1. What steps he is taking to include aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. (109928)

We have pressed for early progress on this issue. We expect the Commission to publish a draft directive imminently. We call upon the German and Portuguese presidencies to make this a high priority in 2007.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do all that he can to ensure that aviation is included in the EU emissions trading scheme, particularly given the Stern report’s clear backing for such measures to help tackle climate change. I would, however, be grateful if he could reassure me and the House that the Government will continue to press for any agreement to avoid being over-generous in the credits offered to airlines to ensure that they cannot benefit financially from entering the agreement, and that it will be brought forward as soon as possible along with other measures to ensure that they reduce their overall emissions.

I am aware of the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. I can give her the comfort that she seeks, because we are determined to ensure that aviation comes within the EU emissions trading scheme. I am also aware of the recent publication by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggesting that that could somehow result in a significant windfall to the airlines. Our intention is absolutely that that should not be the outcome. Aviation will clearly continue to be a very competitive sector and I am sure that the design of the scheme will reflect that.

Does the Secretary of State think that encouraging the growth in air transport is good or bad for the environment?

The Government are very clear about the important challenges involved in getting aviation within the emissions trading scheme, so that we can reach a judgment as an economy and as a society on what we value and where the limited availability of carbon credits should be directed. It is worth bearing in mind, for example, that five power stations alone generate more CO₂ than the entire aviation sector in the United Kingdom. It is therefore right that aviation takes its place along with the other sectors of the economy as we seek to deal with the issue as the Stern report recommended.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how building new runways at Heathrow and Stansted will reduce the rate of growth in aviation carbon emissions?

Our objective is that aviation should come within the emissions trading scheme. If one reads the Stern report, as I did ahead of the progress report on the air transportation White Paper, it is clear that the right response to meeting the environmental challenge that faces the aviation sector is not to make arbitrary decisions in relation to the cancellation of particular pieces of infrastructure, but instead to work internationally and domestically to meet this challenge. That is why we have been at the forefront of efforts to bring aviation within the emissions trading scheme. It is worth reminding the House of just how international is the challenge that we face. China is currently building 49 airports. We need only look across the channel at the number of runways at Schiphol or in Paris to see that the challenge must be addressed internationally, given that carbon does not respect international borders.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading scheme is to be effective, the scheme will need to be rather more robust than that which came from the European Union in the first round? In particular, what are the Government doing to ensure that the credits that are available will be offered to companies by auction rather than by a system of grandfather rights?

Of course, we want to see what lessons can be learned from the establishment of the emissions trading scheme at a European level. The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that there have been difficulties with the original scheme, but that does not argue against the need to ensure that improvements are made to it or, indeed, that aviation should come within it. That is the most effective means by which we can take international action, and at the same time reach that judgment as an economy and as a society on where we place our priorities.

Does my right hon. Friend think that Britain’s contribution to dealing with aviation emissions is likely to lessen unless BAA at Heathrow gets its security shaken up and sorted out? What is the Department doing to ensure that that happens before BAA management at Heathrow cause lasting damage to Britain’s tourist trade and London’s position as a world centre, let alone severely inconveniencing travellers over this holiday period?

Of course there will be peak demand at Heathrow in the days to come—that is why only yesterday I had a lengthy conversation with the chief executive of BAA to ensure as best I could that he was offering me the assurances that need to be given. Clearly, there will be challenging days ahead given the volume of traffic passing through Heathrow, which I hardly need remind the House is the busiest airport in the world. Since the events of August, BAA has taken steps in recruiting more staff, but I will watch closely the progress that BAA management make on what are essentially operational decisions in the days to come.

Now that we have all seen the paper anyway, does the Secretary of State agree with AirportWatch and others that a carbon trading scheme that will reduce emissions by 2020 from 142 per cent. to 136 per cent. is “meaningless” and at the same time manages to be burdensome and difficult to implement. Is there not a better way?

We are committed to the emissions trading scheme because it represents the most effective way forward in terms of both the action that we can take and the action that needs to be taken at a European level. I certainly do not think that the way forward is to offer different messages to different constituencies. When preparing for the debate today,I took the trouble of familiarising myself withthe various representations that have been made on the emissions trading scheme. Although the leader of the Conservative party has supported the emissions trading scheme, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) stated to Tory Radio on 17 April:

“I don’t think that Conservatives should seek to proactively try to constrain growth in aviation because that’s not the way we work.”

In contrast, he told a green audience—

Order. Perhaps we will leave that.

2. What the cost has been to date of the preparation of schemes to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Felton and at Mousen, near Belford. (109929)

To date, £4.26 million has been spent on preparation costs for the A1 Morpeth to Felton scheme, and £1.23 million has been spent on preparation costs for the A1 Adderstone to Belford scheme.

