What recent discussions his Department has had with (a) other Government Departments, (b) transport network operators, (c) transport authorities and (d) passenger groups on measures to ensure that public transport networks are accessible for disabled people. [138853]

The Department has frequent discussions with industry, passenger representatives and other stakeholders about improving access to transport for disabled people. In addition, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is giving evidence tomorrow to the Transport Committee inquiry on disabled people's access to transport.

The Minister may be aware that the recent "Mind the Gap" report by the disability charity Leonard Cheshire demonstrates the difficulties that disabled people face in gaining access to work and public services as a result of inaccessible transport. When will the Government announce their response to last year's consultation on the removal of the current exemptions for transport providers from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Can he assure the House that the Department is moving quickly to ensure that transport does not continue to be a major barrier to the social inclusion of disabled people?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that and know that she has done a great deal of work with the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on the issue. The recent consultation on applying part 3 of the DDA to transport services was intended to help us formulate the necessary changes in legislation to implement the Disability Rights Task Force recommendation, which we have accepted. Those changes will form part of the draft disability Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will publish before the end of the year for pre-legislative scrutiny. We will not publish a separate response to the consultation.

Does the Minister accept that the Opposition will support genuine and workable proposals to make public transport more accessible to the disabled? Does he share my anger, however, that earlier this year two disabled pensioners travelling together had to cancel a holiday in my constituency because the train company concerned would take only one wheelchair at a time on each train? Is not that a disgrace? Will he join me in congratulating another train company, First Great Western, on implementing its disabled persons protection policy, which covers problems facing the disabled while travelling and will improve facilities at every one of that company's 14 railway stations?

First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Front Bench. It is good to see him there. We need jazz drummers in every position that we can get them.

My hon. Friend referred to recommendations by the Disability Rights Task Force that transport should be included in the Disability Discrimination Act. I welcome his assurance that that will be done. Another recommendation was that there should be end dates for all rail vehicles to be accessible to the disabled. What are those end dates?

My hon. Friend is well known for his work for many years on behalf of disabled groups, and he raises an important issue. He knows that the Government have already introduced regulations under the DDA to ensure that new buses and trains are accessible to disabled people. Last month, we announced our proposals for implementing the taxi provisions. Significant progress has already been made. For example, in the past two and a half years, 1,400 fully accessible new vehicles have been introduced on the railways, and there will be more than 1,000 more in the next 18 months. More than one third of buses are already accessible, and the proportion is much higher in many major towns and cities. However, I take his point: we must ensure that access is as complete as is possible and practicable.

Does the Minister think it appropriate that a vehicle should be described as wheelchair-accessible when a constituent of mine, who is a sixth former at Cowes high school and 5 ft 10 in, has to bow his head to sit in it in his wheelchair? Peugeot Eurotaxis have only 54 in of headroom, Volkswagen Transporters have 53.5 in, Mercedes Vitos have 52 in and the standard Ford Transit has only 52 in. Does not he believe that anyone in a wheelchair should be able to sit upright in a wheelchair-accessible vehicle?

If the hon. Gentleman will do me a favour and send me those details, I shall try to take up the matter with the manufacturers.

What plans he has to increase the regulation of bus services. [138854]

The current statutory framework for bus services is set out in the Transport Act 2000. As with all other legislation, the Government are keeping the position under review.

Since our good friend Ken, Mayor of London, is trusted to set fares, timetables and routes in the capital city, where bus use is increasing, why cannot councillors from the great northern cities of Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and York be trusted to do the same? Surely the interests of bus passengers must come above those of bus companies, which make a rate of return of 14 per cent. outside London but 6 per cent. in London.

My hon. Friend knows that transport in London has been treated differently from that in the rest of the country since the 1930s. Our key role is to drive up standards and encourage more people to use buses. The key to that under any regulatory framework is a better partnership between operators and local authorities. In many areas, we have creative operators who do a good job with their local authorities under inspired political leadership. Sadly, that is not the case in many areas. We are considering that, and we work with areas constantly.

Given that bus ridership outside London has fallen by 4 per cent. since 1999, does the Under-Secretary agree with the director general of Nexus, who said:

"Letting the market decide what the bus network should look like frankly hasn't worked."?

As ever with the Liberal Democrats, the premise is flawed and wrong. Bus patronage has not decreased but increased. Constantly to talk down such a key mode of transport, which opens access to parts of our towns and cities that other forms cannot, is to do a disservice to transport. Bus patronage has increased in Cambridge by 8 per cent., in York by 7 per cent., in Bolton by 4 per cent. and in Leeds and Nottingham by 3 per cent. The picture is not the one of doom and gloom that the dreary Liberal Democrats paint time and again.

