1. What assessment he has made of the potential of road pricing to cut congestion. (94002)

8. What recent discussions he has had with local highway authorities about road pricing. (94009)

The initial work conducted by my Department indicates that a well-designed road pricing scheme could offer real potential to cut congestion. Last November my Department awarded pump-priming money to seven areas to develop innovative ways to tackle congestion. My officials and I continue to discuss with both those and other authorities what role road pricing could play in tackling congestion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for political parties to advocate green policies in this place but then, when it comes to making hard local decisions that need leadership, to run away, as they have in Fife, Lothian and London?

I have consistently made clear my hope that we can sustain a national consensus on road pricing, but that consensus is more challenging when some parties choose to support national proposals in principle, but then actively work to make sure that congestion charging is not implemented on the ground, as happened in Edinburgh.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people are coming to the view that to tackle congestion we need not only road pricing pilot schemes but more local control over buses. What discussions has his Department had with Bristol city council on that matter, and if there have been no such discussions recently, is he prepared to meet council representatives?

Conversations continue with the Greater Bristol authorities, which are among the authorities I mentioned that have secured pump-priming money to investigate ways to tackle congestion. I have always made it clear that I regard road pricing as one element of the strategy; another element—a key element—is an improvement in the quality of public transport. Given the significant number of public transport journeys that are made by bus, I charged myself and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is responsible for buses, over the summer to take a long, hard look at bus provision not only in London but across the country. I hope to be able to make proposals in due course.

Passenger transport authorities have been advised to include road pricing schemes that make use of existing technology in any bid to the transport innovation fund. Given that the schemes are supposed to be pilot schemes in preparation for a national scheme, is it not possible that advancing technology will negate their usefulness as a way of assessing the viability of a national scheme?

I am not sure that I accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We have allocated £10 million from the Department for Transport to research into precisely those technological issues. I spoke at the intelligent transport systems congress that took place here in London only last week, and between the delegates from around the world there was strong discussion of the potential for finding technological solutions to road pricing. The logic of conducting the pilots is to ensure not only that the technologies work on the ground, but that we have experience in communities across Britain before we move towards a national scheme, if that is what we decide to do.

Hundreds of Irish haulage firms use the M4-A40 as one of their main transit routes into the European Union. While the Government continue to dither, what can local authorities along those trans-European networks do now to recoup some of the costs incurred from foreign hauliers that currently do not contribute a penny?

We continue to discuss that challenge with the road haulage industry. Work on the foreign lorry road user charge is now being developed as part of the work on a national system of road pricing. However, I recognise that there are continuing challenges, in particular in relation to cabotage, which is why we continue to discuss such matters with the industry.

It has been estimated that this year congestion will cost the west midlands approximately £2.2 billion. In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend comment on the outcome of his discussions with the west midlands authorities and his early assessment of the transport innovation fund bid?

Tempting though it is to offer a running commentary on each of the transport innovation fund bids that we have received, I shall resist. Suffice it to say that I met the west midlands authorities in July and heard directly from them about the work that they are doing. Since then we have received the west midlands congestion management study, which is with my Department for consideration.

We are interested in the merits of dynamic and variable road pricing to reduce congestion, but we do not quite understand why, following the collapse of the lorry road user charge scheme, the Government are setting up a number of unco-ordinated tag and beacon congestion schemes. Is it the Secretary of State’s intention to set up a national road pricing scheme?

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to say that there are to be a number of unco-ordinated projects across the country. The rationale behind the pilots is to make sure that we have both the experience on the ground from the individual pilots, and scaleable propositions in respect of the technology, which could inform discussions on the national scheme. I struggle with the Opposition’s position. In principle they say that they are interested in the scheme. They then criticise it as potentially involving a massive use of public money for a Government computing system—yet they appear to resist the pilot system, which seems the perfect answer to taking forward public support for the scheme and learning the technology lessons that need to be learned.

But what would be the point of introducing road pricing in a locality unless the local authority in the area concerned had some power to introduce alternative public service provision? Will my right hon. Friend guarantee to the House that no road pricing system will be brought in unless the local authority concerned has new powers to regulate bus services in its area?

In relation to the bids for the transport innovation fund, we have been clear that the kind of demand management measures, including road pricing, that local authorities are considering would be complementary to exactly the kind of improvement in public transport that my hon. Friend suggests. I have made it clear in recent weeks that I am concerned that the present free-for-all is not serving the public well in relation to bus services, and we will be publishing proposals on that in due course.

Will the Secretary of State give a pledge that when he recommends a scheme for national road pricing, it will not put an additional tax burden on British motorists and British road users, but will increase the burden on those who use the roads at popular times and will include taxing foreign use of our roads?

