If he will make a statement on procedures which are followed before roadworks on trunk roads are permitted. [105783]

We intend to introduce legislation to control streetworks, and the Highways Agency is also introducing measures to manage trunk road maintenance better. The House will wish to know that, as part of the trunk road noise reduction programme, I have today set for the first time a timetable for the removal of all concrete surfaces on the motorway and trunk road network. I am also giving the go-ahead to three major road improvements: the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton improvement; the A57/A628 Mottram. Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass; and the A45/A46 Tollbar End improvement. I have also asked the Highways Agency to take forward work on three schemes with a view to entry into the targeted programme of improvements: the A38 Derby junctions improvement; the M40/A46 Longbridge roundabout improvement; and the A55/A483 junction improvement at Chester. There is a statement in the Library on this matter.

I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of Stale, but is he aware that a report by his own Department, published in the Leicester Mercury this week, shows that Leicester is the most congested city in England after London? People in Leicester are spending up to 26 per cent. of their journey times waiting in queues because of roadworks. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about this shambolic state of affairs, and will he look carefully at the Bill that I am introducing this week concerning compensation for those who are held up in such queues? Will he meet representatives of Leicester city council and other campaigners to try to resolve this appalling state of affairs?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is meeting representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss this issue, and I am sure that he would also be happy to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) about it. My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that one of the main sources of congestion in towns and cities across the whole country is roadworks. The legislation that the Government are introducing will mean that traffic managers can be appointed who have a duty to issue permits to control what has been, up until now, fairly unrestricted access to digging up roads. The object will be to keep traffic moving.

The approach has been tried out in London over the last few weeks, and it is having some effect. There is no doubt that the endless digging up of roads, and roadworks that start and seem to go on and on, cause major disruption not only in Leicester but elsewhere, and the Government are determined to introduce legislation far better to regulate the access to roads and, above all, to enable us to achieve our No. 1 priority of keeping traffic moving as much as we possibly can.

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about the replacement of concrete road surfaces. Can he give the House any more information on that announcement, such as when the A50 Derby to Stoke road will be resurfaced? I have mentioned that road to him on many occasions.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I am sure that all hon. Members who have experience of constituents being bothered by the noise that comes from concrete motorways will welcome this announcement. The work will, of course, take time. It will probably be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House if I do not read out the entire list of roads and the dates when they are going to get done. However, the press notice has a list attached to it of all the stretches of road involved, and an indication of when they are going to be done. Twenty-six will be done in the near future; the others will be clone over the next few years. All the information is in the Library, but if the hon. Gentleman has any further questions, he will no doubt get in touch with us directly.

The Secretary of State's announcement about the A57/A628 Tintwistle and Mottram bypass will be greeted with delight in Tintwistle and Glossop in the High Peak-and, indeed, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) not least because this road was taken out of the Government programme by the Conservatives as long ago as 1994. Will the Secretary of State please give us an indication of the timetable that he is considering, so that we may know when this road will become a reality?

My hon. Friend is right; it is a great pity that this project was taken out of the planned road improvements programme some years ago. It is likely that work will start in 2006. Planning work now has to start, and the necessary plans have to be drawn up with a view to entering into contracts. I visited the area last week, and it was perfectly obvious to me that the level of congestion in those small towns was completely unacceptable. I am very glad that many of the environmental agencies recognise that, notwithstanding the fact that this is an area of some sensitivity, a bypass round those three towns is absolutely essential. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome.

As always, the Government's announcement is not as good as it is made out to be. Work on many of the roads with concrete surfaces will not be completed until 2011, and the money to be spent on the programme is almost identical to the sum that will be raised over the next 10 years through the new stealth tax on motorists using the M25. It is from this month that the Dartford crossing has been paid for, and it will be paid for again—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should try to ask a question.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the money that will be raised from the stealth tax on the Dartford crossing is more or less all that will be spent on the new road improvements?

What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that my announcement today is infinitely better than anything that he could ever have announced. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) pointed out, some of the proposals to which we are giving the go-ahead were stopped by the last Conservative Government. Resurfacing concrete roads will take time because it would be impossible, and highly undesirable, to shut entire lengths of the motorway network for resurfacing, so the work must be phased in and done in an orderly way.