The village of Thorpe in my constituency may not be as large as London, but the bus service is much worse, especially No. 130, which regularly fails to get its passengers on hoard because it does not turn up. I often write to my excellent passenger transport authority about the problem, but it always replies that the bus service is a commercial service and there is little that it can do. When will we tell bus companies that they provide a public service, not simply a private profit-making service for themselves?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I confess that I know nothing about the 130 that runs through his constituency, but I recently had a meeting with representatives of all the PTAs and they accepted that there were difficulties. Matters therefore remain under review, and there is much further to go in the existing regulatory framework. Simply reverting to the pre-1985 position is not the answer in the collective opinion of operators and local authorities.

How much has been spent in capital terms on (a) motorways and (b) trunk roads in Sussex since 1997; and how much this represents as a percentage of overall expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in England. [138855]

On the basis of information available since April 1999, capital expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in Sussex amounts to £1.5million and £34.7million respectively. In total this represents some 2 per cent. of the Highways Agency's overall capital expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in the same period, and by pure coincidence—these things are not done on a pro rata basis—Sussex has 2.1 per cent. of the country's motorways and trunk roads.

In other words, not a lot. People can drive all the way from Newcastle to Sussex on motorways or dual carriageways until they hit my constituency, where they will find single-lane gridlock on the A27. We have about five miles of motorway in the whole of Sussex. In 1997, the hon. Gentleman's Government dropped every trunk road improvement scheme in Sussex, and now he has dropped any plans to provide bypasses around Worthing, Lancing and Arundel. Yet his Government want to subject West Sussex to another 46,000 homes, which will only add to the gridlock. When is Sussex going to get its fair share of road investment?

I am tempted to say, when it gets a rather better quality of parliamentary representation. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have had successive meetings about the A27 with West Sussex, the South East England Regional Assembly, the South East England Development Agency, and with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I have still to have a meeting with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I have had six or seven meetings about the A27, at which Conservative party members overall, whether local councillors or MPs, have been very serious about working with us and the Highways Agency to resolve the situation, rather than sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks as the hon. Gentleman is doing. Perhaps he should be a bit more positive in his approach.

The Minister might know that my constituency is particularly poorly served in this regard, having practically no dual carriageways at all. However, there is one small stretch in Bexhill, the King Offa way, which is notoriously unsafe—in fact, it is extremely dangerous. Six months ago, there was yet another fatal crash, the second in as many months, after which the Highways Agency recommended a string of improvements, including a crash barrier, better speed signs, barriers on the central reservation and a speed camera. Six months on, however, nothing has been done, and the Highways Agency tells us that it is very unlikely that anything will be done in 2004 because of the cash crisis in Kent and Sussex. Given that there has been yet another accident, what does the Minister intend to do?

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. We have asked East Sussex to develop proposals for the Bexhill to Hastings link road, through the local transport plan process. We fully accept, however, that there are real difficulties along the entire south coast. All that we have said thus far is that the solutions that came up in the south coast multi-modal study were not appropriate. We are looking very seriously at each of the problems along the A27 with the Highways Agency, and we have a time frame within which to do that. We are seeking to resolve those problems, and I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the Bexhill issue specifically.

What estimate he has made of the energy efficiency of (a) high-speed train travel and (b) short-haul flights for journeys (i) within the United Kingdom and (ii) between the United Kingdom and France. [138856]

I am aware there have been a number of studies, but with no firm conclusions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that if there were synchronisation between rail and air travel in the advance booking systems, more people would use the rail services?

I agree that it is important to provide people with better choice in transport, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, once the first phase of the west coast modernisation is complete next year, journey times between Birmingham and London, for example, will come down to just over one hour and 20 minutes, and between Manchester and London to just over two hours. Those journey times will provide a favourable choice compared with travelling by air. In relation to domestic journeys and those made using the new channel tunnel rail link, I believe that rail can offer a very good choice, providing a faster journey. The key is to ensure that it is reliable as well.

Will the Secretary of State come to one firm conclusion now—namely that RAF Northolt should be eliminated from the review on airport facilities in the south-east of England for short-haul operations? The airfield is far too small, it is in a highly built-up area, and I am sure that his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) would concur that there would be fury from local residents if short-haul scheduled services were permitted there.

I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will deal with all airports in the aviation White Paper, which we will publish next month. The hon. Gentleman will just have to wait and see what our conclusions are.

