To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage alternatives to road freight. [4002]

Privatisation is helping rail to win new freight traffic, and we have created the economic conditions in which the shipping and ports industries can grasp business opportunities. We continue to make available grants to encourage the shift of freight from road to rail and water.

Given the congestion on the roads, may I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's initiatives to move freight off the roads and on to rail, especially his initiative in establishing the freight facilities grant to give further incentive to that desirable trend?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of freight grants. He will be pleased to learn that grant expenditure has increased every year since 1991–92 and that my Department's spending in the current financial year is likely to be the highest for 10 years, even before the recent award to Freightliner, which is worth up to £75 million over five years.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the tripling by Railtrack of the costs for enlarging the loading gauge on the west coast main line, which is essential to the success of the piggyback freight consortium, is a positive discouragement to alternatives to road freight? What action will he take to make Railtrack accountable and ensure that it provides more freight on the rails rather than merely maximising profits?

The hon. Gentleman slightly jumped the gun in his initial conclusion. Railtrack has been examining the cost of upgrading the west coast main line to take piggyback freight, and consultants appointed by my Department have kept abreast of the work to ensure that any grant application can be dealt with expeditiously. We must wait for Railtrack to finish its analysis before arriving at any firm conclusions. I confirm that it is indeed Government policy to secure any useful transfer that we can of freight from road to rail.

I applaud my right hon. Friend's endeavours to move freight from road to rail, but he will recognise that, for the moment at least, much freight travels by road and by sea. Those of us who represent channel ports are extremely concerned about the damaging effects of the illegal strikes and blockades in France on the employment of our constituents. The European Commissioner who is responsible for such matters, Mr. Kinnock, is uncharacteristically silent on the subject. What endeavours are the Government making to have the blockades lifted and the illegal strike ended?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this most important subject. Before the weekend, I made strong representations to the French Transport Minister about the plight of British lorries and the innocent drivers who have been detained. I received a response this morning regretting what has happened, confirming that some British lorries were released over the weekend and enabled to proceed and giving details about claims for compensation. However, if the matter is not resolved soon, I may need to write again.

With 1,000 British lorry drivers stranded in France, at considerable inconvenience, cost and risk to their personal safety, does the Secretary of State agree that the House will expect the French authorities to afford every protection to British lorry drivers?

On compensation, which is important, the letter from the French Transport Minister has some useful information. The hon. Gentleman's concern about industrial disputes in France would have more credibility if occasionally he condemned those in this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that ferries from Dover are having great difficulty in taking any lorries at all, because of the blockade of Calais? Is not it unreasonable that Dover ferry companies and haulage companies should lose vast amounts of money in the current circumstances? Many of my constituents are stranded in France with lorries and are unable to come back home to their families. French police are forcing British lorry drivers to join blockades to help the French lorry drivers' strike.

I know that the French inquiry, headed by an investigating magistrate, is under way. That inquiry will want to consider the cause of the fire, and will certainly want to investigate the allegations that my hon. Friend mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that major urban centres form part of the national bus service network. [4003]

The Government are keen to encourage bus use, and are working actively with operators and local authorities on measures to this end, notably through the bus working group and through support for local transport schemes designed to promote bus travel. There is already an extensive network of bus and coach services serving major urban centres. Specific additions to the network are primarily for the commercial judgment of operators.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that a spanking new bus interchange, one of the finest in Europe, has recently opened in Rotherham, but it is not connected to any of the national bus networks. The answer is always that it is a matter for commercial judgment or local subsidies. I understand that; but is the Minister aware that, if many towns the size of Rotherham are isolated from the national bus network, that drives more and more people into their cars? Is he aware that, as a result, the traffic jams into London sometimes start at junction 31 in South Yorkshire because people are obliged to use their private cars, as, under deregulation, buses do not operate within a national network to serve leading metropolitan borough centres such as Rotherham?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult the Great Britain bus timetable, he will find that 16 different bus services link Rotherham with other towns in the region and that there is a daily coach service between London and Rotherham. There are yet more frequent services between London and Sheffield, which is a half-hour bus ride from Rotherham.

How many new buses and coaches is Stagecoach ordering now?

