May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

MONDAY 24 JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.

TUESDAY 25 JULY—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 26 JULY—Remaining stages of the Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.

THURSDAY 27 JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Utilities Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Postal Services Bill.

FRIDAY 28 JULY—Motion on the Summer Recess Adjournment.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

The House will also wish to know that on Monday 24 July there will be a debate on a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for the business for next week. Can she confirm that on Monday, the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on his return from the G8 summit? What other statements will be made by Ministers next week? On that subject, is it not slightly absurd that the House was formally told only at 11 o'clock today that there would be a statement on transport by the Deputy Prime Minister, whereas the media have known for days that that would happen? Is not there a better way of letting the House know about planned statements? I think that the right hon. Lady will find that the Chancellor mentioned the publication.

The Deputy Prime Minister's statement is, of course, not yet available to the House, but is it not clear that the details have already been released to the press? The Evening Standard must have had all the details before 9 o'clock, because they are set out in that newspaper. Will the right hon. Lady conduct a leak inquiry into how that discourtesy to the House could have occurred?

I understand that a decision is imminent on the future ownership of the dome. There is much public interest in how much it is being sold for and in the new owner's future plans for the site. Could the House have a statement on that?

Finally, can the right hon. Lady confirm that on Wednesday, there will be valedictory tributes to Madam Speaker and that on Thursday. there will be a business statement giving the business for the first two weeks back after the recess?

Yes, I anticipate that the Prime Minister will make a statement on the G8 summit.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about formal notification of statements, but he will know that those are the procedures of the House. Whether a statement is to be made is always in the balance until the morning in question because, apart from anything else, Madam Speaker and others may have decisions to make about the progress of business, so the final decision is not made until that morning. However, I take his point that there may be merit in giving advance notification if it is fairly certain that a statement is to be made. I endeavour to do that in the business statement, but I shall consider his point.

I fear that I have not seen the Evening Standard, so in consequence I do not know whether what is in it is accurate or a leak. Whatever the case may be, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement in the not too distant future, the opportunity to raise that issue will arise. Nor is it clear how imminent is the decision about the dome, but I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct to say that on Wednesday, we expect the formal valedictory from and for Madam Speaker. The whole House is looking forward to that. I have forgotten what the right hon. Gentleman asked me about Thursday.

Will there be a business statement?

Yes. I anticipate making a business statement on Thursday.

Seven days ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the subject of the cluster of new variant CJD victims in the north Leicestershire village of Queniborough, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). Will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement before the recess on the background to that incident; to reassure the House and the people of Leicestershire that enough is being done to investigate this worrying occurrence; and to reassure them that sufficient resources are being devoted to it so that we can learn from what has happened?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised this matter last week. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend will know that some quite detailed investigations and research are under way. While I understand his anxiety to have a statement before the recess, if possible, I am sure that neither he nor anyone else would wish my right hon. Friend to make a statement before there is a clear understanding of the situation.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the contrast between the way in which the House conducts its business in relation to the comprehensive spending review and its treatment of the Budget? The Budget covers one year and is followed by a three or four-day debate concentrating on various elements within it. The comprehensive spending review, which covers three years, is followed by a half-day Adjournment debate and some statements and questions. Bearing in mind the greatly increased significance of the CSR in the Government's planning and organisation, will the right hon. Lady consider whether in future its exposure to debate in the House might be more equivalent to that of the Budget? That might also give the House an opportunity to consider one or two elements that were not in the CSR, such as the omission of any improvement to pensions, which is certainly deeply felt by people in the country and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Will the Leader of the House look carefully at the business for tomorrow as there is a list of 58 private Members' Bills for consideration? Will she bear in mind the request that has been made through the Modernisation Committee and elsewhere for the House's procedures on private Members' business to be given careful scrutiny? Perhaps she will undertake that the Modernisation Committee and others will give that serious consideration in the coming weeks.

Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which the Budget is followed by several days' debate whereas the CSR does not follow the same pattern. However, the big difference between the two is that the Budget deals with the revenue-raising side of policy and looks in depth at what that means over a number of days. The comprehensive spending review, particularly one that looks three years ahead, is only a broad outline. Whereas the Budget is followed by the Finance Bill, which looks in detail at tax measures, the CSR is followed not only by a number of departmental statements, but by the unfolding of what those general totals mean over time.

I recognise that some silly statements have been made, particularly in the news media, about the CSR being a reannouncement and not involving new money. That is why it must be made clear to people what it means in terms of the impact on their local community—something that some people have an interest in obscuring.

With regard to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about pensions, of course I understand the great interest on both sides of the House in what is happening in terms of pension policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that there would be further announcements in due course, but I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government are doing at least as much as the Liberal Democrats promised in their last manifesto when they said that they would increase pensions only in line with inflation. As far as I am aware, no one in the House—certainly not in the three main parties—proposes to increase pensions by more than inflation, or at least to link them with earnings. Every party would have given the same increase because of this year's low inflation—something that, again, people are perhaps more anxious than they should be to obscure.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about private Members' Bills. No doubt it will be raised again. I simply say that, under successive Governments, over many a decade, people have examined our procedures for such Bills, but have not thought fit to make major changes.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on women's representation in Parliament? She will know that all political parties have difficulties in finding candidates who represent the whole of their communities—women and men. She will also know that Labour has been the most successful party in promoting women candidates. However, I am sure that she knows, too, that in Wales, the six seats held by Labour where the sitting Members are retiring have all chosen Labour candidates who are men. Can she find time for a debate in which we could discuss and find a solution to this very important issue?

What about some more hermaphrodites?

My hon. Friend may have heard, as I did, some of the heckling from Conservative Members, who are of course embarrassed by the lack of representation of women in their ranks. Somebody—fortunately anonymous, as far as I am concerned—said that we needed more hermaphrodites. I remind the whole House, and Conservative Members in particular, that women are more than 50 per cent. of the population. They might bear that in mind when they make some of their less polite remarks.

I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend might look to the opportunities in Westminster Hall, which offers double the time for Adjournment debates.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement next week on the implications for policing of the investigation that led to the discovery of the body of Sarah Payne? Her family are constituents of mine, and I think that their resilience under what was ultimately a tragic event was remarkable.

Will the Leader of the House also ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the Dispatch Box and perhaps lead a debate on the future of cottage hospitals? Three cottage hospitals in my constituency—Emberbrook, Cobham and Walton—are suffering from cuts that could lead to the ending of the use of intermediate beds, much to the disturbance of local people.

I know that the whole House will want me to express our sympathy for the family of Sarah Payne and our horror at her tragic death. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is conscious of the implications for policing, although we all know that there will always be tragic cases that, no matter how efficient our policing, will fall through the net. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that we have questions to the Home Secretary on Monday, and he might find an opportunity to raise the matter then.

The issue of cottage hospitals is, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I am well aware of his, and everyone's, wish to see the best and most efficient provision in health care, and I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.

What plans does my right hon. Friend have for a hectic week ahead in terms of the timetabling of business and the programming of motions to ensure that we have a speedy and effective week of legislating?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that it is important that the House should deal with its business expeditiously and well. She is also right to identify the fact that proper programming of discussion is the most effective way of achieving that. The Government hope that it will be possible to achieve business and get a proper pattern of debating by agreement, but we of course reserve the right to table any motions that might be required to ensure that business is indeed secured.