That is more than £5 million. Now that the Prime Minister has said that he wishes that the A1 was dualled and all the regional bodies have said that it is a strategic national road, surely that money should not be wasted, but used as the basis for those limited improvement schemes to be introduced much sooner than now looks possible.

I naturally noticed the Prime Minister’s interest in the scheme, but one of the things about my job is that I often have to say no to very important people. The simple fact of the matter, as the Prime Minister pointed out, is that we have to set priorities. There is not a huge amount of money available to fund every possible scheme. We asked the local people in the region for their advice on the scheme, which was that it should not be a priority and that we should stop moving forward with it.

Will my hon. Friend look again at the answer that he has just given? If he does, he will find that the region did not say that the dualling of the A1 was not a priority. It said that any funds for that scheme would eat up all the funds available for the rest of the transport systems in the region. Therefore, it is not that the scheme is not a priority; it is just that there are insufficient funds for it.

The simple fact of the matter is that we identified a sum of money that it was reasonable to spend in each region of the country and we asked the regions to prioritise that. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the region came up with other priorities, including many that he has supported and which are moving ahead on a faster time scale than the dualling of the A1. We have asked the region to look at its priorities again in two years. If it has got things wrong, it can prioritise the dualling of the A1 over some of the other schemes, but I suspect that my hon. Friend will be back complaining about that, because it will mean that some of the schemes that he supports will sink down the priority list.

Will the Minister admit that that is a totally unjustified attack on the regional transport board, which was given a paltry £547 million for all transport—rail, buses and roads—in the north-east over the next 10 years? It had to work within that constraint when fixing its priorities. Does the Minister accept that the only way that important schemes such as the A1 western bypass could go ahead is through the introduction of road charging, which would be hugely unpopular in the region?

That is the first time that I have ever heard the words “£547 million” and “paltry” in the same sentence. It seems like a large sum of money to me. The simple fact is that funding was allocated to each region using exactly the same formula. Every region faced the same problems and difficulties in prioritising its schemes. The region took the view that the scheme in question should not become a priority until 2016 and that other schemes should be moved forward first. We have taken the advice of the region because we believe in devolution and listening to local people.

3. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of service offered to bus passengers. (109930)

Last week we published our proposals for a modernised framework for bus services. It contains a number of measures to improve the quality of service offered to bus passengers.

My constituency has benefited considerably from Government funding for bus priority measures, but we are trying to expand bus usage from a low base in a city that was built essentially for private car use. Will the Secretary of State explain how the new proposals will help cities such as mine, which are expanding bus usage from a low base?

Milton Keynes, as an authority, will benefit from the opportunity provided by the powers that we announced last week to enhance the working relationship with private operators. There are many examples throughout the country of effective partnership between local authorities and the bus companies, but there are other areas in which that partnership needs to be strengthened. Powers are now available to local authorities such as my hon. Friend’s to ensure that that effective working relationship is not limited to a number of locations, but much more widely spread throughout the country.

You, Mr. Speaker, will have read, as I have, the “Putting Passengers First” document, which on the opening page states:

“One size will not fit all.”

That at least confirms what the Secretary of State said last month about no return to the pre-1985 regulation era. Will he also confirm something else? According to the document, bus usage has been declining since 1970, and page 21 states that increasing car usage is the single most important factor behind bus decline. How will he reverse that policy?

Bus patronage has been decliningfor many decades—indeed, in an exchange across the Floor of the House in a previous Question Time, there was an argument about whether it started in the 1950s. I fully acknowledge that there has been a decline in bus patronage for many years. It is also the case that the number of vehicles on our road has been increasing. As I recollect, since 1996 it has risen from about 26 million to 33 million. We face a challenge, and that challenge is to give people a real alternative to using the car. It partly involves resource, which is why we have committed new sums to buses over recent years, but it also means that we need to have the governance arrangements right so that there is an effective partnership working between local authorities and private bus operators. That is the spirit in which we published the document last week.

It is beyond peradventure, is it not, that the decline in bus services was exacerbated when buses were deregulated in the mid-1980s? Is not it the case that the single most important way of improving the life of bus passengers is to re-regulate the bus service? I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has made a nod in that direction in “Putting Passengers First” by saying that it should be possible to introduce quality contracts and that there should not be an unnecessarily high barrier. My question is why my constituents should have to wait when they are being exploited by unreasonable bus groups, like First Group and Stagecoach, every day of the week. We want action to enable quality contracts to be introduced now.

I recognise the force of my hon. Friend’s point about the need to ensure that quality contracts not only exist in theory, but can be achieved in practice. That is why we have looked carefully at the hurdle for quality contracts. I hope that there is a consensus in the House that the right way forward is to publish the document and to facilitate a draft Bill, so that there isproper discussion of the measures, which could have an impact on communities across the country, beforewe move on to legislation. That strikes the right balance between urgency and the appropriate level of consultation.

