What recent representations he has received about airport expansion. [125434]

The national consultation ended on 30 June. We estimate that at least 300,000 responses have been received from across the UK. We are analysing all these and, as I have said, we will set out our decisions in the air transport White Paper later this year.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Government granted permission for terminal 5, they said that they would strictly limit the growth of aircraft movements, which so badly affect my constituents in Chesham and Amersham? Do the announcement of the widening of the M25 and yesterday's announcement of permission for Crossrail to go ahead with consultation on the Heathrow route imply tacit approval for a third runway at Heathrow—and does that not make a mockery of the assurances that the Government gave my constituents?

No, I do not think that it does. The Crossrail proposal, to which we shall return if we reach Question 6, has merit in its own right. It will provide links between east and west London, including Heathrow. If it gets the final go-ahead, it will bring the advantage of removing traffic from the roads because more people will be able to go to Heathrow by rail. I should have thought that that would be thoroughly good for everyone who lives in west London. The hon. Lady will be aware that when my predecessor gave terminal 5 the go-ahead, he made it clear that he was aware that the Government were about to consult on the future capacity requirements of airports, including Heathrow, so I do not accept the premise of her question at all.

When my right hon. Friend has a look at the 300,000 responses, will he bear in mind the fact that air transport in the UK alone benefits from some £7.5 billion of tax concessions each year? Will he consider the fact that if the concessions were phased out, that would reduce some of the pressure for airport expansion and provide additional financial resources for transport, of which I am sure he would make good use?

As for the 300,000 responses, the House might be interested to know that half of them came from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

It has a bigger membership than the Labour and Tory parties put together.

As my hon. Friend says, the RSPB enjoys a very high membership that must be the envy of all political parties—although I doubt whether we are likely to emulate that membership just yet.

The Government have always made it clear that the aviation industry should be responsible for meeting its costs. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) will also be aware that the reason why air fares have reduced so dramatically is not so much because of taxation but because the no-frills carriers—the low-cost airlines—have stripped out much of the costs of selling their tickets. My hon. Friend might also be interested to know that unsurprisingly, people in London have the greatest propensity to fly, but those in Scotland are the second most likely to fly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), replied at column 24W of yesterday's Hansard that the total cost of the consultation was £4.2 million? Will he explain why he has set a 30-year frame for airport consultation but only a 10-year transport plan for road and rail? Does he accept that he got his sums wrong on at least one aspect: the road and rail links to Stansted airport?

Let me try to answer the hon. Lady and find out whether I understand her correctly. Naturally, the consultation documents on air travel that we have published examine the situation over a 20 to 30-year time horizon because of the time that would be taken to plan and build extra capacity. It is sensible to consider such things over a long period. The 10-year plan is essentially related to the Government's spending programme, and the hon. Lady will recall that annual programmes existed in the days of the Conservative Government. All spending Departments now have their spending fixed three years ahead so that they have greater certainty, which allows for better planning. However, we have fixed transport spending on a 10-year time horizon. Fixing the spending of any Department on a 30-year time horizon would be problematic, because the figures would become less reliable as one went further on in time. I say in the nicest possible way to the hon. Lady that she is not comparing like with like.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strong case for expanding London Luton airport. He will also be aware that with very modest investment, passenger throughput could be quadrupled from 7 million to 28 million, and with a little more investment, it could be expanded to more than 60 million passengers a year. Will he consider giving Luton an early go-ahead before the more difficult options elsewhere are considered?

I am well aware of the arguments that my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), have advanced on Luton airport. However, I have made it clear many times that I intend to make the decisions and the announcement on air travel at the same time, at the end of the year. No announcements will be made in advance in respect of a particular proposal or airport.

Perhaps I can return to the subject of birds. Given that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has given a licence to BAA to cull Canada geese in the vicinity of Heathrow, within, I think, a 15 km or perhaps a 15 mile radius, what representations has the Department had on bird strike at Heathrow, bearing in mind that a few years ago a flock of Canada geese hit a Boeing jet?

