What plans he has to open new stations on the west London line. [152271]

The Strategic Rail Authority has approved the construction of two new stations on the west London line—one at Imperial Wharf in Chelsea and one at Shepherds Bush. The earliest date currently envisaged for their opening is February 2005.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but press the case for reopening Battersea High Street station and other stations on the south and west London orbital lines, such as Brixton, Battersea, Stamford Bridge and North Pole. Is the Minister aware that since privatisation, only two new stations have been opened in the entire south-east of England, because there is absolutely no incentive in the system for Network Rail or the train operating companies to invest in new stations? Indeed, those two new stations had no railway money put into them.

Order. The hon. Gentleman should try for an Adjournment debate on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reiterate that I have no plans for any more new stations on the west London line. As it is one of the most congested in the country, adding another station would have significant performance implications, and it is highly unlikely that it would be feasible, given the current levels of traffic. As a London MP, I caution my hon. Friend not to equate new stations with the amount of investment that is being made. The London end of the channel tunnel rail link, the Jubilee line extension, the Docklands light railway and all the extensions to it, and the £17 billion of investment in the tube show that investment in transport in London is a key priority for the Government.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that there is a direct train service from Shropshire to London. [152272]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Strategic Rail Authority, not the Government, has responsibility for specifying minimum service levels in each train operating company's franchise agreement. I understand that the authority's current view is that there is not a sufficiently strong business case for maintaining direct services between Shropshire and London.

I hesitate to thank the Minister for that answer. He may be aware that Shropshire is the only county that from May will not have a direct rail link to London. Indeed, the largest towns in Shropshire—Shrewsbury and Telford—will be the largest towns in the country without such a link. The last route that passes through Ludlow and goes on to Waterloo will be closed from May 2004, thanks to the Strategic Rail Authority. Does the Minister think that he is doing enough to ensure that Shropshire has a direct link to London—or does he have something against the county?

That was a very Liberal question. The one train a day that used to run from Shrewsbury via Telford to London Euston was withdrawn from the winter 2000–01 timetable because it did not attract sufficient passengers to make it commercially viable. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is hinting that that will be yet another addition to the Liberals' spending plans, but it would not surprise me if he was.

What steps have been taken to ensure that pollution offences may be prosecuted on the same terms wherever they occur within the UK pollution control zone, as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee in its second report of the Session 2002–03. [152273]

We need to bring the statutory defences under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 into line with those in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996. My Department has investigated the scope for achieving that through a regulatory reform order, but has established that it is not possible. We will therefore seek to amend the 1995 Act when a legislative opportunity is available.

As the Minister knows, polluters seek to avoid their liabilities by resorting to the "pay to be paid" device in their insurance policies. The International Maritime Organisation has asked for those practices to be banned. Are the Government going to ban them; if not, why not?

We take pollution from ships around our coast very seriously in this country. The hon. Gentleman will know from the National Audit Office report of June 2002 that between 1997 and 2002 we reduced the amount of oil spilled in the UK pollution control zone by more than 90 per cent. He will also know from a letter sent to him by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in January this year that we are making good progress in implementing not only the National Audit Office recommendations, but those of his own Committee.

When the Minister revisits the legislation with a view to bringing forward amendments, will he seriously consider making such offences strict liability offences?

Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman will know that some of those offences can already attract very heavy fines—in fact, the heaviest fines that magistrates can impose for oil pollution. Certain areas around the Scottish coast, including the Shetlands, are particularly sensitive. We are mindful of the need to protect the coast—that is why, I am glad to say, the number of pollution incidents and the number of gallons of oil spilled have reduced very substantially over the past five years.

If he will make a statement on the impact on health of his Department's policies on encouraging alternative modes of transport. [152274]

We are trying, in a number of different ways, to encourage people to walk and cycle more often and to raise levels of physical activity generally. We are working with a number of Departments, such as the Department of Health, and we hope to publish in the spring a number of the joint measures that we intend to take to encourage increased levels of cycling and walking, especially to schools and workplaces.

