If he will make a statement on plans to improve rail links between London and Gloucestershire. [145864]

There have already been significant improvements. New rolling stock was recently introduced between London and Gloucester, and in May 2003 the number of Paddington to Gloucester trains was roughly doubled. In addition, the new Thames Trains franchise, which was announced in December, will have consequent benefits for routes between London and Gloucestershire.

I thank the Minister for that reply, although I must say that people in Gloucestershire who travel to London might not recognise the improvements he describes. I spoke to the Strategic Rail Authority only this morning, and it told me that there is no certainty of improved services until 2006. I understand that the SRA will not advertise the new franchises until next year, yet there is an urgent need to improve rail transport between Gloucestershire and London. Furthermore, the link with Ashchurch station, which opened only recently, has been made almost worthless by the reduction in services from that station. Many people who live in Gloucestershire choose to drive to London because of the inadequacy of the rail services.

I am very much aware that, owing to a timetable overhaul involving the SRA, Network Rail and the train operator, Virgin CrossCountry, trains bound for Tewkesbury stopped calling at Ashchurch station last September to effect an improvement in the poor timekeeping of Virgin's cross-country services. The most recently published figures show that the subsequent improvement in the percentage of trains arriving on time has been about 20 per cent. Ashchurch retains a very good local service to Gloucester and Cheltenham, as well as to Cardiff, Worcester and Birmingham.

As the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, I am pleased about the doubling of the number of trains from Gloucester to London and the enhanced regional service to Bristol and Swindon, but we have suffered in respect of some of our inter-city trains, so if the Government-funded viability study into a new station for Gloucester is completed at the end of the month and it proposes a new station on the main line, which would further enhance the service, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to support the proposal and to do something that the Conservatives were afraid to do when they were in government.

I look forward to receiving a copy of the survey report.

I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the Thames Trains franchise during his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), as the company provides important services to Gloucestershire and to Worcestershire. I am also glad that the new franchise has been awarded to First Great Western, which will result in a substantial improvement to services in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, but does the Minister agree that the only way to ensure that such an improvement is provided is to increase significantly dual-track sections on the Cotswold line, which still suffers from very long sections of single track with consequent unreliability for all passengers using it?

I certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, as the issue has long been a bone of contention with passengers. He knows, however, that laying four tracks is not inexpensive—it is a very, very expensive thing to do—

Two tracks.

I am sorry—two tracks. I shall certainly ask the SRA what part the project might play in any strategy it cares to come up with for services to Worcester in the future.

Any changes to rail links between London and Gloucestershire affect the main Great Western line and, indeed, Thames Trains services, as the Minister pointed out. Does he agree with the SRA that changes currently proposed to those services will bring improvements for passengers on both long distance and local services?

That has to be the ideal objective for the SRA in anything that it does in detailing the new franchise. I should like to see improved services for people travelling over all distances on a line that I use every week. I know of the problems that people have suffered along the line and I very much hope that the recent improvements will continue.

The Minister refers to the ideal for improvements along the line, but of course the changes proposed by the SRA will be far from the ideal. The changes that the authority is making on the Great Western line mean slower trains to places such as Slough and Bourne End, no single-stop services to London from Maidenhead and Twyford and, for some passengers, journey times will nearly double. The Government's obsession with targets means that passengers on local services now face slower trains, longer journeys and more overcrowding? Added to higher fares and worse reliability, is not the reality that, far from delivering improvements and a better service, the Government are delivering a failing service for rail passengers and that motorists, rail users and tube users all suffer from this failing Government?

The hon. Lady will not be surprised if I say, no, I do not recognise that. I am sure that she will know—if she was open with us, she would say so—that the problem is her Government's appallingly botched privatisation of the railway system, which we are still trying to repair and into which we are putting a lot of money.

If he will make a statement on rural bus services. [145865]

We have an excellent record of supporting rural bus services. Since 1998, rural bus subsidy grant allocations have totalled more than £200 million. This year's allocation is £48.5 million, which supports more than 2,100 rural bus services throughout England. We have also supported some 250 projects, totalling £89 million, through the rural bus challenge.

I thank the Minister for that response, but may I remind him that, in Norfolk, Countryside Agency funding for a number of valuable dial-a-ride services is coming to an end? In some cases, it has already come to an end. The county council has failed to plug the gap that has been left, so a number of schemes are on the brink of being lost. What action is he taking to secure sustainable funding for these very important schemes, which an awful lot of elderly people, especially those in rural areas, rely on absolutely?