It is evident from her statement that the Leader of the House has not been able to find time next week for the promised debate on defence procurement. Hundreds of aerospace workers lobbied Parliament this week, anxious about their future. What reassurance can she give me that, when the House returns, we will have an early opportunity to hold that debate?

The right hon. Gentleman may or may not have heard me say last week that the Government have every intention of scheduling a debate on defence procurement. He will know that, in recent days, the Secretary of State for Defence has made a number of procurement announcements, all of which were welcomed. He will know also that the review announcement on Tuesday conveyed that more resources would be available for defence. In other ways, the Government have made resources available to the aerospace industry. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents is that the Government are endeavouring to make the right decisions for our defence needs—decisions that have a proper regard for the national interest and a continued rise in employment.

When will we have a chance to debate early-day motion 985, on a matter that my right hon. Friend possibly has not had a chance to study?

[That this House welcomes the statement of the Government Actuary that the link between the basic pensions and the earnings level could be restored for the next five years without any increase in National Insurance contributions; notes the answers to parliamentary questions that confirm that keeping contributions at their present level, as a proportion of earnings, would allow the link to be paid until 2011 while producing a surplus of £4 billion; and believes that this evidence fully justifies an immediate restoration of the link and a declaration of the Government's intent to increase pension levels at the true rate of earnings inflation.]

There seems to have been a significant change in Government policy late last night in another place, where the Government accepted, for the first time, a welcome amendment by Baroness Castle of Blackburn which instructed the Government Actuary to investigate the results of restoring the link between earnings and the pension level. The Government Actuary has indicated to the Select Committee on Social Security that the link could be restored without any additional spending and without any increase to the national insurance scheme for the next five years. Other parliamentary answers have indicated that the link can be restored up to the year 2011. This long-awaited act of justice for pensioners should be carried out within the foreseeable future. It is now, as we know, affordable and can be done without any additional public cost.

My hon. Friend and I are probably among the few in this House who have ever read the reports of the Government Actuary with interest. I recognise the basic point that he is making and the Actuary will no doubt flesh out the information that is needed. My hon. Friend will know that any such decision would have a major impact on other potential changes in social security. He will know also that, during the course of the Parliament, the Government will have spent £2 billion more on support for pensioners than would have been required by restoring the link with earnings. We have done so by concentrating the greatest amount of help on those who were already in the greatest need. The Government recognise other areas of need and are moving to deal with them appropriately.

Will the Leader of the House bear it in mind that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food intends next week to announce a major reorganisation of its regional service centres, which will include the closure of some centres? Will she bear it in mind also that the Select Committee on Agriculture intends to vote on a report on this very matter next Wednesday? In light of the debate on the relative powers of the Executive and the legislature, will she ask MAFF to bear in mind the appropriateness of the two announcements?

I will do so, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is Agriculture questions next Thursday when he may have an opportunity to make those points himself.

Following the advice of Advocate-General Siegbert Alber that European member states should impose VAT on tolls, I have established that the final decision is expected on 12 September. As this is during the recess, I urge my right hon. Friend that nothing should be done on this serious issue until we have come back from the recess and had a chance to debate it, so that those of us with interests—including bridges, such as the Humber bridge—can press our case that we should exempt this country from that levying of VAT.

I understand the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend on the matter and she will know that the measure would have a more major impact on many other member states than it would on the UK. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but she may find later today, and on other occasions, the opportunity to raise the issue. In case she does not, I promise to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Yesterday, while responding to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in columns 365–69 of the Official Report, the Prime Minister made six references to Opposition spending cuts of £16 billion. Thereafter, in columns 371–74—while responding to lesser mortals—the Prime Minister changed gear upwards to Opposition spending cuts of £24 billion at the next election. Can we have a definitive statement next week on the second figure, so that some of us who are interested parties can from it work out the date of the next election?

I have not seen the text of Hansard to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but it is occasionally true, as I know to my cost, that Hansard very, very rarely does make errors. [Interruption.] I have vivid memories of having referred to someone as a "mugger" and seeing it represented in Hansard as "mother". It did rather spoil the sense. However, I heard clearly what the Prime Minister said. What he said was, £24 million per constituency. In other words, it was a breakdown of the £16 billion to show the impact in the constituencies of individual Opposition Members. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety on that point and feel confident that it is something that the Conservative party will hear much of between now and the election.

May we please have an urgent debate on leaks—not the Welsh kind, but the Gould kind—because the nation is now surely entitled to know just where all these leaks are coming from? Is it from Downing street, from Millbank, or, as I have seen in one newspaper, from the Daily Express? The reason why it is important to know is that, in this age of alleged freedom of information and alleged open government, it would appear that the Government are nevertheless concerned to cover up ever more of what goes on at the highest level, rather than be open, transparent and honest with the people. Can we please have an urgent debate on that matter, so that we can eliminate all the suggestion of leaks and enter a period of genuine open government?

It is entirely clear in whose interest these leaks are being printed at the time that they are being printed. It is to try to ensure that the British people do not hear the news about the substance of the Government's policies. What is becoming increasingly clear is which party is really interested in substance and which in spin.

May we have an early debate on the Ilisu dam in Turkey, from which the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and I have just returned, on a visit funded by Kurdish human rights groups? The project involves shoving 45,000 people out of their homes without proper consultation. It infringes most of the World Bank guidelines. It is bad for the environment; it is bad for human rights. It would be very bad if the British taxpayer, through export credit guarantees, were to get involved in that project, particularly as the Turkish Government are not likely to adhere to the conditions set down by the Department of Trade and Industry.

I of course understand the concern that my hon. Friend and others, including the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, have expressed. She will know that the Government have indicated that we would take the most careful note of the concerns expressed, but she will also know that, as yet, no decision has been made or announced.

The right hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have a problem with losing important pieces of paper, but it has become more serious lately, according to reports in The Guardian: the Government have lost 5 million pieces of confidential information—the tax records of 5 million people. That was brought to light by The Guardian from, apparently, a copy of an internal departmental memo.

As Ministers have known about that grave error and concern for so long, why have they not come to the House to explain the matter to Members—who will have to deal with the problems of our constituents, many of whom will be affected—and, indeed, to the 5 million people who will be seriously affected? When the right hon. Lady has explained why Ministers have not come to the House already, can she explain when they will come to the House to explain?

I am not entirely sure, but it strikes me as possible that, if some records are not at present identifiable, no one can let the people who are involved know because no one knows who they are. That seems to follow rather logically from the loss of those records. However, what is truly remarkable is that, given how many tax records it is said the Inland Revenue has at least temporarily mislaid, it was able to find Lord Levy's records when it needed them.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that there are many unsung heroes in the United Kingdom? Can she find time for a debate on the honours system, so that the brave soul who is exposed to fear, loathing, ego, cant and sheer hypocrisy at the heart of 10 Downing street can be justly rewarded?

I should certainly like to see that person justly rewarded.