The purpose of my question is to try to tease out the cross-cutting nature of the Government's agenda on health, and how transport can fit into that. May I also ask my hon. Friend what discussions he will have with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government to make sure that best practice on both sides of Offa's dyke is disseminated, to the benefit of the health of our youngsters?

My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that we are in close, regular contact with the Welsh Assembly Government, and we are certainly interested in their development of a walking and cycling strategy for Wales. We will consider it carefully in drawing up our strategy.

Can the Minister comment on the enormous proliferation across the country of little blue signs with bicycle and pedestrian symbols on them? Is he aware that they are being put up in many areas where there is absolutely no prospect of increasing the amount of cycling or walking? What steps will the Department take to assess the value to the taxpayer of this exercise, which seems to smack more of political correctness than of delivering results?

I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about this proliferation of little blue signs. I had not noticed them, but I will look out for them in future and try to make a subjective judgment on their effectiveness.

Health is an important issue, and if the Minister really shares our view that the use of less polluting forms of transport should be encouraged, will he join me in condemning the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stealth Tax himself, for announcing the withdrawal of the excise duty concession on liquefied petroleum gas fuel? Is not that a severe setback to persuading more motorists to do something about improving air quality?

I certainly will not join the right hon. Gentleman in doing that, and I do not believe that the Chancellor has announced that. That will be a matter for him when he comes to make his Budget statement.

What the role is of the Strategic Rail Authority in the rail review. [152275]

What recent representations he has received on the role of the Strategic Rail Authority. [152281]

The Strategic Rail Authority's role is set out in the Transport Act 2000. On 19 January, I announced a review of the organisation and structure of the railway industry. I expect to receive many representations in relation to every part of the industry.

The right hon. Gentleman told us on 19 January:

"Of course, no Government Department can or should attempt to operate the railways'.—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1077.]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The particular article to which he refers is simply wrong. What is true is that the Department of Transport is rightly concerned about the low level of performance in some train operating companies, because we are spending substantial sums of public money on that. In conjunction with one or perhaps two members of the Prime Minister's delivery unit, we are working with train operating companies to see why it is that while some companies are improving their performance, others are not. I caution the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in The Independent.

I want to be generous, but this is yet another area in which the Government appear to be both muddled and confused, while public services and passengers in particular continue to suffer. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me to whom or to which body I should put the case for increased capacity for the Fenchurch Street line, which is much needed, and for the terminus station on Canvey island?

The hon. Gentleman must know the answer to this question because he has already been making representations to the SRA about that. The Fenchurch Street line, on which, by sheer coincidence, I travelled yesterday, has had new rolling stock, which was made possible only because of the investment made available by this Government, every penny of which was opposed by the Conservatives. The reliability of that line has improved to just under 90 per cent. —it is the second best performing train operating company in the south-east. If he wishes to make representations about additional stations, he should do it to the SRA. I am bound to say, however, that he cannot at the same time call on us to reduce substantially the amount of money spent on the railways.

My right hon. Friend knows that most passengers simply want the services to improve and that there is currently a top-heavy bureaucracy in the railway industry. Will he give us an idea of the timetable for his review and some guarantees that, at the end of it, passengers will have a better service and certainly not a more expensive one?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I made it clear on 19 January that I believe that the organisation and structure of the railways need to be substantially simplified so that there is far greater clarity about who is responsible for operating the trains. I do not believe that all the current organisations are necessary; they can be rationalised. However, it is worth remembering that, despite all the industry's difficulties, last year it carried 1 billion passengers—the highest total for 40 years. Train performance traditionally dipped in the autumn, but it has improved because of the better performance of Network Rail.

Will the SRA and the review deal with the chronic overcrowding in west Yorkshire, including in my constituency? It is greater than in most parts of the country, including London and the south-east. Will he especially tackle the need for competitively priced rolling stock to meet current shortfalls and future demand?