First and foremost, that is a matter for Norfolk county council and the Countryside Agency. The hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to express those concerns, but he will know that Norfolk's rural bus subsidy grant allocation this year is £2.4 million—the largest in the country—and that Norfolk has also received rural bus challenge funding for six projects totalling £2.3 million. The RBC currently provides £276,000 for the flexibus project in North Norfolk.

Does my hon. Friend accept that pensioners travelling on buses in rural areas receive far less public subsidy in terms of concessionary fares than pensioners in urban areas of England, which have passenger transport authorities? Does not that underline the need for England to follow the example of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in offering all pensioners free off-peak bus travel in urban and rural areas?

That is certainly a view, and I am more than happy to discuss it further with my hon. Friend, not least in terms of the amount it would cost. We will shortly announce another package of rural bus challenge funds, including kickstart funding, but we are clear that the bus is central to an integrated transport solution to social exclusion in rural and urban areas, not least for the elderly.

Even before the announcement of local government funding, Lib-Dem controlled Somerset county council announced that it was considering cutting its subsidy for buses by up to a quarter, despite the fact it is a rural county. How does that accord with Government policy?

Happily, it does not accord with Government policy. Of course, the Lib Dems in Somerset probably have a different policy from Lib Dems in the neighbouring counties and districts. Absolutely nothing that the Lib Dems do or say accords with Government policy, which is why they will for ever remain a rump in the House and we will remain in government.

If he will make a statement on his proposals for school transport. [145866]

My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and for Education and Skills announced joint proposals for school transport in the document, "Travelling to School: an action plan", which was published on 17 September last year.

I thank my hon. Friend and assure him that I would fully support a school transport Bill that ended the legalised over-crowding that has occurred in many areas, but may I also express the concern that, if there is any threat to free school transport for those who live more than three miles from school, it would have a very serious effect in rural areas such as my own, where the comprehensive schools are 15 or 20 miles apart? May I ask the Government to consider that seriously?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on school bus safety and school transport in general. I assure him that the pilots that we have announced, which we are funding with £7.5 million each year for the next two years, will examine new and innovative arrangements for providing school buses. Local people, parents, providers of services and schools would have to be consulted carefully on any proposed scheme. There might be many benefits for children who do not receive any bus service provision at the moment, including those who do not get a free service when travelling fewer than three miles, which may be of great benefit to many in rural areas.

Is the Minister aware that Staffordshire has purchased specialised school buses from the United States of America that resist impact when stationary and have flashing lights to stop cars overtaking when children are crossing the road? May I invite him to visit Staffordshire, which once again sets the way while the rest of the nation merely follows?

I would be pleased to visit Staffordshire and see the hon. Gentleman and I would also be pleased to go to other areas that have introduced American-style yellow school buses—I believe that they have been very successful. A dedicated school bus service is attractive to parents because the buses provide a safe environment and have regular drivers who get to know children. We are happy to examine any scheme under the local transport plan budget that will provide such quality transport for children going to school, as we have done recently in west Yorkshire, where we provided a substantial sum for yellow buses.

The Government are trying to extend to as many parents as possible the choice of the school that they want their children to attend. It is quite easy to extend parental choice to the better-off because they can use cars to get their children to school, but the situation is more difficult for working-class children. Will the Government adopt a more flexible approach to their policy on free transport to schools so that working-class parents are able to send their children to the school of their choice?

I am in danger of straying into Education and Skills questions. When examining any proposal made by a local authority, we would consider whether it would reduce car use, create healthier journeys to school for children and give them the ability to cycle or walk when possible. However, we should especially consider how to create a system that would give an advantage to all children and not only those who benefit from the existing travel-to-school system.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the introduction of pilot schemes will not lead to pressure on all local authorities to withdraw free school transport for children who, in areas such as Northumberland, might have to travel 10, 20 or 25 miles to school at high cost? Our area has already experienced the withdrawal of free transport for those over 16, which has had a consequential effect on people's willingness to carry on courses, so it is a worrying prospect.

There is no intention to introduce a widespread withdrawal of the free transport system. As I said, any scheme would have to meet certain criteria and, most importantly, there would have to be careful local consultation. The plan would not come from central Government to local government because it would have to be consulted on locally. We shall examine schemes to ensure that they would not disadvantage children who have to travel long distances, especially those in rural areas. It is important to remember that many children, especially those in rural areas, are not covered by the existing system. We want a much fairer system of travel to school that takes account of the needs of all children rather than only a few.