The big difference between our parties is that this Government have the money and commitment to improve our road network while the Conservative party is committed to a 20 per cent. spending reduction. The transport budget would undoubtedly suffer greatly from those cuts—we have only to look at what the Conservatives did to the transport system when they were in office. We are now putting right some of their mistakes.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of the welcome changes to interchange junctions on the A38. Will he reassure me that land-take will be kept to an absolute minimum, especially around Markeaton junction and Markeaton park?

I hope that it will. We should aim to take as little land as possible during all road improvements. If my hon. Friend would like more details of the current proposals, I am sure that we could arrange for him to see them so that he could make representations directly to those responsible for the planning process.

How many meetings he has had in the last six months with train operating companies about train performance. [105784]

I meet train operating companies on a regular basis to discuss their work, including the need to improve reliability of train services.

What comfort can the Secretary of State offer to my constituents who regularly travel from Bracknell to Waterloo but have found that South West Trains has cut the service by half? Its managing director, Andrew Haines, has just written to me saying:

"the doubling of off-peak services to Reading from two to four per hour…was only credible if Network Rail/Railtrack continued to improve the performance of the network and its assets. In an environment where Network Rail-caused delays are twice the size that they were prior to Hatfield in October 2000, the 10 per cent. increase in train services operated since privatisation is unsustainable."

I would make three points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, as we discussed in the last Transport Question Time, there have been reductions of some 180 out of 18,000 services that run every day, which was done to improve reliability. Some off-peak services have been taken off South West Trains to ensure that there is greater reliability, because passengers say that that is their No. 1 priority. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is right that there have been planned improvements to services passing through Bracknell.

My third point relates to Network Rail. It is right that not only train operating companies must improve their performance—about 38 per cent. of delays are attributable to South West Trains—because Network Rail must also improve the quality of track. In the old days, British Rail reckoned that 500 miles of track needed to be replaced each year. In the six years before privatisation, under the last Conservative Government, that dropped to 300 miles. The figure dropped to 200 miles under Railtrack, and in one year it was just over 140. That illustrates the scale of the problems that Railtrack left us. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too excited—I know that more friends of Railtrack are on the Conservative Benches than anywhere else—he should remember what happens when investment is cut and there is no year-on-year investment. The price for that is being paid by rail passengers, and we are determined to put that right.

May I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments on the Rail track legacy? As a former Railtrack employee, I saw only too clearly the failure to invest in renewal of our tracks. When he met train operating companies, did he explore the possibilities for a social railway on lines such as the Esk valley, which runs from Whitby in my constituency to Middlesbrough? Do we not need a new settlement for those lines and to ensure that we service the needs of such remote communities, which are often in the most inaccessible parts of the country?

I am well aware, as is the Strategic Rail Authority, of the value of rural lines serving remote communities, but I say to my hon. Friend that the No. 1 priority for the rail industry has to be driving up reliability. Look at the figures overall: just under half the problems that are causing delays are the fault of the train operating companies, while the other half are Network Rail's. The train operating companies and Network Rail need to make a determined effort to get to the root of those problems, sort them out and drive up reliability. The latest figures show that there is a slow improvement, but frankly, the industry needs to do an awful lot better.

Given that train operating companies, like passengers, will have been alarmed by recent reports that there may be scaling back and closures of some branches and smaller stations, will the Secretary of State tell the train operating companies and the House whether he is committed to preserving the entire existing branch network?

I am committed to ensuring that we have a reliable railway service. Under any Government and under any organisation, the exact pattern of services will be subject to review from time to time. As the hon. Gentleman is committed to a 20 per cent. cut in the money spent on railways, he should not stand at the Dispatch Box and maintain that, somehow, he will get a better railway by spending a lot less on it.

What steps he is taking to protect former mineral railway lines for future transport use. [105785]

The Strategic Rail Authority's property advisory group investigates the transport potential of former railway land that the SRA inherited from British Rail. It has retained more than 300 sites with potential for transport use, of which at least 12 are former mineral lines or facilities.

Does the Minister accept that former colliery railway lines in Nottinghamshire and across the country can provide park-and-ride facilities, light rail solutions and more sustainable transport corridors for cycling and walking? Given that fact, will he have discussions with, for example, Network Rail to ensure that it responds quickly and more positively to the many proposals being put to it?

I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. He has campaigned hard on the issue over a number of years, and I can assure him that the Government share his concern that disused railway lines, whether they be former mineral lines or not, should be used, where possible, for transport. That is why we have released nearly 200 such sites for transport use and, as I said, 300 have been identified for possible future use. I note that, owing largely to my hon. Friend's actions, the Silverhill colliery scheme is likely to be settled and the contracts signed by the end of the year so as to make use of it as a country park cycleway. His points are well made and very much in line with our policy.