I cannot remember the precise figure off hand, but my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the substantial orders recently placed by Stagecoach and other private sector companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce new measures to reduce road traffic. [4004]

Our Green Paper sets out a range of measures, including new powers for local authorities to manage traffic demand in their areas, privatisation of rail passenger and freight services, support for bus priority measures and encouragement for green commuting and transport plans.

Does the Minister agree that it would be a good policy to try to introduce some targets for road traffic reduction? Given that 200 Members from all parties have already signed an early-day motion in support of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is to introduce, will the Government guarantee it a fair wind and do everything they can to make sure that it is passed?

I am very much in favour of the inclusion of targets in local transport plans and I encourage local authorities that seek to include targets in their package bids in order to show what they expect to deliver. I have agreed to meet the hon. Member for Bath to discuss the terms of his Bill.

Will my hon. Friend not be seduced too much by Opposition arguments? I agree that it is right to reduce traffic where possible, but I am sure that he accepts that the Government do not want to appear to be anti-motorist. Most of my constituents, and most of his, own a motor car and expect to be able to use it in reasonable circumstances. I hope that that will be the policy of the Government.

My hon. Friend is entirely right: it would be folly for any Government to be anti-car and anti-motorist. We must seek to provide car users with attractive, convenient and acceptable public transport alternatives, so that they can choose whether to go by car or by public transport, which is what our policies are designed to do.

Does the Minister agree that one way of encouraging more traffic to travel by rail would be to encourage the franchising director to require potential franchisees to improve on current levels of service? Will the Minister write to the director and suggest that he reinstate the through service from Telford to London, which was lost some years ago and which was always assumed to be part of the development and growth of the new town? Should it not be part of the director's job to do such things? Will the Minister take action?

The instructions and guidance to the franchising director include the fact that, in assessing franchise bids, he should take account of pledges to improve services over and above those included in the passenger service requirement and the existing BR timetable. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the majority of the 13 franchises that have been let, new private sector franchisees have pledged to extend services rather than reduce them, as Opposition Members had alleged would happen.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on (a) roads and (b) public transport in Greater London in 1995–96. [4005]

Spending comes from a variety of public and private sources. In 1995–96, those included Government grant of £904 million to London Transport, £37 million to the docklands light railway, £124 million to local authorities, £13.5 million to the Traffic Director for London and £220 million to the Highways Agency.

I very much welcome the significant investment there has been in public transport in London, particularly the money spent on the underground and the Jubilee line extension, as well as the commitment to spend £125 million on Croydon light rail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important, particularly in south London, to ensure that access to the motorway network is improved—not so much by building new roads as by significantly improving the existing transport infrastructure to maintain the competitiveness of centres such as Croydon?

My hon. Friend is right: it is important to ensure the smooth running of our roads. We shall certainly bear in mind the fact that one of the most important ways of achieving that end involves the red route network, which will enable the orbital routes to flow more freely. My hon. Friend is also right to pay tribute to the high level of investment in public transport in London—four times more in real terms has been invested this year in London Transport than in 1979. Substantial progress has been made under this Government. In the past hour, we have been able to announce that the Croydon tramlink deal has been signed and will proceed.

The stop-go building of the M11 link road through Wanstead and Leytonstone has caused considerable inconvenience to local residents, is an environmental eyesore and has created crime traps. The Highways Authority has ruled out the possibility of environmental compensation for the area. Will the Minister accept that that is unreasonable and will he consider the possibility of environmental compensation?

The hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the Government's plan to improve London's roads, particularly the M11-Hackney link. I do not think that I heard him pay tribute to the fact that, in the past couple of weeks, the go-ahead for the last two sections of that road has been announced—his constituents' problems should be moving towards a resolution. The hon. Gentleman may want to have a word with his own Front-Bench team, who have imposed a moratorium on all new road building.

I, too, welcome the figures that my hon. Friend has given this afternoon. Is he aware that people in my constituency are demanding a balance between road and rail expenditure and are looking to a new crossing of the Thames between Woolwich and Dartford? When will he be able to say more about those issues?

My hon. Friend is right to say that river crossings are important to his constituents and to many others. He will know that a package of river crossings, including Woolwich, Gallions Reach and Blackwall, is being carefully examined as part of the infrastructure that London needs to be effective. If he has read today's Evening Standard—I believe everything I see in that—he will know of the welcome news that we have given the go-ahead for the escape ramp for the Blackwall tunnel, which will also be good news for those trying to get across the river in an efficient and effective way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the annual cost to business of congestion in London. [4006]

We have made no such estimates.