At the previous Transport Question Time, I made it clear that the anticipated time scale, if a national road pricing scheme were to be developed, would be the middle of the next decade. The right hon. Gentleman cannot reasonably expect me to write the Budget for 2015 at the Dispatch Box today, but I will assure him that we recognise that if we were to move to a system of national road pricing, that could have an effect on systems of road transport taxation.

2. How many major trunk road and motorway schemes have been completed since 2001. (94003)

Thirty-nine major trunk road and motorway schemes in the Highways Agency’s targeted programme of improvements have been completed since 2001.

I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that the completed £50 million-plus improvement work on the A500 through Stoke-on-Trent demonstrates the Labour Government’s delivery to the people of north Staffordshire. Will my hon. Friend—or even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—take a trip up to north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to see that scheme, and the £10 million road bridge across the A50 opening up the Trentham Lakes development, providing the opportunity for more businesses to come into the area? Will my hon. Friend join me and welcome that?

I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend at some point in the future, but unfortunately, the delivery of the road scheme that he mentioned has been so efficient that it is to open at the end of the month, and neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I can find a gap in our diaries to come and open it. My hon. Friend is right. This is a road scheme that could be delivered only because we have a Government committed to public investment, and we look forward to coming and seeing it for ourselves in the not-too-distant future.

Consultation on the extension of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey was completed about 20 months ago. My constituents were promised a preferred route proposal, and we are still waiting for that proposal. Can the Government tell us when we will get it, and if, when it is proposed, there will be enough money left in the pot to complete it?

The information on the preferred route will be made available as soon as is practicable, but whether the money is available for the scheme will depend upon the regional funding allocation process. We will take the advice of the local region and local people as to what their priorities are. We have just sought that advice, and we stuck closely to it, so we have devolved responsibility for setting priorities to local people, and we will continue to do that in the future.

Will the Minister reconsider the proposed improvements on the A21 between Flimwell and Robertsbridge? The community there is extremely unhappy. There is no prospect of the completion of that road in the next few years, and the route is jeopardising the few employers in that part of my constituency. Will the Minister reconsider and address the concerns of the local community?

We are always keen to take account of the views of local people and stakeholders, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is often difficult to balance the different needs of the environment, a transport scheme and local businesses. We do the best we can. If people have constructive advice about how we can improve a route, we will consider it, but the delivery time of any scheme will depend on the advice of the regions. My advice to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members is to work in their local regions to make sure that other people in the region understand the priority that they attach to a particular scheme, and work locally to raise the priority if the scheme if they do not think it will be delivered rapidly enough.

3. What measures he is taking to secure the transport network against terrorist attack. (94004)

Working with police and other agencies, my Department works to maintain effective and proportionate security regimes that seek to minimise vulnerability across the transport networks. For obvious reasons it is not our practice to detail all of the required measures or procedures.

Since the terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005, the focus of attention has understandably been on the preparedness of the capital to respond to and deal with any future terrorist attack. However, we have seen from Madrid how other commuter or domestic rail services may be viewed as a potential target. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that train operating companies are engaged in the threat reduction process, and what role does he see for the British Transport police in that regard now that the plans for the police merger have been dropped?

I have discussed a range of such issues with the Association of Train Operating Companies as well as with the chief constable of the British Transport police. I am glad to say that following the conclusion of the review in relation to the future of the BTP we can now move forward, and those discussions will continue against a backdrop of significantly increased funding. Resource spending for the BTP has risen from £167 million in 2004, when the British Transport police authority was established, to £220 million now, and the number of police officers has increased by 20 per cent. during the last two years, up from 2,280 officers in 2004 to 2,780 officers in 2006. In addition, 200 police community support officers have been recruited in the last two years.

I understand that Manchester airport did a very good job in handling the issues that arose at the difficult time of the enhanced threat of terrorist attacks in August; considering what passengers reported, it probably did better than elsewhere. Does my right hon. Friend therefore think it appropriate to ask Manchester to give some pointers from their better experience in handling such matters? Clearly we want to thank it for the good work that it did for my constituents and those from elsewhere, but we also need to understand why things went better at Manchester.

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Manchester. I did so to the head of the Manchester Airport Group only last month, and it is a matter of public record that in my interviews on radio at the time I acknowledged the outstanding contribution that Manchester airport staff made in very challenging operational circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will also be reassured that we are in constant dialogue not just with BAA but with other airport operators about what lessons can be learned from the events of 10 August.

Is the Secretary of State aware that up to four police forces operate at airports such as Heathrow, with not one in overall control? May not that have contributed to some of the chaos that occurred during the summer, and will he carry out an independent review of the circumstances leading up to those events?