The SRA is examining that. It has spent considerable sums of money in west Yorkshire in the past few years to try to improve capacity. However, as my hon. Friend knows, nearly one third of all the rolling stock in the country is being replaced and there will be new trains, including in Yorkshire. That will tackle some of the capacity problems as well as providing more comfortable and reliable trains.

Would the Secretary of State agree that although solutions to the immediate problems are important, it is critical for the review to identify and set out clearly a concept for the long-term structure and management of the railways? To achieve that, what is he doing to end the current confusion about who does what in the review—for example, train operating companies that wish to submit not to the SRA but to the Department? How can the SRA co-ordinate a review when its role is central to that review?

I agree that it is necessary to establish a structure that will take the industry forward for the next 10 or 20 years. There is near unanimity that the current structure is not suited for that.

You did it.

Who privatised the railways? Have we already forgotten?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the SRA's roles should be to ensure quality rail links between all the major cities of Great Britain? Does he therefore share my hope that the SRA will make a contribution to upgrading Edinburgh Waverley in his constituency? It is an important station for rail links from many parts of Scotland to many parts of England.

As my hon. Friend knows, the SRA, Network Rail, the Scottish Executive and the city of Edinburgh council are all considering the best way in which to make improvements at Waverley station. Substantial sums have been invested in Waverley station on signalling, which improves several pathways in and out of the station. He and I know that the station needs investment and we are considering the best way to achieve that. My hon. Friend will also know that part of my review will examine ways of devolving more responsibility for railways to the Scottish Executive, among others.

The Secretary of State talks about simplification, but he will know that the way in which the review has been conducted so far seems designed to undermine the SRA. Some train operating companies received a letter from the SRA asking them to send it their submissions to the review, then received a letter from the Department saying, "No, you don't need to do that, please make your submissions to the Department." Is that just day-to-day, run of the mill incompetence, or can the Secretary of State confirm that there is now a full-time power struggle between parts of his Department and the SRA?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing himself. In relation to the review, as I said just a moment ago in reply to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), it is the Government who will decide at the end of the day what proposals to make before they invite the House to consider the appropriate legislation that will no doubt follow. In relation to the SRA, I have made it clear on many occasions that it has done an extremely good job of bringing a great deal of order to the chaos left by the privatisation that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) supported.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has now admitted, as he failed to a few minutes ago, that the current structure, to which he objects so much, was created by his Government when they set up the various bodies. At the last count, those who wanted complete, detailed control over the railways included Network Rail, the rail regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Secretary of State and now, we hear, the Prime Minister. Does the Secretary of State understand why one senior rail figure said, at the weekend:

"We are being audited to death…I want to get on with my day job of running the railways"?

If the hon. Gentleman himself had a policy, he might speak from a stronger position. The only policy that his party has is to hanker after the days of Railtrack, which were, of course, an absolute disaster for the railways.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the practice of the SRA in coming to initial agreements with train operators over service improvements as part of their franchise, then removing the requirement for such improvements without any apparent quid pro quo from the operators? In particular, would he look at the case of Midland Mainline? The SRA has now removed a requirement for that operator to improve journey times to London, and it is now about to defer a requirement for the operator to provide an hourly quick train service between Sheffield and Leeds. Both those decisions have been taken with no quid pro quo being required from Midland Mainline, with no thought for passengers' interests and with no reference to elected representatives.

I shall look at that. There are two problems with Midland Mainline at the moment. One is the undoubted disruption being caused by the works at St. Pancras station, although the first phase, to provide new platform facilities for Midland Mainline, will be completed later this year. The second is fleet reliability. It is not clear to me why this particular train company is having so much difficulty operating a fleet that is used by other train companies that have a higher standard of reliability. No train company should be let off the drive to improve standards, and I shall look at that particular case and come back to my hon. Friend on it.