If he will set a date for revisiting the decisions announced in "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper in relation to demand for additional runways to be built at Glasgow International and Edinburgh airports. [145867]

The Government's decisions in relation to additional runway capacity in central Scotland are set out in the White Paper that I published in December. These will not change in the foreseeable future, but the White Paper includes a commitment to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the approach that it sets out and we will report progress in 2006.

Obviously, the economic argument in paragraph 5.7 of the White Paper is that express freight and flown mail are the main reasons why Edinburgh may achieve an additional runway. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should consider whether there should be an additional runway at Glasgow, based on the facts that the M74 bypass will be in place by about 2007 and that a fast rail link could make the handling of air freight and flown mail at Glasgow airport an attractive proposition?

My hon. Friend is right. We expect air traffic to grow at Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick, all of which serve central Scotland. He will no doubt bear it in mind that we do not think that any of those airports will need an additional runway before 2020, which is a considerable time away. The White Paper safeguarded the situation so that a second runway could be built at Edinburgh and, if necessary, Glasgow. Consequently, if we get the growth at Glasgow that my hon. Friend describes, it will be able to expand. We anticipate substantial expansion at Glasgow, with additional terminal facilities, as the airport continues to grow and expect people living in central Scotland in general to have a choice of not one but three airports—Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick.

Has the Secretary of State considered the problem of blighted properties between now and 2020, the compensation that may be payable, and the position between Scotland and England and between municipally owned airports and privately owned airports, such as those owned by BAA?

Yes, I have. The proposals and the Government's conclusions are set out in the White Paper, which the hon. Lady has no doubt read.

Given that the success of Prestwick airport, as demonstrated over the past few years, is down to the fact that it is in separate ownership, will the Secretary of State consider the option of selling on some airports in the United Kingdom so that Glasgow and Edinburgh can compete with each other on a proper basis?

First, my hon. Friend is right that Prestwick airport has experienced dramatic growth compared with the position it was in four or five years ago. That is a tribute not just to the people who own it, but in particular to some of our colleagues who represent Ayrshire constituencies. I know that he has taken a keen interest in that.

If he will make a statement on his plans for traffic congestion reduction. [145868]

We are tackling congestion through major investment in road improvements as well as measures to improve the flow of traffic and providing improved information for road users. Last July I announced a study to explore the feasibility of options for road pricing.

The Secretary of State will recall the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that he should be held to account if he had not reduced road traffic within five years: of course, he failed. The current Secretary of State said that the Traffic Management Bill will allow our roads to be managed more effectively. When does he now expect congestion—not the rate of growth in congestion—to be reduced?

One reason why traffic growth has been so high is that the economy has grown strongly over the past six years. There is not an economy in the world in which such growth has not been accompanied by increased car ownership.

The Secretary of State will know that congestion occurs not only in England but in Scotland as well. Congestion on the M74 into Glasgow has been mentioned. Similarly, gaining access to Edinburgh is a great problem for people who come from north of the Forth. Is he in talks with the Scottish Executive on the need to advance another access route in the Kincardine bridge area on to the M876, or is he considering a second Forth road bridge to deal with congestion into Edinburgh?

I know that a second Forth road bridge is a subject of great controversy in Edinburgh, with one's views depending to a large extent on which side of the Forth one happens to live. I am not aware of any current active proposals to build a second bridge at Queensferry, but I think that the Scottish Executive are considering plans to improve the crossing at Kincardine: that bridge is now quite elderly and is under heavy pressure. However, it is for the Scottish Executive to make a decision on that.

My constituency is one of the most congested areas in the whole of London. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what plans his Department has to reduce that congestion, which is environmentally very damaging?

In common with other areas of London, my hon. Friend's constituency suffers from heavy congestion. Two matters are important in relation to London, the first of which is to maintain and continue investment in public transport. My hon. Friend will know that, as a result of the tube partnership, we are putting about £1 billion into the tube every year for the next few years; and, through the grant that we give, the Mayor has improved spending on buses in London. Those two public transport measures will help. Secondly, the measures set out in the Traffic Management Bill, which we debated yesterday, will help to ease the flow of traffic in London and elsewhere.

What recent representations he has received on speed cameras. [145869]

We have recently received a number of representations on speed cameras, many from road safety organisations supporting the policy to enforce speed limits using cameras. Those opposed to the policy have expressed themselves mainly through the media. Safety cameras have shown repeatedly that they reduce accidents, deaths and serious injuries, typically by 35 per cent. at camera sites and 4 per cent. across whole areas where cameras are deployed.