Is the Minister aware that, a year ago, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched the aggregates levy sustainability fund, which promised £12 million towards ensuring environmentally-friendly transport of minerals and aggregates? Can he therefore explain to the House why his Department has announced that it is not prepared to allocate that money for that purpose? Does that not show a lack of joined-up thinking, just like the cut that it has made in the freight facilities grant?

The hon. Gentleman mentions the freight facilities grant, which has poured a great deal of money into getting traffic and aggregates off the road and on to rail. We still have £40 million in the scheme, which is doing some of the things that he says he has the ambition to do.

I have raised previously the future of the national forest line, which serves mineral extraction operations in south Derbyshire and north-west Leicestershire. The closure of the Drakelow power station in my constituency presents substantial opportunities for review of the line's future. Will the Department take those opportunities?

Yes, indeed. Sometimes when a closure is intended it is possible for the line to be used for other purposes, and this is a good example. My hon. Friend may wish to write to me, and to the Strategic Rail Authority. The line is certainly one of those that we could consider for future transport use.

If he will make a statement on the rail franchise process for Wales and the Borders. [105786]

When the announcement of the rail franchise for Wales will be made. [105799]

The Strategic Rail Authority expects to announce the preferred bidder in June. The new franchise is expected to commence in the autumn.

I very much hope, as does most of Wales, that the June date is a firm one.

Can the Minister give an undertaking that any cost savings identified during the franchise process involving the train operating companies that are bidding and the SRA will be dedicated to new services, and that there will be no overall diminution of the amounts available for the franchise in Wales? Will he ensure that in future there is better co-ordination between the SRA and the Welsh Assembly, and that the Assembly's rail priorities are those espoused in Wales by the SRA?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the new franchise as an all-Wales franchise. I think that it fulfils the Welsh Assembly's ambition, providing for better dialogue between the operator and the Assembly, and will allow a new focus on services in Wales.

The SRA has told bidders to consider what services they could provide, with varying levels of subsidy. The aim is to ensure that we obtain the maximum value from the subsidiary. Any reduced subsidiary options would certainly not include route closures.

When the SRA considers additional services, will it look closely at the integration of services from my constituency to England, including those running down to London? Although Wrexham is the major town in north Wales, it does not yet have an hourly service linked with the service to London from Chester. Will the Minister take that up with the SRA, and give Wrexham the service that it deserves?

I recognise that service integration needs improvement. One of the advantages of an all-Wales and the borders franchise is that, rather than a number of operators discussing the integration of services to and from Wales, there wall be only one such operator.

The operator of the new franchise will need to work with the SRA and the operator of the London services to maximise integration, and to benefit my hon. Friend's constituents as well as others travelling to and from Wales.

Wales and the Borders offers a valued service to the small towns in my constituency, which is currently under threat. Does the Minister agree that the SRA is not helping the Government's 10-year transport plan by applying pressure to TOCs to reduce services to London termini?

No, I do not. I think that the new proposal from Wales and the borders will benefit not just those in Wales but those on the periphery. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the franchise operator will need to work closely with the other operators to make the best use of the lines. The utilisation capacity study that is currently under way will ensure that all users gain the greatest possible benefit.

May I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), and ask the Minister to consider not just the inter-city connections mentioned by my hon. Friend but local connections such as Wrexham to Bidston, which runs an important service across a popular travel-to-work area?

It is not just a matter of looking at the services with in Wales and to the borders; we must also look at the inter-city routes and how they integrate. As my hon. Friend suggests, the benefit of the new franchise is that that sort of integration and cross-working between operators can take place for the benefit of his constituents and many others in Wales and surrounding areas.

How many meetings he has had with passengers' interest groups in the last year about the 10-year transport plan. [105787]

My right hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with passenger interest groups over the past year, at which a range of current transport issues were discussed.

After listening to the answers to the previous question, particularly as it affects my constituents who still do not have disabled access to Leominster station, will the Minister tell the House why, after the Select Committee's comments on the 10-year plan—that it was "incoherent" and "incomprehensible", and that it

"failed to provide a vision for a more equitable, safer, and more efficient transport system"—

any passenger should believe that that has changed?