Does the Secretary of State accept that for many people in rural areas the bus will never be a real alternative to the car? Does he further accept that in those rural areas there is real concern about suggestions for road pricing? Will he address that when he replies to the question?

It is curious that the Conservative party is changing its position on road pricing almost by the question. We are clear about our position on road pricing. We see a case for taking forward regional pilots. We also want to take forward the debate on a national scheme, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a view on those matters. In terms of the provision of bus services in rural communities, I shall take no lectures from the Conservatives. Of course we need to continue to consider the provision of public transport to our rural communities, but I do not see the way ahead as being the approach adopted by them during their 18 years in power.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that we are spending considerable millions of pounds supporting bus services provided by the private sector. Has he had discussions with the private sector with a view to directing some of that money towards supporting young apprentices to get into work, in particular in the bus industry, where there is an acute shortage of suitably qualified individuals?

It is a matter of record that in recent years, under this Government, the number of apprentices has significantly increased from the position we inherited. I recently visited a bus depot and saw for myself a number of workers who were being trained as bus drivers. The industry has a responsibility to recognise that it needs those properly trained people if we are to have the increase in bus usage that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some bus companies are changing their timetables in a way that prevents pensioners from taking up the free travel that is available to them? For example, the 9 o’clock Yorkshire Coastliner service from Scarborough to Malton, York and Leeds now leaves at 8.50 am and pensioners cannot use it without getting a lift down the road to the first stop from which the bus leaves at 9 am.

I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of that particular route, given his constituency interest, but I hope that—as seems likely from the tenor of his question—he welcomes the resources that we have committed to the concessionary travel scheme for pensioners, and trust that he will continue to support it in the future. As for his point about the changing of timetables, one of the facts that surfaced during our long, hard look at bus services over the six months leading up to last week’s publication of our document was that timetables are too often changed in an arbitrary manner that leaves the passenger behind. That is exactly why we want the changes that the document describes.

When my constituent Mrs. Margaret Pollard complained to Stagecoach in Manchester that a 42A bus had failed to stop at the university bus stop, she was told that it was a busy bus stop. She was advised to board another bus in future and to wait for the 42A at a quieter stop. As my right hon. Friend will know, there are too many buses on the route because of companies competing for passengers, which has led to congestion involving both buses and cars. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals in “Putting Passengers First” will help Greater Manchester passenger transport authority to deal with the problem?

First, let me express my sympathy for my hon. Friend’s constituent. It does not seem to me that the approach adopted in that instance is the best way to produce the increase in passenger numbers that we have been discussing today.

I have met members of Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, and also the leader of Manchester council. I am fully aware of the so-called bus wars that have been taking place in that community, and we were mindful of those circumstances when we produced our document last week.

4. What plans he has for the development of train services to Northampton; and if he will make a statement. (109931)

Plans for train services at Northampton are contained in the specification for the new west midlands franchise and outputs of the west coast main line modernisation project. Both have been published by the Department. They include an increase in the number of trains to and from the west midlands, and a new inter-regional service between Euston and Crewe.

In Northampton, which is one of the growth areas, there is a particular need for upgrading of the line that runs north from the town so that we can have fast main line services commensurate with those on the west coast main line, but the matter is not due to be examined until 2012. Will my hon. Friend consider bringing forward the timetable, and will he meet me with members of the rail users group in the new year to discuss that and other issues relating to our train service?

I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents, but I cannot at this stage offer her any encouragement in respect of Northampton’s inclusion in fast inter-city services. Adding Northampton as a stop to the current inter-city routes would add12 minutes to total journey times. However, when modernisation works at Rugby are completed, a new hourly service will link Northampton with the main stations on the west coast main line to Crewe. That will be in addition to the reinstatement of the previous twice-hourly service between Northampton and the north.

The Minister will know that many of the constituents ofthe hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) use the Midland Mainline service, which starts at St. Pancras and heads up to Sheffield. Will he ensure that when the decision is made on which new franchise is to gain the Midland Mainline service, the service to Market Harborough—which is also used by Northamptonshire people—is not diminished in any way? At present we have a half-hourly service, but there are proposals to reduce it to an hourly service off peak. Will the Minister make certain that that does not happen?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the minimum specification for franchises is a matter for public consultation. As the local Member of Parliament, he will be invited to take part in that consultation if he has not already done so.

5. If he will increase funding for local charities and community groups for the provision of transport services in areas with low levels of public transport. (109932)

Current central and local government support for bus services amounts to over £2 billion a year, including funds paid directly to community transport groups by the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a fully effective and comprehensive public transport system, there must be planned support for community groups that is complementary with support for other forms of transport? Up and down the country, groups such as Stafford community link are struggling to provide their current excellent services because of short-term, insecure funding. Can my hon. Friend promise them a more sustainable plan for the future, so that they can rely on it and make their own plans?