If he will give guidance to local authorities on the percentage of expenditure in their transport budget that is appropriate to be spent on (a) road maintenance and (b) traffic-calming measures. [152276]

It is a matter for each local authority to decide how to allocate its funding in order to meet the transport needs of its communities and to deliver the targets and objectives set out in its five-year local transport plan. It is not for the Government centrally to dictate to local authorities, although we work with them. We will resist going back to the heavy-handed centralisation that the Conservatives employed when they were in government.

While it is true that all local authorities have an awful lot of roads to maintain, and that Devon has more than the entire road system of Belgium, would the Minister agree that it is sheer madness for Devon and the many other counties like it to spend millions of pounds on road maintenance and, particularly, on widening roads sot hat traffic can go faster, and then to spend millions on putting in traffic-calming measures such as road humps and rumble strips to slow it down again? That is an enormous waste of public money and council tax payers' money.

That is an interesting characterisation. Many of the villages in Devon are crying out for those humps for road safety reasons. This is a matter of balance for Devon county council. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman might congratulate the Government on increasing by 15 per cent. the amount of capital given to Devon in the local transport plan settlement before Christmas—it is now close to £28 million. When he mentioned madness, I thought he might be about to say that the Tories and Liberals who run Devon were mad to propose, as I understand it, the transfer of £1 million away from road maintenance to other priorities in the forthcoming budget. If there is madness, he should take the matter up with his colleagues on the county council.

While the Minister is keeping these matters under close scrutiny, will he also recognise that, in terms of value for money and good spending practice, data need to be gathered on such matters as proposed red routes, so that we can check the data from before the introduction of the red route against the outcome and see whether the value for money that we are all looking for is actually being obtained? I would remind my hon. Friend that my borough is about to spend £750,000 on a red route and associated works, but we are not yet sure whether we shall be able to check the data against the current evidence.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter with me by correspondence before today. He knows that I am looking into it. It is important that bus priority measures should be implemented in an efficient and effective way. I know that he will be enormously grateful that altogether the west midlands are getting more than £80 million in the local transport settlement, a 9.3 per cent. increase on previous years. I will, however, investigate this specific matter and get back to him on it.

Does the Minister share my doubts about the efficacy of road humps? Is he at the very least able to pledge that he and his Department will be neutral on the subject? Ideally, I would like the Department to give some guidance to local authorities, because road humps can, in certain circumstances, delay emergency vehicles, damage the vehicles of ordinary citizens and create pollution. They are generally a menace.

All those issues and more are fully taken into account before any scheme is put into place. There is full consultation on each scheme. Do I share the right hon. Gentleman's doubts? No. Do I share his perverse libertarianism? No.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when speed bumps are considered by local authorities, guidance is given as to the needs of cyclists? It is comparatively simple to put a small dip in a road bump to accommodate cyclists, and doing so certainly makes it much safer for them.

As and when it is appropriate, for road safety reasons, to install table platforms that cover the whole road, that will be done and cyclists will need to be aware of them. As and when it is appropriate for there to be gaps between the humps, for the benefit of both emergency vehicles and cyclists, that will also happen. Cyclists are fully taken into account, but the overwhelming priority must be to determine what the traffic calming measure can do for road safety. That consideration must remain paramount. My hon. Friend will be enormously grateful that Cambridgeshire has secured a 22 per cent. increase for its local transport plan.

What assessment he has made of the relative cost-effectiveness in expenditure per life saved of investment in rail safety compared with investment in road safety. [152277]

Rail is a safe mode of transport, and is six times safer than travelling by car. That difference means that additional public investment in road safety measures is usually much more effective, as measured by lives saved per pound spent, than additional investment in rail safety measures such as new signalling systems. Such investment does not seem to be as effective as additional expenditure on roads.

In the light of that answer, does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that there is so much pressure from the media and possibly even the public on politicians to do something about rail safety, when investing that money in road safety could save 10 times as many lives? Does he regard it as a Government responsibility to try to change the balance of the debate to make it clear that rail transport is relatively much safer and that we need to do much more in road safety to save lives?