Is that not a limited and disgraceful answer from the Minister? Does he not agree that London is in virtual gridlock most of the working week? Apart from the air pollution, effects on health and general inconvenience for travellers, does that not have a devastating effect on London's businesses? Is it not now time to have an integrated transport strategy for London?

Again, the party that says it will have no more roads building and that has announced today that it will have no more new underground lines either is not the party that should be talking about congestion in London. We are, of course, aware of the needs of businesses and, indeed, of other people seeking to get around our city and we have been taking action throughout our years in office to do something about the issue, not just carrying out surveys. In fact, it would be difficult to identify the criteria needed for the sort of assessment that the hon. Lady seeks.

May I first make it plain that we do not want another river crossing in Dart ford, thank you very much? Is the Minister prepared to consider greater use of the River Thames, greater use of park-and-ride facilities and greater use of light transit railways in south London in particular? Will he accept our congratulations for doing all that he can to speed up traffic on the A2, a subject which is down in my name for debate later this week?

I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's wish not to have the new river crossing to Dartford, even if it were to come from Woolwich, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) suggested earlier. I will not prejudge the debate later this week, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is right to highlight the need for us to continue to work in partnership with the local authorities, the Highways Agency, the highways authorities, London Transport and others to make sure that, in his part of London and the south-east and in areas that others of us represent, we have an efficient traffic and transport system that continues to ensure that London is a powerhouse of the British economy.

Has it escaped the Minister's notice that his party has been in government for the past 17 years? It is their abject failure to create a properly integrated transport system for London that has produced ever-greater congestion on London's streets and ever-higher levels of air pollution and which prompted the Corporation of the City of London to state only last year that transport issues are a key competitive threat to London's economic position. What, in their dying days, do his Government intend to do to ensure that London's economic future is not threatened by their failure in the same way as they significantly threatened its past?

As the hon. Lady moves into her next period of opposition, I hope that she will learn to pay tribute and give credit where it is due to a Government who have been investing in London's infrastructure to an extent far greater than previous Labour Governments could have dreamt of. I have mentioned the fact that, this year, London Transport is investing in real terms four times the amount invested in 1979, the year in which the Conservatives came to office.

My hon. Friend will agree that public transport plays a major role in reducing road congestion in London. Can he therefore comment on the article in today's Evening Standard, suggesting that there will be no new trains on the Northern line until September 1997, which would mean that GEC was much too far behind schedule, and which would make many of my constituents and many commuters in London very angry indeed?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, thanks to the private finance initiative, new trains will be coming on the Northern line, serving his constituents and mine. It is equally right to say that there have been delays in those trains' manufacture. They are now starting to come through for trials, and they will be in service by next summer, as promised by London Transport—or according to the understanding that I have from London Transport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to modify the rules and regulations governing the occupational safety of the crews of United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels. [4007]

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

I know that the Secretary of State has an abiding concern for the safety of fishermen. Does he agree that, when a fishing vessel must be abandoned and the crew forced into the water, crew members stand a far greater chance of survival and rescue if they are wearing survival suits—that is, if they have had time to don them? Why is the Department of Transport reluctant to introduce a regulation governing the carriage of such survival suits on all UK-registered fishing vessels? Is that not the case with the European Union's directive on occupational and safety matters relating to fishermen? Why not give owners and skippers a one-off grant to purchase such suits?

I hate to challenge what the hon. Gentleman said, because I respect his knowledge of these matters, but my information is that the existing international and European obligations do not require the carriage of immersion suits. None the less, that would clearly be valuable in the circumstances that he outlined, and my Department will shortly promulgate a recommendation that fishermen should wear an automatic single-chamber inflatable lifejacket when working on deck.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done a great deal to enhance the safety of not only fishing crews but all crews operating in UK waters, especially by stepping up inspections of vessels calling at ports in this country and publishing lists of so-called ships of shame?

Yes, indeed. That is a valuable initiative, which the Department introduced two or three years ago. We do detain ships when they do not reach the right standards, we publicise their names to exert peer group pressure and we keep the vessels until such time as the necessary repairs have been carried out.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he plans to implement the recommendations of the third report of the Transport Select Committee of Session 1995–96, HC373, on risk reduction for vulnerable road users. [4008]

The Government's response to the Transport Committee's report on risk reduction for vulnerable road users was published on 12 November.