First, I congratulate Community Link—Stafford and District for providing an innovative, flexible and popular service that people want. That is the kind of approach that we have very much in mind in respect of our new proposals to improve bus services, which will allow a far greater long-term role for community transport, in areas that are not currently served well, by removing a number of restrictions. Community transport services throughout the country have told me that they are looking forward to their removal, as well as that there is a need for planned funding.

Hackney, South and Shoreditch has good bus services and one of the best providers is Hackney Community Transport, which provides some of the back-route services—those on the back streets of London, rather than the main routes. Will my hon. Friend explain how the Government’s new transport proposals will allow social enterprises such as HCT to benefit and to provide better and more customer-focused services for passengers throughout the country?

I have had meetings with Hackney Community Transport and I am very impressed by the service that it offers to my hon. Friend’s constituents. Our new policy, “Putting Passengers First”, removes restrictions; that will allow drivers to be paid and different-sized buses to be used than can currently be used, and it will simplify the issue of permits. All of that will assist social enterprise.

Will my hon. Friend also look into the way that community transport is funded? Barnsley Dial-a-Ride and Community Transport has an increasing workload as our regular bus services are in decline. Will she also compare the services operating in London with those that operate outside London? The London groups get direct grant, whereas community groups such as Barnsley Dial-a-Ride and Community Transport are paid through the passenger transport authority.

All of those matters are constantly kept under review. It is important to say that, through the bus service operators grant, the Government directly fund more than 700 community transport groups. The rural bus subsidy grant can, of course, be used by local authorities to support community transport, and I encourage them to do so. The revenue support grant from Government is also a major source of funding for local transport, including community transport. For the ninth successive year, that has increased overall in real terms. I understand the points that a number of Members have made well on funding community transport, and they will all be kept under review.

6. What estimate he has made of future passenger capacity on the rail network; and if he will make a statement. (109933)

Since 1996-97, the number of railway passenger journeys has increased by 35 per cent. Current forecasts suggest that that trend will continue. Next summer, the Government will publish their high level output specification, stating what they wish to purchase from the railway during the regulatory control period from 2009 to 2014. A central element will be the increases in capacity that they wish to purchase.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware of the considerable dissatisfaction that is felt by my constituents who use the south-east London commuter route about overcrowding, increases infares, and the unreliability of the service? Furthermore, there is great concern that, as a result of housing developments in Kent and along the Thames Gateway, those problems will get worse. Will the Minister take that on board and take action?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. He mentions fares, but I am sure that he understands that cutting fares, and therefore cutting the amount of money going into the railways, is not a way to increase capacity. Increasing capacity does not always mean running extra trains; other options include improved in-cab signalling, elimination of bottlenecks, longer trains and better timetabling. Allof that requires extra money of course, and the Government are currently putting £88 million every week into the railways. Such commitment must continue if we are to meet the capacity challenges that lie ahead.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if the franchises are to work well, the companies concerned must first make good the promises that they make when they take up the franchises, and that secondly, they should not have an automatic fall-back on to a management contract when their own incompetence causes them to have to give up the original franchise? Will he give us the assurance that there will be a lot more brutal reassessment of the efficiency of such private companies, which are costing the taxpayer a small fortune?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. She will recall that a few weeks ago, during an Adjournment debate in the House, she asked me what the Government’s position was on renegotiating franchises. I explicitly stated then, and I am happy to repeat it now, that the Government do not renegotiate franchises when a franchisee gets into financial difficulties. We and GNER were convinced that it was unable to meet the specification to which it was committed, so we decided to invite new tenders for a new franchisee on that line. That is a robust way to react whenever any franchisee gets into difficulties. We are sending out the signal to the whole rail industry that if they cannot meet the commitments that they have made, we will get someone else who can.

The Minister will be aware that in excess of 72,500 homes are planned to be built in Norfolk over the next 15 years. What steps are being taken to ensure that the already overcrowded railway network and the wider transport infrastructure can cope with that significant increase in demand?

Five years ago, the main headline on the railways was about performance. Now that performance has improved markedly over that period, attention is turning to capacity, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that that is a major challenge. Meeting the capacity challenge will involve a very high level of investment. A central plank of our high level output specification, which we will publish next year, will be what the Government want to buy from the industry in terms of capacity and how much money is available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that any Government who are serious about dealing with capacity constraints will have to come up with the money to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just not acceptable that, in contrast to the rest of Europe, our entire railway network shuts down for 60 hours over the Christmas holidays? In the interests of passengers, of social inclusion and of the environment, will he convene a meeting in the new year to ensure that from 2007, at least on Boxing day, there is some sort of service to take people to see family and friends and to take them to the sales and sporting events?