In the context of next week's debate on resource accounting, can my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that there are some new towns, which include Hemel Hempstead, whose resource base is almost entirely derived from land devoted to housing stock in the past? As a result, they have a very low resource base which is not funded initially from housing. In the context of changes about ring-fencing housing resources, those new towns are now faced with potentially catastrophic cuts. There is an impending 41 per cent. cut in the resource base in Dacorum in my area. Will my right hon. Friend draw that to the attention of the Treasury so that, with a bit of luck, true resource accounting will not be invidious for the new towns?

I certainly undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends in the Treasury team. He may find some opportunity to flag up the issue during debates on the matter next week.

Can we please have an early debate in Government time on the important doctrine of collective responsibility, the Government's current interpretation of which seems to be neither collective nor responsible? Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants the Prime Minister's job, the Foreign Secretary wants the Chancellor's job and the Northern Ireland Secretary wants all their jobs, would it not be helpful to have an early debate in which all those Ministers were present so that we could see them on the Treasury Bench united in fraternal detestation of each other's guts?

I do not think that the House will wish to spend time on such a debate. If the hon. Gentleman's definition of fraternal support is the way in which the shadow Chancellor's policy has totally scuppered the career of the Leader of the Opposition, all I can say is that they are welcome to it.

Will the Leader of the House persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on his ministerial code? In particular, could he explain to the House and the country why it has disappeared off the web? It used to be found on the Cabinet Office website, but it has now been reorganised out. One can hunt around the web for as long as one likes. One can turn to something which is misleadingly called the opengov.com site, but the statement is not there—nor is there very much else there. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the code to be put back on the web, perhaps on the Deputy Prime Minister's own website, at least for paragraph 113?

I am not aware of the ministerial code's destination at this time, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant authorities. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not worry too much about its applying to him for a while yet.

Given the comment by Lord Rogers in The Independent today that the Chancellor has singularly failed to stop the haemorrhaging of people from our rundown inner cities and his continued frustration that not a single recommendation of his urban taskforce report has yet been put into effect, will the Leader of the House promise the House an urgent debate after the recess so that the Government can account for what they are actually doing to tackle deprivation in our inner cities, rather than just appointing talking shops to talk about what should be done?

As I recall there will be Question Time to the relevant Department in the near future. The hon. Gentleman should know that it is not the case that nothing has been done to carry out the recommendations in Lord Rogers's report. A great deal of work has been done in that direction. The hon. Gentleman should also know that our inner cities got into their present state under the Government whom he supported.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the future of the steel industry? As she is no doubt aware, 1,200 redundancies have just been announced in Teesside and South Yorkshire, and 1,400 were announced only a few weeks ago. Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House for a debate on the future of the steel industry?

I know of my hon. Friend's great concern for the steel industry and for employment in that industry. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a great interest in these matters and does what can be done to assist and support that industry. We remain in discussions with the steel industry. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a further debate on the matter on the Floor of the House in the near future, but my hon. Friend might seek a debate in Westminster Hall.

I declare an interest in the question that I am about to ask, as I am an owner of a convenience store in Swansea. Will the Leader of the House arrange for somebody from the Department of Trade and Industry to come to the House within the next few days to make a statement on the sale of loose goods in shops and supermarkets? She may be aware that Tesco announced on Monday that it was going to reverse its decision, and would sell loose goods using imperial weights and promoting pounds and ounces.

Some 38,000 small stores in this country are still using imperial weights. Officials in local authorities up and down the country will be confused about what they should be telling those stores. A number of the stores will be operating on the margins of profitability, and they simply cannot afford to buy new scales to replace existing usable scales. Will the right hon. Lady clear up the confusion and arrange for a statement to be made in the House in the next few days?

Of course I understand and sympathise with the concerns of small traders, who may be confused. However, it is a little surprising that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his right hon. and hon. Friends have been able to clear up this confusion, as it is as long ago as 1989 that the then Government agreed that these measures should be phased out by 1995, and they then imposed a delay until 2000. So people should have been aware of this matter for at least 10 years.

I understand—and I know that the House will wish to have this information—that it was as long ago as 1862 that a Select Committee of the House recommended that Britain should go metric, so we have had some time to adjust. Although, as I say, I fully understand and sympathise with the difficulties of small traders, I do not think that "confusion" is the right way to describe what they are experiencing. We should be trying to get people to accept the variation of usage, with one set of measures alongside the other, but we must recognise that among young people in particular, the use of imperial measures is disappearing.

When the House returns in October, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on one aspect of parliamentary reform that has not had enough attention? I refer not to the hours in the day that we sit, but the days of the year on which we sit. Is it not a fact that the parliamentary calendar is completely out of balance, with far too much business being taken between January and July? Would it not be much better if the recess was from June to September? What advice does the Leader of the House have for Members who are parents, whose children will be on half-term the week that we return?

I am very conscious of the difficulties faced by parents. There is, and long has been, a discussion about whether we can establish a firmer parliamentary calender and whether there should be a slightly different balance to the parliamentary calendar. There is only one set of circumstances under which a firmer parliamentary calendar would be possible—that is, if we were able to make firmer arrangements for the programming of our debates. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman being in the same Lobby as me when we debate the Modernisation Committee report.

Will the right hon. Lady seek to persuade the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make a statement about the extent to which publicly funded special advisers at No. 10 Downing street are being used to wage faction fights among the leading personalities of the Labour Government? I have in mind not only the infamous "TB" memorandum, of which so much has been heard, but the remarks reported last weekend, when No. 10 had a senior special adviser quoted as saying of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

He is poisoning relations with half the Cabinet and the sooner he goes the better.

Although I have every sympathy with people holding that opinion, that is a matter for their internal faction fighting. It should not be something that I and other taxpayers are funding.

I remind the House that it has long been the case that those who are political rather than civil service appointees have worked with Governments of every political shade—very useful it is too. Indeed, a large number of them now occupy the Opposition Benches. Furthermore, we trebled the resources available to the parliamentary Opposition to enable them to be better staffed—something that the Conservative Government denied us when we were in opposition.

It has been truly remarkable that, during business questions today, Opposition Members, with a couple of honourable exceptions, have not wanted to talk about the extra money going to hospitals, schools or the police—any of the matters in which the British public are really interested. That is what people will notice.

It might have escaped the right hon. Lady's notice that we shall have opportunities to question Ministers on those matters—not least after business questions today.

Is there any substance to the press reports that Labour Back Benchers who are not expected to hold their seats are receiving counselling to help them to adjust psychologically? Will the right hon. Lady make a statement to the House setting out the counselling services that she will make available to Back Benchers who, notwithstanding the fact that they will continue to hold their seats, will have no further role in holding the Government to account as a consequence of the plans to programme all legislation?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender in this place. I am sorry that, despite the fact that we have offered to conduct seminars on how to be a good Opposition, so many Opposition Members seem not to have been able to take them on board.

You had enough practice.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, given the way the Opposition are going, they will have plenty of practice too.

Transport is a subject that has been close to my heart for all my working life in and out of Parliament. However, for decades it has been in decline—dogged by stop-go funding and a short-term approach.

On Tuesday, the Chancellor set out how we can now begin to invest properly in our public services. He was able to do that because we have dealt with debt and sorted out the public finances. That meant that we had to stick to the depressed Tory spending figures that we inherited. We continued the previous Government's fuel duty escalator, both to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to restore public finances. That was not easy. It was not popular, believe me; but it was the right thing to do. Now, we can build and invest for the future.