Given that speed cameras now raise £17 million a year for the Treasury, will the Minister confirm that a further 3 million motorists are likely to be caught next year by the reduction of speed limits in some areas, and will he state how much extra revenue he hopes that will generate for the Chancellor's increasingly depleted Treasury?

I cannot predict how many tickets will be issued next year: that will depend on how many people stick to the speed limit. The hon. Gentleman might like to look at one of the cameras in his constituency—the one at Ebdford Dip on the A376 between Exmouth and Exeter. Before the camera was deployed, there were seven accidents involving death or serious injury and 11 involving personal injury. Since May last year, there have been no collisions. If he wants that camera removed, perhaps he should first talk to his constituents.

My hon. Friend may be aware that in November 2002 digital cameras were fitted on a notorious road in my constituency—the Stocksbridge bypass. The report on the first six months indicates a very positive impact on driver behaviour. When the full-year report comes out this March will the Minister meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and me to consider the scope for further improvement on that road?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the role that cameras play in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. The evidence is that the vast majority of lives saved are those of pedestrians, who are mainly children and elderly people. I look forward eagerly to the full-year analysis of the figures on cameras, and we shall examine it carefully to see whether any changes need to be made. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend at that time to discuss with him how cameras have contributed to the reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on roads in his area.

Last week, the other Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said on "The World at One" that he would not dismiss out of hand my proposal for a national audit of the positioning of speed cameras. Last night, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) did dismiss it out of hand. There is clearly deep chaos and confusion in the Department about that issue. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the common-sense approach of the hon. Member for Harrow, East or his own more hysterical approach is being taken?

We will look carefully at the analysis. It needs a cold, clear, objective analysis, not the more emotive approach taken by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is familiar with the A292 in his constituency—the Hythe road. Before the camera was fitted on that road, there were 27 crashes, in seven of which people were killed or seriously injured. Since the camera was fitted in May last year, there has been just one crash, resulting in a slight injury.

It is interesting that the Minister wants a partial audit, but the Secretary of State and his Department admit that there are no proper full records of how many cameras there are or where they are. That is why we need the audit that I am calling for. The Government invited us last night to do the audit ourselves, so let us start with the camera on the A45 near Birmingham airport, which the police have agreed to disable, admitting that it was in the wrong place. Will the Minister now make the commitment that he failed to make last night that motorists who have been convicted on the basis of a camera that the police admit is in the wrong place should be compensated for the fines they have had to pay?

It is significant that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the camera in his own area and its success in reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. He may want to talk to some of his councillors in Ashford, who apparently are campaigning to have cameras fitted where they do not meet the criteria that we set out. He mentioned the camera on the A45—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment and stop chuntering. I am familiar with the camera on the A45, near the airport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a letter written to each of the partnerships, asking them to look carefully at each camera. On the strength of the responses to the letter, that camera is being removed. That leaves 3,999. Would the hon. Gentleman like to suggest some others?

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that speed cameras are placed in any area only when there is clear evidence of accidents and deaths, and that those who disable speed cameras are contributing directly to the demise of people and should be made liable for that?

I can confirm that the cameras in the partnership arrangements are put only at sites where there is a record of injuries or serious injuries. There must also be a record to show that those are caused by vehicles speeding. The rather hysterical debate that there has been among a minority has given succour to those who wanted to destroy the cameras. If the cameras in the two examples that I have given were destroyed or removed, more people would be killed and seriously injured.

What discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on providing for the projected increase in rail passenger numbers. [145870]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and discusses a range of subjects related to the work of that body, including issues arising from a projected increase in passenger numbers.

Is it not typical that the Government have a target to increase passenger numbers, at the same time as having a policy to restrict passenger numbers by increasing ticket costs? The cost of a monthly season ticket from London to Southend increased just this week by £17. Is it not time that the Government got together with the SRA and planned to increase capacity on the line—for instance, by considering a new station for Canvey Island?

That is a nice populist line, but the money to run the railways can come from only two places. Either it comes from the taxpayer via subsidies, which are enormous—about £3 billion this year—or it must come from the fare box. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to whoever speaks these days for the Conservative party on issues relating to the Exchequer, I am sure he can come to an agreement about putting up taxes yet again to increase the subsidy to the railways, but we cannot do that because we are being very careful about how we spend taxpayers' money.

