To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the marine accident investigation branch report on the Sea Empress. [8785]

The chief inspector has advised me that he hopes to complete his report and submit it to me as soon as possible. He has to consider comments made to him by those he has consulted under the marine accident investigation regulations and amend his draft report if he considers it appropriate to do so in the light of those comments. The report will be published after it has been submitted to me.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will cover Lord Donaldson's recommendations, which were made some 20 months before the Sea Empress ran aground, and that the recommendations about the placing of a powerful tug in the western approaches were not implemented either by him or by his predecessor, the present chairman of the Conservative party? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that no Minister has been interviewed by the MAIB on those important issues? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, bearing it in mind that we need a full and open investigation of those matters, that if Ministers are not held to account or questioned on those matters, the only conclusion can be that the part of the report covering ministerial responsibility will be a whitewash?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the inspector will of course cover everything that is relevant to the conduct of his inquiry into why the accident happened.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is encouraging that the marine pollution control unit report concluded that the clean-up operation following the incident went well? Does he also agree that it is an elementary breach of natural justice that what was essentially a draft report has been leaked to the media?

On the first point, the MPCU report has just been published and it shows that, with the co-operation of many voluntary and statutory organisations, the damage done by that serious incident was minimised and that the impact on the tourism industry in Pembroke was not nearly as bad as had initially been feared.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, amid all the environmental damage and the anguish to the hotel industry and fishermen in the area, one fact stands out: the exemplary way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has represented his constituents?

That may be for others to judge later this year. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has been diligent about questioning Ministers, as have a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to improve safety on the road for cyclists. [8784]

A third fewer cyclists were killed or seriously injured on the roads in 1995 than in the 1981 to 1985 annual average. We will build on this improvement through the national cycling strategy by encouraging local authorities to provide for safe cycling in their transport policies and programmes.

Is the Minister aware that, when I occasionally cycle from Shepherd's Bush to Westminster, I feel like a by-election waiting to happen? As I have no wish to be the person responsible for restoring the Government's majority, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the majority of people who cycle feel unsafe and that is why the figures are so low? Will he publish a map of cycle routes—particularly in London—that are regarded as safe or can be protected? Will he take steps to restore the minor works budgets to local authorities? It is no good the Government saying that they are encouraging local authorities, when they are taking the grant away.

Let me not speculate on any absences from this House, temporary or permanent.

Given that the level of cycling deaths is the lowest since records were first compiled in 1927, is it not entirely right and desirable that the Government should continue to encourage cycling on our roads? In that context, would it not be a good idea to revisit the question of cyclists being a danger to themselves by going through red traffic signals, as they are doing more and more frequently?

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. Safe cycling is enhanced by responsible cyclists. People who cycle through red lights—or cycle without lights or on the pavement—are not enhancing the good name of cycling and are doing nothing for their own safety or that of other people. It is important that we continue our training programmes for children, and it is good that some 40 per cent. of children now receive cycling training before the age of 12. We must continue our campaigns to improve the quality of cycling, and we are about to consult on the mandatory fitting of bells and lights to cycles at the point of sale.

Would it not be a good way of ensuring that more mothers were confident about allowing their children to ride to school if we put money into research into safety, particularly of children? Perhaps we ought to look at the provision of cycle helmets on a mandatory basis. Before any decisions are taken, should we not assess the practical steps that the Government can take to keep children safe on the roads?

The hon. Lady is right. We are engaged in research and campaigns to encourage safer cycling by children, and our cycle safe campaign was very much geared towards the wearing of helmets. We can encourage safe cycling from an early age if schools continue to work with local authorities and road safety officers, and mothers can then have confidence that their children can cycle safely. The Department will continue to support local authorities that make sensible plans in that direction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government support for the south Thamesside development route, phase 4. [8783]

My hon. Friend is quite rightly a strong supporter of the south Thamesside development route, phase 4. We have undertaken to fund the scheme through transport supplementary grant, at an estimated cost of £14.1 million.

Will not this project be, in effect, the Northfleet town bypass? The town will have, on one side, the Thames tunnel of the channel tunnel rail link and, on the other, Ebbsfleet international station. During the construction of those large projects, heavy goods vehicles will rumble through the town, as there is currently no other route for them. Does my hon. Friend accept that the people of Northfleet are fed up to the back teeth with Kent county council, which has delayed the introduction of the project? Two years after the public exhibition, the council is now involved in an inspector's inquiry. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, as and when Kent county council does its work properly, he will ensure that the inquiry is carried out as fast as possible?