The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that there has been a review of policing at our airports, but on the basis of that report I am not convinced that it contributed to the challenges that we faced, which were very distinctive in relation to a particular alleged plot that was foiled on 10 August. I place on record my gratitude and admiration for the work that was taken forward, not just by BAA management but by trade unions, employees and many others at Heathrow airport. We should remember that, in the face of an unprecedented level of threat, the airport stayed open, a significant number of flights continued to operate, albeit with delay—and that Heathrow is literally the busiest airport in the world. In those circumstances, of course we should look at what lessons can be learned, but we should be careful about bandying around words such as “chaos”.

The House will be aware that the only successful terrorist attack to date has occurred against the transport system in London—but if we think that that will continue to be the case, clearly we are deluded. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why anti-suicide-bomber barriers have already been mounted in places such as London Victoria, whereas places such as Manchester Victoria, and many of the other regional stations, have absolutely nothing?

It is a matter of newspaper coverage that there has been a trial of such barriers here in London for a fixed period. While we evaluate the conclusions of that review, I would not wish to anticipate what steps we might take. I would also ask the indulgence and appreciation of the House for the fact that these are not matters that we often wish to discuss in public—but if it would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, I will certainly write to him on the matter.

4. How many Highways Agency traffic officers on average are deployed on motorways to help traffic flow better after accidents. (94005)

On average there are 120 patrols, each with a two-person crew, deployed on motorways to help keep traffic flowing. These are supported by approximately 50 control room staff proactively searching for and deploying traffic officers to incidents using various technology feeds including CCTV, motorway incident detection and automatic signalling, emergency roadside telephones and information from the emergency services.

There is no doubt that traffic officers are doing a good job on the motorways in south Yorkshire, as well as in the rest of England and Wales. Does the Minister agree that in addition to looking at new road building schemes, we must improve capacity on existing roads? One of the best ways to achieve that goal is introducing effective ways of clearing up motorways after major accidents.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has touched on the rationale for the traffic officer scheme. We cannot build our way out of such problems. As I intimated in answering an earlier question, a significant road building programme is currently taking place, but it cannot be our total solution to congestion. We must find better ways to use existing capacity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed road pricing, which is one of the long-term solutions, but solutions such as traffic officers clearing away incidents very quickly and keeping traffic moving are also an important part of the picture, and they are proving to be extremely successful.

Will the Minister accept that despite the deployment of Highways Agency traffic officers, it still takes far too long to clear up after accidents—far longer than it used to? That not only causes frustration for those who are using the motorway, but is potentially very dangerous. When will more be done to ensure that accidents are cleared up as quickly as they used to be?

I cannot speak for what used to happen in some long-distant, mythical past, although I suspect that it always took a great deal of time to clear up serious incidents. The whole purpose of the traffic officer scheme is that accidents that do not involve injury or criminal activity are cleared away very quickly. The traffic officers have very tight targets, and the early evidence suggests that they are succeeding in clearing away accidents very quickly. We have learned from the initial implementation of the scheme, and day by day traffic officers are getting better and better. They are increasingly able to co-ordinate their work with the police, and results are improving as a consequence. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that traffic officers will continue to learn from experience and that incidents will be cleared away as quickly as possible.

Will my hon. Friend publish the evidence to the effect that those gentleman and ladies are performing well? And does he agree that it is essential that the powers to control and police highways remain within the control of properly trained police forces, and are never ceded to private or other interests?

I believe that the data from the first scheme in the west midlands have already been put in the public domain; if that is not the case, I will make it so as soon as the information is available. As soon as the schemes in other areas have operated for long enough to obtain some objective data, that data will be put in the public domain, too. I assure my hon. Friend that the early evidence suggests that the schemes are extremely effective. I entirely agree with her point about making sure that ultimate responsibility lies with the police. The work of the highways officers is totally co-ordinated with that of local police forces, and that is how it will stay.

In reflecting on the problem of delays caused by serious accidents, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect of the attention of drivers being diverted from the proper focus on what limited scope there is to move ahead, and on to the scene of the accident? And has he furrowed his brow and considered ways of disincentivising such unwelcome behaviour?

The hon. Gentleman, in his usual loquacious way, makes a constructive point. One of the mechanisms being considered is the possibility of constructing screens to hide incidents away, so that motorists will not be distracted—the so-called rubbernecking that is often the cause of another accident on the other side of the carriageway. For the reasons stated by the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), we do not want to delay the clearing of debris following accidents by putting up screens when it may be better to get on with the clearance, but they are being considered where cost-effective and appropriate.

