To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the transit of bicycles on trains; and if he will make a statement. [13344]

Representations have been made recently to my Department and to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising about the carriage of bicycles on trains. I am very encouraged that franchisees are being ever more responsive to cyclists' needs, simply because they want more people travelling by train.

Is it not a good idea for cyclists to make use of the railway? I understand that the Secretary of State has an honourable record on this in connection with work that he produced when he was a Back Bencher, which involved my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, has not a new situation arisen with the railways' fragmentation? It has presented many blocks and problems, so that information to cyclists about moving throughout the system is difficult to obtain. Pre-booking is beginning to be required. There is the costs problem and there is no official monitoring of cyclists' problems. Perhaps it is time for the Secretary of State to get on his bike and sort those things out.

The Secretary of State never got off his bike. It is true that, in the 1970s, some hon. Members, including my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Acton, and I launched initiatives to make it easier for people to carry their bicycles on trains, and I think that we achieved modest success. I am happy to say that, since privatisation, there are signs that the new system is even more cycle-friendly. For example, at Paddington, a station that I use regularly, there are now many cycle racks. Franchise operators that order new rolling stock are making provision for bicycles. Great Western Railway has tripled the capacity of its high-speed trains to carry bicycles; the franchising director has invited franchisees to make it clear, when they bid, what they propose to do for cyclists; and the regulator has a role to play in ensuring that any charges are reasonable—so a brighter dawn is before those of us who like to carry our bicycle on the train.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the routes from Bradford and Leeds to the Yorkshire dales, particularly Airedale and Wharfedale, are among those that are of particular value to cyclists? Does he agree that it is therefore particularly good news for cyclists and visitors to the dales that the franchising director has today awarded the franchise for the service on those two lines to MTL Rail Ltd? Would it not be good to ensure that the new electric multiple units, which replace the existing class 308 rolling stock, have adequate space for cycles and for equipment carried by walkers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reminded the House of what is happening throughout Britain: where a new franchise is let, provision is often made, through either refurbishment or the introduction of new rolling stock. I am anxious that, when rolling stock is refurbished or new rolling stock ordered, adequate provision should be made for the bicycle. My Department recently funded the cyclists public affairs group, which is known to my hon. Friend, to draft the "Bikes and Trains" publication, which identifies opportunities for new operators and explains how they can broaden the market base by making it easier for cyclists to travel by train.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that in many cases new rolling stock has no physical capacity to carry bicycles at all? Would not the simplest, most efficient and most effective thing for him to do simply be to make it obligatory for all trains to have adequate space to carry bicycles?

That is what is happening. Connex will introduce new stock on the south-eastern network which makes provision for the carriage of cycles. For Anglia, GB Railways is committed to ordering a number of new trains that must have space for the carriage of at least four cycles. The new operators are introducing rolling stock that will make it easier for people to put their bikes on trains.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities attributable to drivers falling asleep at the wheel there have been on the M180-A180 since it was opened. [13345]

Such information is not normally collected by central Government, but I understand that Loughborough university carried out a study of accidents on this route over a one-year period. In that time, there were four fatalities, resulting from accidents that were related to driver fatigue.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity of seeing the Loughborough university study. Will he confirm that the case put by Professor Jim Horne in the report—I hope that my hon. Friend has a copy—is that there is clear evidence that if one travels in an easterly direction, particularly on the A180 towards Grimsby, accidents or fatalities may be caused by the fact that the road has certain conditions that cause drivers to go to sleep? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing a national study using Professor Jim Horne's work in the report?

I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. It shows that the accident record of the A180 is lower than the average for that sort of road, but rather higher in terms of the number of accidents involving driver fatigue while travelling in an easterly direction towards the docks. That may have something to do with the nature of the road, the length of the journey or people not complying with the advice in the highway code. I will certainly draw the attention of the Highways Agency to the matter. A national study looking at counter-measures to combat tiredness is being conducted by the same Loughborough university team, which will take on board the points raised by my hon. Friend.