Decades of under-investment and the lack of strategic planning left us with a transport system in crisis. That is already changing. In three years, we have made real improvements—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen, they will be able to make a judgment. These are the facts: we have begun to tackle the road maintenance backlog; the overall decline in bus passengers has been halted, and in many areas passenger numbers are rising for the first time; the number of rail passengers has increased by 17 per cent. and rail freight by 22 per cent. since the general election. That is what has happened during the past three years.

Transport is now a growth industry, and many of the problems that it faces are of expansion—not of decline. We have laid the foundations for the long term. We needed to integrate the Departments of Environment and Transport—we have done that. We needed to set out a new strategy—we have done that. We needed to bring in radical new legislation—we have done that. We needed to introduce new forms of finance; we have done that. Today, I am announcing new resources to bring about a step change in transport.

These are new ideas, new powers and new resources—a new approach for a new century. It is on these foundations that we are building today's 10-year programme. It is based on long-term investment by Government and industry to modernise the country's transport system. That is vital for our economic success, and for the quality of our lives. It is excellent news for manufacturers and for the construction sector, which will be able to plan for the long term. Much of that sector had closed down because of the short-term approach to investment in industry.

On Tuesday, the Chancellor announced that, over the next three years, public spending on transport will rise from £5 billion to more than £9 billion. Real-terms capital investment will double. That has been widely welcomed. The Automobile Association said that it was

a welcome change from decades of penny-pinching and under-investment … There's no doubt that this represents the most serious attempt to tackle our transport crisis in years.

The Rail Users Committee said that the announcement was

good news for rail passengers and for the country.

The Confederation of British Industry also welcomed it. And the CBI director-general, Digby Jones, said on the "Today" programme this morning that what is needed is a 10-year programme providing substantial public and private investment—he stated, up to £180 billion. My Department's modelling, analysis and consultation came to a similar conclusion. Our analysis is published in a document available in the Library.

There is now a broad consensus about what is needed to reduce congestion and to provide a bigger, better and safer railway and a real choice in public transport. With public investment keeping pace with economic growth after the year 2004, total spending over the 10 years—public and private—will now be £180 billion. One hundred and thirty-two billion pounds of that—almost three quarters—will come from the public purse. This is not all new money, but even if we maintained this year's spending as the norm, that means over £50 billion of extra public expenditure. Capital investment by Government and industry together will be 75 per cent. more in real terms than over the last decade.

The plan addresses the issue in a realistic and businesslike way. There are no frills, no promises of a rosy, traffic-free future: just our best judgments—based on a detailed analysis—of what the new resources will deliver.

We are securing long-term investment through long-term partnership contracts: new rail franchises lasting up to 20 years, 30-year contracts for roads and 30-year contracts for the London underground. But let me make it absolutely clear. If we put in public money, we expect rail and bus companies—and local authorities—to deliver the goods: more investment and better services for the travelling public, on budget and on time.

The policy that we inherited on the railways planned for decline and reduced public support. Our programme includes £60 billion for a bigger, better and safer railway—the biggest investment in railways for generations.

We shall deliver better quality for the travelling public, lower regulated fares, 50 per cent. more passengers and 80 per cent. more rail freight, and a new Strategic Rail Authority with a new rail modernisation fund of £7 billion to help deliver these goals. So we shall deliver a railway system that is better for the passengers, better for freight, better for the economy and better for the environment—win, win, win and win again.

Our programme includes £59 billion for modernising local transport in every region throughout the country. It will increase bus use by 10 per cent., with guided buses, priority routes, park and ride and a modern fleet, building on the £400 million of private investment that has already taken place.

Light rail can transform our cities. Manchester and other cities have shown what a difference it can make. So we are going to provide resources for up to 25 new light rail projects in our major cities. We shall create greater social justice with more accessible buses, trains and taxis for disabled people, and cut-price fares for pensioners and disabled people, and for the first time we are recognising the problems of people who live in poorly served, deprived urban areas, cut off from jobs and services. They can look to help from a new urban bus challenge fund to provide new links to their communities.

Our successful rural transport fund, which has already secured over 2,000 extra services in rural areas, will now rise from £60 million to £95 million a year, with rural transport partnerships established in every county.

Both urban and rural communities will benefit from an extension to the fuel duty rebate for community transport.

That is our policy.

The hon. Gentleman is in opposition—has he not heard?

Small-scale local improvements can make a big difference to people's lives, such as schemes to make walking and cycling safer and easier, and 20 mph zones, especially where children are most at risk. We shall increase funding for those schemes.

In London, our great capital city, we inherited a creaking transport system, congested roads and overcrowded trains—I do not think that anyone disputes that. We have already made major investments in the capital, with the Jubilee line, docklands light railway extension and other projects. Over the next 10 years, our programme provides £25 billion to support the London transport strategy, with better buses, less crowded trains and less congestion on the roads. This will be enough to produce a real step change in bus services, town-centre improvements and safer walking and cycling. The public-private partnership will secure investment in the existing underground. We have made provision for new links; an orbital London railway and longer-term projects such as the new east-west rail link and east Thames crossings. We are determined to use refranchising to get better and more reliable rail services for commuters.

Those major improvements in public transport throughout the country will help to reduce congestion and pollution. Sensible land-use planning and new technology can make a difference. However, we need also to make better use of our existing road network. We have already set up studies into our busiest transport corridors to find solutions that will involve all types of transport in the multi-modal studies. The first conclusions will emerge over the next few months, and we are providing the resources to implement the results.

The programme includes £21 billion for the strategic road network. This is enough to widen 360 miles of the most congested roads, such as the Al and the M6, and to invest in "electronic motorways" to manage traffic better and to keep drivers better informed. There will be 100 new bypasses to take traffic out of hard-pressed villages and towns, schemes to tackle congestion and safety hotspots and low-noise surfaces on 60 per cent. of the trunk road network, including all concrete roads.

We have already dealt with the backlog of trunk road repairs. We will enable local authorities to get rid of the backlog on local roads with a £30 billion maintenance programme, which is covered under the heading "Local Transport".

Without the measures set out in the plan, congestion is forecast to grow by 28 per cent. on inter-urban trunk roads and by 15 per cent. in larger urban areas. With the plan, we shall not only eliminate this forecast growth but reduce congestion below current levels by 2010. Our proposals will produce savings in greenhouse gas emissions, helping us to achieve our Kyoto targets and more. We will improve air quality, with new resources to encourage cleaner fuels and vehicles.

Safety is fundamental to the plan and important to the House. The terrible accidents at Ladbroke Grove and Southall, and more than 3,000 deaths on our roads every year, are a vivid reminder that we can never afford to be complacent. We will ensure the installation of train protection systems, as recommended by Sir David Davies. I have stressed repeatedly that we will not pre-empt Lord Cullen's inquiry. I give a categoric assurance that the plan will deliver any further measures arising from Lord Cullen's inquiry. Safety will always be first in my priorities.

Under various Governments, our roads are already among the safest in Europe. Over the next decade, we are determined to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40 per cent., and by 50 per cent. for children. We are providing the resources to enable government, the Highways Agency and local authorities to play their part in achieving these targets.