We are waiting for Kent county council to contact us about suitable dates for the public inquiry. When it has done so, we shall make the arrangements for the inquiry as rapidly as possible and take the scheme through its statutory procedures without undue delay.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the commencement of the design and other preparatory work for the A38 trunk road improvement scheme between Carkeel and Stoketon Cross; and if he will make a statement. [8782]

The A38 Saltash to Stoketon Cross improvement scheme has been retained in the main road programme. Design work on the scheme will be resumed when resources allow.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that much-needed road improvement will help to provide access to the Broadmoor Farm business park and that, when Caradon district council considered the application, it was obliged by the Highways Agency to impose a condition that will not allow that exciting development, with a job creation potential of 2,500, to go ahead until the new road is complete? Surely, in view of its importance to the local economy, he should provide the necessary funds for the design and preparatory work now.

I am well aware of the importance of the scheme to that imaginative development. That is why, in the 1995 review of the road programme, I separated that part of the improvement from a larger scheme. My understanding is that the developers are content with the condition that has been imposed by the district council following the direction from the Highways Agency, but we have made it clear to both the council and the developers that the agency is willing to negotiate with the developers on a more limited road improvement, to enable the scheme to be occupied; the development may proceed, but the condition is that it may not be occupied until the necessary road improvements have been carried out. We remain ready to negotiate on the extent of the improvements.

On behalf of the millions of motorists who may use the A38 trunk road improvement and similar trunk roads throughout the country, I ask the Minister to confirm that he is considering his senior management proposal to abolish the option of a six-month road fund licence and the option of the purchase of licence stamps, as a cost-cutting exercise—

Order. This is a very specific question, and the hon. Gentleman must either be specific or resume his seat—one or the other.

The abolition of the six-month road licence will be used by motorists on the A38 improvement—

Order. That must be it. The hon. Gentleman cannot widen a question as specific as this.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Airways regarding the slots into Heathrow from Plymouth. [8781]

I have recently written to the chief executive of British Airways to pass on local concerns about the future of the Brymon Airways service between Heathrow, Plymouth and Newquay.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the merger between British Airways and American Airlines goes ahead, the President of the Board of Trade could make British Airways give up a substantial number of slots in and out of Heathrow, which in turn could seriously affect flights from Plymouth and Newquay to Heathrow? Is he further aware that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has also said that those air links are vital to investment in the south-west? When will the Government do some joined-up thinking on the question? May I suggest that the Secretary of State's Department make a start by ring-fencing the slots to protect the flights to and from Heathrow and the south-west, which would in turn protect jobs and investment in west Devon and Cornwall?

As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is holding consultations on proposals concerning the alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, and I do not propose to make any comment on those consultations, which are fairly and clearly a matter for him.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the importance of this service to the economy of Cornwall and of Plymouth and west Devon? Today, still more job losses in Cornwall have been announced at English China Clays. Will my right hon. Friend receive a delegation of both Government and Opposition Members from the south-west to discuss this important issue and the absolute need to safeguard this facility for the south-west?

My hon. Friend extends an invitation that I find difficult to decline. Although I have recently received a deputation of south-west Members, in view of the strength of feeling on the matter, if my hon. Friend contacts my private office to arrange a meeting I shall be pleased to see him.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that one reason why British Airways' American tie-up should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is the threat that it poses to consumer interests? This matter affects consumer interests in the south-west. Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) correct to demand the matter's referral? Is it not bad form that the Government are discussing BA bailing them out with millennium money at the same time as this matter is before the Government? It should be demonstrably clear that nothing will impede a fair and appropriate consideration of the need for referral, uncluttered by the nice offers made by British Airways in respect of the wider United Kingdom interest.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but he has made it at the wrong Question Time. Referral rests not with my Department but with that of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require the privatisation of Humberside international airport. [8780]

It is our policy to encourage privatisation of local authority-owned airports, as we believe that the commercial approach of the private sector benefits their operation and efficiency. The policy is working, and I hope that the owners of Humberside airport will consider the benefits of private ownership.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but he and his predecessors have been encouraging Humberside airport to go private for many years, and no notice has been taken. Is it not time that the Government introduced legislation to require Humberside airport to be put into private hands? Even East Midlands airport, which used to have Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council among its shareholders, has been put in private hands.