As one who has been in close contact with Jim Home for three years regarding two constituency cases and his sleep laboratory, may I ask whether his funding is thought to be adequate? Will the Government interest themselves in the proposed closure of the sleep apnoea laboratory run by Neil Douglas in Edinburgh, as the two work closely together?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising both those points. We keep closely in touch with centres of excellence in research, and the main research has been commissioned through the Transport Research Laboratory. The work started in 1992, and we expect the finished report in April this year. It certainly will be interesting to see what comes of that work. I am not aware that funding has been a problem, but I will certainly look into it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking with regard to the enforcement of parking restrictions. [13346]

In general, enforcement of parking restrictions outside London is a matter for the police. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities may take over responsibility for on-street parking enforcement from the police on a decriminalised basis. The transfer has been a success in London, and we welcome applications from authorities elsewhere.

What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that proper consultation takes place between authorities and local residents? In two areas in my constituency—Crookes and Abbeydale—little consultation appears to have taken place before the introduction of parking restrictions and road alterations, although consultation is now taking place. That cannot be the right way to function—or can it?

My hon. Friend is right: proper consultation with a view to building a consensus is important, and the Government guidelines require authorities to review all their existing restrictions before taking on enforcement to ensure that restrictions are used only where genuinely necessary.

Parking restrictions in London—particularly central London—are a joke. Some local authorities are enforcing and some are not. Of those that are enforcing, some are using it as a fund-raising exercise, rather than the sensible application of regulations. There are people parking on double yellow lines who put on their hazard warning lights and think that they have dematerialised. It is time that the police stepped in and took more effective action, instead of zooming around London in large vans keeping their helmets dry. They should do something about enforcing proper parking restrictions in London so that public and private transport can move easily.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take up his complaints with Labour London authorities which chose to have the powers of parking enforcement. As he should know, the police are responsible for enforcement on red routes in London, but local authorities enforce everywhere else. I suggest that he talk to some of his Labour party colleagues about their deficiencies.

Will my hon. Friend accept that in the past 20 years—thanks to the changes the Government have made in London—the number of free metered parking spaces in Westminster at any one time has gone up from 5 to 30 per cent., not only making it easier for motorists to find space, but reducing traffic and pollution by a compensating amount?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point in his inimitable way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with PFI projects in his Department. [13348]

My Department has made excellent progress with the private finance initiative and continues to take the lead: PFI is delivering substantial investment in transport infrastructure of more than £3.7 billion over the next three years.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in many ways, north-west Kent is the epicentre of the private finance initiative. Not only do we have the leading hospital PFI at Darenth Park, but we have the channel tunnel rail link. Given both those projects and many others, does my right hon. Friend agree that the PFI presents magnificent opportunities for our transport infrastructure?

The Government have worked up the private finance initiative and it is successful across the range of Government Departments. My Department has played a significant part in that the bulk of the deals have come from the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend mentioned the channel tunnel rail link and, as he knows, London and Continental Railways was appointed last February. It took over European Passenger Services and intends to achieve its main project financing and flotation by late 1997 or early 1998. The PFI also has applications for the London underground, roads and civil aviation—it has a lot of potential left.

The Secretary of State will know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when speaking to the Leeds chamber of commerce on the last day of January, mentioned the go-ahead for the Leeds supertram. What private sector contributions have been made to that project? Can the Secretary of State give more details of the reality behind the Chancellor's comments? Can he assure the House that there will be a start in obtaining funding for that scheme in advance of the need for fresh parliamentary provision to pursue it?

I was in Leeds recently and I took the opportunity to talk to representatives of the local authority and others about the Leeds supertram. It is an important project. The difficulty at the moment is that the amount of private sector contribution is not as high as the sponsors would have liked. If we are to make progress with the scheme, which has potential, it is important to drive up the private sector contribution so that the project becomes more affordable within my Department's baseline. I am conscious of the deadline in the relevant legislation.

Bearing in mind the reports over the weekend about the franchising of the west coast main line, can my right hon. Friend say when we may expect a formal announcement, instead of information being leaked out through the press?

The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising announced on Friday night that a preferred bidder had been identified. I hope that that deal will be finalised in the next few weeks; we will then see whether the benefits of franchising that we have seen in the rest of the country can be extended to that most important line.

If private finance is serving transport so well, will the Secretary of State tell us why he will not bring forward proper public-private partnerships for the London underground to attract investment now, in place of the running farce of his privatisation plans, which would sell public assets cheap and mean no new investment for years?

The whole House knows the Labour party's policy on privatization—the Labour party is against it until it happens and then conveniently forgets about it.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the pleasure felt in Scotland at the announcement of the PFI projects for the air traffic control centres. When is the second centre likely to go ahead?