It has often been the role of Labour Governments to modernise this country's infrastructure, and that is what we are doing again with our 10-year plan. There will be long-term investment and public-private partnership to increase choice and cut congestion. The Opposition have plans only to cut public spending. They have no plans to cut congestion. The public will ask them to declare where they would make cuts in our programme.

A Labour Government are working with business to deliver the long-term investment that is needed to rebuild our infrastructure, cut congestion, improve public transport and give people greater choice. I hope that people will understand that modernising the transport system will take time and create inconvenience and problems. Making the necessary changes, will at least mean that people will be aware that we are making long-term decisions and dealing with the cause and not the symptoms of a congested system.

New roads and railways are not built overnight. However, with sustained government investment and the backing of industry, we shall make year-on-year improvements to get the job done. The plan will get Britain moving and give the people of this country a transport system on which they can rely. The British people have waited decades for a long-term approach such as this. It is what they deserve, and I commend it to the House.

Before I call the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), may I point out that I noticed some Members leaving the Chamber during the statement, no doubt to go to the Vote Office to obtain the document? I regard it as a discourtesy to any Secretary of State for Members to walk out to obtain a document while a statement is being made. If Members want to be called, they should remain in the Chamber throughout and listen to the statement. The statement, not the document, is being questioned at this stage.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of the statement. I give a broad endorsement to the comments that he made about safety and, in particular, about the Cullen inquiry.

As for the rest of the statement, the Deputy Prime Minister must think that the British people were all born yesterday. The travelling public will not be fooled. Labour has made promises before and people are still waiting. They are waiting in traffic jams, and they have done that; they are waiting for buses stuck in traffic, and they have done that; and they are waiting for overcrowded trains, and they have done that. They are fed up with the right hon. Gentleman's promises and they are fed up with being ripped off by the Government; they have done that.

After three wasted years, the Deputy Prime has the nerve to come to the House and say, "I've got a 10-year transport plan." How much tax will road users have to pay over that period? It is at least £423 billion. That is more than £18,000 per household. That will be his legacy. His only real policy is to try to tax hard-working people and hard-pressed pensioners off the road.

Petrol tax is a regressive tax. Under Labour, the poor pay the biggest increases. Where is the social justice in that? On top of the £423 billion in taxes, the congestion and parking taxes will hurt the poor most. Why are the Government simply reserving the roads for the rich and for Ministers in their Jaguars? Should cars be just for the privileged few?

What does the Deputy Prime Minister's big spending number really mean? How much is double counted or reannounced? How much relies on investment by the transport industries that we privatised? How much is just pious hope, empty promises and post-dated cheques?

As in every Government announcement, these figures are designed to mislead. How can we believe the Deputy Prime Minister's promise of 25 light rail schemes when he told the House of Commons that

light rail systems are an extremely expensive way of dealing with congestion … ?—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317. c. 1072.]

His former deputy, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), said in a press release that

we will not be in a position to support similar light rail schemes for the foreseeable future.

However desirable light rail systems may be, are these not just fantasyland promises from a Government desperate for votes? How many systems will actually be built within 10 years?

What about all the promises that the Deputy Prime Minister has made before? Does he remember the 1998 White Paper? In it, he said:

We want to cut congestion … and avoid the urban sprawl that has lengthened journeys and consumed precious countryside.

However, the Deputy Prime Minister is building more houses over the green fields of England. Britain now has the worst congestion in western Europe.

Labour Members all cheered two years ago when the M6 widening was cancelled, apparently to save the planet. Now they all cheer when it is going ahead. That is an admission that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong. Will they all cheer again when it fails to materialise?

Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall saying that he would have failed if there were not far fewer journeys by car? This new 2010 target is an admission that he has already failed. Has he not read the dire warnings of his own congestion report, which showed that congestion will increase by 90 per cent? Why is his target on congestion any more relevant than all his other targets?

The Deputy Prime Minister has abandoned his other targets, such as that to treble rail freight or that to double cycling. What is the point of all the new rail investment if people keep missing their train because they are stuck in traffic jams created by the right hon. Gentleman? How dare he claim credit for announcing 100 new bypasses today, when he scrapped so many bypasses just two years ago? Can he explain why he has announced 100 bypasses, although his own publication says that there will be 50 new bypasses? Is that just another bit of spin? Is not the Secretary of State who murdered the roads programme now trying to change his plea to manslaughter? How is he going to stop the Mayor of London cancelling schemes such as the A23 Coulsdon bypass?

Is it not perfectly clear that, after three wasted years, nobody believes a word that the Secretary of State says? After all the White Papers and consultations, glossy brochures and photo opportunities, today is about nothing more than the sliding credibility of the Government and the looming date of the next election. Does the Secretary of State think that the endless spinning of larger and larger telephone-number figures for his plan conveys anything other than the whiff of panic about the Government's lamentable transport policy?

The Deputy Prime Minister has often attacked the spinning and lying of spin doctors and has said:

We cannot win simply on image and presentation.

However, is he not resorting to that and that alone? In March, he told the House:

I regret and denounce the leaks … and I am doing all I can to prevent them.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863.]

Who, therefore, has been briefing the press on the 10-year plan, week after week, for the past six months? The so-called enemy of spin is the king of spin.

This is not real money, but a 10-year plan from a one-term Government who cannot see further than the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers. The plan is a broken policy on the back of broken promises from a broken-backed Secretary of State.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) thanked me for giving him the report, but it is a pity that he did not read it. If he had, he would not have asked half the stupid questions that he did.

There has been some speculation on the number of leaks to which he referred. I treat leaks seriously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The House can make a judgment on those matters. There has been a great deal of speculation, and different figures are given all the time. I have a document—which I shall not call a leaked memo, as it is a paper from the research department of the Conservative daily bulletin—which predicts that I would produce a £130 billion programme. I announced a £180 billion programme, but the research department had a chance to speculate, although it underestimated what I would do. Many other people made judgments about what the total amount would be, and I observed with interest all those different figures. I have brought my figures for the 10-year plan to the House at the proper time.

Fantasy.

The hon. Gentleman thinks that that is fantasy. However, I did not notice him address himself to rejecting the idea that investment was needed. There was not one word from him to suggest that he rejected the fact that all that money was needed to modernise the transport system. If that sum is needed, on that considerable scale, representing the greatest investment in rail seen in generations, it is because investment had presumably declined in the past 20 years. I am prepared to concede that no Government have ever found sufficient resources to put into our transport system and I feel that that is because Treasury rules rather limited that investment.

Our plan talks about public-private partnership, which is something that the previous Administration started to do, but we have taken it much further, by getting private contracts guaranteeing investments for a longer period than the one year or three years that one is likely to get from the Treasury. As a public-private partnership will provide that money, I would have thought that the Opposition could at least agree with that.

Fantasy.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is fantasy, I suggest that he talk to the director-general of the CBI, who is not necessarily known as one of our spokesmen and who announced today that the minimum amount needed for investment in our transport system was £180 billion. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the CBI is fantasising, I must tell him that it arrived at that view after proper consultation and having listened to its members, who explained what the country needs to improve the economy and the environment to and reduce congestion, which all involve considerable cost. That is the CBI's judgment. Talk of fantasy is just Opposition rhetoric.