5. What steps he is taking to improve management of the road network. (94006)

Most roads are managed by local authorities. The Traffic Management Act 2004 placed a duty on local authorities to manage their road network to ensure the expeditious movement of traffic on their network and those of surrounding authorities. The Act gives authorities additional tools better to manage parking policies, bus lane enforcement and the co-ordination of street works. The Act has also created traffic officers to help to keep traffic moving and to ensure safety on English motorways. They are deployed by the network of regional control centres which monitor the motorway network and deploy a range of other active traffic management techniques, such as access control and hard shoulder running, to ease congestion.

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the prospective traffic management system on the M42, and an experiment to use the hard shoulder?

I can assure my hon. Friend that before we opened up the M42 to the active traffic management scheme and hard shoulder running, we took base data so that we were aware of the existing situation. As soon as the system has been running for long enough for us to make an objective assessment of its success as regards issues such as safety, we will publish that. It may take some years to get sufficient data, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the early signs are extremely encouraging. As far as I am aware there have been no safety concerns, and the easing in congestion resulting from hard shoulder running looks to be exactly in line with international experience where that has been tried before.

Surely one way of improving the network would be to ensure that highways departments have access to the resources that they need to carry out road safety improvements. When I asked the county council to carry out an improvement in my patch, on a roundabout on the A59 between Sabden and Clitheroe, I was told that it did not have the money, yet we have had fatalities and many injuries there. Would not it be better to get county councils, the police and the Treasury to talk together about preventing the Treasury from siphoning off the money from road speed cameras, and using it on road safety schemes that will save lives?

The hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. We announced last year that after this year the netting-off arrangements would end so that there is no linkage between cameras and revenue to safety partnerships. Next year, the money will go back to the local road safety partnership and can be spent not only on cameras but on other road safety measures. If the hon. Gentleman’s local authority does not have sufficient money to do a piece of work that is its responsibility, I can only assume that that is down to the mismanagement of a Tory local authority.

The £1.2 million west midlands study mentioned by the Secretary of State concluded that the only way to reduce congestion was to introduce some form of road pricing. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the leadership of Birmingham city council, like other local authorities in the west midlands, has knocked back the principle of road pricing and is still consulting on that matter rather than on the practicalities of introducing such a scheme? Does he agree that one way of improving—

Order. One supplementary is fine.

rose—

Order. That is fine.

I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the potential benefits of road pricing. I can tell her that we have a good constructive relationship with west midlands local authorities, looking into how road pricing might work. One of the challenges in a complex conurbation such as the west midlands is that there are many local authorities with different political leaderships and different views on the right way forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have to overcome the challenge of getting them all working together, but we are fully determined to do it.

How can we have confidence in the management of the trunk road system when the Minister told me from the Dispatch Box more than six months ago that he would write to me about the A303—which carries more traffic than most motorways, yet is not designed as such—and I have not heard a word from him since? We heard over the summer that the Sparkford to Ilchester improvements have been delayed until some future date, and that the sound reduction improvements that we were promised in 2004 are not in the programme. Why has the A303 been forgotten?

The A303 has not been forgotten. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who would normally claim to be actively involved in his local community and region, has not followed the process of regional funding allocation and prioritisation. It is one thing for Liberal Democrats to talk about devolution, but they clearly do not get involved in it.

As for my promise to write to the hon. Gentleman, as soon as the decision is made—he knows that it is extremely complex, and involves a great deal of money—I shall write to him, and many others.

6. What account is taken of the population of the town served when determining the number of rail services which stop at any particular station. (94007)

Population changes are among a range of factors that the Department routinely takes into account when assessing the demand for train services. Other factors include line and station capacity, the number of train services already using the line and the availability of alternative transport modes.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, and I hope that he has a long and illustrious career. As he knows, Dronfield, the largest town in my constituency, has a population of some 25,000. Ten trains stop at Dronfield railway station every day. Let us compare that with Alfreton, a nearby town, which has a population a third the size of that of Dronfield but three times as many trains. Ninety-three trains a day stop in Long Eaton, which is far smaller than Dronfield. What is my hon. Friend doing to influence the current round of bids for the east midlands rail franchise to ensure that demographic changes in places such as Derbyshire are taken into account?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind comments, and I pay tribute to her for her energetic campaign of work on behalf of her constituents on the subject of her question—especially the Dronfield station action group, whose members I was privileged to meet earlier this afternoon. My hon. Friend rightly points out that the east midlands franchise provides an opportunity to improve services at Dronfield. I can confirm that a new service between Nottingham and Leeds was included in the east midlands franchise document that the Department issued in June, and I am confident that it offers the genuine prospect of an improved service to Dronfield.

The Minister’s predecessor will be welcome any time in Newbury, and will be stood many free drinks for his work in reversing the proposed cuts in the new timetable. The current Minister will have as warm a welcome if he does all he can to assist in retaining the late-night service from Paddington to Newbury, which is under threat. It operates from open platforms at Paddington and Reading, and there is no understanding at First Great Western of the value of the service. Will the Under-Secretary do all he can to help protect that vital service for late-night travellers?