The bids are still being discussed and, following consultation with the airlines, we expect to be in a position to announce the outcome in March.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from London Transport on the potential consequences of the Government's reduction in funding for London Transport for the financial year 1997–98. [13349]

There has been no reduction in planned Government funding for London Transport's core business or for the Jubilee line extension for the financial year 1997–98.

If there is to be no reduction in funding, why is London Transport suddenly making it clear that at its meeting later this week it may well say, for example, that the east London line cannot open again for two years and that it will have to stop some of the major works programmes that are scheduled in its budget? Will the Minister give a direct answer to the question that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked the Secretary of State? Why does he not listen to the one representation above all others made clear by the chairman of London Transport—that all London Transport wants is to be -allowed to borrow from the private sector? It does not want to be privatised and does not mind who owns London Underground, but wants to be able to have public and private money and to be allowed to get on with the job.

That, of course, is precisely what it is getting. It is astonishing that all that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who speaks for the Labour party, can do is criticise every time we invite and encourage private sector money to come into the underground system. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) ought to know better than to peddle rumours on what may or may not be decided at some future meeting, when he knows perfectly well that, if he starts to talk up the possibility of services being delayed, the people who will be worried are his constituents.

Is not the Minister right in saying that, instead of being criticised and knocked all the time, London Underground management should be strongly praised for their remarkable performance in providing the world's biggest underground network, despite the pressure on finances? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Jubilee line, which goes to my constituency, will have a service every two minutes once the modernisation and the link to docklands are achieved? Is not the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) right to say, however, that ownership is secondary to adequate investment?

Ownership and investment may go hand in hand. My hon. Friend is right: enormous achievements are in progress for London Underground through investment. The biggest investment is the £2 billion-worth for the Jubilee line, which includes partnership with the private sector—it is the biggest construction project in Europe. He is also right to draw attention to other work, such as the Central line modernisation and the refurbishment of trains; more than half of London's rolling stock is being refurbished and, as we know, the Northern line is not only getting new trains but its structures are being refurbished. A tremendous amount is going on and it is down to the partnership that we have successfully introduced. We are now looking ahead to find out how we can extend that in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children travelled to school by means other than private car in (a) 1979 and (b) 1995. [13350]

It is estimated that, on average, about 5.7 million children aged five to 15 travelled to school by means other than private car during the period 1993 to 1995. Figures are not available for 1979.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that Staffordshire county council is being asked to pay an exorbitant 85 per cent. increase on the contract price for the school bus service for the coming year? Bus prices were supposed to fall following deregulation, so will he investigate why that price is rising and whether cartels are being formed by bus companies? We do not want even more children to go to school by car.

I certainly cannot comment on a particular contract between a local authority and a bus operator. The great advantage of privatisation and deregulation is that there is a greater choice, and if the authority is not satisfied with one company, it can go to another. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the measure that I announced this morning: the extension of safety measures for children travelling on minibuses and coaches. From today, seat belts will have to be installed in all such post-1988 vehicles. That is a good step forward on road safety, but we want strongly to encourage children to use public transport and bicycles, and to walk.

My hon. Friend may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited my constituency on Friday and saw, in Southover school, the preparation of posters to encourage walking to school. Will he report to the House on the success of that initiative, which encourages what must be the best way for children to get to school, saving fuel and helping the environment?

I am not able to give an update on the Southover experiment, but it is one that I hope will be emulated throughout the country. We want routes to be designated by planning authorities, engineers, local education authorities and schools that make it sensible and safe for children to walk to school. It is no good encouraging them to walk if the routes are not safe. The routes must be signed and well lit, and obstacles and places from which people might jump out need to be removed. I formed, and chair, a walking strategy group that is examining carefully ways to encourage more walking and safe walking; that certainly includes walking to school.

Are not strategies to enable children to go to school by means other than private car encompassed in the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill? I congratulate the Minister and the Government on allowing the Bill to have a Second Reading, and I anticipate that it will have a fair wind. Would not the best way to ensure that the Bill works be to have targets, including UK-wide targets, for the reduction of road traffic? What are the Government's thoughts on the matter?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thanks to the Government for encouraging the progress of that Bill, which had all-party support. The Bill is based on local targets, and that fits neatly with the principles of our transport Green Paper, which encouraged such schemes and gave examples of how they could be run. National targets would be unwise and unworkable, because what is right for a rural area is not necessarily right for a city centre. One has to consider each area according to its needs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the director of Chiltern Railway to discuss the quality of service provided to passengers. [13351]

I would be delighted to meet representatives of Chiltern Railway to congratulate them on consistently beating the exacting punctuality and reliability standards required by their passengers charter. Chiltern's passengers are clearly enjoying the fruits of privatisation.