I am aware of the fact that some years ago a Boeing 767 hit 20 or 30 Canada geese. The Department, the Civil Aviation Authority and the airport operators keep bird strike under close review. They are aware of the issues and receive a number of representations. Unfortunately, bird strike is a feature of most airports, for obvious reasons. The key is to manage the problem as best we can by controlling the number of birds around an airport. Most people would agree, however, that the matter is under control at British airports.

If he will make a statement on the extent to which (a) performance and (b) customers' complaints will be a material consideration when future rail franchises are awarded. [125435]

The Strategic Rail Authority must ensure that bids for franchises are evaluated on an objective and fair basis, and that the market is open to new entrants. The criteria therefore focus on compliance with the SRA's specification, bidders' ability to deliver and value for money. Improving performance is, of course, a fundamental objective for all franchises.

I thank the Minister for that response. However, passengers are frustrated by the lack of a mechanism for their complaints to be heard, evaluated and determined in a consistent way. One of their complaints is often that they do not know how to complain. Complaints relate not merely to reliability, but to the inability to purchase a ticket, cleanliness, access to loos and so on. All franchises have the implied term or condition that there will be good services and a response to complaints, but people are frustrated. There is no passenger power, and there should be. I invite my right hon. Friend to address that matter, so that the SRA has to take into consideration the failure of train operators to respond reasonably to complaints and representations by the paying passengers. It is time he protected the passenger.

At the moment there does not appear to be any difficulty with people making complaints, since there are rather more of them than one would like.

But they are not recorded.

Complaints are received and recorded, not only from individuals but from the rail passenger councils that have been set up across the country. It is more productive, however, to address the fundamental problems that give rise to complaints. The first thing is to improve reliability, and the second is to do what the SRA is doing—to change the franchising policy so that, in future, issues such as reliability and cleanliness are essential parts of holding a franchise. If train companies do not meet their obligations they can be taken off the track altogether, which did not happen in the system that we inherited.

Given that my constituents' trains are more crowded and less punctual than they were when the right hon. Gentleman started in government six years ago, and as he keeps going on about the year of delivery, can he give me an idea when the year of delivery might be?

Train services in the south-east and other parts of the country are slowly seeing reliability increase. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of one of the difficulties that we face. The Government of whom he was a member failed to make provision to upgrade and replace the power supply for trains running south of the River Thames. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that trains ought to be better and more reliable, but we are making up for 18 years in which the Tory Government did not put enough money into trains.

The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern that the improvement is not as fast as it should be, but we are upgrading the power supply to get greater reliability of trains and replacing 40 per cent. of the rolling stock, nearly half of it on the London commuter services, which should improve reliability and quality of journey. The Conservatives neglected that, and did nothing about it in their rush to privatise the railways, with all the consequences that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and ours have to put up with.

Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the fact that as Network Rail lets shorter and shorter franchises,

it is taking more revenue risk than originally envisaged when the railways were privatised, the banks are learning that lesson, which is likely to make it more difficult to finance major infrastructure, both heavy rail and light schemes? What will he do about that?

Of course, it is the SRA that lets the franchises. It is right to move to a system that has far greater specification of the requirements of reliability, cleanliness, safety, and so on. One disadvantage of the longer-term, 15-year franchises was that towards the end of them the figures were unrealistic and more and more train companies said that they could not deliver. That does not make any sense. My hon. Friend has a point, in that the costs of some railway projects and light rail schemes—there is an example in Manchester—appear to be going up, up and away in an unjustified way. That is partly to do with the attitude of those in the private sector who are financing the projects. I am extremely concerned about that because we cannot allow industry to come to believe that if it names a price. we will simply pay it. That is not the case. Despite what has been said in the House, certainly from the Opposition Benches, private investment in the railways continues to be substantial, and it is one reason why we are able to invest so much in total, which will improve the railways.

Further to the reply that the Secretary of State has just given, he will know that the SRA has just renewed the South West Trains franchise, but only for three years. In conjunction with the SRA, will he consider longer franchises, because the longer the franchise the greater the incentive for the train operator to invest in rolling stock, stations, car parks and other improvements?