On delivery, in three years we have seen, for the first time, a reverse in the decline of our industries. We have reduced the backlog and seen growth in freight and passenger traffic, both on buses and on rail. That was not evident during the 18 years of Tory Administration. As for all the talk about glossy documents, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that long-term solutions are necessary. I have been in the transport industry, and I am fed up with seeing Governments cut back on capital programmes, because those cuts eventually catch up with them. I have tried to introduce long-term planning.

If we want such planning. first we have to get the thinking right, so we issue a White Paper and then we debate it. Then we have to make sure that we have the powers to introduce the measures, and I have done that. This is the third step in three years to get substantial resources, which the Chancellor has been able to give us simply because we made difficult decisions in the first two years, so I am proud to bring this investment to the public—let them judge what is fantasy and what is reality. The election will surely give the hon. Gentleman his answer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this first attempt to have a structured transport plan will be warmly welcomed throughout the country not only by all passengers, but by people who use all forms of transport, whether by road, rail, sea or air?

Will my right hon. Friend clarify one or two points? Does his undertaking on the train protection system mean that, if Lord Cullen makes a different recommendation, my right hon. Friend expects to update the equipment in all existing trains? Is he telling us that there will be new lines as well as enhancement on the London underground system? Can he assure us that, in the new round of franchising, the private companies involved in the transport system will not only give undertakings to enhance the bricks and mortar that they own, but make it clear that the passenger is their first commitment, and that, in future, we will have new trains and better services? We shall certainly examine carefully how much transport is financed by the fare box, to ensure that we achieve the right balance.

Above all, does my right hon. Friend accept that, because transport takes so long to bring into operation, it is essential that passengers immediately begin to see much better conditions? They want new systems; they have waited over 20 years and they want those systems to begin operating as soon as possible. This is the first serious attempt to provide that level of care.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome. She is right to point out the concern about safety systems on our railways. I have already promised, and announced to the House, that we will implement the recommendations of Sir David Davies that the warning systems should be applied on all lines and that automatic train protection should be introduced for high-speed lines. If Lord Cullen makes further recommendations about the timetable, I will want to consider those seriously and I would be inclined to say that we should adopt them, but the House will understand that I must wait and see what those recommendations are.

I want us to have the safest railway system, and automatic train protection will give us that. Early warning systems will achieve that level of safety more quickly than I could implement automatic train protection, but I await the report of Lord Cullen, who is taking into account the Uff inquiry and Sir David Davies's report on these matters.

On new lines, the London transport plan to which I referred, and on which the Mayor will report in the autumn, considers the new cross-London line, as my hon. Friend knows, and the east London link, which will connect the underground and the surface railway system. I am glad that, through our negotiations, we were able to establish the new channel tunnel rail link, which is in its first phase and is now on budget and on time. We rescued that from collapse when we came into office. The second stage will provide us with a new line, and we are all looking forward to that. So there are new lines, as well as enhancements to the system.

With regard to public-private partnerships, we will lay down targets and keep the passenger in mind as we modernise the system. The passenger has priority in our considerations. We will set tough targets, and tough penalties if they are not achieved by the companies. I am sure that my hon. Friend's Committee will examine the contracts when they are issued.

On new investment, the decision to bring forward the date for removing slam-door stock was a good decision in the interests of safety, and means that the industry can concentrate on the long-term target of securing investment to provide the new kind of trains that we want on our railway system.

Unlike the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), may I on behalf of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches categorically welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement? After 18 years of a Conservative Government, public transport was left in crisis and there was massive congestion on our roads.

However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand the anger and frustration of many at the fact that, in the first three years of a Labour Government, there have been real-terms cuts in investment in public transport. The situation was not quite as the Deputy Prime Minister said—win, win, win, and win again. It was lose, lose, lose, and only now are we beginning to win, and we welcome that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman, first, assure the House that, after 10 years of the plan, he expects that there will be less traffic on our roads than at present? Secondly, given that he rightly said that we need early measures to prove his commitment and to improve people's environment, lives and road safety, such as safe routes to school and 20 mph limits, will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance that the necessary money will urgently reach local government?

Thirdly, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he said in his statement that there would be additional money for the maintenance of local roads at local authority level, yet in the comprehensive spending review document issued two days ago, the amount of money for local authority road maintenance remained constant at the current level?

Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what assurances he has been given about the security of the important and welcome private finance that he is bringing in, and why, given the Select Committee reports on the PPP for the National Air Traffic Services and for the tube, both of which were rejected, he sees that as the only appropriate way of bringing in private finance?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm support of our document, but I cannot accept his criticism that we made no improvement in the past three years. I tried to highlight some of them. I do not want to repeat them, but they include more services available on the railways—4,500 of them—and 2,000 new bus services in the rural areas. Those are definite improvements, although I acknowledge that we undertook not to spend more than the programme that we inherited.

To be fair, the Tories' programme of expenditure in the first two years after we were elected anticipated a cut of £1.8 billion. We kept those resources instead of cutting them, but that was not sufficient to meet all the demands. We made a choice, which affected the road programme in particular, largely because we took the view that, if we could get the public finances into proper order, we could begin to enjoy the level of public investment that was needed. That decision was right, although it led to some criticism about whether we were doing enough.

The local government transport plans will be presented to me in the next month or so, and I will make a decision in December. The plans will include recommendations for by-passes, of which there are 100. The Opposition spokesman was confused about that. There are to be 50 rural and 50 urban by-passes, making a total of 100. The hon. Gentleman would have benefited from reading the report.

Local transport plans have been allocated £59 billion in the programme, and £30 billion of that is directed towards improving road maintenance. We have caught up with the backlog. After all, when we came to power, we were told clearly, and the view persists, that the condition of our roads was the worst since records were kept. We have cut the backlog on inter-urban roads, and £30 billion out of the £59 billion is for the towns, where great problems exist.

On the point about more cars and more roads, I have made it clear in several exchanges here that the growth in the number of cars and other vehicles on our roads has decreased from 8 to 2 per cent. There is therefore some decline. My job is to find a better public transport system so that people can begin to choose to use their cars less and public transport more. That is behind much of the programme; two thirds of the money that I have announced will go towards improving public transport.

I still maintain that public-private partnerships for the underground and NATS are the best way in which to proceed. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate that.

If anybody needed reminding of the reason for the parlous state of transport when we came to power in 1997, the statement of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) did that. He had nothing to say about public transport; he did not mention buses once. That demonstrates the Conservative party's attitude to transport and the reasons that we were in such a mess.

I worked in London's public transport service for 12 years. The £3.2 billion that my right hon. Friend has announced today will be most welcome. However, I draw his attention to plans for the East London line, which I also welcome, and the orbital route that is planned around London. That route does not turn eastward towards south-east London. As I never tire of reminding the House, south-east London does not benefit from the London underground. People who travel to central London rely on the rail network, which is overcrowded at peak times. We need alternatives to Network South-East for people who travel to central London. With the east London river crossing for the rail link of the East London line, can we also have a scheme for a link to the south-east?

I have some sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend has made to me on several occasions, both publicly and privately. The Mayor now knows the resources that are likely to be available to him, and he can begin to take them into account in his transport plan. There is considerable investment in new lines and in modernising the existing system. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from that. I tell my hon. Friend to keep pressing me, but also to get on to the Mayor.