May I invite my hon. Friend to join me in the near future for a journey on the Chiltern line through my constituency, which would enable him to appreciate at first hand both the success of Chiltern Railway in attracting ever more passengers to use its service and the need to encourage Railtrack to work with the company to provide a dual track on the stretch of line north of Princes Risborough in my constituency, which would both benefit commuters travelling from Buckinghamshire and allow for much faster journeys along the Chiltern line between London and Birmingham?

I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to join him on a journey on the Chiltern line.

Is the Minister aware that the managing director of Chiltern Railway has stated that, because he has only a seven-year franchise, it is impossible for him to justify purchasing more than four new 100 mph trains, which means that he cannot provide an hourly service between London and Birmingham? Is it not time that the franchising director recognised the needs of the travelling public and stopped letting franchises so short that proper investment is impossible? For the benefit of us all, will he remind the franchising director that we had thought that the purpose of privatisation was to enable rational investment, not to create more constraints than existed before?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so ill informed about the process of franchising and the substantial number of rolling stock orders that have been placed, in return not only for 10 or 15-year franchises but for franchises of seven years. Indeed, Chiltern Railway was the first private franchise operator to place an order for new trains. This morning, the franchise for Regional Railways North-East was awarded, with a commitment to replace the class 308 rolling stock that serves the area north-west of Leeds with 16 three-car electric multiple units. I am sure that Madam Speaker will not permit me the time to do so, but I could reel off other examples that prove the hollowness of the hon. Gentleman's case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the cost of rail privatisation. [13353]

In the six years since 1990–91, the following costs will have been incurred in restructuring, privatising, franchising and regulating the new railway industry: Department of Transport, £91.7 million; British Rail and Railtrack, £417.2 million; and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and Office of the Rail Regulator, £121.1 million. Those costs represent some 2 to 3 per cent. of total railway industry turnover over that six-year period. They are far outweighed by the proceeds of more than £5 billion that the Government have received from privatisation.

That is a staggering waste of public money, and an incomplete list. Why did the Secretary of State not include the £450 million of consultancy and other fees involved? Why did he not mention the train leasing companies, valued at £3 billion but sold for £1.8 billion? Cannot the Government understand the anger people feel about the sale of priceless national assets such as the rail network, which was built for the most part with picks and shovels owned by us all? As soon as the Government got their grubby hands on the assets, they were sold off at knockdown prices to the few at the expense of the taxpayer.

That was the same speech that we heard 10 years ago when the Government privatised British Airways. We heard the same diatribes from Opposition Members at every privatisation. Every privatisation has incurred some up-front costs. We believe that they are justified by the enterprise, investment and improved service for customers. Exactly the same arguments apply to British Rail.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome nostalgia that harks back so lovingly to the days of the British Rail sandwich, the mass closure of stations and lines, the wrong snow and the wrong leaves on the track: the standing national joke that was British Rail, notwithstanding the good work done by many? Will he reassure my constituents that he will travel on Midland Main Line so that he can see the excellent work that has been done and the plans that are in hand to increase the number of trains to allow a half-hourly service from London to Leicester, and appreciate the 4 Sight fare, which is finally encouraging people off the M1 and into the trains?

People outside will contrast what they have just heard from my hon. Friend with what they heard from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that we are already seeing improvements in punctuality and reliability as a result of franchising. The long-term savings from privatisation will be substantial; after seven years, the subsidy for the 20 franchises that we have let will be less than one third of that required by British Rail in 1995–96. We are, therefore, getting a better deal for passengers, at less cost to the taxpayer.

Is not the Secretary of State a little frightened of being struck down for the marvellous interpretations of the figures that he manages to give the House? Is not the reality that under some of the new franchises, the old slam-door stock, which is known to be dangerous, is being brought back into operation, painted a new colour and presented as a new service? Is it not true that taxpayers will be paying more after the end of the right hon. Gentleman's machinations, having lost all the assets, than at any other time? Would not it occasionally become the Conservative Government if they just admitted that, in the most brutal and panicky fashion, they have handed bars of gold to all their colleagues in the City in exchange for a worse and unacceptable standard of transport?