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was around at the time when the railways were privatised. The idea then was that if a franchise were awarded for 15 or 20 years, train companies would come up with investment and eventually start paying money back into public funds, but that did not happen. Far too many train companies took the profits in the first two or three years and then came back to us and said, "Sorry, we can't deliver on our side of the bargain." We are moving to a far better system, whereby franchises will be let for seven years and will be renewable, but what companies are meant to produce in the way of reliability, comfort, safety and so on will be strictly specified.

On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, the South West Trains franchise was continued for the next three years to allow for the introduction of new rolling stock to replace the mark 1 slam-door trains. After that, the franchise will be put out to tender in the proper way under the new system. I say to the right hon. Gentleman. and to all Opposition Members who still believe that privatisation will somehow make an improvement, that, as with so many things that the Conservative party did. the promises were never delivered.

Is that not precisely why the Secretary of State should encourage the Strategic Rail Authority to chop off a few heads in the train operating companies? Frankly, passengers are getting sick to the back teeth of companies that could not run a jumble sale. Unless we make it very clear that the taxpayer will not go on funding incompetence as a career in very poor companies, everyone will suffer.

I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, the SRA made it clear last month in the case of Connex that it was not willing to carry on putting money into a company when it was not satisfied that there were adequate financial controls. That is a clear lesson to railway operators that high standards are rightly demanded, that the public expect them, and that the train companies must deliver. As I said earlier, the SRA will have the power under the new franchising system to get somebody off the tracks much more quickly and effectively if they do not deliver. That will make for a far better service.

If he will introduce legislation to provide for an improved system for utility companies to give notice to local authorities of works on the public highway. [125436]

Since April 2001, highway authorities in England can charge utilities up to £2,000 a day every time any of their works overrun an agreed deadline. The National Assembly for Wales has that power but, I believe, has not utilised it yet. We are also operating pilot schemes in Camden and Middlesbrough to test powers to charge utilities from the start of each work. Once parliamentary time permits, we intend to introduce a Bill containing measures to allow more effective management of utilities' works, to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum and end the nonsense of roads being dug up time and time again, with all the commensurate congestion.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and am glad that legislation is on the horizon. In particular, will he ensure that the legislation includes strict compensation provisions so that businesses that are strongly and adversely affected when due notice is not given by utilities are given appropriate compensation? That will enable constituents such as Mr. and Mrs. Ruscoe of Tan-y-Dre in my constituency to receive proper recompense for the great damage that has been done to their business over far too long a period.

On balance, we decided to do things the other way round, and make sure that important measures are in place to deal with notice and tighten the existing legislative framework for utility works to reduce the disruptive effect on businesses such as the one cited by my hon. Friend, thus obviating the need for compensation. We do not believe that including rigid requirements on the payment of compensation in legislation is the best way forward. If we get the overall regime in place and working, that will obviate the need for compensation.

Can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any early feedback from the pilot schemes in Camden and Middlesbrough, and whether such an approach will improve the position, particularly in town centres, where work by utilities is inadequately communicated to commercial frontages, and the extent of closures in their part of the town is often not well understood? Will that position improve if the pilot scheme is extended?

The impact of constant roadworks is well known and deleterious for businesses that just want to go about their business. The Camden and Middlesbrough schemes have not been up and running for terribly long, and we are still awaiting feedback from them. When there is a full review of the pilots we will feed the results into legislation, and, I hope, resolve the problem throughout the country, including Leicestershire.

According to what published criteria, and under whose auspices, is it determined that in certain cases such works shall take place at night?

Invariably, that is done in co-operation with the relevant highways authority.

What progress has been made in the past three months with his work on hydrogen fuel-based transport. [125437]

The energy White Paper set out the steps that the Government are taking to explore the possible use of hydrogen in transport, industry and elsewhere. As part of this, we have begun a detailed assessment of the implications of transport hydrogen for our wider energy and transport policies.

What is the case for co-operating with the billion-dollar American project on hydrogen in Idaho?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's enormous interest in these issues. We are aware of the research in the United States, and we are in dialogue with the Americans to make possible partnerships on hydrogen work. I think my hon. Friend would agree that international work on a matter of global significance is important. The United States is looking in particular at producing electricity from nuclear sources to produce hydrogen, but we may decide on a different approach. Nevertheless, the Government are addressing seriously the future prospects for hydrogen.