The Committee strongly recommended that the Government publicise the dangers of aggressive bull bars and specifically recommended that the Department write to all owners of fleets of vehicles on which they are fitted, not only to warn them of the dangers to other road users with whom the bull bar vehicles might collide but to emphasise the added dangers to the drivers and other occupants of the vehicles on which they are fitted. Have the Government done that?

I share the hon. Gentleman's and the Committee's concern about aggressive bull bars. I should like to go much further than he suggests and have aggressive bull bars banned. I tell the hon. Gentleman that straight. The way to achieve that is to do as we are doing now—work with the European Commission to design a directive on standards for such items. We are making good progress in that respect. Britain is leading the way and I hope that, before long, we shall achieve what the hon. Gentleman and I both want.

Following publication of the most recent report by the Transport Select Committee on risk reduction for vulnerable road users, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the meetings that he has held with motor cycling organisations and the Motor Cycle Industry Association? Given the importance of increasing car and lorry drivers' awareness, will he give his continued backing to the recommendations in the "Think Bike" campaign in Motor Cycle News?

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about my meetings with representatives and journalists from the industry and I pay tribute to his work in ensuring that those issues are kept before us, as he rides around on his bright red motorbike. We must continue to pay attention to this matter. Motor cycling is an effective way of reducing congestion on our roads, but it must be done safely. We are tackling that by ensuring that motorbike riders ride safely, are properly trained and are capable of coping with the power with which they deal at different stages in their biking careers, and by ensuring that other road users are aware of motor cyclists' needs, particularly by observing them. Being seen and seeing are part of the package that we seek to achieve.

Did I overhear the Minister say that he was in favour of banning bull bars? Has he thought of pressing the Government on that issue?

I said clearly that I want to move towards a ban on aggressive bull bars. I believe that the House would support that. I also said that the way to achieve such a ban was by reaching agreement on a European directive, which is necessary if we are to tackle these matters. We have made good progress and I hope that, before long, we shall see the desired result.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of speed cameras in reducing accident rates. [4009]

A cost-benefit analysis of traffic light and speed cameras in 10 police force areas, commissioned by the Home Office and carried out between November 1995 and March 1996, identified a 28 per cent. fall in accidents at speed camera sites—[Interruption.]

Order. The Minister is answering the hon. Member's question. Other hon. Members should be helpful on such occasions and not pass between the Member and the Minister.

The report identified a 28 per cent. fall in accidents at speed camera sites and an 18 per cent. fall at traffic light sites.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on those results. I understand that the Government's policy is to target speed cameras on particularly dangerous stretches of road. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the A303 between Sparkford and Podimore, on which the West Camel parish council has made representations through me to the Minister for Railways and Roads? It is recognised as a dangerous stretch of road and we hope that it will soon be turned into a dual carriageway. In the interim, however, will the Department look at the matter again to see whether a speed camera could be installed in the hope that it will cut the accident rate, as there have been some awful accidents there in recent years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to pay tribute to the effectiveness of cameras when they are put in the right place. That is made possible through the good partnership between local highway authorities and the police.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on privatisation plans in relation to rail services. [4010]

Rail privatisation is progressing extremely well. About 70 per cent. of the rail industry has been transferred to the private sector, generating some £4.5 billion in proceeds for the Exchequer. Thirteen passenger rail services are now in the private sector, the Cross Country franchise is expected to be awarded shortly and the remaining 11 are all on course to be awarded in this financial year. All British Rail's former domestic freight businesses are now in the private sector. The international freight operation, Railfreight Distribution, is expected to be sold at the turn of the year.

I hope that my right hon. Friend's plans include a scheme to privatise London Underground. That would provide an opportunity for investment to extend the line from Morden to Sutton in my constituency, which would be widely welcomed. Is he aware how successful the privatisation of Network SouthCentral has been and how popular it is with my commuters, who find that 90 per cent. of trains now arrive on time? Is it not a pity that Labour so bitterly opposes privatisation, putting ideology before passenger interests?