Exciting ideas for the Conservative manifesto are always welcome, but, as my hon. Friend implied, the existing policy has been successful in persuading a number of local authorities, many of them Labour controlled, to dispose of their interests in local airports such as Liverpool, East Midlands and Cardiff. I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's proposition on compulsion.

I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that there would be no Humberside airport but for the strategic authority, which represented Humberside as a whole, that developed it. Will he ensure that that strategic approach is continued by the successor authorities and that no local authority-owned airport is privatised against the will of its owners?

The position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made clear, is that the Government are making good progress by persuasion. Many local authorities understand the advantage of privatising their airports to allow them access to capital that would not have been available to them had they remained in the public sector. We can debate on another occasion whether Humberside airport would have come about without the existence of a strategic authority. I hope that the new authorities responsible for Humberside will see the good progress made by local authority airports that have been privatised, which, in conjunction with private sector capital, have expanded in a way that would not otherwise have been possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the volume of rail freight has changed in the past five years. [8779]

In 1991, rail carried 134.8 million tonnes of freight, falling to 97.3 million tonnes in 1994, but rising again to 103.2 million tonnes in 1995. The key to rail freight's revival is privatisation. New private sector freight companies are attracting new traffic to the railway.

In thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I particularly welcome the announcement last autumn on rate increases and the rail freight grant? Does he share my view that that will encourage the movement of freight on to rail, which is good not only for motorists but for the environment?

I certainly hope that the increase in the mileage rate for motorway traffic will attract more of that road freight on to rail. Since 1979, more than 150 rail freight grants have been awarded, securing to rail the equivalent of about 3 million lorry journeys a year. About one in eight of all types of rail freight traffic have benefited at some time from grant.

If the Government are serious about rail freight, why has the freight facility grant not been fully spent? Of the £70 million available, why was only £32 million spent between 1985 and 1996? Is it not the truth that the Government have no intention of trying to increase rail freight?

On the contrary, the reason why I have adjusted the mileage rates, and why we have under way a review of ways in which administrative procedures for the grants could be further streamlined, is that we wish the grants to be taken up fully. Evidence shows how effective they are in encouraging new traffic to move off roads on to rail, or to be retained on rail, whereas it might otherwise have been lost to road.

Is it not time for everyone to acknowledge that the best prospects for rail freight are in the private sector and that the whole railway is being transformed by privatisation, which is liberating the management and injecting the capital, as state ownership could never possibly have done? Should we not remind ourselves that we were told that this was all going to be chaotic and disastrous, but the reverse is happening?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. English, Welsh and Scottish Railway and Freightliners have impressive investment plans and both have already demonstrated their ability to attract new business for the freight railway. It is in the new private environment that rail freight has its brightest future.

Is the Minister aware that, in the mad scramble to sell off the passenger franchise for the west coast main line, rail paths that are essential for the efficient operation of freight are being sacrificed? Will he advise the Rail Regulator that, in the negotiations to let passenger franchise, freight capacity must not be reduced?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's initial supposition. The Rail Regulator needs no instructions either from me or from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to discharge his responsibilities to ensure that access to the railway is available both for passenger and for freight traffic.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding proposed investment in London Underground for the next and subsequent financial years. [8778]

From time to time, I receive representations from a range of organisations and individuals about investment in London's underground rail network.

I am sure that the representations that the Secretary of State has received lately will have told him that, in the Budget, he and his colleagues produced an investment programme for London Underground for the next few years that will mean that, shortly, we will have the lowest investment for 20 years. Is it not true that there will be nearly £400 million-worth of cuts in essential renewal and maintenance programmes on existing lines? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to people in London who, because of his cuts, will get worse services, while their fares go up by as much as 20 per cent.