Obviously we welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on using the tunnel. I think that it is a benefit, but it ought to be a benefit for all in the UK. Will he try to ensure that there are direct links from the north-west to give us the same service and benefits that people get in the south-west and the south-east?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The first stage of the channel tunnel rail link was opened in September, and I am pleased to tell the House that today the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), was able to present a bouquet of flowers to the millionth passenger to use that service since then. [HON. MEMBERS: Ooh!] I understand that the reaction of the passenger was just the same as that of hon. Members, and that the upgrade to first class was probably more greatly appreciated than the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend.

If he will make a statement on the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan 2003. [138858]

The Strategic Rail Authority published its 2003 strategic plan in January of this year. It sets out the way in which the authority will work towards the Government's goals on the railway.

I have given the Secretary of State notice of this question: why in 2002 did the SRA's plan talk about East Midlands Parkway station opening in 2003? His predecessor wrote to me shortly after that, saying:

"I understand from the SRA that the May 2003 opening date given in the Strategic Plan was an inadvertent error. May 2003 is the deadline in the franchise by which Midland Mainline can be required to have obtained all the necessary consents, permissions and rights over land to construct the station. Construction might then take about a year."

The hon. Gentleman has a perfectly good point. I am grateful to him for having told me earlier this morning of the problems in relation to this station and drawing my attention to the reply that he received from my predecessor. He should not have been given the wrong information, and it should not have been published in the SRA's then plan.

Given the vital importance of the upgrade of the west coast main line, particularly in areas of north Staffordshire in my constituency, will the Secretary of State support the SRA's view, expressed in its strategic plan, that that vital arterial rail link should be completed in total by 2006, and resist the blandishments of the regulator, who has suggested that the second phase could be deferred as a cost-cutting exercise?

There are two points there. First, it is planned that the west coast main line will be completed by 2007, not 2006. That has always been the case. Secondly, the regulator is quite right to draw attention to the fact that this is a project in which costs need to be controlled. I remind the House that when Railtrack was responsible for the network, it promised to build that line for a price of £2.5 billion. By the time it stopped trading, the cost had gone up to £13 billion. Now, with proper control and discipline, we think that the cost will be between £8 billion and £9 billion. I am afraid that that is a price that we are having to pay, because the line did not get the investment that it needed for some 20 or 30 years—ever since the late 1960s.

In June, the Secretary of State said:

"The investment which is going into the railway is slowly but surely bearing results."

First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. We had expected to see the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who we were told was in charge of both transport and the environment. I can only conclude that she must be dealing with the environment this morning, and therefore cannot be with us. It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman, though. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] I have no difficulty in being present for Transport questions. I am always here: that is the big difference.

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks and his welcome. As he is so interested in the whereabouts of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, let me tell him that she is at the CBI conference in Birmingham listening to the many complaints from British businesses about the Government's failure to provide a proper transport policy to help them to conduct their business profitably.

Not really, no. What is clear is that Britain's railways, and our roads for that matter, have suffered from decades of under-investment. Successive Governments, not just Conservative but Labour as well, have not spent as much as they should over a long period.

The Secretary of State will realise that value for money depends on a sensible set of priorities. Will he point out to the Strategic Rail Authority that ignoring the interests of freight and some of the smaller, more deprived parts of the UK is not a sensible way of keeping the whole system working? If we cut bits off, the core will suffer.

I understand that point. However, I do not think that it is right to say that the SRA is ignoring freight—far from it. More goods are being taken by rail than two or three years ago. What the SRA and indeed the rail regulator both recognise is that parts of the network are not used by high-speed trains and do not carry heavy freight. Just as motorways are constructed differently and are maintained to a different standard from A roads and B roads, it makes sense to ensure that our investment in the railways reflects the actual use of the rails. As I have told the House before, we spend about £73 million every week on the railways, matched by a similar sum from the private sector. It is a substantial sum. We need to ensure that it is spent properly and that we maintain the network according to the use of the trains on it.

What comfort can the Secretary of State give his constituents that there will be no delay in plans to upgrade Waverley station in his constituency? He will know that Waverley is central to the Scottish rail network, so can he give a guarantee that the work will go ahead as a priority and that there will be no downgrade of the original plan?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking a question about my constituency. As I was on a train going through his constituency yesterday, I thought that he might ask about that. Waverley station is an important part of the network. The SRA, the Scottish Executive and Edinburgh city council are all discussing what the right level of improvements is and how they should be funded.

If he will make a statement on the decision by Network Rail to close its final salary pension scheme. [138859]

If he will make a statement on the decision by Network Rail to close its final salary pension scheme. [138864]

Network Rail is a private company and its decision about its final salary pension arrangements is a matter for Network Rail itself and the independent corporate trustee of the railways pension scheme.

The Minister will know that Network Rail is a publicly funded company and that that decision will make a large number of its members dependent on means-tested pensions. Will he confirm that the argument advanced by Network Rail for doing that is that its pension bill has doubled to £42 million a year, but that has been as a consequence of the decision in 1994 to cut the contribution rate to the scheme by half.