I was grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met me before Christmas to discuss increasing the passenger numbers coming through Wembley Stadium station by resolving the issues between the SRA and Network Rail. Will my hon. Friend report on how the negotiations between the two bodies have advanced since then, and how close we are to resolving the issue of the bridges there?

We are due to meet the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail shortly to discuss that very subject.

When the Minister next meets the Strategic Rail Authority, will he ask it why it has been necessary to increase the number of staff employed in regulating the rail industry almost fourfold since privatisation? Will he also ask the SRA why it was necessary in nine months last year to spend £20 million on 26 outside contractors when it has so much in-house resource? Does that not show that the SRA has proved a costly and bureaucratic failure, and that we no longer need it as part of the rail regulatory industry?

I certainly agree that any increase in the number of personnel involved in regulation needs to be questioned. The figures have risen dramatically, and we have certainly asked for answers to our questions about that point, and especially to those about the increase in the number of consultants who are being used, which seems extraordinarily high.

The housing growth planned in the Milton Keynes area needs to be underpinned by improved transport infrastructure. Will the Minister ensure that, in considering the current bid to reopen the Bletchley to Bicester section of the east-west rail route, the SRA takes into account the extra housing growth in the area and the need to provide for that additional potential passenger growth?

Yes, indeed. I would expect the SRA to look very carefully at projected growth in housing numbers, as well as economic growth, in those areas. There will certainly be an increase and we must have close regard to that issue in the way in which we serve the area with transport infrastructure.

Is the Minister aware that, in relation to numbers, one of the biggest problems in the country is on the London commuter lines, where severe overcrowding is practically a daily occurrence? Indeed, the Select Committee on Transport pointed out that such conditions lead to stress and ill health. One possible answer is a modest programme to lengthen platforms so that train operators can run 12-coach trains rather than trains with a maximum of eight, six or four coaches, as they often do now. What prospect is there that the Strategic Rail Authority will introduce such a programme in the near future?

This is a very important question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that we have just seen the largest ever orders placed for new rolling stock in the history of the railways in this country. We have also seen the difficulties of trying to run a lot of the trains on the existing infrastructure, not least because of the inadequacy of the power supply system, especially in the old southern region. He is right to raise the issue of lengthening platforms. We must look very carefully at that one. The information that I have received suggests that many of the associated costs relate to regulation that is very difficult to explain or rationalise and which should be slashed. It should be easier to build extensions to platforms, not more difficult, as that would increase capacity on the trains to which he referred.

What progress is being made on the upgrade of the west coast main line. [145871]

The upgrade of the west coast main line is making good progress and is expected to deliver significant improvements in journey times this year and next.

I welcome that answer, but I hope that the new lines that are being laid in the upgrade are British made. Referring to journey times, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one of the greatest problems is the greatly extended journey time during the upgrade? There is great suspicion that the reason for that problem has nothing to do with the upgrade, but more to do with avoiding paying the compensation that companies would have to pay for late-arriving trains. Will he look into the whole issue of timetabling?

Yes, I will. It is important that there should be realistic and accurate timetables. In relation to my hon. Friend's first point, I think that I am right in saying that most of the steel going into Britain's railways is British. On journey times, he will know that, when the upgrade is completed next year, the journey time to Carlisle, for example, on the west coast main line will be reduced by about half an hour. I am afraid that, in the major works that are being carried out on the line—the first major works in almost 30 years—there will inevitably be some degree of disruption. Hon. Members are well aware of that. I believe, though, that once the upgrade is completed and we have the new trains that Virgin is introducing—a number of which are now appearing on the west coast main line—there will be a qualitatively better service on the west coast than there has been for 30 years.

I warmly welcome the huge sums of money that have been poured into the west coast main line: my constituency has greatly benefited from that. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that as well as improving the signalling and track, the upgrade must, and should continue to, include, first, car parking at railway stations to encourage people to use rail; and, secondly, the extension of platforms to enable longer and larger trains to be put on to lines to carry people who want to travel by rail?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Car parks at stations are extremely important if we are to encourage people to leave their cars and go by train. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the bureaucracy that stood in the way of lengthening platforms. When one looks at that more closely, it is clear that extending the platform by a few feet does not necessitate upgrading the entire station. One or two people thought that it did, which made the whole thing daft.