I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend of the success of privatisation in her constituency. She is right to remind the House that punctuality on South West Trains mainline services has improved by more than 3 per cent. since franchising. As The Daily Telegraph commented last Friday:

"Privatised trains run on time more often".

We are all delighted to know that the Secretary of State, like Mussolini, wants to make the trains run on time. Is he aware of the great disquiet in my constituency because the new director of Opraf is allowing tenders for the line on the basis of the existing timetable, which has been shown to contain more than 100 errors? If the tendering is going ahead before the consultation exercise, how genuine is his commitment to the interests of those who use public transport?

The consultation on the draft passenger service requirements is genuine. As the hon. Lady knows, following consultation, changes have been made to the draft PSRs and improvements have been made. I have no doubt that when the west coast main line is franchised, her constituents and the constituents of Chester and of other constituencies on that line will experience the benefits of our privatisation policy.

Having spent several years dismally failing to persuade British Rail to provide any new rolling stock on my local railway, may I say how delighted my commuters are at the promise in the new owner's franchise agreement that they will shortly enjoy the benefits of new rolling stock?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there has been some £400 million of new investment in rolling stock in that franchise—further evidence that privatisation will allow higher investment than a public sector railway would have. Given his efforts to persuade British Rail, he will be interested to learn that the latest figures show that rail complaints fell by 25 per cent. in the first half of this year, I hope that that means that he will get fewer letters of complaint in his postbag.

On Wednesday last I travelled on the 9 am train from Paddington to Cardiff. I arrived 45 minutes late on a two-hour journey—which is typical, I suppose. When I arrived, I was told that there were sheep on the line, and I subsequently heard that the same sheep had delayed the 8 am service. When I went to catch the 4.25 pm return, I was told that it had been cancelled five minutes earlier. I asked whether the sheep were still active and was told that there had been no interference by sheep that week. That is a newly franchised service, and it is not very good, is it?

It is a better service than was provided by British Rail. Great Western is already refurbishing several trains, and privatisation will result in more services from Paddington to Cardiff. Therefore, there is less risk of being delayed by sheep.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the loss of income to London Transport caused by the recent strikes. [4011]

London Transport estimates that its loss resulting from the recent strikes is about £15 million.

Bad though that figure is, does my hon. Friend agree that behind it lies much inconvenience and the real misery of those who tried to use London Transport? Does he further agree that those commuters were entitled to expect the Labour party's outright condemnation of the strikes, but heard instead only the sponsored silence of the shadow Cabinet?

My hon. Friend is right. Throughout the summer, while Londoners suffered from that wholly unnecessary strike action, we were more likely to hear the scrunch of Opposition Members wandering the beaches of Benidorm in their designer clothes than a single squeak on behalf of anguished Londoners. I hope that the Opposition will take the opportunity to condemn, even retrospectively, that strike and the disruption that it caused.

No one could accuse the Minister of wearing designer suits. However inconvenient strikes on London Transport may be, at least they are predictable—commuters know that the trains will not run that day. If the Minister travelled on London Transport, he would realise how appalling the service is in terms of daily inconvenience to Londoners. On that subject, when will he explain what happened last week when the entire underground system closed down—the second time that Lots road power station has completely packed up in recent months? What went wrong? Will there be an inquiry and when will the Minister apologise to Londoners?

The hon. Gentleman would certainly hear the sand scrunch if I walked on it. He is one of the few Labour Members to comment on the strikes that crippled Londoners' ability to travel to work during the summer. We have heard nothing about it from the current Opposition Front Benchers or their predecessors, but it is time that we did because Londoners are waiting to hear whether the sponsored silence will be the pattern for Labour and strikes.

My constituents suffered a great deal as a result of last week's underground shutdown. Does my hon. Friend share their concern and anger that Labour Members speak up about that incident, which lasted for only a few hours on one day, but do not speak against strikes that last for many days and cause much more distress, anger and disruption? Where are their values?

My hon. Friend is right. London Underground is investigating the incident and what may be done to prevent any repetition. However, we may compare that small incident, which lasted only a few hours, with the 1.6 million tube passengers whose lives and journeys to work were disrupted by the underground strike, week after week, while the Labour party said nothing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the costs of traffic congestion to British businesses. [4012]

There is no generally accepted definition of congestion costs, and my Department does not publish estimates.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is he aware that, according to Confederation of British Industry estimates, congestion on the M25 costs businesses £1 billion and nationally it costs them £19 billion? What will the Government do to alleviate the worries of the CBI and the nation?