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misinformed about the details of the pension scheme. I do not know where he has got his information from, but it does not square with the reality of the pension scheme. Network Rail has announced that new recruits to Network Rail will not enjoy the shared costs final salary section of the railways pension scheme and that the protection is there for all those members who are part of that section of the scheme.

Surely my hon. Friend will agree that it looks, certainly from the information that we have received, as though new employees will be somewhat put in jeopardy compared with employees in the previous good scheme. What is somewhat galling is that, at the same time as those employees could be faced with worsening conditions, Network Rail will continue to pay what look like very good bonuses to directors. Does not he agree that that is a somewhat hypocritical, if not contradictory, message to give to the industry?

I am certainly not in favour of contradictory messages going out, but the question is about the new defined contribution arrangements for the pension scheme, which are as good as any in the private sector. My hon. Friend should realise that some train operating companies have already managed to introduce alternative defined contribution arrangements for new recruits in the industry without any serious dissension. I hope that he accepts that the rights of the many thousands of pensioners in the existing scheme will be protected.

I have received a number of representations on this, and I shall consider carefully what the Minister said. However, is he aware that 70 leading companies have closed their final salary schemes, affecting roughly 70,000 people? The total cost is about £100 million, but that compares with the £5 billion that the Chancellor has taken from pension funds through the change to tax credit. Does the Minister think that the Chancellor was right to do so?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor reduced corporation tax at the same time, and some of the people whom he seeks to represent are glad about that. He knows as well as I do that there have been difficulties with markets and the earnings of pension funds, so companies sometimes have to take such measures. He also knows as well as I do that we have to ensure that pensioners' rights are properly guarded.

Does the Minister realise that reducing corporation tax does not help Network Rail, a supposedly not-for-profit company? It has a £200 million pension deficit, so why does he not admit that the truth is that Network Rail's prospective employees will join thousand of others up and down the country who are victims of the Government's vicious pension tax?

That was a nice piece of rhetoric, but it will not work. The Government will ensure that the gangster tactics that reigned under successive Tory Governments will not be repeated.

Will my hon. Friend look into the fact that if 70 big business companies refuse to pay proper pensions it is incumbent on those who complain about it to say that they are against big business acting in that way? Moreover, they should tell members of the shadow Cabinet to stop moonlighting and taking £5 million from big business, because they are robbing the pensioners.

Order. I think that the Minister can leave that point.

When he plans to publish his White Paper on airports in the south-east of England. [138860]

We expect to publish the air transport White Paper covering the whole of the UK next month.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When he publishes the White Paper, will he ignore the blustering threats of legal action by the operators of Luton airport and accept that there is massive local opposition—I have got another 1,000 signatures to add to the many that he has already received—to over-expansion of the airport to the size of Gatwick? There are no direct rail links to the airport, and the overflying stacked above it means that it will be less safe. The airport is closed more frequently than any other airport serving London because of weather conditions, and on the right hon. Gentleman's own calculations, development is the least cost-effective option of all those that he is considering.

I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's strong feelings about development at Luton because he has made them clear on previous occasions. My answer to him, as it will be to everyone else who catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, is that people just have to wait a short while longer before finding out our conclusions.

While there is always some opposition to airport development, my right hon. Friend must know that there is strong support for the development of Luton locally. There is unanimous support among Government Members for the development and even, I think, strong support among Opposition Members. Is it not the case that Luton could be expanded quickly, simply and cheaply and contribute substantially to airport needs?

My hon. Friend is right that, in relation to just about every airport in the country, there are strong feelings both for and against. I am acutely aware of the fact that when I publish the White Paper there will be a lynching party from one direction or another.

Regardless of what is in the White Paper, it is crucial that our scrutiny of the Government's plans is both informed and thorough. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that he will publish the evidence that he receives before the White Paper, and that he will give us a proper, full debate in this House in January?

The question of whether the matter will be debated is in the hands of the usual channels, but for my part I would welcome a debate. As I have said, whatever we decide, our conclusions are bound to be controversial, and there are bound to be strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Indeed, I know of the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the issue of airports in his constituency, because he has spoken to me about it.

Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that he will not seek to decant the excess growth that cannot be absorbed by London airports to other regional airports without there being environmental frameworks in place of a similar standard to those in the south-east, in order to protect the communities surrounding those airports?