If we looked at the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, we would find that his constituents have benefited from the rural bus challenge —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ten-year plan?"]. The 10-year plan applies to all modes of transport, as hon. Members should be aware. For its rail service, Leominster is on the Shrewsbury to Cardiff railway line. The A49 trunk road is a bypass and preparation is being made for a route management strategy for that road, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, carries much freight and is a vital north-south link. There is also a Leominster industrial access road. Those issues relate to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Being based near to Wales, he will know that the new franchising for Wales and the Borders has been widely welcomed. That shows that we are delivering. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from previous answers, as well as delivering, we are insisting on value for money and ensuring that money put into the transport network, notably for rail, actually delivers a service.

On the assumption that the Minister has had discussions about rail safety with interest groups, will he tell the House what advice he gave those groups about the current disputes on rail safety assessments, in which the Strategic Rail Authority appears to be subsidising the nine employers disputing the case for improved safety standards, against the interests of the eight companies that have agreed to the improved standards? Does the SRA have any legal authority to intervene to provide public subsidy for employers in a private dispute?

My hon. Friend was slightly incorrect when he said that eight companies have agreed to the new standards. The issue at stake is whether Railway Safety should reconsider the safety standard. Great North Eastern Railway and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers put the case to Railway Safety, which is already examining it. In other words, it is already in procedure. Given that it is in procedure, I find it incomprehensible, quite frankly, that we need disputes in other rail companies in order to get it into procedure. The key issue is that it will be evaluated technically by Railway Safety, which will examine the views of several organisations, including those representing drivers as well as guards, and a standard will be agreed. I do not understand—and I doubt whether the travelling public understand—the need for a dispute when the matter is already under consideration.

The Secretary of State said that he wants to drive up reliability for rail passengers. Does the Minister of State accept that spending on Network Rail is going through the roof? From £21 billion, it is projected to go up by another £10 billion for this coming financial year alone, but standards of reliability and punctuality are falling through the floor. How long do train passengers have to wait, after six years of this Government, before standards of service improve?

What the hon. Lady should remember is that in the days of privatisation, 200 miles of track were replaced a year; BR replaced 300 miles of track, but Network Rail has to replace some 400 miles of track because of the historic underinvestment that was the Tory record, along with the fragmentation of the rail system. The hon. Lady has identified the early stages of assessment by Network Rail of what work needed to be done; at the same time, it has said that it needs better control of cost over-runs inherited from Railtrack. That is a very serious issue. Railtrack's inability to understand or control costs led to its demise. Network Rail has started to take some of the contracts back in-house so that it can get a better evaluation, and control over costs.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the views of disabled passengers when next he meets them. The level of service provided for disabled passengers by many train operators is still very far short of ideal. It is, in fact, quite appalling in some cases. My right hon. Friend may be shocked to find out that it is still possible for disabled passengers using wheelchairs to be loaded on to a train, only to discover that they cannot get off at the station for which they have bought a ticket. I know that that is true, because it happened to me only a few weeks ago. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the train operators to try and improve the service?

To be fair to them, the train operators are normally receptive on this matter, especially when cases arise that demonstrate that the system is failing. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend gave me details of the case that she mentioned: not because she was involved, but because it shows that there has been a breakdown in the system. We need to work out why that happened, and I shall be delighted to take the matter up with the train operators.

Does the Minister agree that an essential part of the 10-year transport plan is cutting pollution and boosting renewable fuels? Has he been lobbying the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past few days to bring in a further 20p cut in biofuels? That would enable those fuels to compete directly at the forecourt with LPG, and provide us with a clean, green fuel that would be of great benefit to our farmers.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State takes a specialist—nay, obsessional—interest in these matters. He tells me that our fiscal record is the best in the world. Beyond that, it would be imprudent of Ministers to comment on such matters just prior to the Budget.

What steps he is taking to improve community transport in Barnsley.[105788]

Funding for community transport is provided through the local transport plan and urban and rural bus challenge schemes. It is encouraging to see that the partners in Barnsley are making good use of this funding and have recently been successful in securing schemes to serve the communities of Penistone and Athersley.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he probably knows, Barnsley has the highest need for community and social transport in south Yorkshire. However, proposals to be discussed this week would move 60 per cent. of community transport funding into the private and commercial sectors. The money would go to companies governed by commercial considerations such as profitability. Does my right hon. Friend think that that would be best use of those resources? Does the proposal fit the Government's policies in relation to community transport?