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but when he talks about family and friends, I hope that he will remember that railway workers also have family and friends with whom they want to spend time on Christmas day and Boxing day. He must also remember that that period is an absolutely essential window for engineering work on the railway network. If that work did not take place, the result would be far greater delays during the rest of the year.

When the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling), awarded the GNER franchise back in March 2005, he told the BBC that the £1.3 billion deal was not excessive and that the east coast line was a “profitable route”. He added:

“We’ve crawled over the figures over the last few weeks because we wanted to make sure that the bid actually stood up”.

What steps is the Minister taking to find out why his Department got it so badly wrong?

The hon. Gentleman is speaking more from wishful thinking than from reference to the facts. The GNER bid was examined by the then Strategic Rail Authority and was subjected to the usual European Foundation for Quality Management assessment. The bid was easily achievable, as has been shown by the fact that recent passenger revenue has increased by 14.5 per cent.—an increase that has exceeded the revenue commitment in the franchise. The reason why the franchise had to be pulled was entirely due to problems with GNER’s parent company, Sea Containers, and not to problems with the franchise.

Then may I ask the Minister to confirm the following? If the franchise and its financial elements were so easily achievable, will he give an undertaking to the House that he expects to get the same level of contribution to the Exchequer from the new franchise agreement when he reaches it in the new year?

The principle of the franchise system—to which I thought, until a few seconds ago, the Conservative party was also committed—is competition. There will be a competition to see which operator wishes to undertake the new east coast inter-city franchise. Once the bids are in, they will be evaluated and we will hold any new contractor to delivering exactly what is specified in the contract. If they cannot deliver it, exactly the same process will have to be gone through again, but I am convinced that the financial problems that GNER encountered in America with its parent company will not be repeated.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that the problems with the east coast main line franchise rested with GNER’s parent company and not with GNER’s ability to run the service. What assurances can he give the House, first, about the quality of the service and the number of staff who will be employed by GNER over the 18 months that it runs the service on a management agreement, and secondly, about the management functions—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to only one supplementary question.

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. The management contract that GNER is now leading on behalf of the Government will, I hope, be limited to 12 months, although it could go on for 18 months. During that period, any major changes to services, including jobs, will have to be approved by the Department. However, we do not expect any such major changes to take place before the new contractor takes over. Job cuts that may have already been negotiated and agreed by the unions will remain unaffected and will be a matter for GNER management and the unions.

Does the Minister share my concern that on the morning of9 December, Trowbridge station ticket office had to spend more time issuing refunds for GWR train services than it did issuing tickets? Does he agree that that is indicative of the changed timetabling and rolling stock reductions over which he has presided and which have caused cattle-truck chaos across the country, but especially in the south?

I am unaware of the specific problems affecting the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. When a new timetable starts, there is always a period in which passengers, especially those who travel every day, have to try to get used to it. However, I am convinced that the new timetable and franchises coming on stream in the next couple of years will introduce new rolling stock and improve the service for everyone travelling on it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that as of today we have the youngest rolling stock of any railway in Europe.

7. If he will take steps to ensure that there is a frequent railway service from all parts of the UK. (109934)

New franchise agreements specify a minimum service level that takes account of demand and network capacity. Bidders can propose more services, where that is operationally practicable. There are also provisions to deal with the need for extra trains during the life of a franchise.

What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that First Great Western provides a good reliable service into Wales in view of the fact that the 3.15 pm from Paddington now stops at Cardiff and does not go on to Swansea? The 7.3 am from Bristol to Cardiff and Swansea has been taken off altogether. What can he do to ensure that a better service is provided for Wales?

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns and they have been echoed by right hon. and hon. Friends over the past few weeks. The 17.18 Cardiff to Swansea service run by First Great Western is a matter for the company: I do not have the authority to intervene in that matter and insist that that particular service is reinstated. However, the Department will continue to monitor passenger numbers on that route. I am told by First Great Western that capacity on alternative services run by Arriva Trains Wales is sufficient to accommodate passenger numbers on that line.

The discontinuation of the 17.18 from Cardiff to Swansea is an absolute disaster for passengers in Swansea and west Wales. In the new cross-country franchise in Scotland, the Government have stipulated the continuation of inter-city routes, so why did they not specify routes to Swansea and west Wales in the case of First Great Western?

The hon. Gentleman is being slightly unfair in trying to draw distinctions between the devolved Administrations. When the timetable for that service was put out for consultation by First Great Western, it attracted very few public responses and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman responded to that change.

My hon. Friend will be aware of my campaign to improve parking at the railway stations in my constituency. What moneys are his Department making available to improve parking across the whole network?