On the first point, the demand and pressure on airports is not just a phenomenon in the south-east of England—it is happening right across the country. As I have said many times, this year about half the population will fly at least once, and of course a substantial number fly more often than that. As I have also mentioned before, in 1998 about 5 million people flew on low-cost airlines, but this year the figure will be in excess of 45 million. That is happening throughout the country. However, my hon. Friend makes the important point that environmental measures must be put in place to ensure that the environment is preserved. As we have said on many occasions, aviation, like every other industry, has to meet the consequences of the damage that it causes, so his point about environmental protection is very important.

The High Court ruled that the Government's air transport White Paper was flawed, and I trust that the Secretary of State will agree that the consequence has been even more delay. That has meant uncertainty for those who live around Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and other airports in the south-east, and a continuing planning blight. Has he ever apologised for getting the White Paper so wrong that the High Court had to throw it out and the Government had to start again?

The White Paper has not been published yet, so if there has been a ruling against it I should be very surprised. What I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get at is the consultation process, during which, as he rightly says, the Government took the view that Gatwick should be excluded because of the legal agreement between the then British Airports Authority and the county council. Before he starts demanding apologies, I should point out that many of his colleagues representing constituencies around Gatwick welcomed that decision when it was taken.

What representations he has received on the cancellation of bus services caused by the lack of availability of trained bus drivers. [138861]

We are aware from the Department's monitoring surveys and other sources that unavailability of drivers is a significant cause of bus service cancellations. The bus industry is taking a number of initiatives to tackle that problem, and we will continue to assist where possible. My hon. Friend will know that the difficulties are caused as much by retention as by recruitment.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Nottingham City Transport, which has rightly been told by the traffic commissioner that the lack of drivers is not an excuse for the unavailability of services? In response, it has reduced and withdrawn services, causing great inconvenience. Is not the solution very simple: that Nottingham City Transport needs to recruit, pay and train its drivers properly?

I am not aware of all the details regarding Nottingham City Transport, but I shall happily take the matter up with it and look at its solutions to the problem—as I shall, in the wider context, take matters further with the Bus Partnership Forum, which I chair. The Department will continue to work with TransFed, the industrial training body, and with GoSkills, the sector skills council's co-ordinating body that comes into operation next year. To underline my hon. Friend's remarks, the crucial fact is that buses get to communities—often deprived communities—and serve them far better than any other mode of transport can.

The problem is symptomatic of a wider issue that was identified in a recent report by the Select Committee on Transport—namely, that the Office of Fair Trading is failing correctly to apply the Competition Act 1998 to bus companies and passenger transport executives. Will the Minister address that?

When we recently met representatives of the Office of Fair Trading to discuss its taxi report, we raised some issues about buses. If the hon. Lady feels that the OFT is not carrying out its duties in full, she should write to me and we will happily look into it.

If he will make a statement on the provision of a bypass for Ormskirk. [138862]

I fully understand the importance that local people attach to the bypass for Ormskirk, but it is for Lancashire county council to determine the priorities for local road building and to make bids accordingly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Ormskirk is one of the worst, if not the worst, bottlenecks in the north-west, because it is built around the crossroads of the A59 and the A570? That applies particularly to traffic heading from the M58 to Southport, which is very heavy in the summer, and sometimes queues up for more than 2 miles outside the town, leading to terrible conditions. The campaign for the bypass has been going on since before the first world war. It featured in the Department's programme until 1998, when it was picked out, and it is now joint second in the Lancashire plan. During my time in Parliament, six Ministers have been to see the problem—I would be delighted if my hon. Friend were to be the seventh. Even more importantly, will he talk to the council and the Highways Agency to get the project moving?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust campaigning on this issue. I am very aware of the congestion in Ormskirk, and I would happily be the seventh Minister to visit that road. As he knows, it is due for de-trunking, and should therefore become the responsibility of Lancashire county council. I have asked the Government Office for the North-West to reignite the discussions between the Highways Agency and Lancashire county council with a view to getting the council to take the road over. It will then be able to apply for local transport plan funding for the bypass. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that that will be possible, the very substantial increase that the council has received over the past three years should give him grounds for optimism.

A bypass would bring economic benefits to my constituency, as well as to Ormskirk, and the fact that there is no opposition to it makes it all the stranger that it has not gone ahead. Is the Minister aware that recent, highly controversial changes in hospital configuration mean that ambulances going to accident and emergency departments in Ormskirk and Southport will have to criss-cross the busy town centre of Ormskirk? Will he look into that and speed up traffic in Lancashire?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already looked into that. I am aware that the reconfiguration of health services in the area has caused potential problems for ambulances on the road. I have asked the Government Office for the North-West to liaise with the health authorities in Southport and Ormskirk and with Lancashire county council about taking short-term traffic management measures to alleviate possible delays to ambulance services travelling along the road.