My hon. Friend will know that I visited the borough of Barnsley last year and saw the community transport scheme there. I am aware that discussions are taking place with the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, which is looking at the interface between community transport and the accessible mainstream bus services. We must see how that work evolves, and there will need to be discussions afterwards to ensure that an excellent service being provided to the community in Barnsley is sustained.

If he will make a statement on the future level of train services to Macclesfield and Stoke following the upgrade of the west coast main line.

When he expects upgrades to the west coast main line to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [105790]

If he will make a statement on the upgrade of the west coast main line. [105791]

The Strategic Rail Authority will shortly be publishing its final west coast plans. This will give full details of progress with the project to date, the time scales for completion, and the future service levels. The line through Macclesfield and Stoke will be the principal London-Manchester route.

I am grateful for that reply. Is the Secretary of State aware that Macclesfield is one of the major profit centres on the west coast main line? The line is due to close on 17 May for the best part of five months. If the people whom I represent in Macclesfield and the surrounding area are to benefit, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that Macclesfield will benefit from increased rail services, once the upgrading has taken place, and that Macclesfield station will be improved? Also, will he guarantee that rail travellers will get value for money? Most are concerned about service reliability and not about train speed.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point—reliability is absolutely essential. The line will indeed close for a period of just over four months from May. The alternative would have been for two years' interruption, so the big saving in terms of frustration and delays will be the reduction of a two-year period to one of four months.

The hon. Gentleman is right, too, that passengers will see the benefits of the improvement. For example, the London to Manchester journey time will be down by 30 minutes by 2004 and the Glasgow to London journey will be down by an hour two years later. The SRA is planning to increase the frequency of services on several routes. The key to all this is that spending the money that is necessary—and frankly long overdue, since the line was last the subject of a major overhaul in the late 1960s and early 1970s—will lead to improved reliability, with better track, better signalling and, on many routes, new rolling stock coming on to the main line. All in all, that should provide a more reliable, better service than we have at the moment.

The Secretary of State will be aware that two lines of track that run through my constituency are to be increased to four lines of track. The construction period will affect 320 homes in Armitage and Handsacre and 150 homes in Lichfield. During that period, what sort of recourse do my constituents have if they wish to complain? How can they improve conditions if the noise becomes too great or if a 14-week construction period is extended to 28 weeks or 30 weeks? What hope can the Secretary of State give them that there will be a light at the end of the tunnel?

I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has been rehearsing his question all morning. He raises a perfectly reasonably point.

He always does.

Not always.

The SRA and those responsible will make every effort to ensure that the work is carried out as expeditiously as possible. No doubt if the hon. Gentleman's constituents are aggrieved they will come first to him and he can then approach the Department with any difficulties that he may have. In relation to specific measures, it might be better if I write to him, as he knows exactly what the position is.

Will the Secretary of State accept that although rail travellers from my constituency are indeed looking forward to more reliable services after the upgrade of the west coast main line, they are also looking for better information and better integration of cross-country services to link into what I still call Intercity trains stopping at Stoke and Macclesfield?

Furthermore, is he aware that Congleton station is a positive disgrace? It is very inhospitable, and it needs CCTV and a good paint. We need some money spent on it, rather as money is being spent on the up line at Stoke-on-Trent and the down line in the constituency of my hon. and ancient Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton).

It must have been a difficult breakfast this morning.

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I was on that line recently. I agree that there is a need to improve a number of stations on the west coast main line. That will take time. The Government are committed through Network Rail to spending some £10 billion on doing up that line, which is on any view a very considerable investment.

I agree with the hon. Lady's comments about information. Train companies can—and to some extent are already beginning to—do an awful lot more to provide better information, not only in respect of passengers travelling on their own trains, but about the services that they connect with. As I have said to the industry on many occasions, the technology is there—it is not rocket science nowadays. Passengers rightly expect to be treated as customers rather than as hapless victims of the system. The hon. Lady is absolutely right in that regard.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the information about the upgrade of the west coast main line. Although I welcome it, I hope that it will not be at the expense of commuter services. Draft timetables are now being produced. May I seek an assurance that we will see improvements in the frequency of train services from my constituency into London, and that money will be available for the upgrading of train stations and the extension of platforms to ensure that we are able to benefit from these new services?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The whole point of the SRA strategy—not only on the west coast main line but on other lines as well—is to improve capacity on existing track. Upgrading of signalling and some changes that have already been made at Euston station will allow more services to run. As I have said, the SRA plans to publish its final proposals for the west coast line fairly shortly. At that stage, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be able to see precisely what is proposed. I agree that intercity services are very important. In particular, London commuter services are of the utmost importance if we are to bear down on congestion levels in the city.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern over the reductions in cross-country services on the west coast main line—including reductions in the Glasgow-Bournemouth service that will affect my constituency? The main problem on the cross-country services is overcrowding. However, my main concern—and, I hope, that of the Secretary of State—is over the introduction of the pendolino, or tilting train. It appears that there is only one service between Euston and Manchester. Is the Secretary of State confident that such trains will be introduced on time and on budget?