I admit that I was previously unaware of my hon. Friend’s campaign for car parking in his constituency, but I am now suitably informed. Of course, increasing car-parking capacity at park-and-ride stations to accommodate increasing passenger demand is extremely important. As part of the new franchises, train operating companies, in partnership with Network Rail and, very often, local authorities, are asked to produce robust financial plans to expand car parking. However, that expansion is often limited by the private ownership of land.

8. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of commuter train services from Oxford to London. (109935)

First Great Western introduced a new timetable on 10 December, following a public consultation earlier this year. The Department will continue to monitor the effect of the new timetable on passengers.

Is the Minister aware that the four trains that used to run from Oxford to London between 6.30 and 7.30 in the morning so that people could get to work at 9 o’clock have been cut to two? That has caused huge frustration, overcrowding and late arrivals. Will he confirm that that is not his vision for commuter services from Oxford to London, that the Department for Transport is not to blame, and that he will work with us to improve matters?

I can confirm that I am well aware of the problems affecting the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. First Great Western has told the Department that it is looking at ways to plug the gap at 7.25 am. He will be interested to know that Network Rail and First Great Western have put in place a joint action plan to address performance issues, including the Oxford to London route, and to monitor them every month.

21. If she will bring forward proposals to regulate further the activities of bailiffs. (109913)

The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, which is currently under consideration by their lordships, contains measures that will require all private bailiffs to hold a certificate issued by a county court judge. Certificates will only be issued subject to certain conditions, including a criminal record check.

In their 2003 White Paper “Effective Enforcement”, the Government committed themselves to the proper regulation of bailiffs. The reforms in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill are welcome, but they fall short of that target. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present certification system does not tackle misrepresentation, the harassment and intimidation of clients, false threats of imprisonment and serious overcharging—all of which are practised by a significant minority of bailiffs? Will she, even at this late stage, toughen up what is a rather weak piece of legislation?

All the things that my hon. Friend mentioned would be taken into consideration by a county court judge, and I cannot imagine that a certificate would be issued to any bailiff who had been engaged in such activity. The activities of bailiffs are a mish-mash of provisions going back many centuries, and it is sensible to ensure that they are up to date, uniform and under the supervision of a judge. We can discus whether the Bill goes far enough when it comes to this House, but I think that it is a useful step forward.

One purpose of the law in a constitutional democracy is to protect the citizen from abuse of power by public bureaucracies or private bullies. A constituent who visited my surgery on Friday was extremely shocked and angry to have received a visit from a group of bailiffs whom she regarded as complete thugs and who presented her with a series of extortionate charges for which no lawful authority appeared to exist. Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that that is reprehensible? Is it not also reprehensible that my constituent can get no answer from the court, the police or the bailiff other than a reference to one of the other parties? She is being given the runaround, and it will not do.

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send me details of the case, as I shall certainly look into it. Thugs and extortionate demands have no place in the bailiff system, and he is right to say that it is the duty of the justice system and the Government to protect the citizen. That is why we are going to bring in regulation for bailiffs, and I remind him that the criminal law—from which bailiffs are not immune—is also available as back-up. May I just say at this point that the duty of the state is not only to protect citizens but to ensure that, when the county courts or magistrates courts order that a fine or a debt should be paid or that a victim should be compensated, that should happen—within the law, subject to proper regulation, and without any criminal offences being committed. That is what we are aiming for.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will know that the sort of incidents that have been referred to are commonplace and that Citizens Advice has a long list of examples. I am sure that many hon. Members have seen examples. Will she consider making the law stronger? I appreciate that she intends to change things, but we need stronger regulation on charging and on misrepresentation of powers, which bailiffs regularly get away with.

I take my hon. Friend’s point. I pay tribute to Citizens Advice. The last thing that we want is for people who are not paying fines because they simply cannot afford them to be put under pressure, especially if they are vulnerable for any reason. We absolutely do not want to do that. We are working with Citizens Advice to examine what is going on in the system. I offer the House the notion that some people do not want to pay their fines. Some people will fight against paying compensation to victims. Other people will hide behind the legitimate grievances that some people have about overbearing and unacceptable behaviour, which we intend to regulate. People will come along to our surgeries and say that they, too, have been the victims of bailiffs. We have to ensure that the courts make the right orders, that the orders are enforced, that the bailiffs act according to the law and that justice is done by fines being paid and compensation being paid to victims.

Many of us share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) in our constituencies. People are concerned about this. The Minister says that the Government intend to regulate. Given that the Bill will increase the powers of entry for bailiffs and give them the right to seize cash, when do the Government intend to regulate along the lines of the White Paper “Effective Enforcement”? When are we going to have a date for that?

The Bill is under consideration in their lordships’ House. After that, the Bill will come to this House and the hon. Gentleman will be able to scrutinise it. Bailiffs will not have the power to enter any home or property under the Bill unless they are authorised by the court. One of the problems is that people are unclear as to what the provisions are because they are such a complex network. The Bill will make it clear that no bailiff has the right to enter premises without the order of the court. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to discuss that issue in the proceedings on the Bill.