How many delayed train arrivals there were on the west coast main line in each year since 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [138863]

The Strategic Rail Authority publishes performance information in its six-monthly "On Track" publication, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. Information is provided for the services of each operator in aggregate, but not—I am afraid to say—by specific routes.

The Minister will know, because the Secretary of State said so a few moments ago, that things are not happening as quickly as they should in terms of punctuality and timing. Can he imagine the frustration of people in Lichfield, who stand at Lichfield Trent Valley railway station and watch trains whizzing by and not stopping? There are only four trains a day to London, although there will soon be five. Lichfield Trent Valley also has no facilities for the disabled. Will the Minister meet the Lichfield commuters club, which I formed and which will meet regularly at the House of Commons, for a drink—or two or three—to discuss the problems that people encounter?

I would be delighted to meet the Lichfield commuters club and to have a drink bought for me by the hon. Gentleman.

What steps are being taken to increase the proportion of disabled people in the senior civil service. [1388311]

My Department undertakes a range of activities to encourage people with disabilities to apply to the civil service and to increase the proportion of disabled people in the senior civil service. For example, the civil service bursary scheme encourages disabled staff with potential to reach the senior civil service. The aim of such activities is to increase the proportion of disabled staff in the senior civil service to 3.2 per cent. from the current level of 1.7 per cent.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that he is aware of the groundbreaking and innovative work of the Public Administration Committee on developing a draft civil service Bill. Does he think that we should include in that Bill provision to ensure that the civil service provides equality for disabled people, or is the civil service doing well enough under current arrangements? For example, how well are we doing in comparison with the FTSE 100 companies?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are awaiting the outcome of work by the Public Administration Committee on the draft civil service Bill and we look forward to it with interest. The Government's commitment to publish a draft Bill thereafter endures. On the substantive point about the level of commitment in the civil service, I was greatly heartened by the words of Sir Andrew Turnbull on his appointment as Cabinet Secretary, when he personally committed himself to the diversity agenda in the civil service. As for comparisons with the private sector, some 12.9 per cent. of the economically active population are disabled, but data from the civil service diversity survey suggest that some 15 per cent. of civil servants have a disability or long-standing illness.

I welcome the Government's determination to increase the number of people who are disabled who work in the senior civil service. However, I am less convinced by the Government's press release of 16 October, which said that they would achieve that by

"coordinating interdepartmental action to get better information on disabled staff at senior levels in order to understand better the barriers to progression."

I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with the specific number. I have looked at the facts that he elucidated and I would make the following observation. The total number of staff of the Cabinet Office is just below 2,000, and the number of senior civil servants is a significantly smaller proportion. Therefore, the number of staff directly affected is very small. None the less, he raises an important point. The Cabinet Office should lead by example, and that is why I welcome the initiatives that it has taken at a corporate level—in terms of the guidance that was issued, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to dismiss—and in the work that every Department should be doing on the diversity agenda.

What progress the civil service has made since 1997 in the employment of ethnic minorities. [138845]

This Government are strongly committed to diversity in the civil service and to ensuring that it is fully representative of the community that it serves. The latest data, for April 2003, show that ethnic minorities make up 8 per cent. of the civil service, an increase from 4.8 per cent. in April 1997.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but what efforts are being made to encourage ethnic minorities to enter the civil service, especially through the fast stream, which has long been the preserve of people from the white middle class?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I have some positive news in relation to the fast stream. The Government promoted the fast stream summer development programme for ethnic minorities, which now provides a training placement of six to eight weeks for 60 undergraduates. There are also grounds for optimism about the further scope for work in the fast stream in years to come. We have initiated work to that effect.

Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that appointments and promotion will always be made solely on merit? Will he guarantee to the taxpayer that the best possible quality of public service will be provided?

I am happy to give the undertaking that civil servants are appointed according to merit. However, an important factor that must be borne in mind is that we need to realise the potential of all sectors of the community. I see no contradiction between a diversity agenda that recognises that and also secures and upholds the traditional principle of merit in the senior civil service.

Has not the time come now, through a single equality Act, to lay a duty on all public bodies to promote equality? The Public Administration Committee recommended that recently.

My hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, and I take his point very seriously. I know that much work is being done on the matter of a single equalities commission, which will be given clear consideration by the Government.

What assessment the Better Regulation Task Force has made of the number of regulations imposing costs on business which were made in (a) 1992-1997 and (b) 1997-2002. [138846]

The Better Regulation Task Force, which was established by this Government in 1997, carries out detailed studies of specific regulatory issues on which it makes recommendations to Government, rather than general surveys of regulations. The task force has published 29 substantive reports and made more than 350 recommendations, almost all of which have been accepted by the Government.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the burden of regulation placed on tourism and hospitality businesses, especially the small ones? Tourism is important to the city of York, which is one of the country's most important tourism centres. It is just as important to many other towns and cities in the beautiful and historic county of Yorkshire. What is the Minister doing to speed the reform of regulation in his Department and in the House?