The Minister will know that Department of Health statistics show that nearly 400 Londoners a year die from transport-related pollution. As hydrogen is much cleaner than petrol—it produces no CO₂ emissions—will he give increased impetus to research on hydrogen, as London seems to be well behind many other capital cities in Europe in advancing its use?

The level of air pollution in many of our cities, particularly London, has improved vastly over the past 10 or 20 years, although that does not mean that the situation is ideal. We see hydrogen as the medium to long-term solution to the problem of pollution in our cities, but we must solve the problem of how the hydrogen is produced. It must be produced from electricity that is sustainable and does not produce CO₂ and other emissions. In the meantime we have a complex programme to introduce cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels, and to improve engine technology, including the catalysts. We are working closely with our colleagues in the European Union to address some of those issues. I am glad to say that improvements are being made, but the Government share the hon. Gentleman's impatience for us to move rapidly on these important matters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the integrated gasification plant being built in my constituency by Coalpower is capable not only of producing electricity without any toxic emission, but of capturing enough hydrogen to power the local bus fleet? Does he agree that the development of hydrogen power is so crucial to the future of the environment that the Government should play a major role in developing that technology?

I am aware of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. It demonstrates why we are looking across a wide range of projects to get cleaner fuels. We do not think that there is one solution. There may be many and varied solutions and various technologies may be used, but in the meantime we will examine the fuel duty on hydrogen, and may give that encouragement. My hon. Friend is rubbing his fingers together as though money might he available, but that would be from a different Department, not mine. There are many other measures that we are introducing on vehicle excise duty, company car tax and, as I mentioned a moment ago, cleaner engines. I will consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises to see whether there is any way that we can further progress it. I am grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of the House.

What assessment he has made of the extent to which the rail system can relieve traffic congestion on the M6 in the west midlands. [125438]

Work by the Strategic Rail Authority shows that the £9 billion west coast main line upgrade will lead to transfers of both passengers and freight from road to rail and help to relieve congestion along the whole route from London to Glasgow, including the M6 in the west midlands.

My hon. Friend knows that for large parts of the day, the M6 in the west midlands does not move at all. That is partly because of the local traffic that uses the motorway. If we are to get that traffic off the motorway and on to rail, we need a good local rail service, yet the Chase line which serves my constituency cannot afford to invest in more trains or longer platforms, so we have an overcrowded, unreliable service that drives people on to the roads and clogs up the M6. Does that not cry out for a bit of joined-up thinking?

I acknowledge the problems that my hon. Friend has just listed, but there is a great deal of joined-up thinking on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced a billion-pound programme for the west midlands. We are looking for ideas from local authorities, and we are looking at their local transport plans. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that Birmingham Moor Street station is being extensively refurbished, the Kidderminster and Stourbridge service via Snow Hill has increased, and the cross-city line is providing a turn-up-and-go passenger service on the west midlands city line. There is a great deal of work going on and I am confident that it will address some of the problems. I hope that my hon. Friend is under no illusion that the vast amount of traffic currently on the M6 will all be relieved by improvements to the rail service. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last December, and more recently, a programme of road widening on some parts of the motorway system, including the M6. We are also considering traffic management measures for the M42. some of which are quite revolutionary in concept.

The Minister is right to say that the upgrade of the west coast main line will assist. but does he agree that if we are going to get more people out of their cars on the M6 and on to the railways, we must improve reliability? Is it not appalling that in the past 12 months, delays on our railways have been caused riot only by the wrong type of snow and the wrong type of leaves, but by the right types of leaves in the wrong season, and that the latest cause of delay is the current fine weather, as it is too hot? Is he not embarrassed to preside over a railway system that is more sensitive to the weather than English cricket is?

I have not been embarrassed since I saw England thrashed by Wales three times in a row.

On my way to London on First Great Western yesterday, I was informed that we should be watching out, as the current extreme temperature means that the rails might expand and signalling could start tripping off, which would cause big problems. The work that we are doing, and the money that we are putting into railways, are intended precisely to address such situations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that some of the delays are somehow avoidable. He knows full well that they are not avoidable, and that it is sometimes necessary to blockade lines in order to carry out the essential maintenance and refurbishment that are needed if we are to improve the railways in the long run. I am sure that he agrees that a lot of work is involved because there have been decades of under-investment in our railways, in which such maintenance was not carried out.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that the question was about the M6. I say to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that when he seeks to come in on a question, his remarks should relate to that question. He asked about railways, but he should not have done so, and this will be the last time he gets away with it.