The party that needs to admit that it got it wrong on privatisation is the Labour party, not the Conservative party. As a result of franchising, we are witnessing a £1 billion investment in new rolling stock. There is no way that that sort of investment could have been achieved had the railways remained in the public sector—not under this Government and not under an alternative Government supported by the hon. Lady. We are driving up investment to a far higher level than would have been sustained had the railways remained in the public sector.

When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned the slam-door rolling stock that has been painted a new colour, did not my right hon. Friend think of new Labour? Will he ask his Department to cost the amount that the privatised Railtrack and privatised franchise companies will be investing in the railways in the next few years? Were that money to come from central Government funding, how much would that cost the British taxpayer?

The figure for Railtrack is £8 billion spend over five years and the figure for rolling stock investment, which I have just given to the House, is £1 billion. That investment is not coming out of the public sector, and it no longer has to compete with funds for health, education and law and order. The public sector constraint has disappeared. As with other privatisations, railway investment has been driven up fast after privatisation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has carried out concerning the practicability of privatising London Underground. [13354]

We are examining whether the benefits of privatisation can be extended to London Underground. We shall announce our conclusions once that work has been completed.

Does the Minister agree that there would be a further disbenefit to London from the further disintegration of public passenger transport? Is he not aware that London Transport, the pride of the world's transport systems, was introduced by Herbert Morrison in a Bill in this place? It was initially passed by a Labour Government and passed again by a Conservative Government in 1933. Would not privatisation be disadvantageous to Londoners because, by order, public property would have to be disposed of at a knock-down price? Londoners would also have to continue to pay taxes to subsidise not just the natural subsidy that must be paid, but the profits of the operator. That might conceivably be disadvantageous to the Conservative party at the election.

The hon. Gentleman is selective in his use of history. I think that he will recall that much of the London underground started as projects of private railway companies, which put the necessary Bills through the House—as did those responsible for the main line rail services. As I said in my initial answer, we are looking carefully to see whether the benefits of privatisation could sensibly apply. If they did, all the relevant requirements and guarantees—for example, those on fares, the levels of service, travelcards, concessionary fares and so on—would have to be included in a Bill .

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if London Transport were to be privatised, a regulator would ensure minimum standards of service, maximum levels for fares and the continuation of the concessionary fares scheme which is so vital to pensioners across London?

Leaving aside the detail of regulators and so on, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we would not proceed with a privatisation proposal that did not ensure exactly the reassurances that he and, I think, the majority of Londoners want. That would be in stark contrast to anything that I have heard so far from the Opposition about their policies, which would give no new investment, no new lines and no new money to London's transport services.

Do the Government intend to make any detailed departmental announcement to the House regarding their impractical and deeply unpopular proposals to privatise London Underground, or will such a statement emanate, as has been reported, from Conservative central office? If it were the latter, would that not constitute a misuse of civil servants by their drafting party political dogma, demonstrating the Government's gross abuse of dedicated public servants whose duty, first and last, is surely to the British people and not to the chairman of the Conservative party and his propaganda machine?

What a load of nonsense. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the public servants who work for the Government of the day and who work to enable them to propose sensible and workable schemes. The hon. Lady is quick to dismiss a proposal that has not even been announced yet; I suggest that she waits, although I can understand her anxiety for it to be introduced quickly. She now recognises—or, if she does not, at least her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) now recognises—that privatisation has brought benefits in many parts of the transport system and she wants to see whether we have proposals to enable those benefits to be available to London's underground system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about the performance of the train operating companies since privatisation. [13355]

My Department and the franchising director have received 241 letters about the performance of franchised services since franchised operations started, which for some services is now over a year ago.

Will my hon. Friend contrast the reaction following privatisation with the doom and gloom that we heard before privatisation? Are we not starting to see a steady stream of investment and improvement in the railways? All the services are being maintained at least at the level that existed before privatisation and we have the prospect of improvements in track investment—not only the investment that Railtrack has just announced for the West Anglia line serving my constituency, but investment all around the compass.