Next year's grant to London Transport has been protected—there has been no reduction. That should allow investment of about £1.1 billion over three years from Government grant. If we then include all the resources available to London Underground from private finance and elsewhere, that should allow a total of £2.2 billion of investment in London Transport over the three years, including completion of the Jubilee line extension. Far from being low, the investment level in the core network will, on average, be 50 per cent. above the 1980s level and twice the 1970s level, so the gloomy scenario that hon. Gentleman paints is simply not true.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to shift his focus from investment in London Underground—on which, as his figures show, the Government have an excellent record—to its future under private enterprise, which would give an opportunity for the higher-quality service that the travelling public so urgently need?

As my hon. Friend will know, back in October my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground. That exercise is now under way and I am heartened by my hon. Friend's support for it.

Is not the experience of passengers and businesses alike that the Government's record on London Underground is a disgrace to London and damaging to the economy? Does it not show how Conservative Members lurch from one extreme to the other when, after slashing maintenance and investment in the tube, all they can now offer for a nightmare Tory fifth term is the extreme of privatisation?

The difference between the Opposition and the Government on this subject could not be clearer: Opposition Members allege that we are under-investing, but they are not able to commit themselves to spending one penny more than the Government currently spend. We are investing at double the rate of the 1970s and, in addition, we are prepared to consider privatisation as a means of improving on that record. Londoners will draw their own conclusion as to which of those two approaches is the most constructive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new trains London Transport has received for the Northern line; and how many are planned to be delivered in 1997. [8777]

I understand that GEC Alsthom delivered the first new Northern line train to London Underground last month and plans to deliver 23 more trains during 1997. The first trains are expected to enter passenger service from the middle of this year.

As one who has been at the controls of the first new Northern line train, I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that, because those trains come under the private finance initiative, they are immune from any public spending decisions taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor? Will he also confirm that the PFI can be used to finance further developments on the Northern line and that, whenever privatisation has taken place, it has led to strict price controls and increased investment by the private sector?

My hon. Friend puts it succinctly and brilliantly, and I am delighted to learn that he has personally tested the trains and knows the quality of the additional service that has been brought forward by the private sector in support of London's underground. He is right to say that the £400 million that is coming from the private finance initiative in support of those trains means that Londoners will have the new service earlier and at a price that they do not have to pay themselves. The Northern line is benefiting from new trains and from the refurbishment of 10 stations, and it will go on to benefit from other aspects of the PFI that are currently being planned and proposed by London Underground in respect of power, ticketing and communications.

How can the House attach any credibility to the Minister's reply, when the Government propose to threaten not only the introduction of new rolling stock on the Northern line but the entire underground network with the abyss of privatisation? Does not the sudden advocacy of the extreme right-wing views of the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) show the Government's desire to placate the enemy within rather than to create a modern and properly integrated public transport system for London?

Well, well! The hon. Lady refers not once to the massive investment in London's underground in recent years, or to the programme of future investment. She describes privatisation as a great threat and ignores the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are carefully considering whether the principles of privatisation could apply to London Underground and whether they could do so to the benefit of the London travelling public. If that review finds that privatisation would benefit Londoners, and if the best route to achieve that can be found, Londoners will be pleased and I suspect that, within a few months of its implementation, the Labour party will claim parentage for the privatisation of London Underground.

"The lack of clarity surrounding the position of the other main parties should not be tolerated any longer."

Does my hon. Friend recall how poorly run the Northern line and other underground services were under the unlamented Greater London council, run by the Labour party? Will he ensure that steps are taken and proposals made to maintain improvements that have been made since the GLC abandoned that task and all others, and ensure a better future for the London traveller, who jolly well deserves it?

Yes, like my hon. Friend I recall those days, when the underground was a very poor service and investment was at a minimum. Investment is going into the lines. We have just spoken about investment in the Northern line. About £800 million of modernisation is now being completed on the Central line. Train refurbishments have taken place on the Bakerloo, Circle, Hammersmith and City and Victoria lines and are in hand for the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure the continuing improvement of rail services on the North London line over the franchise period. [8776]

The improvements to the railway infrastructure on the North London line carried out by Railtrack during the past two years and the commencement in spring 1997 of heavy overhauls of the rolling stock used on the route will provide a solid foundation on which the North London Railways franchisee will build throughout the franchise term.

Will the Minister comment on why the franchise documents that have been dispatched to encourage people to take over the North London line include nothing about new stations, improvements of services, increased train frequency or station safety and pay no regard to the unanimous views expressed by local government and train users of the current appalling state of the line?