May I return the Deputy Prime Minister's focus to rural transport? He set up the Commission for Integrated Transport in July last year; why did not he insist that it held at least one meeting to discuss rural transport? That would have led to positive input in the 10-year transport plan.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, figures for road safety in North Yorkshire are the worst in the country, not because of the drivers who live there but because of the high proportion of transit traffic on those roads. I make a plea to the Deputy Prime Minister to recognise the rurality and sparsity factors and the additional miles of road that are covered by transit traffic in North Yorkshire.

I appreciate that the details may be in the document, but the Deputy Prime Minister said nothing about detrunking roads. If he is to proceed with his strategy of detrunking rural roads in North Yorkshire in particular, will he give the House a commitment today to give local authorities, in this case North Yorkshire county council, additional funds to maintain roads at a higher standard than currently applies?

Let me consider—

Order. The hon. Lady has had her share of questions.

The House is aware that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has many interests in rural areas. I well understand that, knowing the beautiful part of the country that she represents. She will know that our increase in bus services in rural areas has benefited many parts of North Yorkshire. There was an initial difficulty when the North Yorkshire local authority refused the £1 million that was available to it. The local authority claimed that it did not know how to use it. It has subsequently found ways of doing that. It was a Tory local authority, and I do not understand why it found it difficult to provide good transport services for the people of North Yorkshire. However, I shall continue to make the case.

The roads and the priorities for the areas that we are discussing are under consideration in multi-modal studies and the regional reports. I expect to receive the reports in the autumn and the spring, and I hope to make statements about them later.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that we had serious discussions about improving the infrastructure in the old coalfield areas, where as many as 2,000 people would have been working down a hole in the ground? To provide a lot of work on the pit top, we needed to ensure that the infrastructure was correct. He might also recall the discussions and decisions regarding proposed junction 29A of the M1, which could provide about 9,000 jobs for three adjoining constituencies in north Derbyshire, where there is not a single pit left after the Tories got rid of them all. Can he give me an assurance that the Government still have that idea on board and that it will be pursued in the 10-year plan?

Yes, I well remember junction 29A, which was greatly discussed in the coalfield communities. We have changed the regional planning guidance for those matters to take fully into account the difficulties that our coal communities experienced after the massive pit closures and the matter is still very much on board. We are reviewing the programmes and I hope to give an answer by the end of this year or the beginning of next.

Amid all the hype, why is the local authority road maintenance budget not increasing?

The sum is £30 billion, which is the highest ever given to road maintenance—considerably higher than when the hon. Gentleman was a Transport Minister. He presided over a transport policy that led to the mess that we are trying correct.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that lack of adequate transport infrastructure is a major challenge that threatens the expansion of the economic regeneration of north-west Kent. How will his plans achieve adequate transport infrastructure for north-west Kent while safeguarding the environment and the quality of life of people in my constituency?

My hon. Friend will know from his constituency that there is considerable call for investment, whether in road or in rail, to meet economic demand. His constituency is in an area of important economic development and we are looking closely at the infrastructure. Roads certainly have a part to play in assisting with the process, as does the new channel tunnel rail link. Our road review document, which we announced to the House about a year ago, made the criteria clear—not only economic factors, but environmental, safety and congestion issues have to be addressed. Those are being considered and we hope to make a statement on the regional reports at the beginning of next year.

The chief executives of the Highways Agency and of the Government office of the east of England have both visited Dunstable to see the huge congestion there. Does the Dun stable bypass feature in the 100 bypasses that the right hon. Gentleman has announced? There is £60 billion for the railways. Will part of it be used to reopen the disused railway line between Dunstable and Luton? If so, that will also be welcomed in the town.

I can well recall individual Members spending a lot of time asking about particular roads during my 30 years as a Member of the House. [Interruption.] I am saying that I am trying to take regional and local factors into account. Local transport plans are given to us each year and a five-year plan will be announced after full representations have been taken by December. Those plans will make recommendations for bypasses and roads and I shall consider them. Of course bypasses can play a part on some strategic routes in both rural and urban areas and I shall take representations from the strategic regional review bodies and the development agencies. All that will enable us to identify those roads over the next six months. The 40-odd roads in the preferred programme that I announced to the House are under way.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the work that he does to try to improve this country's transport system. He referred to pedestrians and walkers. Sadly, the Opposition spokesman did not. May I impress on my right hon. Friend the importance of catering for pedestrians in town and city centres? Will he give an assurance that pedestrianisation schemes will be retained, maintained and extended wherever possible? Will he give a further assurance that he will listen carefully to meaningful consultation on his waterways document and develop still further the canal and waterways system throughout the United Kingdom?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that in the transport plans we are encouraging local authorities to undertake more and more pedestrianisation. There is no doubt about pedestrianisation any more although a few years ago a lot of hon. Members protested that it would be bad for business. Most now feel that pedestrianisation is good for cities, good for business and good for pedestrians. We shall have more to say about that in October in the urban White Paper which will deal with improving the quality of life in our cities, and in a separate White Paper on rural areas.

Having watched the development of waterways—I come from a part of the country where there are many—I am pleased that a week or so ago we announced a change in policy, which allows waterways to become part of the urban environment rather than leaving them to waste away. They should not be a liability on the taxpayer, requiring more and more taxpayers' money. In regenerating our urban areas, public and private partnerships have used waterways to open up many of our cities.

The waterways in Birmingham, Leeds and other cities used to be shunned. They were in parts of the city where nobody wanted to go, but they are now at the heart of urban redevelopment and contribute considerably to the quality of life there. It is noticeable that more people are returning to live in cities where that kind of facility has been turned from a liability to an asset. That is another major change that we have made in transport policy.

The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the previous Government gave a starting date for the completion of the Manchester airport eastern link road, which would have helpfully linked the airport after which it is named. It also gave a starting date for the Poynton bypass to the east. The Deputy Prime Minister came along and cancelled both schemes, which are now subject to a multi-modal study in which we must rehearse the arguments of 20 years of public inquiries on those schemes. Will road schemes subject to such multi-modal studies remain in that position or will they now have some chance of being given the importance that the previous Government gave them?

We decided to finish with the wish list that seemed to dominate an awful lot of discussions in this House, and we chose our priorities and the criteria according to which they would be judged. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are completing the Manchester motorway box—it will be finished by the autumn, I think—and the inner link road, bearing in mind the Commonwealth games that will take place in Manchester. We are also investing £500 million in the light rail system.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the multi-modal studies. Some of those are already beginning to report. The fact that schemes are in multi-modal studies gives them greater priority.

May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's long-standing commitment to improved transport for the long term? In light of today's announcement, does he plan to review his guidance to local authorities, which may be in the course of submitting their local transport plans based on the sums previously available, rather than the increased public spending that we now have? In terms of minor improvements to highways, can he shed any light on whether more money will be made available for street lighting?

On the last point, I can assure my hon. Friend that extra money is being made available for street lighting. It is an important investment for safety and for crime reduction, both of which cause considerable concern.

My hon. Friend asked whether local authorities will be advised of the extra resources available. The point of today's statement is to give local authorities an idea of the moneys that will be available not only in the first three years, but in the longer term. That will help them with their local transport plans, which will be given to me in line with the White Paper. The plans are to be for five years, so local authorities have a longer-term perspective to meet their transport requirements. That will be good for areas that want to take long-term decisions and have a proper guarantee of investment.