On the issue of the Virgin cross-country service, as my hon. Friend knows, the SRA has made a small reduction in the number of trains running. There are two reasons for that. When the service was launched last September, no account was taken of the effect that an increased number of trains would have at certain pinch points on the track. As a result, there were holdups and trains did not reach their destinations on time. That, in turn, meant that the return journeys were held up as well. For example, a train leaving Aberdeen and going down to the south-west of England could sometimes arrive several hours late and so could not be on time going back. That is why some of those services have been taken out—to make them more reliable. Because trains have been withdrawn, Virgin will be able to use larger trains on those cross-country routes. It is obvious that four-carriage trains are insufficient to cater for the demand that has been generated. The SRA is ensuring that something that was long overdue on the railway network is put in place—proper management. Money is going in, but proper management is essential if we are to have a reliable train service.

My hon. Friend is right to say that one pendolino is running at the moment. The operators have been running more trains, without passengers, to test the line. [Interruption.] In the past, train operators have been anxious to bring new rolling stock into service very quickly, without first checking whether that rolling stock runs effectively and properly. It is better to spend the time necessary on testing new trains before introducing them into full passenger service. If we did not do that, people would quite rightly start to complain.

When will the upgrading of the west coast main line to Liverpool take place? What will be the frequencies of services to London, compared with the frequencies on the Manchester-London line? Why was the north western England rail passengers committee bypassed when the SRA decided to cut all cross-country Virgin services from Liverpool?

On the last point, the SRA now acknowledges that it should have consulted more with rail passengers groups. A number of such groups have made that point and I accept that it is valid. If we are to have rail passengers committees, they ought to be used. They can be used pretty effectively.

As the hon. Lady will know, there are plans to ensure that Liverpool will benefit from the west coast upgrade. I repeat what I said to our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) a few moments ago. The SRA will soon publish its final strategy for the west coast and the hon. Lady will be able to see precisely what is proposed for Liverpool services. She will no doubt make her views known then.

:The Secretary of State is no doubt right to say that many businesses, passengers and families from the west midlands, the north-west and north of the border who will be inconvenienced—and I include tourism businesses in the Lake district—take the view that, on the whole, the pain is worth the gain. However, can I press the Secretary of State to give the House two commitments? First, will he take a personal interest in the quality of the alternative bus services that will be laid on when the west coast main line services are suspended? If they prove inadequate, will he ensure that they are upgraded?

Secondly, to pick up on the comment made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), will the Secretary of State do whatever he can to accelerate the introduction of the pendolinos north of Manchester, where they are looked forward to and anticipated as much as elsewhere?

On the first point, yes, of course. I am aware that if one is going on a journey and there is disruption on the line, one tends to focus on what is happening to oneself at the time rather than on what might happen in a couple of years' time. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the investment going into the west coast main line is well worth it. Once it is complete, the line will be transformed from an ageing, inconvenient and unreliable service to something much better.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I want the pendolino trains to be introduced as quickly as possible, not only to Manchester but beyond. However, it is critically important that there are test runs before the trains are put into full passenger service. Past experience has shown that trying to introduce new rolling stock—and these trains are entirely new for our railway network—sometimes throws up problems that cause disruption, breakdowns or delays, often with extremely unfortunate results. I should like to see the trains in use as quickly as possible, but time spent on getting the service right is time well spent and I hope that, in two years' time, with new trains and upgraded services, people will see a real difference as a result of the massive commitment that the Government have made to investing in the west coast main line.

Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), is the Secretary of State aware by the threat of Virgin Trains that peak-time trains will not stop at Milton Keynes Central? The consequence would be that commuters from that station would entirely fill the county services at peak times, thereby displacing all commuters south of Milton Keynes Central. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the SRA to ensure that that does not happen?