I know that my hon. Friend's tireless work on behalf of the tourism and hospitality sectors in his constituency is recognised on all sides of the House, and I pay tribute to it. Specific measures taken by the Government include the licensing reforms and deregulation orders that covered the golden jubilee and new year's eve, and permanent changes have been made to the licensing regime around the latter date. Those changes are expected to save business about £1.9 billion in the first 10 years. Also, in its hotels and restaurants report of June 2000, the Better Regulation Task Force called for a major overhaul of the planning system. The Government have introduced a Bill to reform that system.

In the 2002 annual report, the chair of the Better Regulation Task Force says:

"If we are half way through the better regulation journey, Europe is just at the beginning."

I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's final point. I can also inform the House that only last week I met my equivalent Minister in the Spanish Government to discuss exactly that matter. I made clear to him the Government's pride in the fact that the European Commission has begun to take forward the British agenda on better regulation. I also impressed on him the urgency of that agenda, as a way of ensuring Spanish support while we try to gain wider acceptance for it across Europe.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the Regulatory Reform Committee published a report a few weeks ago, and I am sure that he has been studying it. The Committee expressed some concern that the Government were not delivering quite what they had forecast. How will the Government speed matters up? Now that the Opposition have had a reshuffle, does he hope that they will be able to appoint hon. Members to take part in the Committee's work?

I certainly value the work of the Committee. I have appeared before it and had the opportunity to read the report in question. I can give my hon. Friend some comfort as the reform of patents legislation and fire safety proposals are due to be laid before the House along with other measures in the next few months. The target set for the Government in the regulatory reform action plan is stretching, but I continue to believe that it is achievable.

The Minister will know that we are losing 2,000 manufacturing jobs from this country every month. He will also know that the Confederation of British Industry survey of business leaders showed that 60 per cent. of them are likely to move jobs abroad in the next two years. Is not the reason for that the 15 new sets of regulations penned by this Government every day of the week? Is that not why 95 per cent. of business leaders report that they are spending more time on complying with Government regulations than ever before? Will he give them a Christmas present by telling British companies now that there will be no new regulations for the rest of this year?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Front Bench shadowing the Cabinet Office. He has offered the House a characteristically thought-out policy proposal in his first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this agenda. If we are going to discuss the work of the CBI in this area, a better starting point might be the words used by Digby Jones yesterday on the "Today" programme on Radio 4. He said:

"We've low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and some sustainable growth. In fact, we're the most successful economy in Europe".

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1A and consequential amendment (c).

As I said on Report, both Houses and all parties should take the credit for progress on a difficult Bill and for the consensus that was reached. As I also pointed out on Report, the consensus includes agreement on pre-charge anonymity. However, we continue to disagree about the route that we should take to secure our objective.

Given the general acceptance of the principle of anonymity for a complainant in a rape case or similar, and that the Minister understands that many potential defendants suffer great unfairness through publicity, will he give us hope that, if not today, at some stage in the future, important measures will be introduced to protect potential defendants who are never charged but often ruined?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and I considered them deeply. I do not perceive a direct parallel between the interests of a complainant and those of a defendant. There is no direct read-across; the position is different, and much evidence suggests that we should consider the issues separately. However, I share his view, which he has often expressed, that anonymity should be preserved pre charge in the vast majority of cases. The question that we are debating is the route whereby we attain the objective. As I said, agreement has been reached with ACPO, which has strengthened its guidelines. The stronger guidance has already been effected, bringing the importance of the issue to the attention of police officers.

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), may I inform the House that Mr. Speaker's selection on the Criminal Justice Bill is now available in the Vote Office?

May I, as usual, thank the Minister for the way in which he has presented the Government's position on this matter? I am mindful that many of the points that he has made have a great deal of force. If we could achieve a voluntary regime that restrained some of the worst excesses of the media feeding frenzies that occur when individuals are being subject to investigation and before charge, I would be heartily glad of it. I confess, however, that I have an inbuilt pessimism that that could happen under a voluntary code. I also take the view, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that this is a serious matter that undermines the processes of justice. That said, I am aware that the amendment passed in another place, which is couched in quite vague terms and lacks detail in certain areas, is there to prompt the Government. It was with that in mind that we came up with amendment (b), to which I wish to speak briefly. I am also conscious that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment that strives to achieve similar things, but in a slightly different way.

I rise to speak in favour of amendment (a), which in part agrees with the Government's disagreement with the House of Lords, but its intention is to achieve a measure better than that passed in the other place.