I shall be honoured to accept any free drinks that the hon. Gentleman wants to offer at the Strangers Bar, but he has probably been misinformed about cuts to services. The British railway is expanding at a greater rate than that in almost any other European country. If he wants to write to me about specific aspects of the service about which he is worried, I shall be more than happy to discuss them with him. However, there is a massive increase in the number of passenger journeys in the British rail network, with more than 1 billion passengers carried on it every year. Such a service has not been experienced since 1961.

Sunderland, a city of 300,000 people, was given a direct rail service to London. Great North Eastern Railway then had a hissy fit and has sought chapter 11 protection in the United States. Will my hon. Friend assure us that none of the other towns and cities that GNER serves will suffer any resultant harm, and that the Government will continue to get their full franchise agreement money from GNER?

The House would not expect me to comment on what is a matter for the private company, Sea Containers, which owns the GNER service. The Sunderland to London service, which is planned to commence on 10 December this year, is with the Office of Rail Regulation, and we expect an announcement soon.

I add my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. I am not sure that I hope he has a long and fruitful career, but I hope that he enjoys his time at the Department, and that there is a change of management before too long.

Two weeks ago, the Department announced the award of the South West Trains franchise, and said that capacity on mainline and suburban services would increase by about 20 per cent. The Minister said:

“Today’s contract means that capacity will further increase and there will be more seats for many passengers on busy routes”.

When he said that, was he aware that South West Trains’ plans require it to rip out about a quarter of the seats on its suburban trains? Was he also aware that more passengers will have to stand, and that its whole business plan is built around cramming more and more passengers into the same space on its trains?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

The new south-western franchise will be of major benefit to everyone travelling in the south-western area, including his constituents. Capacity on peak-time services in the south-western franchise will increase by 20 per cent., and I would have thought that he would welcome that. I would also expect him to welcome the fact that, unlike many previous franchises, Stagecoach Ltd has committed to giving the Government £2.1 billion over the length of it. He has a problem with private companies giving money to the Government instead of the other way round, which I find to be an odd state of affairs.

The Minister does not seem to understand the problem. It is not much of a deal for passengers who must stand on the way to work for 45 minutes on trains that will have fewer seats in future than today. Nor does he seem to understand the problems of the franchise system. This morning, the chief executive of GNER said that it might have to hand back its keys to its franchise. In other areas, fares are going up, car park charges are being increased and more and more passengers are being crammed on to the same trains. Does not he accept that the franchising system, as changed by this Government, is not working?

I do not accept that. The south-western franchise represents an excellent deal for the passenger and the taxpayer. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the current system, and every time he opens his mouth on the matter, I have a sense of trepidation. First, he said that he regretted his Government’s cack-handed privatisation of the rail service in 1994. Now he is saying that the franchising system is not sustainable. He also wants to decimate the rail service further by breaking up Network Rail and redrawing its responsibilities to be coterminous with the franchise areas. Under this Government, the British railway system is growing and taking more people on journeys. His proposals will not benefit, and certainly not expand, that railway system.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the announcement that the station in the village of Croy in my constituency is to become a major hub in central Scotland, connecting to the rest of the UK with a park-and-ride facility. Does he agree that that example could be replicated across the rest of the UK, improving rail transport while also reducing road transport?

As a former employee of Strathclyde Passenger Transport, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to its work in Croy and to the efforts of the Labour-led Scottish Executive, who have been a partner in the project.

The Minister will be pleased to know that Shrewsbury will finally receive its direct rail link to London—next year I hope—thanks to a private company, Renaissance Trains, providing the service from Wrexham to Marylebone. Will he agree to meet that company to help it to cross the t’s and dot the i’s?

I am always available for crossing t’s and dotting i’s. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the proposed start date for the new service is 2007. The plan is that five trains will be used in each direction on that route.

7. Whether he has plans to develop new passenger transport authorities. (94008)

We have no current plans to create further PTAs.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the success of PTAs in co-ordinating bus services and integrating transport. When she undertakes the review of bus services and the extension of local authority powers in respect of their regulation, will she look at whether the use of PTAs could be extended to non-metropolitan areas, such as the Solent area in south Hampshire?

I am always happy to consider proposals from hon. Members, but I remind the House that local authorities have very mixed views about setting up new PTAs in their areas. Although having a single body can produce great benefits in terms of co-ordination, local authorities have to surrender some existing powers. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work being done in the area represented by my hon. Friend by the Solent Transport Partnership. It has greatly improved local transport for local people, for example through the introduction of the integrated travel card. Such improvements offer a good example to the rest of the country.