I beg leave to differ with the hon. Gentleman. In our previous exchange on the subject, he challenged me to travel unannounced on that line. I did so and experienced the service, and I became aware of where improvements were needed. The reliability and punctuality of the service have greatly improved in the past year or two, but obviously the service needs the investment that will come from privatisation.

Could my hon. Friend find a simpler way of answering the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the fears that he expresses? Similar fears were expressed by all political parties when we were franchising Network SouthWest and the line from Weymouth to Waterloo. Would not a cheap awayday ticket—

A single.

Not a single ticket as we want him to come back to London. Would not an awayday ticket allow the hon. Gentleman to see exactly what is happening—improved services, stations, frequency and punctuality, and reduced fares—which is what my constituents want?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the benefits of privatisation. He highlighted the benefits that have come on lines in his area and asked me to act as post box to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to go on an awayday down the south-west line. With our present majority, I am happy to invite him to go on an awayday any day.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his priorities for transport investment in the Thames gateway area. [8775]

The transport strategy for London described the Government's strategy for transport investment in the Thames gateway area. It includes construction of the channel tunnel rail link, with stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet; improvements to the A13 and other trunk roads in London and Kent; the Jubilee line extension; and the proposed package of new river crossings.

Does the Minister share my concern about the threat to the prospect of regeneration of the Thames gateway arising from the current investment crisis at London Underground? Is it true, as the Evening Standard reports today, that the reopening of the East London line will be delayed for another two years? Does he deprecate, as I do, the deferral for two years of the planned refurbishment of District line stations in my constituency? The Minister saw for himself recently the condition of East Ham station and talked to staff about their aspirations for refurbishment. How will the Government address the serious crisis in east London and the Thames gateway area, which was precipitated by the catastrophic Budget settlement for London Underground?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was responding on the Budget question, because there is no such budget cut. For the coming year, the figure will be as planned. There is no reduction for London Underground. Indeed, increasing quantities of money will come from London Underground's operating surplus and from the private sector.

Given that the Dartford constituency contains a significant number of projects associated with the Thames gateway concept, will my hon. Friend assure me that his officials will monitor rigorously and robustly the transport infrastructure developments as they take place so that my constituents and people from the south-east region as a whole can gain easy access to Ebbsfleet, Bluewater, and other north Dartford developments for commerce, leisure and housing?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that officials of the Highways Agency and the transport authorities look carefully at volumes and flows of passengers and at the various developments. A key development will be Ebbsfleet station, which will be looked at carefully in terms of its road and rail connections to the part of Kent to which my hon. Friend refers. As he knows, a number of road schemes are in the programme.

Is not one of the proposals for the Thames gateway the extension of the valuable North London link line from Silvertown across the river to Woolwich arsenal and along the North Kent line to the area of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)? Is the Minister aware that the Government insist that that should be funded by the PFI? The revenue from about a mile and a half of track will certainly not pay for the capital, so they are effectively blocking an imaginative and sound public proposal.

Nothing has been blocked. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a package of crossings that were highlighted in the report. The Woolwich rail tunnel is one proposal; the Gallions Reach multimodal crossing is another; and the third Blackwall crossing is the third. Those are being considered carefully to see whether they are viable, and progress will be announced in due course.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the wages bill for catering staff in 1996–97. [8755]

On current estimates, £4.1 million. Estimates for catering and administration staff within this total are not made separately, but there is a separate budget for banqueting and souvenir staff costs, which are borne on a House of Commons Refreshment Department trading account. The approved trading account budget for 1996–97 includes staff costs of £827,000.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. No Member of the House grudges a penny that is spent by the Refreshment Department on wages, but many of us feel that when the Department is investing in new facilities, it goes for the gold plated rather than the practical. Will he give us an assurance that that will be considered thoroughly before any new investment is agreed?

The details of schemes of improvement in the Refreshment Department are for the Catering Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee. The Commission has regard to the overall cost, but it must also have regard to staff working conditions and health and safety requirements.

Would it not have been wiser to have increased the poor wages of the catering staff in this place, instead of the ridiculous introduction of an extremely expensive and not very well functioning restaurant, when the previous arrangements were perfectly satisfactory?