As my right hon. Friend will know, I have taken a particular interest in the west coast main line for more than a decade, and we are now at a point where we will see improvements. Yesterday, the first Pendolino train went from Euston to Glasgow. That service will be a great benefit to my constituents. However, will my right hon. Friend comment on the decision not to lay extra track in the Trent valley, which will create congestion and delays on the west coast main line? I understand that that decision was taken after the rail regulator intervened with Network Rail.

On the first point, my hon. Friend will know that once the upgrade is completed next year, more than half an hour will be taken off the journey time to Carlisle. I am glad that he mentioned the arrival in Glasgow of the first Pendolino train—I am told that it was eight minutes early, which is a shining example to the rest of the trains going up and down the west coast main line.

What his policy is on the introduction of quieter road surfaces on motorways. [145872]

The Highways Agency always uses quieter road surfaces when carrying out resurfacing work on England's motorways and trunk roads. On 1 April last year, I announced a timetable for resurfacing all sections of concrete road on our strategic road network with noise-reducing material in order to provide relief from traffic noise for households living alongside noisy trunk roads. That work will be progressed in line with the priorities that were identified, which provide for the earliest relief to the worst affected properties, subject to the availability of funding.

Unfortunately, that will not reassure my constituents who live near the M1 in Narborough, Whetstone, Cosby and elsewhere. They were expecting to have the Ml resurfaced with quieter material this summer, but it has been put off for up to three years—because of value management work, according to the Highways Agency. Yet the Minister told me in a written answer that the resurfacing project is not the result of value management work. Will he tell me who is right— he or the Highways Agency? Will he get his act and his policy together with the Highways Agency; and will he reassure my constituents along the M1 south of junction 20 that they will have a quieter road surface?

I would say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that, had it not been for this Government bringing in the new quieter road surfaces, there would have been no quieter road surfaces at all, whenever the surface was relaid. Work has to be carried out all round the country on the trunk roads and the major motorway system, including the M1 between junctions 20 and 21—I appreciate that many of the villages all the way down to Lutterworth are affected as well—but it has to be done in order of priority. Priority is given to road surfaces that are breaking up, and to locations where road safety is an issue, where there are potholes or where the skid value of the road has deteriorated. We carefully analyse each road that needs doing according to that list of priorities, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although it is not possible this year, he will be in the three-year programme from 2005–06, when his constituents will be able to expect the Government to provide a quieter road for them.

Will my hon. Friend meet the parish council in Bredgar when he visits my constituency shortly? The M2 runs alongside that area, and there have been campaigns against the noise for 10 years. It is an echo chamber. It seems to miss all the criteria that we apply to these problems, but the noise is unbearable to anyone walking there.

A lot of meetings seem to be resulting from our questions today. Of course, I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and I know what a strong advocate he has been on road and transport issues in his constituency. I would be happy to meet him, because I realise that this is a problem—just as it is in Leicester—for the people living alongside a motorway. Noise can be extremely intrusive.

Can the Minister tell me, either now or in writing, when the M4 between junctions 8/9 and 12 might be resurfaced with a quieter material, which we would welcome? If he is planning an expansion of that motorway, could that be linked to the introduction of sound barriers to give some relief to residents?

The Highways Agency looks very carefully at the environmental impact of any improvements that take place on our roads, particularly the impact of noise on local residents. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter of the M4. As he knows, certain stretches have been resurfaced with a quieter material, but this work has to be done in order of priority. Priority has to be given to surfaces that have deteriorated, and we cannot just resurface roads that are still in good condition. I am sure that he appreciates that in terms of value for money for the taxpayer, but I shall certainly write to him about the sections of the road that he mentioned.

What steps he is taking to reduce aircraft noise at regional airports. [145874]

Our preference is that local solutions should be devised for local problems wherever possible. The White Paper—"The Future of Air Transport"—sets out the basic framework within which local controls should operate., and as soon as parliamentary time permits, we will legislate to strengthen the powers of airport operators to combat noise.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. I am sure that he is aware that night-time noise at East Midlands airport is a major concern for a large number of my constituents. This is a complex issue, and much of the work being done by the Loughborough research centre at the university shows that the number of people awakened by aircraft noise at night is not as high as we might suspect. However, a large number of my constituents are concerned about this. Will my hon. Friend set out in greater detail what stringent noise controls are to be introduced to ensure that recent improvements are built on, so that the many people who feel strongly about this issue are reassured about the future growth of the airport?