20. How many freedom of information complaints have been made to the Information Commissioner; and how many relate to Government Departments. (94022)

Since the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act in January 2005, the Information Commissioner’s office has received 4,292 cases, of which 30 per cent. have related to central Government Departments and Agencies.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, she gave the number of cases that the commissioner’s office has received rather than the number of complaints, so perhaps she does not know how many complaints have been received. Does she expect there to be a reduction in the number of complaints, given that the Government propose to reduce the cost threshold, which will mean that fewer applications will be answered? When officials decide that Ministers may have something to hide and that they should push an application up to ministerial level, the cost of a Minister considering that application will be included in the cost threshold.

The proposal is not quite as the hon. Gentleman describes it. When deciding whether the £600 threshold has been reached, officials will take into account the time taken to read and consider an application, rather than just the time taken to make a search. That is surely a matter of common sense. In that process, Ministers’ time is priced at £25 an hour, just like everyone else’s. That shows that the engagement of Ministers in the process is pretty cheap—much cheaper than the equivalent in my previous job used to be. The involvement of Ministers will not necessarily mean that the process will cost more. Ministers do not get involved only when a matter is controversial—for instance, a Minister might get involved because the question is about him or her personally. Moreover, good governance under section 36 requires that Ministers get involved from time to time, so I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a number of false links.

A real problem is the number of public services that fall outside the FOI provisions. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that non-commercial decisions made by publicly funded bodies that provide public services—such as Stockport’s Sports Trust, for example—fall within the remit of the Act?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Constitutional Affairs Committee has said that the FOI Act has been a significant success so far, and we agree. It has made available to the public thousands of pieces of information from more than 100,000 public bodies, but that does not mean that that is as far as we need to go.

The most worrying feature of the Government’s response to the Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report is the proposal that Departments should be able to aggregate requests from a single source. That provision would be wide open to abuse by Departments that do not want important public interest issues raised and made subject to FOI requests. Will aggregation decisions be subject to appeal to the Information Commissioner?

The short answer to that is yes. The appellate process will remain in place, and every time there is a refusal, there will be an appeal all the way up from the internal review to the commissioner and to the tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that there is already a power to aggregate similar requests from the same inquirer—the BBC has been extensively referred to in the publicity, for example. That is a power, however, not a compulsion; sometimes it is used, and sometimes it is not. What is being proposed is an extension—we are going to sound out where the extensions should take place—to enable the aggregation of non-similar requests. Serious serial users account for about 14 per cent. of requests, and they are very expensive. In particular, they take up a lot of senior officials’ time. I have said that we price their time out at £25 an hour, but it costs us a good deal more than that. So this proposal is an attempt to strike a balance between an appropriate level of information being delivered and public service delivery, which is what our officials are mostly about.

But is not the problem that a lot of the people whose requests are likely to be aggregated are the people whose job is to hold the Government to account? That includes political parties, the media and particular newspapers. The decision to allow aggregation across a range of different questions will give rise to particular risks. Furthermore, it was announced today that the Treasury will continue to refuse to release information about the true cost of identity cards under the Freedom of Information Act. It has been ordered to provide that information but, no, it is going to appeal. How does the Minister square that Government attitude with the Labour party’s pledge in 1996 to end “scandals, sleaze, patronage, secrecy” and to

“stop unnecessary secretiveness in government”?

Is not this just another example of good intentions but very poor delivery?

I cannot help noting that, during the Tories’ 18 years in government, they chose not to introduce a freedom of information Act. They preferred to cleave to secrecy during all that time. There was not much evidence of letting sunshine in to win the day there, was there? Or of any other chinks of light being shed on the secrecy of the hon. Gentleman’s former colleagues.

The Treasury must be asked about its own approach, but it is entitled, like everyone else, to go through the appellate procedure, and that is exactly what it is going to do. If we wanted to make a serious attempt to curtail or limit these requests, the way to do it would be to levy a flat-rate charge. That would reduce by about 44 per cent. the time spent processing the requests, but we have expressly chosen not even to consult on that option. The impact of our proposal will be to reduce the most expensive requests while preserving the right of the vast majority of people to get absolutely free information. The hon. Gentleman almost suggests that the way in which we are proposing to go forward—

Order. May I suggest to the hon. and learned Lady that it might be appropriate to send some information to the hon. Gentleman via a letter? Her answer is very long.

I have listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. Will she tell me how many Members of Parliament have used the Freedom of Information Act? Some of us find it rather disheartening that, when we ask for information on sensitive subjects from the Department of Health, for example, we are given so little. In those cases, we have to prepare freedom of information applications to get the information that we need.