My hon. Friend will be aware that since privatisation, Virgin Trains no longer has its west coast main line stop at Hartford station in my constituency. Cross Country has reduced the number of stops at Hartford, and we are also about lose the stop on the Liverpool to Birmingham run. One way of reducing congestion on the M6 would be to encourage train operators to make better use of Hartford station.

I take my hon. Friend's point. We certainly have to look very hard at those local services and at the way in which we utilise lines in that area, but we also need to realise that if we are to make best use of the tracks, we must look carefully at the timetable and ensure that the slow trains are not slowing down trains that should be fast. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that difficulty, but I shall take a look at the specific issue that he raises and try to get back to him.

If he will make a statement on Crossrail. [125439]

As I announced yesterday, I have now received from Cross London Rail Link its updated business case for Crossrail. The Government will need to evaluate the proposals thoroughly to ensure that they are feasible. At the same time, I have asked CLRL to press ahead with its development of detailed project proposals, including advising on updating the safeguarding of the route and undertaking a public consultation exercise on the route in the autumn.

I have been pressing Ministers for Crossrail for 11 years, so I am pleased that the Government yesterday gave their support in principle. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that, but can he assure me, and millions of Londoners and visitors to this city, that there will be no further unnecessary delays in the project, that early legislation will be introduced in the hybrid Bill and that trains will be running from Shenfield through Ilford and Stratford, and from Paddington to Heathrow, on Crossrail within a decade?

As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I believe that the Crossrail project is very important for the future of London. It is equally important, however, to ensure that we get it right. The last attempt to build Crossrail in the 1980s and 1990s foundered because not enough attention was given to the detail involved in the project. That is why it is important that the public consultation, which will be carried out this autumn, should deal with the route and all the proposals in some detail to ensure that the business case stacks up.

On any view, this is an extremely expensive project. It is very important now that all the people in London who said that they were willing in principle to pay for the project should realise that we are now at a stage where we need from them not only support, but cash. As the report recognised, the project must be a joint venture between the Government and the private sector, so it is time for people who say that they support it to reach for their wallets and come up with very firm proposals.

What does the Secretary of State expect the precise cost of the project to be, and are he and the Treasury absolutely committed to guaranteeing its delivery?

That is a bit rich coming from someone who is committed to wholesale cuts in public expenditure. We did not get Crossrail under the last Tory Government and we will not get it under the next Tory Government. As the business case makes clear, the cost will be in excess of £10 billion. Clearly, the precise cost will depend on the route and the construction of the service. As I made clear in my statement yesterday, the Chancellor and I intend to consult London businesses and others to ensure that we secure the best and most effective way of funding the project. Before the hon. Gentleman next gets to his feet, I remind him that for as long as he is committed to 20 per cent. cuts in public spending, anything that he says about funding has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Yesterday, as a result of an exclusive interview with the Secretary of State, the Evening Standard ran, uncorrected by his Department, the headline: "Crossrail gets £10bn go-ahead". It now turns out that it might not be £10 billion and that it did not really get a go-ahead at all. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, trains will not be remotely punctual before 2010, most of the roads that he announced last week will not be completed before 2012, and Crossrail may still never happen? How much longer do the long-suffering travelling public have to wait before he and his colleagues get their act together?

The hon. Gentleman, all too typically, is shifting his ground away from the point that I made about Crossrail. The one thing that all transport, whether road or rail, has lacked in the past is high levels of sustained investment. I concede that the problem bedevilled successive Governments of both major parties, but the Conservatives, in the 10 years prior to their losing the 1997 general election, cut the amount of money going into road and rail. That lack of investment is one reason why the public are now suffering. We are putting that right by investing in the railways and roads. The Conservative party remains committed to a 20 per cent. reduction in public expenditure, much of which will come out of spending on roads. If Conservative Members are worried about my saying that, they should just look at the results of what they did in office.