The Commission was advised that the previous arrangements were not satisfactory from a health and safety point of view. They were not satisfactory in respect of the conditions in which we expect our staff to work. It is not sufficient to pay tribute to our staff: we must also give them satisfactory working conditions.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many Commission staff are disabled. [8754]

Twelve staff of the Commission are registered disabled people, but there are other disabled staff employed in Departments of the House who have not registered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 12 staff out of the very large staff complement in this building is an extremely low proportion? What steps are being taken to increase the number of registered disabled people who can work in this building? What is being done to improve access and other facilities so that disabled people can work on all floors in the building and in a much wider variety of jobs? Recently, people with disabilities, in a delegation to the Select Committee on Social Security, were given no fewer than three different routes to get from the street to present their case before the Committee, and went through a traumatic experience trying to get there. Is it not a disgrace that the Commission has failed to provide proper access to the building?

At 0.9 per cent., the proportion of disabled staff is lower than the Commission would like. The Commission would like to employ more disabled people on the staff of the House. It has a policy of showing the availability of all posts to people with disabilities, and of trying to make sure that the facilities available assist people with disabilities to take employment. It has pursued that policy vigorously. On access to the building for staff and visitors, the Commission has sought to implement all the advice that it has been given by the Accommodation and Works Committee and that Committee's consultants on ways in which access can be improved. The Commission will continue to look favourably at suggestions for improvement of access.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what additional facilities are planned for visitors to the Palace of Westminster. [8753]

In its first report of 1992–93, the Catering Committee recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted to a visitor centre, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative was found for the present lunchtime users. The House agreed to the Committee's report on 12 July 1994. The Catering Committee considers that, until the cafeteria in the new parliamentary building is operational, the recommendation for a visitor centre cannot be implemented.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but I think that he will agree that it is wholly unacceptable that, although the recommendation for a new visitor centre was accepted in 1994, the plans are no further advanced. Many hon. Members' constituencies are located some distance from London and, when school parties from those areas visit the Palace of Westminster, schoolchildren may catch buses as early as 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and they have no opportunity to take any refreshment until they arrive at the House. Will he bring forward plans for the visitor centre so that we can at least offer some refreshment to schoolchildren who travel many miles to visit Westminster?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that is widely shared in the House. If he has some ideas about how the Catering Committee or the Accommodation and Works Committee could deal with the problem, I hope that he will put them to those bodies. At present, 500 people use the Westminster Hall cafeteria at lunchtime and there is a practical problem to be resolved.

Other countries with lesser parliamentary traditions than ours have museums associated with their Parliaments that are well supported and attended. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that if there were a larger parliamentary museum than that housed in the Jewel House—which is not well advertised—it might reduce the number of visitors to Parliament, relieve the pressure and provide an additional attraction?

There could be new facilities to depict the history of this building, but I do not think that anything would take the place of schoolchildren and other visitors being able to see the House of Commons Chamber in which debates take place. Therefore, we must organise our affairs so that they can do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress by the European Community on its review of slots at Heathrow airport. [8774]

We are awaiting proposals from the European Commission on revisions to the current regulations governing slot allocation at all Community airports.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that a fearful row is going on in Europe between two socialist Commissioners, Commissioner Kinnock and Commissioner van Miert. As a result, the report about the future of grandfather rights and slot trading in major European airports has been delayed by more than a year. Is that an example of the British Government being unable to do anything because Brussels bureaucracy is sovereign over matters that it decides to investigate?

We can carry on with the present position, under which a certain amount of slot trading is acceptable. As I said in my original answer, we are awaiting proposals from the European Commission. It has expressed the view that trading is contrary to current regulation, but it remains a grey area. In the meantime, I am not aware of any substantial disadvantage to the United Kingdom civil aviation industry.

Does the Minister appreciate that the best way to relieve pressure on slots at Heathrow would be to grant a second runway to Manchester airport immediately? Hundreds of thousands of people from areas north of Manchester must travel to Heathrow to fly to Strasbourg, Bonn and other destinations in Europe—including the British parliamentary delegations to the European Union, and those to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, of which I am a member. Therefore, I have a vested interest in the matter. I ask the Secretary of State to take an immediate decision that would bring automatic relief to Heathrow.