Yes, I agree, and we are trying to change that balance. We know, for example, that the cost of saving a life—if one can ever put a cost on such a thing—on the railways is about £10 million per life saved, whereas on the roads it is about £100,000. Small incremental improvements in road safety can indeed save many lives. It is worth reminding the House that in 2001–02, the last year for which complete figures are available, 3,431 lives were lost on the roads and 307 on the railways. If we take out from those statistics the 275 deaths that were the result of suicide or trespass and 17 other deaths, that leaves just 15 passengers and rail staff who were killed on the railways. It is therefore a very safe mode of transport, but we want it to be much safer so that it is as safe as possible. However, we recognise the validity of the hon. Gentleman's question.

One way in which we could improve road safety that would not cost any money at all, is, if we do not keep British summer time throughout the year, at least to extend its duration. Will the Minister look at that, call for investigations to be made—and not be influenced by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

My right hon. Friend will know that the position is not without difficulties in the north and north-west of the country, but we should keep it under review, and shall do so.

What representations he has received on the expansion of air transport in Scotland since the publication of the aviation White Paper. [152278]

Since the publication of the White Paper I have received a number of representations on air transport in Scotland.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Since the publication of the White Paper, many people who live close to Edinburgh airport in my constituency believe that their lives have been put on hold. What message does he have for people who are planning for the future, whether that involves the schooling of their children or their homes, and believe that they are suffering from planning blight?

As for a second runway at Edinburgh airport, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government believe that that may be necessary in about 20 years' time. It is not going to happen immediately. In the White Paper, we set out the ground that we thought would be affected, as well as the houses that could be affected. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a number of questions about that. As for blight and planning, there are settled procedures that are primarily the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a second runway at Edinburgh would reduce the noise that many of his constituents in Cramond suffer, because the aircraft would make their approach from a slightly different direction.

I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts that the main thrust of the argument about aviation expansion in Scotland has centred on Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. Does he acknowledge the relevance of representations by Dundee city council and me about the importance of small regional airports to their hinterlands and cities such as Dundee? What more can he do to sustain the growth of such airports?

We made it clear in the White Paper that we supported the development of smaller airports such as Dundee. With due respect, I do not think that a second runway is contemplated at Dundee just yet, but my hon. Friend is right that, in the past year or so, ScotAirways, for example, has provided much appreciated services from Dundee. The Government and the Scottish Executive will do everything that they can to encourage the use of regional airports, which can greatly help the local economy.

If he will make a statement about the financing of Network Rail. [152279]

Network Rail is a private sector company, and raises its finance from commercial markets. The company's borrowing is supported by up to £21 billion of standby credit facilities provided by the Strategic Rail Authority, but that support will be reduced as Network Rail launches its long-term debt issuances, which we expect later this year.

Does the Secretary of State think it right that under the terms of the new Greater Anglia rail franchise £500 million will be siphoned away from East Anglia so that Network Rail can pay for improvements elsewhere, while people in East Anglia must make do with second-hand rolling stock, and while many infrastructural improvements are still needed locally? If he does not think it right, what will he do about it?

The hon. Gentleman has asked about Network Rail, but the franchise is awarded by the SRA. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a tender was entered into, and the SRA has a duty to protect public funds. As well as making improvements, the new operator—which brings together the three franchises operating from Liverpool Street—offered a lower price.

Is not the main point about the financing of Network Rail that, as a public interest company, it will be able to raise money more cheaply than it would by issuing shares, as the old Railtrack had to? Moreover, it does not face the perverse incentives that were faced by Railtrack, as a privatised shareholder-owned company, in terms of safety.