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's support in principle for Crossrail, for which I have pressed for several years on behalf of my constituents in Reading. I welcome the opportunity that it provides for better rail links to Heathrow, thus reducing congestion on the roads. Will he consider using the opportunity of Crossrail to ensure that there is a western rail link to Heathrow with its end at Reading?

I am afraid that I must caution my hon. Friend and others that if Crossrail is to get the final go-ahead and be built, it is important to have a manageable project. One of the reasons why it sank under the Conservative Government was that not enough attention was paid to its detail, feasibility and deliverability. I am all in favour of improved links between Reading and Paddington—indeed, last week I referred to a proposal that will allow better links between the Thames valley and Heathrow airport, which will help my hon. Friend's constituents—but, in relation to Crossrail, let us concentrate on having a project that is manageable and deliverable. If that happens, there is every chance that London will actually get it, rather than its being the mere pipedream that it was under the Conservative Government.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as is the case with expenditure on the London underground, any proposed public spending on the London Crossrail initiative will result in consequential increases for the devolved Administrations, which will allow us to get on with the Glasgow and Aberdeen crossrail proposals and the proposal to rebuild the north-south rail link in Wales? Will he make such representations to himself as Secretary of State for Scotland?

If the hon. Gentleman had spent more time practising his question, it might have had better effect. We are spending money on the railways throughout the United Kingdom. That would not be possible were Wales ever to become a separate state, in which case it would not have that money. The fact is that money is being spent on the railways throughout the United Kingdom, which will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, entitled "Reducing Regional Disparities in Prosperity"? Given his announcement last week on road improvements, out of which the north-east did very badly, his recent scepticism about policies such as expanding the Tyneside metro system and his apparent enthusiasm for Crossrail, does he believe that the Department is entering fully into the spirit of the Government's policies on reducing regional disparity?

Yes, I do. If my hon. Friend examines identifiable public spending by region, he will realise that although a great deal of money is undoubtedly spent in London for clear reasons, the north-east is the next most obvious beneficiary. A case can be made for spending more on transport and other matters in every area of the country. We are trying to ensure that our approach is fair for the whole country. I understand my hon. Friend's point about last week's announcement in Which I was able to give the go-ahead to some projects but not others, but if he examines the figures for identifiable public expenditure, he will find that the Government are spending substantial sums of money in the north-east, as they are entitled to do.

If he will make a statement on the impact of speed cameras on traffic safety. [125440]

An independent report on the two-year trial of the cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras was published on 11 February 2003. It found, on average, a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to around 280 people, and a 4 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in the trial areas, equating to approximately 530 people.

Is not the truth that the Government's policy on speed cameras is a complete muddle and mess? It is despised by motorists, who perceive it as simply another stealth tax. Would it not be much better to tear down speed cameras on safe motorways and dual carriageways and instead concentrate on serious blackspots and on traffic lights to prevent people from jumping traffic lights and blocking junctions, thus causing congestion in our urban areas?

If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would have realised that the cameras in the netting-off scheme can be placed only at sites where there is a considerable amount of injuries. Perhaps he and colleagues should speak to some of the people in urban areas who have speed cameras in their locality that have greatly reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured. Conservative Members must reflect carefully on their policy of removing cameras because they will have to explain to the people in those areas the casualties and deaths resulting from their policies.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the huge public support for the Government's swift action in installing speed cameras on the dangerous section of the Stocksbridge bypass across the Pennines? People would be horrified at the idea that an incoming Government would simply remove speed cameras, which have so far prevented any further major accidents on that road.

My hon. Friend makes my point. The cameras are usually popular with local people in the areas where they are installed. Indeed, there would be ructions in some places if the cameras were removed because people know that they reduce injuries, especially to children and often to elderly people. Those two categories are the most vulnerable on our roads. I assure my hon. Friend that our policy of ensuring that cameras are located at the sites of the most casualties will continue. I ask the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and other Conservative Members to reflect on their policy.

Is not the Minister's argument based on a fallacy? He is not considering the overall impact on road casualties and deaths. If speed cameras are so effective, why were more people killed on our roads last year than in 1998?