My hon. Friend is entirely right and, to put those 241 letters into context, those same franchise services will have carried 510 million passengers over the last year. He is right to draw attention to the substantial improvements in services that are being delivered, such as West Anglia Great Northern, which serves his own constituency, and the commitment to introduce a third Stansted skytrain service per hour when necessary to accommodate rising demand. It is a story of new rolling stock, more services for passengers and services being maintained at least at their level before privatisation—and all at substantially lower cost to the taxpayer. It is a double win for passengers and taxpayers.

How many of the representations that the Minister has received from the public relate to the chaos in customer information? Does he accept the view expressed by the Rail Regulator in his recent report that he expects the new customer information system to

"Do much better than it is doing today in providing information about railway services"?

The last time I was asked a question regarding complaints about passenger information, the answer was 12 complaints from genuine members of the public. Unlike organisations that make bogus complaints, most passengers wishing, for example, to travel to the west country would not go to King's Cross to obtain information on services. On Tuesday 4 February, the first anniversary of the Great Western franchise, I opened the new telephone inquiry bureau in Cardiff, which has expanded capacity and new high-tech equipment and which is fully equipped to give impartial information—a licence condition for all rail operators.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to improve the landscaping of motorway and dual carriageway road embankments. [13356]

Existing guidance on the landscape treatment of new schemes is set out in the "Good Roads Guide" and is kept under constant review. New guidance on the landscape management of roadside planting is in preparation. Landscape treatments were addressed recently in the Highways Agency's environmental strategy document, "Living with Roads".

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that even more should be done to improve the landscaping of embankments along our motorways and dual carriageways, and that we can learn a great deal from schemes that have been completed in other countries? Specifically, will he ensure that the embankments along the new motorway sections of the Al are imaginatively landscaped with trees, shrubs and features? Moreover, will he instigate a competition among architects, landscape designers and sculptors to redesign the approach road from Heathrow into the capital city so that we can at least impress our visitors? It would be a stimulus for sculptors to put some of their work on public display.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that tree and shrub planting along the A 1(M) Walshford-Dishforth improvement section has started this planting season. The remaining tree and shrub planting will take place as soon as possible following completion of the remaining engineering works. We take special care to choose native species of trees and shrubs to enhance the landscape through which our roads are built.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the transportation of freight in Yorkshire by rail rather than road; and if he will make a statement. [13357]

The key to the revival of rail freight is privatisation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may scoff, but it is a fact that the amount of freight carried by rail declined steadily throughout the years of state ownership, but that it has recently started to increase. The new private sector freight companies are attracting new traffic to the railway. Meanwhile, we will continue to make available grants to encourage the shift of freight from road to rail.[Interruption.]

Order. The question is about Yorkshire.

is the Minister aware that the rail freight terminal serving Yorkshire and the northern region is in my constituency? It is a key terminal, linking the Yorkshire region with towns in the European Community. The mode of travel for freight is now such that we can introduce a speedy, efficient, door-to-door container service from Wakefield to towns in Europe.

I am well aware of that excellent new facility, because I took a close interest in the provision of assistance for it from Government funds.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of services provided on the LTS line to Southend and Shoeburyness since privatisation. [13358]

The services provided on the LTS line have improved significantly since the franchise, which is operated by Prism Rail plc, commenced operation on 26 May last year. More trains are being run, and reliability and punctuality have improved.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, under the previous management, the service to Southend, where I live with my family, was so deplorable and appalling that it was widely known as the "misery line"? Is he also aware that the job applications of many people in Southend, some of whom I know, to work in London were refused because those people depended on the LTS line to travel to London? In those circumstances, would he be willing to offer his sincere congratulations to the new management? Will he, in all sincerity, seek an assurance from all the parties in the House that, irrespective of who wins the election, there will be no going back to the bad old days?

My hon. Friend speaks for his constituents when he recognises that, following our introducing the passengers charter in 1992, train service performance is at an all-time high. That is good news for his constituents, and good news for all who use that railway.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the amount of traffic that will transfer to the M65–A56 after November 1997 from the M62. [13359]

No assessment has been made of the amount of traffic that may transfer to the M65–A56 from the M62 upon completion of the M65 Blackburn southern bypass. However, completion of the M65 will result in a 10 per cent. increase in traffic on the existing M65 immediately east of Blackburn.

Is that not an absolute disgrace? Many motorists will look for an alternative means of getting to the north-east from the M6, and they may use the M65-A56 in my constituency. Does the Minister understand the tremendous concern of people in Colne that thousands of vehicles will be dumped on their doorstep? The Government have done absolutely nothing about trunking the A56, which could offer those people some comfort. When is the Minister likely to undertake a general review of the trunk road network because at the moment the silence is deafening?