My hon. Friend will know that a fairly stringent package of noise constraint measures already exists. At this stage, in the light of the publication of the White Paper, it is entirely up to East Midlands airport to come forward with proposals on how it expects to grow in the context of that package. I repeat that we want to secure a local solution wherever possible. In addition, bullet point 4 of paragraph 3.11 of the White Paper states that we will consider national designation

"if there is evidence of a major noise problem not being dealt with adequately through local controls."

Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation at Coventry airport? There is currently no regular passenger service from there, but Thompsonfly has now announced that it intends to launch a budget airline operation from there in March. This has been done without any local consultation or consent, yet the service will rely heavily on regular night flying. This will represent a considerable environmental onslaught on many of my constituents. What powers does the Department have to help us to deal with this situation?

In the first instance, we would seek a local solution as any airport develops. In the last resort, however, if we feel that local solutions are not working, we can designate them nationally and take a far more stringent and legislatively focused reaction to noise and other environmental issues. That is a last resort, however, and we urge people to secure a solution locally in the first instance.

When he expects work will start on the junction of the A12 Colchester northern bypass and the northern approach road. [145875]

The Highways Agency approved the developer's scheme for a new junction in July 2003. The planning applications are still being considered by the Colchester borough council.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. May I urge him to prevail on the Highways Agency to work with the national health service, which will be the principal beneficiary of the junction through the release of land to enable development to take place on a former hospital site and adjoining land? The borough council is the second major beneficiary, because of the employment and housing prospects. Third but not least is the new stadium for Colchester United football club, which is dependent on this junction. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to work with the Highways Agency and the NHS to get the junction approved sooner rather than later.

Yes, indeed, I would be very glad to do that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will tell the council to get a move on—especially given that the Liberals are the largest party on it.

When he next expects to meet the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force to discuss employment regulation. [145856]

I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force to discuss all aspects of the better regulation agenda.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, will he discuss with him the UK's individual opt-out from the working time directive? Does he agree with the CBI and the Forum of Private Business, which have recently stated that the opt-out is vital for the UK's competitiveness? Or does he agree with his Socialist colleagues in the European Parliament and Commissioner Diamantopoulou, who both want to scrap the individual opt-out as soon as possible? On whose side is he?

I certainly agree that the working time directive opt-out is important, not just for the United Kingdom but for several member states. The recent European Commission communication does not say that the opt-out should go; it identifies some abuses, and asks how those can be addressed. On the point of view of the CBI, however, I would certainly agree with its director-general in his concluding interview of the year, in which he stated:

"I am very pleased, well done to the Government you know, low inflation, low unemployment and some sustainable growth in an area of low interest rates. So probably the most successful economy in the developed world all up".

Is it not important that when we look at removing burdens, we do not equate that with removing worker protection, because many Conservative Members equate the two?

I find myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend. This Government make no apology for paid holidays, time off to attend to family matters, and, of course, the national minimum wage and the working time directive.

The Minister will be aware that the TUC has today spoken of the massive hidden unemployment in Britain and has called on the Government to get a grip. Is not the reason for that that the Government are moving people from unemployment on to sickness benefits, thereby hiding the true extent of unemployment? Is not the background to that that the Government have so laden businesses with extra regulation that they are not producing the extra private sector jobs that are necessary?

I hardly know where to begin in answering that question. First, on the point of taking lessons from the Opposition on employment, they will of course be aware that there are historically high levels of employment in this country at this stage. Secondly, it is of course a matter of record that we have both low inflation and high employment at this stage. In relation to moving people off unemployment and on to disability benefit, again, the last people to lecture the Government are the Conservatives.

If he will make a statement on the recent UN technology summit in Geneva on the digital divide. [145857]

If he will make a statement on the recent UN technology summit on the digital divide. [145860]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services represented the Government at a recent world summit on the information society in Geneva. The summit developed a plan of action to ensure that the benefits of information and communication technologies flow to all in society.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to use technology to benefit billions of people in the developing world? There should not have to be a choice between pentiums and penicillin; we should be thinking about how to use the power of the internet to benefit the poor and the dispossessed.

I entirely agree. The real challenge is to ensure that new technologies do not exacerbate historical divides, and that is as true in the United Kingdom as it is in the world as a whole. I am proud of this Government's record of tackling the digital divide, not just in my hon. Friend's constituency but through international initiatives such as the summits attended by the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services.

My hon. Friend may not know that I won a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association bursary to examine the digital divide, and travelled to Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia. I concluded that what was needed to tackle the digital divide was a solar powered computer, which could be made in Africa for under £100. Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours to persuade the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Government to run a competition for that purpose?