I do not have the information on the number of Members of Parliament making such applications, but if my hon. Friend wants me to get it for her, of course I will do so. She has raised the analogy of parliamentary questions, and it is interesting to note that there is no guidance that says that the time used for reading and consulting is not aggregated in when considering the upper time limit for parliamentary questions. It is entirely sensible that the Freedom of Information Act requests should be aggregated.

Does not the Government’s response to the recommendation of the Constitutional Affairs Committee show that, in office, they are going cold on the commitments that they made when they were in opposition? Is not the reality that, if they put up the charges and give regular, serious users fewer opportunities to use the Act, they will reduce the total number of people using it, and reduce the ability of the most investigative—and potentially the most difficult—customers to get the information that the Government are least keen to divulge?

Once again, the hon. Gentleman makes a false elision. The aggregate users do not necessarily produce the embarrassing facts. They embark on extremely wide, sweeping inquiries that take hours and hours—indeed, weeks sometimes. Of course, there is a duty on every Department that refuses a request for information under the freedom of information legislation to try to advise the inquirer how better they can bring their inquiry within the terms of the Act. There is plenty of scope for applications that are refused on the new basis to be resubmitted under a different name 60 days later. That will not deter the rational, quite honestly.

21. What mechanisms are in place to ensure value for money is obtained when consultants are employed by her Department. (94023)

The use of consultants is governed by policy and practice laid down in guidance to managers. Mechanisms include a requirement to assess the need for consultants, taking account of skills and experience within the Department, financial approval, development of clear specifications in terms of outcomes and key milestones, and a responsibility on managers to manage performance against the contract.

The Minister will be aware that, on 4 May, the Minister of State said in reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled that she could not give me information about what the consultants were used to accomplish, because of the cost involved. Bearing in mind the fact that the Department spent £700,000 on consultants in 1997, and that last year it spent more than £10 million on them, is it not time that Ministers got a grip on the issue and told Parliament and the taxpayer what the consultants are being used to accomplish—especially the gentleman who was paid £2,100 for each day of work? [Interruption.]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State says that the person must have been a barrister, but it was not me. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has written a piece of work on the subject, which I trust, as it will soon become a Hollywood movie. Managers keep records. The Department has changed significantly in past years. For example, there has been the merger of magistrates courts to create Her Majesty’s Courts Service. The Department has grown bigger and it has to integrate. It is reforming all the time. For instance, we have distanced ourselves from involvement in the appointment of Queen’s counsel, which was successfully accomplished under the new system yesterday. We have distanced ourselves from the appointment of judges, too. We have started to engage in the subject of social exclusion, and have taken a number of excellent measures that I know my right hon. Friend supports, such as encouraging the Judicial Appointments Commission to embark on the recruitment of a more diverse range of people to the judiciary. Those changes have been supported by consultants, and that is a perfectly reasonable use of their services.

I understand that the gentleman whose cost per day was referred to had particularly specialist skills—[Interruption.] I certainly hope that he did. He was apparently dealing with the way in which the courts handle the £5 billion of public money that they must invest while it is in their custody. That was a high-risk issue for him to consider, and I hope that he did that well.

According to press reports, the Department spent almost £750,000 last year on life-coaching programmes. What did those programmes involve, and were they value for money?

I am sorry to say that I did not take part in one of the programmes myself—I am gratified to say that there was no need. They were for officials. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with as much detail as I can summon, if he has a genuine curiosity about the matter.

22. How many family cases were brought to court in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. (94024)

There were 400,000 applications to the family court in 2001; 408,000 in 2002; 412,000 in 2003; 407,000 in 2004; and 381,000 in 2005.

I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her reply. Can she tell the House a little about the role of mediation in family cases brought before the court in trying to keep the parties together in the event of a marriage breakdown? What role does she believe that the family court should play in the eventual remodelling of the Child Support Agency?

Two roles are envisaged for mediation. One is for couples who want to stay together and want help to maintain their relationship. The other is for couples whose relationship is over, but for whom mediation is important so that issues relating to finances and, above all, the care of the children can be agreed on instead of battled out in court. The Government are working to ensure that there is a great deal more mediation to avoid unnecessary court disputes. For example, 400 couples got publicly funded mediation in 1997 and the figure is now 14,000. It is still a small number. Anything that can be done by mediation rather than slugging it out in court is much better for everyone involved, especially the children.

I do not think that there is particularly a role for mediation and the family courts in relation to the Child Support Agency, so I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Lady on that one.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government’s proposals to introduce fixed fees in family law cases are intended to be cost-neutral?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The answer is yes. I work closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), on the question of public funding for legal services in the family courts. We want to have the very best family court services, and part of that is high-quality, properly trained legal representatives. Obviously, we do not want cases to get to court unless they absolutely have to, but when they do, we must make sure that the public funding is there and that the supply of solicitors and barristers to do that important work is available.