We are aware of the parts of the network that suffer congestion and our well-targeted trunk road programme is designed to relieve the most severe congestion points. We are also applying modern technology to enable us to manage the network better, part of which will be the strategy that I announced last Monday for the development, under the private finance initiative, of regional traffic control centres. That will allow for the strategic management of motorways and trunk roads over a much broader area.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what representations he has received in respect of expenditure on renovations in the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess. [4032]

I have received one representation.

In these times of cuts in social benefits, and when local authorities cannot get the resources to provide proper community care, was it not exorbitant for the House to spend £17 million, including £6 million on the kitchen in the Members Cafeteria? Every summer recess, the interior of the House resembles nothing more than one huge building site, and much of the work is repetitive and unnecessary. Is it not a higher priority to provide an escalator for elderly members of the public who have to tramp huffing and puffing up the stairs to reach the Strangers Gallery?

I quite understand and share the hon. Gentleman's desire for as much economy as possible. He must realise that what he proposes was fully debated in the House on 12 July 1994 and carried unanimously. We could not have continued without being closed down eventually, as we were clearly defying health and safety regulations. Everything that is done in the House is much more expensive than it would be elsewhere because this is a grade I listed building.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that the House should no longer hide behind Crown immunity and that it should face up to its responsibilities, and that much of the expenditure incurred to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred was related to improving the conditions of those who work in the Palace? Should we not comply with the legislation with which we make others outside comply?

I agree.

rose—

We must now return to Transport questions and to Question 12 from Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise because of the other question.

Order. We always return to the original questions when we have finished.

rose—

Order. Question 28 was withdrawn. We now return to Transport questions. Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd is not in his place; Mr. Jim Cunningham is.

I was rising for Question 27, Madam Speaker.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sums his Department has invested in (a) the west coast and (b) the east coast lines in the past three years. [4014]

Railtrack is responsible for investment in rail infrastructure and has confirmed that investment in the west coast main line for each of the financial years since 1994 totals £168.6 million. It plans to spend £1.35 billion to renew the core infrastructure and is prepared to spend an additional £150 million on a passenger upgrade. The east coast line was upgraded in 1991–92 at a cost of £550 million. Railtrack has not, therefore, had to inject major investment subsequently.

As the west coast main line is of strategic national importance, will the Minister assure the House that it will be given a full upgrade to ensure maximum efficiency?

The £1.35 billion core investment programme and the £150 million upgrade programme announced and agreed by Railtrack shows the high priority that is given to this nationally significant route.

As a regular traveller on the east coast main line, may I tell my hon. Friend how pleased I was that the punctuality of trains has improved dramatically since it was privatised and taken over by Great North Eastern? A much wider and better range of services is available for passengers on the east coast main line, which is yet another benefit of privatisation.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the substantial improvement in services provided by Great North Eastern.

When will work to upgrade the west coast main line begin? Will the Minister assure us that it will be a full upgrade and not just a modernisation of the line, and that it will include the feeder lines—such as the Northampton to Birmingham line—into the west coast main line? Will he also assure us that the infrastructure will be fully developed to ensure the maximum use of freight on projects such as piggyback? When will he announce which franchisee will operate the line?

Contracts to develop signalling systems have already been let and are central to the core investment programme. It is expected that physical works on the upgrade will begin early in the new year. It would be premature for me to announce the identity of the franchisee; the announcement will be made in the usual way by the franchising director. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend say that Railtrack has not yet concluded its work on identifying the possibilities for freight upgrading on the line.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on including a photograph of the holder on driving licences. [4016]

With the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, we are reviewing the timetable for the introduction of photographs on driving licences.

Will the Minister confirm that no further legislative action is required in respect of photocard driving licences? Following his visit, he must be aware that in Morriston in my constituency great investment has been made in the relevant machinery and that people have been trained and are ready to go. When will he give the off?

On the first question, the hon. Gentleman is correct: no further legislation is required for photocards on driving licences. On his substantive point. my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in August that, following public consultation, the Government had decided that the planned plastic photocard driving licence linked to a voluntary identity card would be available. We had previously secured an amendment to the EU directive to allow that. It was announced in the Queen's Speech that a draft identity card Bill would be published this Session.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the change in the number of bus passenger journeys made outside London since 1985–86. [4017]

There were 4,489 million passenger journeys on local bus services outside London in 1985–86, and 3,178 million in 1995–96.