I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the Al and the study that he announced today. Can he assure me that safety factors, which present an overwhelming case for the dualling of that major road, neglected for so many years, will be fully taken into account? Will he bear in mind that his safety targets could be assisted by ending the head-on collisions that lead to deaths and serious injuries on that road?

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I was discussing that matter earlier in his region, and I have brought forward the multi-modal study that we set up and we hope that it will report by next year. His arguments about safety considerations on the southern part of the A1, north of Newcastle, are important, and we are dealing with those. Indeed, I believe that there is an argument for a strategic road for Scotland, although that matter would have to be discussed with the Scottish Executive. It would complete what I would consider to be a natural strategic road running from north to south.

My right hon. Friend is a frequent visitor to my part of North Yorkshire, and he knows that the legacy of the Conservative party has left transport policy in a total mess. Will he explain to the House how the multi-modal studies on the A64 corridor relate to the regional dimension, and how we can ensure that the regions deliver this policy?

Multi-modal studies take into account the criteria set out in the road programme, such as the economic requirement, environmental considerations, safety and relieving congestion. Safety is a major consideration, especially with regard to the A64. Provided that multi-modal projects meet those criteria and fit into the regional assessment, they will be built and will be given priority. Although road building may be the solution to some congestion problems using a multi-modal approach, some problems may be solved by public transport, and we want to provide both.

Given the read across into other integrated transport considerations, what are the Government's plans for new runway capacities in the south-east?

That industry has been growing for a considerable time. The issue is very controversial to say the least. There is considerable capacity in the south-east. We are approaching airport authorities about this matter, which is complicated, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. In my role as a planning Minister, I will consider the terminal 5 proposal. That has a major effect on the assessments of airports in the south-east. I cannot say more than that, except that the study has started.

May I raise three issues of importance? If the answers cannot be given now, I would welcome an answer later. First, has the Portsmouth light rapid transport scheme been successful? Secondly, will the Department endorse the innovative private finance initiative scheme for roads maintenance, which is a real leader in its field? Finally, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and I would be interested to know whether there is any news on the possibility of a bypass in Hindhead.

I have made it clear to those authorities considering their transport plans that we are including 100 bypasses in the programme—50 in urban areas and 50 in rural areas. Some of them are to deal with congestion in the town and some are strategic. My hon. Friend should press his local authority to ensure that a bypass is included in its transport plan. Local authorities have responsibility for improvements in towns and roads through their local transport plans, which include bypasses. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) knew that, but he does now.

We are well aware of Portsmouth's application for a light rail system. We are building 25 LRT schemes. The hon. Member for North Essex made a fair point when he said that I had been critical of light railways compared with buses. That is true, but I have since been converted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am sorry, but I considered the facts and although they are more expensive—which was my criticism—more people would prefer to use a light railway rather than a bus. Light railways are more expensive, and make sense only in certain cities, but we have included 25 such schemes in our programme. I confess to a change of view. What is wrong with that? Is not that what analysis and the use of intelligence is about—qualities not too often shown by the hon. Member for North Essex.

In view of the additional resources that the Deputy Prime Minister now claims to have available, will he reconsider the need to resurface the M20 between junctions 10 and 12 to alleviate the noise nuisance from which many of my constituents suffer? Will he also undertake to provide a permanent alternative to Operation Stack, which denies the use of the motorway to my constituents whenever there is a delay to cross-channel traffic?

I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his last point. There are problems with managing traffic when it is backing up for one reason or another. I understand his point, and I shall look into the matter. Management schemes can make traffic flows much better, and they are almost inevitable in difficult circumstances. I do not have a firm answer at the moment, so I shall write to him.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned noisy roads, which clearly create a lot of problems. Even a new road that I opened quite recently turned out to be much noisier than expected. Therefore, we have made a commitment to resurfacing 60 per cent. of trunk roads where noise levels are far too high.

I warmly welcome the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's statement and the huge investment in railways and light rail structures throughout the country. As the money that is being invested in railway developments will end up in the ownership of Railtrack, which is not a publicly owned company, what will happen to the capital return that will benefit Railtrack shareholders? What control do the public have over the ultimate destiny of any land currently owned by Railtrack that may be disposed of in future for capital gain? Surely there is a democratic argument that if the public are putting a vast amount of money into the railways, we should have ultimate control over what happens to it.

We have decided to keep the railways in their present privatised form. As I have said in the House, and even at party conferences, to take the alternative of nationalising the railway and finding some £12 billion is not our highest priority in present circumstances. In addition, I am bound to say that the current procedure allows public-private partnerships to discuss a 10-year plan, which could not be guaranteed by the Treasury. At least it is written into contracts—[Interruption.] If obligations are not met and the contract is broken, we can take back the resources. That seems quite a clever idea. We are not against good ideas and getting the best value for public money. It is a pity that the Conservatives did not take the same approach in a number of respects.

My hon. Friend referred to the money being put into Railtrack. It is going towards enhancement and new track. The Government sometimes have to provide money in order to encourage people to do certain things. As my hon. Friend well knows, we provide a subsidy—I used to refer to it as the PSO or public service obligation—to the operators, which also goes to Railtrack. We are bound to give Railtrack some public money and we have to make a judgment about whether it is accountable. Accountability is very important. We lay down the conditions and we have a pretty tough regulator now—much tougher than before—to make sure that the public interest is maintained. In addition to a certain amount of public money for borrowing and for public-private partnerships, the modernisation fund of £7 billion will allow us to expand the railway system with greater accountability than at present.

Many motorists who have contributed to the extra £135 billion of tax in the Government's coffers by sitting in traffic jams on the M6 will welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to widening parts of the motorway. However, can he clear up a confusion? I received a letter from his Department indicating that it will be some two years before the multi-modal study is completed and decisions are made, yet the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be committing to immediate action on the widening of the M6. Can he give us a timetable in respect of the M6? It needs action now.

It is a pity that action was not taken 10 years ago. I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman asking for it then. Some multi-modal studies will be reporting in the next couple of months, but others—of which the M6 is a classic example—are more difficult to conclude. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Administration. They came up with the idea that the only way to reduce congestion on the M6 was to build the Birmingham northern relief road. They took that decision in 1988 and announced that it would be on the fast track. Twelve years later, the sod still has not been cut. That road would have helped to reduce congestion, but because there is such a lousy contract I am finding it difficult to force the private sector to face up to its obligations and invest in the Birmingham northern relief road. Hopefully, it will happen. I am doing my best to implement something that the previous Administration tried to do nearly 20 years ago. Hopefully, I shall conclude that shortly. The multi-modal studies will start reporting in the next few months and we will be able to get on with the job.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the proposal in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies for reopening the Leicester to Burton line to passenger traffic? Currently, a bid for the project is being deterred by the framework for public finance that is available to support it. Will he meet local representatives to explore a potentially successful bid in the light of his new statement, which promises extra resources?

I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the Ivanhoe line. An agreement was arrived at between the local authorities, the Government and the people involved in the project. I am well aware that they are asking for more money to be provided. My noble Friend the Minister for Transport will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, although I am more interested at this stage in the expansion of the railway system than in arguing about the contract.