a) west coast and (b) east coast main line over the past decade. [34695]

East coast main line electrification was completed in 1991 at a cost of £515 million at 1991 prices. The west coast main line was electrified in the 1960s and 1970s. and some £200 million was spent on new traction on that line between 1987 and 1990.

Is not it a national disgrace that so much public money has been used to modernise the east coast main line, which was virtually gifted to the American company Sea Containers, yet the west coast main line has been starved of investment? We have clapped-out rolling stock driven by puffing billies. The Minister, in answer to an earlier question, talked about improvements to the track. The bids are out for the franchise this Friday, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that, whoever wins the contract to run trains on the west coast main line, new trains—high-speed trains—will be introduced at the earliest possible time on that vital link between the north-west and London.

Investment in the east coast line was not gifted to an American company. The investment was in track, power supplies and signalling, which is now in the ownership of Railtrack, for which the taxpayer has just received £1.9 billion, and in rolling stock, which is owned by the rolling stock companies, which were also sold for some £1.9 billion.

More delay. Always delay.

No, not delay, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving public transport in London. [34696]

The Government's plans for improving public transport in London were set out in the recently published transport strategy for London.

I thank the Minister for that reply—albeit it is 17 years too late. Does he agree that dial-a-ride is a vital part of public transport for Londoners with disabilities? Does he also agree that the number of complaints about the service that is now offered to users of dial-a-ride is increasing? Will he therefore reconsider his refusal to meet one of my constituents—a user of the service—so that he might meet some of those who are so dependent on it and hear at first hand their complaints and discover a way to improve such a vital service?

I make two points to the hon. Lady. First, it ill becomes her to talk about investment in London Transport. I remind her that, in 1978, the last year for which her party was responsible—I am talking now in 1996 prices—total investment in London Transport and London Underground was £203 million. The figure this year was £1,102 million—more than five times as much in real terms.

Will it surprise my hon. Friend if I point out that one way in which to improve public transport in London would be to establish passenger high services on the River Thames, a greatly underused highway through our capital city? Can he offer any prospect of progress on that front?

I can indeed. As my hon. Friend knows, I established a working party to examine the viability of passenger services on the Thames two years ago. That working party has stimulated a good deal of activity on the river, and the Port of London Authority is currently organising a proper auction of available pier slots to determine how a viable service might be provided.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the amount of traffic on United Kingdom roads; and if he will make a statement. [34697]

The Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward" sets out our view of the measures needed to manage traffic growth.

Is it not time for significant traffic reduction measures? I have here a copy of the Japan Times, which describes United Kingdom roads as a "gridlock to nowhere". Japan's traffic derives from business and full employment, but we have no such excuse; our traffic throttles business and work. Should not direct measures be taken to improve public transport, cut fares—rather than increase them as the Government have—and keep cars out of city centres?

Only a couple of minutes ago, we heard an excellent recitation from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London about the substantial investment that has been made in London's public transport. If the hon. Gentleman examines the situation in London, he will see that we are not investing a great deal in new roads, but that we are investing substantially in the Jubilee line, the Heathrow express, the channel tunnel rail link and Thameslink 2000. We are making much faster progress now than we have for many decades, and we are doing it with private finance. What we do not hear from Opposition Members is how on earth they would maintain that momentum without the partnership that we have created with the private sector.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the merits of the spill-over period in the sessional cycle. [34715]

A spill-over is on occasion necessary to complete the Session's business, and has been in recent years.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate the special reasons for the spill-over period to be examined in the lead-up to the general election, but does he agree that such an inefficient, outdated system would not be tolerated in any other walk of life? Will he give an undertaking to consider whether that system should be among those subjected to critical examination during the welcome reforms of our procedures?

Given the inevitable uncertainties relating to the time that it takes to complete some business, I think that some form of flexibility is needed in the arrangements for a parliamentary Session, but I certainly accept the desirability of having no spill-over period if that can be achieved. I am glad to say that I expect a shorter spill-over this year than has been customary in recent years.

In the spill-over period, would it be possible to give the British people what they want—an autumn general election?

The hon. Gentleman might like that, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have a mandate to continue to govern the country, and we intend to do so.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's sympathetic response to the wise representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). From every point of view, would it not make more sense for the House to rise earlier—towards the beginning of July—so that hon. Members could spend more time with their families, and to reconvene at the beginning of October, with no spill-over period? That would be a much more logical and effective way of doing business.

I intended my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) to be sympathetic, but the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) would lead to another difficulty—unless he really wants the House to sit during the party conferences. That would involve some obvious problems. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that that idea is attractive to Labour Members. I would not want to go to their party conference either.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what actions the ministerial group on tackling drugs together has taken in respect of the methods of sale of illegal drugs. [34716]

The ministerial sub-committee of the Cabinet on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's national and international policies for tackling drug misuse. All aspects of the Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy, which focuses on illegal drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, are kept under regular review by the sub-committee. Action is taken to address other drugs of misuse as and when appropriate.

Given that, in some circumstances, the sale of amyl nitrates might be deemed illegal—particularly when sold to those under 18—are the Government considering further enforcement measures involving such sales, or even their proscription?

I have been made aware of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health about a particular case that has arisen in his constituency, or which has been drawn to his attention by a constituent. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention is being carefully examined.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of present scrutiny procedures of the statutory instruments passed since January 1994. [34717]

I think that our procedures for scrutinising statutory instruments are generally effective but, of course, we are always willing to consider suggestions for improvements. The Procedure Committee's recent report on delegated legislation contained many interesting ideas and, on Thursday, during the debate on parliamentary procedures, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the cost to industry of the 8,098 statutory instruments that have been passed by the House since January? Is he aware that the cost of implementing those 8,098 statutory instruments is £8.75 billion and that only 643 statutory instruments have been repealed? As the Government are committed to deregulation, just as I am, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements are called for before the general election?

My hon. Friend refers to activities that have gone ahead under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I understand that he would like to see further and speedier progress but, inevitably, it has taken time to build up. I hope that he will acknowledge that many of the statutory instruments to which he refers—for example, the many that are concerned with social security—do not, in the sense in which he means it, impose costs on industry.

Does the Lord President agree that one of the problems in scrutinising and debating the merits of statutory instruments is that, of late, primary legislation has been much more framework legislation than of yore, so the importance of statutory instruments and their impact on industry, to which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred, are much greater than before? Should not the Government look to the drafting of legislation that is less of a framework and more precise and in greater detail when it is first presented to the House?

I certainly agree that it is right to seek to improve the quality of the drafting of primary legislation. I have been seeking to advance that by publishing more Bills in draft so that practitioners may have a proper opportunity to look at them before they are presented to the House. Beyond that, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, equally, I understand the difficulties—for example, the pressures on parliamentary time. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to develop his thoughts further in Thursday's debate.