Is not it a disgrace that there has been a massive fall in the number of bus journeys outside London since the Government introduced deregulation? Do not those figures clearly show that privatisation has failed, that deregulation has resulted in fewer journeys, poorer services, higher costs and poorer vehicles, and that re-regulation is urgently required?

No; if the hon. Gentleman studied the trends over a longer period, he would find that the decline in bus usage has been running at about 4 per cent. per annum since the 1970s. In recent years, the rate of decline in bus usage has been arrested. He mentioned inferior vehicles. Reference was made to the significant orders placed by Stagecoach. I have now recalled the figures: the order is for 1,000 new buses in the first tranche, followed by a further 650.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of children travelling to school by car in (a) 1979 and (b) 1995. [4025]

It is estimated that, on average, some 2 million children aged five to 15 travelled to school by car during the period 1993–95. Figures are not available for 1979.

Do we not have a vicious circle? The more parents take their children to school by car, the more danger there is from traffic around school gates, which pushes more people into the same process. What is the Minister going to do to reverse that process, and to try to ensure that our streets are safer so that more children can walk to school?

The hon. Gentleman is right. We believe that more children could walk to school if the routes to school were made safe. To that end, we are working with organisations such as Sustrans and local authorities to ensure that routes are safe—by means of, for instance, lighting, signing and design—and that children are taught how to walk safely to school. If we do that, and encourage schemes such as the 20 mph zones that are being introduced around some school gates, we can increase the number of children—53 per cent.—who still walk to school.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the consequences for the procedures of the House of the recommendations of the second report of the Select Committee on Public Service of Session 1995–96 (HC 313) in respect of the answering of parliamentary questions. [4036]

The recommendations of the Public Service Select Committee, and the Government's responses, bear on how parliamentary questions should be answered. They have no direct implications for the procedures of the House.

I thank the Lord President for his answer. Does he not agree, however, that, after considering the history of parliamentary questions and their use sometimes as a game, the Select Committee felt that the purpose of such questions was to hold the Executive to account, and pointed out that they should be answered—adding that, when they were not answered, an explanation should be given? Indeed, the Government agreed with the Select Committee.

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has responded to the reports to which he refers in, I think, very positive terms, seeking to clarify the basis on which parliamentary questions are answered. I hope that that will help the House, but I will draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend's attention and, as he asked, to that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how many subjects have been raised as Adjournment debates since January 1995. [4037]

Since January 1995, there have been, as of Thursday 21 November 1996, 288 daily and 275 Wednesday morning Adjournment debates initiated by individual hon. Members.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, which demonstrates the increased time available for Back Benchers. Would he care to note the debate on legal aid that I have initiated, which shows that the legal aid fund is a juggernaut out of control? Will he accept my assurance that, if the Chancellor of the Excqhr and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury attack it tomorrow, there will be a warm welcome from me and from many others?

My hon. Friend is certainly right that there has been a large increase in the number of opportunities available to Back Benchers, particularly through the introduction of Wednesday morning debates in exchange for Consolidated Fund debates and some private Members' debates at other times during the week. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will have heard what he said about legal aid and will have noted it carefully. More to the point, I am sure that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has carefully noted my hon. Friend's concern about these matters.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received concerning the time allocated for questions on overseas development. [4038]

I have received none recently. I hope that that is short enough for the hon. Gentleman.

I have an interest to declare in the matter. Will the Leader of the House confirm that representations have been made through the usual channels? Is it not ridiculous that we had 10 minutes for questions to the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee and only one question was asked and answered, but that we have only 15 minutes for Overseas Development questions, with dozens of hon. Members queuing to ask questions and a Department of State involved? Will he consider the matter urgently?

There are two or three points. This question is linked with a question further down the Order Paper which is unlikely to be reached and to which I am not unsympathetic. It was not so long ago that Overseas Development questions were extended from 10 to 15 minutes. On some subjects, related matters would be in order at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, but I am not dismissing the hon. Gentleman's point out of hand. It is getting a bit late in this Parliament to make significant changes to the question rota.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I shall take it after the statement.