I think the most important thing about Network Rail is that, first and foremost, it is there to operate in the interests of the railways. I have mentioned its decision to bring maintenance back in house. One of Railtrack's many mistakes was to farm out not just maintenance but decision making on maintenance. Network Rail estimates that this move will save some £300 million a year. Its priority is to ensure that any money it makes goes back into the railways, and over the last year or so many improvements have been made that would probably not have been possible under Railtrack because, in my view, its priorities were completely wrong. I am sorry to return to this theme, but that was a direct consequence of the way in which the industry was privatised 10 years ago.

If he will make a statement on the use of revenue derived from speed cameras. [152280]

A portion of the fixed-penalty receipts deriving from offences detected on speed cameras is available to partnerships made up of police forces, local highway authorities and magistrates courts committees to cover their approved costs for purchasing, placing and operating cameras to enforce speed limits. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has noticed the reduction in the number of deaths and injuries at camera sites in Southend.

Does the Minister realise that there is a growing crisis of public confidence in the fairness of speed cameras and speed traps? People feel that they can be criminalised for being caught doing 31 mph, but that if they are burgled or mugged it is unlikely that the criminal will be caught. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the public in Essex, and in Southend in particular, that this is not just a revenue-raising exercise and that the money is genuinely being reinvested in our roads and in road safety generally?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in recent years we have spent much more on roads in his area than the Government he supported ever did. I can also tell him that during the three years before a camera was fitted at Puttlewell Chase—which is in his area—there were 17 personal injury accidents, three of which involved people being killed or seriously injured. During the last three years there have been only nine personal injury accidents, and no one has been killed or seriously injured. I also have figures relating to Basildon, in case the hon. Gentleman retains a lasting interest in it.

May I invite the Minister to stand resolutely firm against the speeding motorists lobby? We are all subjected to a barrage of nonsense from people who think that it is somehow all right to speed through residential areas, past primary schools, and to increase the terrible rate of death on our roads. Will the Minister ensure that the speed cameras stay, that 25 mph limits are applied in urban areas, and that we do not give in to this dangerous lobby in favour of an activity that is just as unacceptable as drunken driving?

All our policies on road safety must be proportionate and sensible. Cameras are located at sites where there is clearly a relationship between speeding and people being killed or seriously injured. If casualties are sustained for other reasons, it is up to the local authority to consider other solutions by using the generous amounts of money that we have made available through the local transport plans. Such solutions may mean re-engineering, changing the road layout or considering road humps, which we discussed earlier. We must examine proportionately and sensibly what is right for the particular circumstances. Speed cameras have a role to play in areas in which speeding is clearly the problem.

Has the Minister seen the figures published today that show that in 1999 the revenue from speed cameras in London was £500,000, and that in 2004 it is expected to be no less than £10 million? A twenty-fold increase in income in five years is extraordinary. Does that not prove our point that they are not so much speed cameras as greed cameras?

I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman introduced speed cameras when he was Minister for Roads and Traffic. Who am I to take the credit away from him for doing that? At the time, he predicted that 2 million people would get fixed-penalty tickets, but it has taken 10 years to reach that point. He should reflect on my challenge to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to come forward with the 4,000 sites that he says do not meet the criteria. One month has gone by and as yet we have had no response.

Will my hon. Friend resist calls by lawbreakers to reduce the effectiveness of detecting their lawbreaking? Will he confirm that no one who keeps to legal speed limits must pay a fine?

That is, of course, true, and my hon. Friend knows that the speed thresholds are set well above the speed limit. If the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) can show me a notification of proposed prosecution for a person who has been charged with doing 31 mph or 32 mph in a 30 mph zone, I would be interested to see it. I have put that challenge out and as yet nobody has shown me such a notification.

When he next expects to meet the Health and Safety Executive to discuss the Potters Bar rail disaster. [152282]

The Secretary of State and other Transport Ministers have regular meetings with the Health and Safety Executive. In relation to Potters Bar, we are now awaiting a decision on potential manslaughter charges from the Crown Prosecution Service, which the hon. Gentleman knows is independent of Ministers.