I am aware of the concerns in Colne to which the hon. Gentleman refers, not least because I had an opportunity to discuss them with local councillors when I visited the constituency at the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I undertook that once the M65 Blackburn southern bypass was completed, we would monitor traffic flows, and that I would keep an open mind about whether a case could be made by the local highway authority for further trunking of the local road network. It is sensible for us to consider such possibilities in the light of evidence, rather than on the basis of speculation.

Is it not the case that despite the Government's £6 billion road programme, traffic in the Pendle area will be reduced by the introduction of the west coast main line, which will considerably shorten journey times between the north-west, Birmingham and London? Would not the west coast main line, which will encourage trade in the north-west, be jeopardised by a Labour Government, who have sworn not to see the programme through?

I share my hon. Friend's confidence that the substantial improvements to the rail network and rail services will help to provide a solution to the problems of congestion on our road network. My hon. Friend is right to point out the fact that Labour would rather spend taxpayers' money on renationalising Railtrack than on carrying out sensible improvements to the entire transport infrastructure.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy on the misuse of drugs. [13374]

The Government's policy remains that set out in the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together", which was published in May 1995. We are determined to sustain a vigorous approach to law enforcement in reducing the supply of illegal drugs, while taking effective action to reduce the demand for drugs among young people and providing accessible treatment to reduce health risks. That strategy is being actively carried forward at the local level by the 105 drug action teams in England, with parallel arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that the Government have taken and, indeed, that he has taken to tackle the evil of drugs in our society. Did he see the programme about the dangers of drugs in south-east Essex and note that drugs destroy the lives of our constituents in Essex? Will he join me in welcoming the Crimestoppers initiative and the say no and phone—SNAP—initiative, which encourages youngsters to turn the tables on the evil people who push drugs by giving information to the police on the 0800 555111 telephone number which they can use confidentially?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I did not manage to see the programme, but my office is obtaining a video and I hope to watch it. There is no doubt that the results of the SNAP campaign have been striking. I hope that that effort, continuing as part of the general Crimestoppers campaign, will be pursued. I strongly commend my hon. Friend's support for it in south Essex.

May I take this opportunity to offer the Opposition's congratulations on the work that the Leader of the House has done in chairing the important Cabinet Sub-Committee? From recent meetings that I and some of my colleagues shadowing other Departments have had, we are well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution and non-gimmicky approach. The work is treated very seriously outside the House and will be continued by Labour following the general election.

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about me, and for the assurance that he gave, although I do not anticipate the eventuality.

Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to activities to discourage people in the music industry from making statements and acting in a way that encourages the consumption of drugs among young people, and continue the Government's support for the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, which is going through the other place and which we hope will soon become law?

I can assure my hon. Friend of the Government's continued support for the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). I note also the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), with which I have a great deal of sympathy and on which he has recently received a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the operation of non-sitting Fridays. [13375]

Under Standing Order No. 11A, there are 10 constituency Fridays, on which the House does not sit, in each Session. Those Fridays are treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating periods of notice, and on them hon. Members may give notice of questions and of amendments to Bills between 11 am and 3 pm. The Government have undertaken to use their best endeavours to avoid taking highly contentious business on Thursdays, especially those that fall before constituency Fridays.

Has the Lord President of the Council noticed the impact that non-sitting Fridays and the business generally dealt with on Fridays has had on Thursdays? The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the subject. If he compares Prime Minister's Question Time on a Tuesday with that on a Thursday, he will notice that the Chamber is only half full on a Thursday. There is no difference between a Tuesday and a Thursday—the Prime Minister is equally boring on both occasions, so that cannot be the reason. The difference must involve non-sitting Fridays and their impact on Thursday's business. The House now works virtually a three-day week.

Leaving aside the characteristically tendentious second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can tell him that the basis on which the Jopling proposals were put to the House was that if constituency Fridays were to be sufficiently beneficial to those who sought them, business on Thursdays would have to be kept light. The non-sitting Fridays have been disproportionately beneficial to the Opposition owing to the greater geographical distance from the House of many Opposition Members' constituencies.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. There will be no points of order until after the statement. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we are about to hear an important statement.