22. What plans she has to improve the integration of legal and advice services. (109914)

The Legal Services Commission is establishing new advice centres and networks in conjunction with local authorities and other funders of advice. These will deliver a much improved and more integrated service that will meet the legal and advice needs of clients, especially those in danger of social exclusion.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I know that this is something that is dear to her heart. Many of my constituents have real difficulty because advice services are provided by the local authorities, and people need to be able to challenge local authority decisions, especially in housing and education matters. What is my hon. and learned Friend going to do to ensure that there is proper mapping throughout the country of legal services so that people have access to independent justice?

My hon. Friend will know that historically there has been a tension between local authority funding and legal advice, but the law centres have managed to ensure that it works. The idea of the community legal advice centres and community legal advice networks is that they will be independent once they have been set up. I really must compliment my hon. Friend because she has made strong voice about the poor quality of legal advice in Northampton, and has had powerful effect. She now has the largest single contract for social welfare law in the east midlands, with 15 solicitors who are quality assured for legal services. She has an interesting scheme which enables patients to see a legal adviser at their GP’s surgery. I think she favours having a community legal advice centre in Northampton and I suspect the Legal Services Commission favours a network across the county, but I can assure my hon. Friend that itis very anxious to talk to her and, indeed, to Northamptonshire county council to find the way ahead and ensure that the sort of integrated services that she has pursued and still seeks come to fruition.

Given the widespread anger and concern among those who currently practice in legal aid and advice services up and down the country about the Government pressing ahead with Lord Carter’s recommendations for next year, what guarantee can Ministers give us that 2007 will not mark the year when the Labour Government will be seen fundamentally to undermine one of the pillars of the welfare state—providing legal aid and advice to the most vulnerable in society at a cost they can afford?

I did not come into politics to see any kind of damage done to legal aid or advice. This scheme is the best way forward to ensure the best services, particularly for the socially excluded, who are very dear to our hearts. A week ago, there was a debate in Westminster Hall and the Liberal Democrats were totally missing from it, while many of my own Back Benchers—[Interruption.] I gather that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was there, but he said not a word. Innumerable Labour Back Benchers expressed real concern about social exclusion and gave real voice to it—and the hon. Gentleman did not. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman needs to stop mouthing back at me and to read the new document. The hon. Gentleman needs to listen—

Order. I remind the hon. and learned Lady that it is Christmas, so perhaps we should try to be a little more kind to one another. It is also important to get through the Order Paper.

I am one of the Back Benchers who attended that Westminster Hall debate, and the Minister will be aware of the concern in my constituency—it probably applies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) too—that the areas around us are quite different from our communities. There is a risk—certainly in Slough—of there being an advice desert, so what I want to know is what aspects of the proposals can help Slough to stop being such a desert.

There is everything in these proposals to ensure that there is comprehensive coverage of an integrated kind, running from basic advice right through to representation. If my hon. Friend has the opportunity to look at the Gateshead community legal advice centre, which was contracted last week, she will see that a local law centre, a local citizens advice bureau and three firms of solicitors have contracted together to supply the whole range of advice, including outreach services, across a wide geographical area south of the Tyne. It has a budget for three years that will guarantee that it will be able to do that. We are working very closely with the local authority to ensure that that comes properly to fruition. This will be a model that we propose to take forward in as many towns as possible where we can engage the local authorities to introduce it. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and, indeed, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) can look forward to 2007 being an extremely sound year for legal aid and advice services.

Is not the Government’s idea of community legal and advice centres, however well intentioned, clearly failing? There was not a single tender for the centre in Leicester and, as far as we know, the scheme is not going ahead there. Should not the Government have followed their own advice and had discussions with law centres and the Law Centres Federation before ploughing ahead with a half-baked scheme and failing to deliver? The Cabinet Office’s own voluntary sector compact makes it clear that the not-for-profit sector should be involved in service design of this sort, so that services are tailored to local needs. Why on earth did the Minister’s Department simply ignore the Government’s advice?

It did not. The hon. Gentleman has not got one thing right in what he has said so far. Leicester had a bid; it was not of the quality that we sought. We will put the Leicester bid out to tender again, but we will not settle, even if he would, for substandard provision. Consultation has been carried out extensively, and certainly since I came into office, I have hardly stopped consulting. I spent the whole summer doing it, and I talk frequently to the not-for-profit sector and to professional providers. Let hon. Members have no hesitation in accepting from me that, going forward, all of this will be done in close liaison with the not-for-profit sector and practitioners. [Interruption.] It really is time that Opposition Members read “The Way Ahead”, because they clearly have not done so.