I commend the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in introducing a question about Manchester airport as a supplementary to a question about slot allocation. He will be pleased to hear that a decision about the second runway at Manchester is imminent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the Heathrow to London rail link. [87731

Work on the Heathrow express project, financed by BAA plc, is progressing well. It expects to start operating in June 1998.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the project is on schedule and will provide a wonderful facility from the airport direct to Paddington? Is he confident that additional services may be grafted on to the line to serve other stations in addition to a full express service?

I confirm what my hon. Friend just said. It is a £350 million investment by the private sector in improving infrastructure in London, which puts a gloss on the debate that we had earlier in Question Time, in which it was implied that improvement could come only through public finance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of investment in safety on London Underground in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996 to date; and what is the planned level for 1997. [8772]

Decisions on investment priorities are a matter for London Underground Ltd. It is impossible to estimate how much money is spent each year on safety because very many projects include some element of safety-related work.

That was a pretty hopeless answer, if I may say so. Did not London Underground warn the Government that its funding for the coming year would put at risk many of the necessary routine safety works that it needs to carry out? Is it not the case that only the most urgent repairs of escalators are being carried out, such that other escalators are often closed and not used? What is the point in ensuring that the brickwork in the East London line tunnels is restored if, at the end of the day, the opening of the line will have to be deferred for a further two years because London Underground cannot carry out basic work on the line and the track?

If I may return the compliment, that was not a very satisfactory supplementary question, because the truth is that any investment in London Underground's track and trains is likely to improve safety. That is what I was saying in my initial answer, and given the real-terms increase in investment, that has to be good news.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the House's procedures for the scrutiny of EU legislation. [8752]

The House's procedures for scrutiny of EC legislation provide for comprehensive and detailed examination of legislation coming before the Council of Ministers. As the Select Committee on European Legislation acknowledged in its recent report on the subject, our system compares extremely well with systems elsewhere in the European Union.

While I have no doubt that our system compares extremely well with those of our European counterparts, may I, as a member of a Committee that considers EU legislation, explain to my right hon. Friend how topsy-turvy it feels to take part in the legislative process? We deal with extremely significant draft legislation in a Second Reading debate, tucked away in Committee upstairs, and then when the primary legislation emerges to implement European legislation, we have proper scrutiny debates of proposed Acts of Parliament down here. There is no way to bind Ministers or to alter legislation once it has been enacted in Europe. Is that not something that we desperately need to consider at the intergovernmental conference?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have made a number of proposals in the context of the IGC, not least of which is that there should be a minimum of four weeks before a proposal can be adopted by the Council of Ministers, to allow for proper scrutiny by national Parliaments. I am glad to say that that idea has attracted significant support.

Will the Lord President consider extending the scope and authority of European Standing Committees A and B, in which we sometimes have quite stimulating debates?

I agree that the debates are sometimes stimulating, although I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) appeared to share that view.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions there have been in the House during 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, and if he will estimate the number likely in the first four months of 1997. [8751]

There were 390 Divisions in the House in the 1992–93 Session, 339 in 1993–94, 202 in 1994–95 and 33 so far this Session. I have made no estimate of the likely number of Divisions in the first four months of 1997.

I suggest that it may be fewer than 33, which was the last figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave. Are the Government likely to obtain Royal Assent for all their legislation before the end of the Session? What are the odds on the month when the election will be called? Will it be decided by the Government at their choice or by the Opposition with our votes?

I am a politician and not a gambling man, although I occasionally buy a lottery ticket. I do not propose to be drawn on that matter by the hon. Gentleman. However, I will say that I hope and expect that we shall be able to carry out our legislative programme, given that the number of Divisions held so far partly reflects the extensive support for that programme.

Is it not true that the number of Divisions fell dramatically in the past two years principally because the Government called upon the vast majority of their Back Benchers to push through the Jopling recommendations? That resulted in many orders, such as the Common Market orders to which the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred, being sent upstairs to Committee. It should be clear to all and sundry that, after the next election, when the Tory party will be in opposition, many Conservative Members will rue the day that they sent all that legislation to Committee.

As hon. Members know, the notion that the Jopling changes were rammed through by a Tory majority is far fetched. Total agreement was reached through the usual channels. I accept that the hon. Gentleman did not agree with those changes, but he should take the matter up with his hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who supported them.