No Tory in the House of Lords nor any Liberal Democrat there, nor even either of those parties' representatives here today in the Commons, has any interest at all in the welfare of women rape complainants—not a one. They press on with this proposal, knowing perfectly clearly that if they advance this argument in respect of sexual offences it will have a deleterious impact on women complainants.

On that basis, presumably the hon. and learned Lady would not wish to have a voluntary code either, because that is an indication of some fetter that she considers inappropriate.

Probably the hon. Gentleman leapt to his feet as I was about to say the phrase that deals with what he is saying. The principle of justice is that justice is heard in public, and that must be maintained. If, however, there is to be some across-the-board provision, that will not have the sting that this provision—which is aimed at sexual offences, and therefore predominantly at women—inevitably will have.

I may have intervened too early. While the explanation of the rape laws has been interesting, I fail to understand how anonymity will affect the conviction rate. Women who are frightened to come forward may be more willing to do so if they feel that they will be better protected if the identity of the accused is kept secret until he is charged. We have reversed the former situation, but I have yet to be persuaded that in this day and age, when the benefits of coming forward are emphasised so strongly, anonymity will have a detrimental effect.

I have not a clue what the hon. Lady means about securing extra protection for complainants by giving defendants anonymity, but she invites me to explain why granting them anonymity only in sexual offence cases would be deleterious to complainants, so I will do so.

The hon. and learned Lady's remarks would make sense if we were dealing with anonymity throughout the trial process. In that context, I have always thought that her comments have real merit. Here, however, we are dealing with the very short period between the point at which the police are seized of the matter and start investigating the person concerned and the point at which they decide either to charge or not to charge. Given that our amendment might also apply to women accused of having sexual relations with underage boys, for instance, I am at a loss to see how it could target women in particular. I am also at a loss to see how it would prevent or hinder women victims from coming forward.

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is at a loss. The number of women against whom there are allegations of sexual misconduct of the kind that he posits can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand in any given year, and, as he must know, almost all defendants are male. The impact of any measure levelled against defendants in such cases will fall on women defendants: that is 100 per cent. certain. It is therefore not sensible to suggest that there is any parity of concern.

I broadly sympathise with the general approach adopted in amendments (a) and (b), but I want to make four points.

Is there not a more general application of the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made about the definition of publisher? Do we not need a new construction of the law because the present construction is rather archaic and unhelpful in defining the difference between someone who publishes a piece of literature and someone who sells it?

That may be right, but one would want to look at the definition with regard to particular statutes. We do not want to revisit the general construction or interpretation of statutes measure that was passed at the end of the 19th century to make a general provisions test of the meaning of publisher. We should deal with that on a case-by-case basis.

It was remiss of me not to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on his recent appointment as shadow Attorney-General. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating him now.

I entirely accept that. In a free society, that is something that it is difficult—and in some circumstances wrong—to control. If, for instance, the police refused to take action following serious allegations about a high-profile figure, the free press might have a role to play in risking the libel laws and publishing their material. I would not dream of wanting to interfere with that.

The hon. Gentleman's point is well made, and he has given an example of such action. The expectation out there is that the amendment would catch such behaviour, but it clearly would not.

It is not at the moment, but it should be.

We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to toughen the guidelines and make sure that if money changes hands, and if it can be proved to be a criminal offence, the required action is taken. That is possible under the voluntary arrangements sought by the Government, which are not a soft option.

My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has been exercised by the problem of the newspapers, particularly the tabloids, paying journalists—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant paying police officers for information—paying journalists is another matter. The way in which such behaviour is caught as an offence remains uncertain. There may be disciplinary action against individual police officers, but will my hon. Friend consider including a provision in the draft corruption Bill to deal with the problem more robustly?

I well remember a question that my hon. Friend asked and which was given a great deal of publicity at the time. He has given an example of something which, like many other matters raised in our brief debate, needs further consideration.

A moment ago, the Minister said that it should be understood that we mean business, but what if the self-regulation route does not work? Is he in a position to give the House an assurance that in those circumstances we would legislate at an early opportunity and, in addition, legislate to cover all offences, which I have always stated would be a better option? I have to use the vehicles available to the Opposition, and we are currently dealing with a big Bill on sex offences.

Earlier in the debate, the hon. Gentleman speculated about future legislation that may be before the House and about attaching provisions in this area to that legislation. I am not going to join in that speculation, although he will have noticed, as I have in the short time I have been a Minister at the Home Office, that there is legislation from the Home Office in most Sessions of Parliament. He can rest assured that, whether on this issue or others, there will doubtless be future legislation from the Home Office.