We very much hope that the new bidding process will result in a centre being created in Leicester. We are very disappointed that one has not been created so far. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is cross with the Liberal Democrats, but the fact remains that, if the Government implement the Carter review, there will be fewer providers of services. Will she give an assurance that, once those reforms are implemented, the service provision will be better than at present?

I am sorry that we were not able to provide the community legal advice centre in Leicester that my right hon. Friend wants to have as quickly as possible. We will ensure that there is a rebid as soon as possible. The framework between the local authority and the LSC is in place—the basis of the plan is in place—but we need better quality bids to match the kind that we have accepted in Gateshead. There may be fewer—

Order.

23. What contribution her Department has made to reducing social exclusion. (109915)

The Department for Constitutional Affairs contributes to reducing and, indeed, to seeking to avoid descent into social exclusion, particularly among those with multiple problems, through promoting accessible, good and co-ordinated advice and information; through early intervention, to avoid the escalation of problems; and through fair, proportionate and expeditious justice in the courts.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. What contribution does the community justice programme make to that process?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about integration between the criminal justice sector and the social welfare sector. There is an obvious link involving people who need social welfare support and advice and who, if they do not get it, descend into criminal activity. The community justice centres—the pilot is in Liverpool, and 10 more have just been announced—aim to problem-solve. They are closely linked with all the problems in the community. The judge makes it his business to go out in the community and ensure that he knows what is going on. Advice resources are available at court, not only for defendants, whose problems are shown up by their offending, but for witnesses and victims. Victims are often thrown into social exclusion by their victimisation, and they, too, can receive advice and assistance at court. There is growing integration between advice in the criminal sector and that in the social welfare sector, which is wholly desirable.

In the spirit of co-operation running up to Christmas, I wonder whether I could help the hon. and learned Lady. Surely, the best way to avoid social exclusion is to open up legal services to all, and the best way of doing that is to stop means-testing for cases before magistrates courts. Will she commit to stop that today?

There is absolutely no connection between the two. Means-testing is an appropriate system to stop the scandalous events that occurred when the cases of people who could well afford to pay for their own criminal defence were funded none the less by the taxpayers in Redcar and those in the hon. Lady’s constituency, whose interests she does not appear at the moment to be protecting. [Interruption.] I will take no lessons from the hon. Lady about social exclusion. It is extremely—

Order. We must have briefer replies.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in Wales the citizens advice bureaux, properly supported by the Welsh specialist support service, have an important contribution to make to reducing social exclusion? Will she comment on the future of those two bodies?

The future for those two bodies is very positive. The point is to turn them over to a fixed-fee regime. They are increasing their productivity massively, which is commendable. They now have a full year in which to do much more of that before they are gently and supportively moved across on to a fixed-fee regime, enabling them to do more work for more people at better prices for the taxpayer. It is difficult to get a value-for-money, good-quality legal advice service into this country, particularly in rural areas. The Tories never managed it. This Government will.

Never has the provision of legal services to the socially excluded been under such threat as it is now. Government proposals have resulted in mental health lawyers complaining that their practices are unsustainable, in family lawyers threatening to stop practising, in criminal lawyers refusing to work and in the future closure of hundreds of high street practices, with resulting advice deserts. Now, even the court workers are going on strike. With all that debacle, is it not the case that the Minister’s Department is increasing, rather than reducing, social exclusion?

The hon. Gentleman is on another planet, where one would expect the Tories to be when talking about social exclusion. Family fees are going to be looked at again and they are going to be dealt with in connection with family practitioners—the principle that I have been explaining all morning. Matters connected with mental health lawyers are going to be looked at again, in connection with practitioners. They have no concerns at all. Criminal lawyers are making the means test work in most major urban centres in this country.

24. What estimate she has made of the number of eligible voters who are not registered. (109916)

The Electoral Commission, in its research report “Understanding electoral registration”, which was published in September 2005, found that in the region of 3.5 million people across England and Wales who were eligible to be registered were missing from the 2000 register.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I have seen the figures. Is she also aware that a high proportion of those 3.5 million people are from minority and disadvantaged groups? Will she guarantee that the Government will make every effort, with resources, to ensure that all those people become registered and our democracy becomes truly representative?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. For our democracy to survive, it is essential that everyone who should be on the register is on it. He is right to point out that those who are most likely not to be on the register come from the younger age group, the socially excluded and, in particular, the black and ethnic minority community. In his constituency, there is under-registration of about 5 per cent. Almost certainly, most of those people will be from the black and ethnic minority community. My Department is working extremely hard, along with the Electoral Commission, to make sure that we go out and encourage electoral registration officers to target, through the Electoral Administration Act 2006, those groups who most need to be targeted to ensure that our register is as complete as possible. On that basis, I hope that every Member of the House, after enjoying a happy and peaceful Christmas, will return in the new year ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote in their constituency is on the register and able to do so.