But is it not the case that hundreds of family lawyers across the country maintain that the new Government fee structure for family lawyers is uneconomic and unsustainable? Is it not the case that our network of high street family solicitors is rapidly dissolving? What do the Government intend to do about it?

My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary is discussing the proposed changes that arise from the Carter review. She is in discussion with those providing important family services in towns and high streets and is well aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are concerned to ensure that the supply of solicitors and barristers is there, but above all we want to make sure that mediation is available as well so that cases do not have to go to court unless it is absolutely necessary.

I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, but when I met members of the Sussex Law Society some two weeks ago many of them expressed grave concern about the continuing availability of representation for vulnerable people in family law cases. Will she give due consideration to the representations that I have forwarded to her Department on behalf of members of the Sussex Law Society?

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s points are well made. Perhaps it will be possible for him to arrange a discussion with his local law society and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, who has departmental responsibility for the Carter review.

We are absolutely determined to ensure that we have the right sort of legal services in the family justice system, and we want to work with the profession to ensure that that is the case.

if she will make a statement on the meeting between the Oxfordshire coroner and her departmental officials in August 2003. (94025)

Following the announcement of the Hutton inquiry, the Lord Chancellor indicated that he was minded to invoke powers to ask the coroner to adjourn the inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly, pending the outcome of the inquiry, unless there was an exceptional reason why he should not do so. The coroner met officials from the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 11 August to discuss how he might briefly resume the inquest to admit further evidence of the cause of death so that the cause of death could be accurately recorded by the registrar, and that then happened.

Why was that meeting taking place when the coroner, having been replaced by Lord Hutton, was officially off the job? How could he legally resume an inquest when Lord Hutton had been given the powers to deal with the matter in place of the coroner? Is not the Minister concerned about the backlog of more than 100 inquests into the deaths of British military personnel that has built up under the coroner, dating back to 2003? Does she share my disquiet about the way in which this particular coroner is undertaking his duties?

We have been very concerned about unacceptable delays in the inquests into the deaths of servicemen and women in Iraq. I am working with the coroner, together with additional coroners who have joined him, to help with the backlog. I would like to thank him and also Selina Lynch, Andrew Walker and Sir Richard Curtis, who are determined to ensure that bereaved relatives get questions about the deaths of their loved ones promptly answered. We are getting on with ensuring that the backlog is dealt with as it should be. As I said, the delays are unacceptable.

As to the meeting with Department for Constitutional Affairs officials about the death of Dr. David Kelly, I shall explain what happened. When the Hutton inquiry was announced, section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 became relevant. It allows the Lord Chancellor to tell the coroner that there will be a public inquiry and if, in his view, it covers the same ground as the inquest, what happens is that, unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary, the coroner has a duty to adjourn the inquest until after the inquiry has concluded. The meeting with officials came about because, although the inquest was opened by the coroner with initial information about the cause of death, further information—after the Hutton inquiry had been announced, but before it had got under way—came in from Home Office pathologists, including a toxicology report. The coroner wanted to be sure that that information was formally admitted so that it could be passed to the registrar in order to ensure that details of the death were properly recorded. I was not working in the Department at the time, but I have discussed the matter with officials and the position is as I have described it. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants further information, I would be happy to write to him.

24. What assessment she has made of the impact of requiring voters to sign for receipt of their ballot paper. (94027)

Where it has been tested in election pilots, the impact has generally been positive. The requirement has not resulted in long queues in polling stations.

Salford city council has a good record in electoral administration, but it has some concerns. Members of the council wanted me to ask the Minister about paragraph 75 of Schedule 1 to the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Does she believe that the requirement to sign for ballot papers could lead to queues building up in polling stations, which might deter voters? Secondly, as comprehensive checks cannot be made on individual signatures, is there still merit in having people sign for a ballot paper?

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend and her constituents on having the highest level of registration—92 per cent.—in the Salford local authority area. I hope that other constituencies around the country will attempt to reach that same level of registration. As to signing at polling stations, there was no indication in the pilots that queues were forming and I do not believe that they are likely to result in the future. However, there is a requirement for returning officers to be aware of the problem and to make plans to deal with a heavier turnout, perhaps in a general election.

As for keeping the signatures, while people will sign at the polling station, if there is any question of fraud or impersonation thereafter, the police carrying out the investigation will be able not just to look at the signature used at the polling station but to seek to verify other signatures such as the one on a credit card. They will also be able to use specialist signature checking expertise to support that task. I am therefore confident that the system now in place will provide greater security to the electoral process and allow people to feel confident about the integrity of the system. At the same time, the system will ensure that registration reaches the level that it should. It will help to ensure that the 3.5 million people who are currently not on the register soon will be, so that their voices can also be heard.