My hon. Friend has raised that matter with me previously, and I take her point. The SRA will want to ensure that there is enough passenger capacity between Milton Keynes and London, whether with Virgin or Silverlink, so that the overcrowding to which she referred will not take place. I have already taken the matter up with the SRA and will write to my hon. Friend about it. I suspect, however, that the main proposals will be set out in the final west coast strategy, to which I have already referred hon. Members. There is no doubt that the train service, especially from Milton Keynes, is extremely important and I want to ensure that the quality and level of service is enhanced as a result of the improvements that we make.

If he will make a statement on the role of the British Transport police in responding to major terrorist incidents. [105794]

The British Transport police play a full part in the British police service within their railways jurisdiction, including the prevention and detection of terrorism. Due to the critical nature of anti-terrorist work the handling of any confirmed incident on the railways would be a joint response involving the BTP, the local police force, the anti-terrorist branch and other emergency services, if necessary.

The Minister will realise that the British Transport police could be faced with a serious emergency, especially on the London underground, in the case of terrorist attack. Is he convinced that the current funding mechanisms allow for the enhanced responsibilities that the BTP may have in that respect? Is the Home Office able to direct additional funds to the BTP without the agreement of the train operating companies? Have the transport police been issued with radiation monitoring equipment, which has, we understand, been issued to the Metropolitan police and some other forces?

I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that there is close liaison between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police, in protocols, man-management and commitment. Handling anti-terrorism has, unfortunately, been a staple for the BTP for a considerable number of years, especially due to the threat in one of the main areas covered by the force—the London underground—and also on the mainline London stations. That is part and parcel of the BTP's ordinary work. If any of that work was constrained by financial issues, we should address them.

Does my right hon. Friend recall yesterday's debate about rail safety and the British Transport police and agree that the many favourable comments that were made then suggest that there should be an increase in the staffing of the transport police for many other reasons as well as those cited by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)?

Yes. I forbear, for the benefit of the rest of the House, from replaying the whole of the rather lengthy debate that we had on the British Transport police during an extremely prolonged debate. When I say that my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) participated in that debate, hon. Members who were not present will get a flavour of the detailed scrutiny that we applied to that subject. What was very clear during the debate was the very high regard in all parts of the House for the work of the British Transport police, and also the increasing effectiveness of those police.

Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is absolutely right that questions were raised with regard to work on other transport facilities, but we did indicate at that time that that was riot what we had consulted on more widely, that this was very much the work of the relevant Home Office or Scottish police forces, but we did recognise the need for extensive joint working in order to contain any potential terrorist threat.

If he will make a statement on the Government's progress with developing regulatory impact assessments. [105841]

The Cabinet Office has a continuous programme of work with Departments to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments. We published revised guidance in January this year and officials are promoting it with a series of seminars and workshops in Departments. RIAs provide a more open system of assessing the risks, costs and benefits of new legislative proposals.

I acknowledge the usefulness of those assessments in quantifying the costs of regulation, but does the Minister accept the criticism of the Better Regulation Task Force that too many of them are of very poor quality, as with the regulation of care homes; some of them have simply disappeared, as with the regulation of animal movements; and most of them are inconsistent and lacking in independence? How does he propose to improve the situation?

The Better Regulation Task Force firmly supports the regulatory impact assessments as a tool to endeavour to help Government improve the quality of the legislation that is passed. That is why the BRTF has drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office in its annual report, "Champions of Better Regulation", a number of RIAs that it believes need to be of higher quality. That work continues and I believe will be a useful contribution to our better regulation endeavours.

Is not my hon. Friend disappointed that the regulatory reform procedure is still not used by as many Departments as it could be, to remove unnecessary burdens?

My hon. Friend raises an important point in terms of the scale of work that we are endeavouring to take forward to improve better regulation across Government. There is little better that I can do than to quote the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which said:

"The United Kingdom is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD. It has already made major improvements and has planned more".

I welcome any steps to try to improve the quality and depth of regulatory impact assessments, some of which, I think we all recognise, have been lamentably superficial, but would the hon. Gentleman consider the case for a system of routine post-implementation audit of regulatory impact assessments and the costs actually imposed on business by legislation, so that we can generate a feedback to the process of pre-legislative regulatory impact assessments that might over time improve their quality?

I do not understand that.

I have sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend from a sedentary position.