It is true that the number of people killed on our roads has remained steady at about 3,400 for several years. As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a recent debate, that is partly because of the increased amount of traffic on our roads and the increase in the number of miles that people are travelling. The number of people being seriously injured has, however, been reduced. The hon. Gentleman should look not just at the camera sites but at the areas in which they have been installed, because there has been a substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured not only at the sites, but across the areas as well.

If he will visit Bridgend to discuss his policies for developing integrated transport as they affect Bridgend. [125441]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the responsibility for developing integrated transport, along with much of the funding in the relevant transport areas, has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. It will therefore be for the Assembly, working with Bridgend borough council, to develop suitable policies in this area.

I appreciate that that is the case, but there is nevertheless an important role for the Department of Transport—with its responsibility for railways—in terms of taking initiatives to enable the proper integration of the bus and railway stations in my constituency. Although they are only about 160 m apart, up a sharp hill, that is a disincentive for the people using them. I look to the Department to blaze a trail by offering incentives to bring bus and railway stations together. In fact, that would very much help the Minister's own constituency of Pontypridd.

The lunatics who run my local authority, namely the Welsh nationalists, see no sense whatever in bringing together a bus station and a railway station that are 250 m apart. I have been trying to make this point to them for a very long time, and I hope that they will listen to it now. We are certainly interested in promoting the integration that my hon. Friend mentioned, wherever we can. The Welsh Assembly has a large tranche of money, which it sometimes uses very judiciously to try to promote the integration of traffic. I am glad that it is doing so and I hope that that work will continue.

What plans he has to improve the A556 between the M6 and M56. [125442]

The Secretary of State recognises the importance of this route and has asked the Highways Agency to look for innovative ways of making best use of this road and to investigate methods of tackling congestion at the key junctions along the route. In response to this, the Highways Agency has recently appointed Hyder Consulting to produce a route management study for this important trunk road.

The A556 is a dangerous, polluted road that goes through a residential area, and is the main link between Manchester, Birmingham and London. Surely the Minister will accept that it is unsuitable for that purpose. Some people wanted a new motorway link in the area; others, including me, wanted junction 20 of the M6 improved. If nothing is done, the Government will find that this eight-lane M6 superhighway will come to a juddering halt at the two-lane A556. This route needs serious upgrading.

The Government are not doing nothing, as I illustrated in my first answer. There will be a route management study. There will also be a meeting this Friday in the hon. Gentleman's constituency between the various interested parties who will consider the important issues relating to that road, and we have already announced a £1.2 million scheme at Bucklow Hill. We recognise that this is an important issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the area will be able to attend some of these meetings to consider the positive way in which we can make improvements.

What studies he is making on future road charging policy; and if he will make a statement. [125444]

Just in time!

A just-in-time question; it is good of the hon. Gentleman to join us. As I announced on 9 July and set out in the strategy paper published on that day, we shall be carrying out a feasibility study of road user charging.

I thank the Secretary of State for that not-so-charming reply. I have just been in the Select Committee on Culture. Media and Sport, which, under the new hours, meets at the same time as these proceedings in the Chamber, and in which we are currently interviewing representatives of the BBC.

The Secretary of State knows that we shall have a toll road in 2004 when the M6 toll is introduced. What consideration is he giving to differential tolling to encourage local people to use such toll roads? Initially, promises were made that there would be a thorough investigation by the M6 toll group to see whether discounts could be offered to local users, but it was decided not to offer such discounts. What is the Secretary of State's view on this?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the M6 toll road concession was granted in the early 1990s and that few conditions were attached to it. The concessionaire was allowed to build the road and then charge its tolls. I dare say that, if we were starting again now, we would probably take a rather different approach.

On road user charging generally, we are currently at the stage of simply assessing what is feasible. Charging differential rates to encourage people to use the roads at less busy times is one policy under consideration. We could also consider area charging—in circumstances where main trunk roads are effectively being used as local roads—in order to deal with some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. A whole variety of measures could be adopted, which is why I am extremely disappointed that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen will not accept the need to examine even the feasibility of various proposals. They simply rule them out, which I believe is selling short future generations, who will expect the Government to demonstrate some leadership and assess what might be possible with the use of new technology.