I know of my hon. Friend's longstanding commitment to this issue. I will certainly think about it, and I should be happy to correspond with him.

Does the Minister agree that the questions "Who runs the internet?" and "How?", which are on the United Nations summit agenda, are increasingly important as the internet becomes an essential part of all our lives? To assist in that debate, will he undertake to publish as clear a statement as possible about the United Kingdom Government's policy in relation to the UN, the International Telecommunication Union and all the other bodies involved in deciding how the internet is run?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, a huge amount of work is being done not just domestically but internationally through a range of organisations. I shall try to ensure that the e-envoy writes to him about his observations.

I congratulate British Telecom on lowering trigger levels, which has led to an expansion of broadband throughout the UK; but is the Minister aware that according to the International Telecommunication Union, based in Geneva, take-up has fallen in Britain in relation to that in other countries? We have in fact dropped from fifth to 18th place. What role can the Government play to encourage those with computers whose areas provide broadband to transfer to it from dial-up?

I certainly think there is a role for enlightened Members of Parliament, who can speak in public debates about the benefits that can accrue to individual constituents from broadband, but I also think we should retain a sense of scale and proportion. Price is no longer a barrier in the UK—broadband prices have fallen to competitive levels in international terms—and there has been an exponential growth in the broadband market in recent years: 80 per cent. of the UK population now has access to the mass-market service. I particularly welcomed BT's announcement in November that it would make a further tranche of exchanges possible.

Do the Government accept that there is still a significant digital divide between rich and poor parts of the country? Many poor rural and former mining constituencies, in particular, still have no access to digital terrestrial television. When will the Government ensure that freeview is available throughout the country?

My hon. Friend has raised two important points. The first was about digital television, in which we are one of the world leaders. We continue to make progress in that regard. The second concerned digital inclusion. We are not resting on our laurels following our significant success with broadband; we are looking more deeply at the barriers in communities such as my hon. Friend's that prevent people from adopting the internet. One barrier is caused by income levels, a second by age, and there are also cultural barriers. That is why I was so pleased with our "Get Started" campaign last year, which involved harnessing the 6,000 UK online centres in the country to tackle the digital divide of which my hon. Friend speaks.

What evidence he has collected on the extent to which the launch of policy hub has led to improvements in policy making; and what plans there are to evaluate policy hub. [145858]

The policy hub website was launched in March 2002 to support better policy making and policy evaluation. Since its launch, usage has grown to over 5,000 visits per month. The policy hub continually seeks views from users and key stakeholders. As a result, an improved site will be launched in February 2004.

The Minister will recall that in the Treasury minute response to the Public Accounts Committee report the Cabinet Office promised to monitor Departments' use of the hub. How much have they used it since March 2002, which Departments have not used it and why not, and what is the Cabinet Office doing to monitor uneven take-up?

The strategy unit collects evidence on monthly usage of the policy hub. Usage grew more than 100 per cent. between June and November 2003. Given that the hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the PAC, I will of course be happy to write to him on his specific request in relation to individual Departments. We are at present evaluating the hub on the basis of the number of visits to the website.

May I be, I hope, disarmingly honest and admit that I am not as au fait with the policy hub, the digital divide and the Better Regulation Task Force as some of my colleagues seem to be? Will the Minister consider ways of bringing some of us up to speed, if possible using broadband, which I have recently installed?

As I say, we are not declaring victory on the digital divide yet. My right hon. Friend made a serious point in saying that one of the challenges is to ensure that some of the more experienced Members of the House also benefit from the opportunities of the digital revolution. That is why we are taking forward our work in a number of online centres across the country. If he faces challenges in using his new broadband service, I encourage him to travel to one of his local online centres, where help and advice will be available.

What action he is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on business. [145859]

The Government's updated regulatory reform action plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report has over 650 deregulatory measures to benefit business, charities and the public services. Over 240 of those reforms have been delivered by Government Departments since the original version of the action plan was published in 2002.

Since much of the regulation originates from Europe and this regulation causes massive unemployment, particularly hidden unemployment, is it not time we looked again at our various agreements and opt-outs with the European Community and, for example, withdrew from the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy?

The UK has been leading the drive for better regulation in Europe. That is why I recently met the Spanish public administration Minister to press the case for further initiatives. It is fair to say that international observers recognise that Britain has played a leading role on the issue of better regulation, not just in the European Union but around the world.