We need to be careful not to create a structure that is too bureaucratic in order to reduce bureaucracy and regulation. However, the work that the National Audit Office is taking forward is important. I believe that it will strengthen the quality of the RIA procedures, and that is why I believe that the OECD is correct in recognising the strength of commitment of the British Government to this important area of policy.

What discussions he has had with owners of communication systems of strategic and economic importance about the protection of the systems' integrity; and if he will make a statement. [105842]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the national infrastructure security coordination centre. That centre is charged with protecting the critical national infrastructure against electronic attack. Of course, our major communications networks are a key part of that infrastructure.

My officials have a continual dialogue with a wide range of communication system owners across both the public and private sectors. In addition I met with Andrew Pinder the e-Envoy only last week.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work carried out by the emergency planning college, Hawkhills, run by Dr. Rooke, near Easingwold in the Vale of York, and I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the excellent work that it does. What regard has the college had to the damage that could be done to strategic communications systems in the event of a terrorist strike? Has it liased with the owners of such systems about how to pre-empt such a terrorist strike?

I can assure the hon. Lady that a range of work has been done with various telecommunications and electronic network providers. That work is obviously ongoing. The college to which she refers is in her constituency, and I certainly join her in paying tribute to the work that it undertakes. The college has a key role in developing and promulgating the new United Kingdom resilience doctrine, including those aspects that will flow from the new legislation and developing cross-organisational communities throughout the UK to deliver it.

Is the Minister confident that the national air traffic control system—which was so disastrously part-privatised by our own Government and which has continually come back with the begging bowl to No. 11 Downing street ever since—is robust enough to resist any attempt by terrorists to infiltrate its systems?

As I said at the outset, the Home Secretary has responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's approach to all those issues and, in that capacity, he chairs a number of Cabinet Sub-Committees, one of which includes the Department for Transport, which obviously addresses the issue that my hon. Friend raises, but I shall be happy to pass on his comments directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.

Does the Minister recognise the fact that there are weaknesses in the law governing malicious attacks on communication networks at present? Would he therefore welcome an updating of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 better to reflect the growth of the internet, so that he could fulfil his role in protecting Government information technology systems all the better?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in such issues, and I am certainly not complacent about the risks of cyber terrorism. That is why I am confident that our major communications providers are taking appropriate precautions now, but that is an ongoing process of work and we clearly keep those matters under review.

If he will make a statement on progress with the diversity strategy in the civil service. [105843]

We are making steady progress in increasing the diversity of the civil service: 52 per cent. of staff in post in the civil service are women and 7.9 per cent. of staff are from a minority ethnic background, compared with 6.5 per cent. in the economically active population of the United Kingdom. At 3.6 per cent., the proportion of disabled staff in the service suggests that we are making slower progress in that regard, but we are taking steps to address that.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I agree that steady progress is being made, but will he tell us about the one Department where no progress at all is being made? It has only half the number of women and only a quarter the number of ethnical minority people in senior posts. I refer, of course, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Why is it exempt from the diversity agenda?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly, the responsibility in Departments for such issues is led by a permanent secretary and Ministers, but principally by individual Departments, working under guidance from the Cabinet Office. Given the issue that he raises, I will ensure that there is communication between the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office on the specific point that he makes.

Things are not so good in the Minister's own Department. Its own 2001–02 report shows that more than 100 staff were engaged in that year, but fewer than 9 per cent. of them were from ethnic minority backgrounds and there was only one disabled person. That is not very good, is it?

I am certainly not complacent about the work that we need to continue to do on the diversity agenda in the civil service. To take just one example involving ethnic minorities, the pathways initiative—a specific initiative for the senior civil service—will make a constructive contribution to that work.

What steps are being taken to publicise decisions on public appointments. [105844]

The Government are committed to ensuring greater access to information about public appointments. The new public appointments vacancies website, which was launched by the Cabinet Office last week, demonstrates that commitment and supports the Government's wider objectives on diversity, putting citizens first and extending the range of services online.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that, if we can more widely publicise public appointments, people will have greater confidence in the system, which will also enhance the sterling role of people throughout the country who volunteer for public service?

I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. We are keen to ensure that we publicise as widely as possible the range of opportunities that there are to make a contribution to public service through serving on a public body. It might be of particular interest to my hon. Friend to learn that the Scottish Parliament passed the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 in the past few days. It received its Royal Assent on 11 March. That will mean that, in addition to the work that is being carried out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments at a United Kingdom level, separate initiatives will be taken forward through the devolved legislature in Scotland that are relevant to his constituency.