The Minister and the Secretary of State know that the train that crashed at Potters Bar was on its way to King's Lynn in my constituency. The crash was a tragedy for many families and a disaster for the railways. The HSE report made it clear that the crash was caused by poor maintenance. Have lessons been learned and what new procedures have been implemented? Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that further accidents or crashes will not occur as a result of shoddy maintenance?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the HSE investigation board reported in May 2003 and issued 26 recommendations, which are designed to make a positive difference to rail safety and, as he says, to prevent a similar accident from happening again. The investigation board has invited Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and Network Rail to a meeting on 11 February to discuss progress on implementing those recommendations, and the board will write to the bereaved and survivors after that meeting.

What assessment he has made of the casualty reduction associated with speed cameras. [152283]

On 11 February 2003, my Department published an independently produced evaluation report of the two-year trial of the safety camera cost recovery system. That showed a 35 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to some 280 people, and a 4 per cent. reduction in those killed and seriously injured across the pilot areas, equating to some 530 people. The report of the scheme's third year of operation will be published shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He mentioned a figure of 35 per cent., but he will know that in Staffordshire the figure is 65 per cent., which is an extraordinary achievement in reducing the numbers of people killed or injured. I remind those people who think that cameras are a great infringement of human liberties that lives are being saved.

I congratulate the Staffordshire partnership on its success, which is way above average. For example, my hon. Friend will know the A460. In the three years before a camera was introduced on that road, five people were killed or seriously injured: in the three years since, nobody has been killed or seriously injured. I commend the partnership on the work that it does and we look forward to further success in the future.

As someone who shares the view of the majority of motorists that all too often speed cameras are introduced to increase revenue rather than to improve safety, I have a specific example, as requested by the Secretary of State. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on the speed camera on the dual carriageway in and out of Heathrow airport, which is completely safe. The camera is unnecessary and must be there purely for revenue purposes, and that is a bad example to show to people who have just entered the country.

As with all fines, the revenue comes back to the Government, except in the case of cameras run by a partnership, where a large proportion of the money goes into keeping the cameras running and to the police. That money supplants what the police would have used to support the cameras in any case. The Heathrow area is sensitive and sometimes congested. People may be fatigued after flights—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would stop chuntering and listen for a moment, it would help. The area is especially sensitive and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not condone people breaking the law and using excess speed in that area.

What consultation will be carried out with rail user groups on the new timetables for services using the west coast main line. [152285]

The Strategic Rail Authority aims this month to provide detailed timetable proposals for comment. Consultees will include rail user groups such as the Northampton rail user group.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The Northampton rail user group, which I chair, looks forward to receiving the timetable proposals. Will he ensure that all the rail user groups receive copies, because—at a difficult time, with work being done and much concern about timetables—it is important that those with an interest in the success of the industry have a chance to see and comment on the proposed timetables?

I fully accept the points that my hon. Friend makes and I know that she has worked keenly with the SRA and the Northampton rail user group to ensure reform. The consultation meeting with that rail user group will be held in the Guildhall later this month, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the SRA.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the users of the west coast main line are consulted on the timetable, it will be important to take into account links with local services at stations such as Preston, which feed the west coast main line?

The timetables that emerge will be rooted in the overall strategy for the west coast main line, and part of that strategy includes how local services interface with the main line. However, I will ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the SRA in terms.

If he will make a statement on the regulation of bus services. [152287]

While we have no plans for major changes to the regulatory system for buses, we continue to consider key aspects of the regime established by the Transport Act 2000 and will report shortly, especially on issues such as quality contracts.

I am grateful for that reply. Bus services are vital to my constituents because, as I may have said once or twice before, Leigh is the largest town in the UK without a railway station. The current regime does not serve my constituents well, especially elderly people who do not have access to private transport. Recently, a bus service between Leigh and Warrington was unilaterally withdrawn, at very short notice. I urge my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to representations made by Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and others for a more effective regulatory regime that better protects the travelling public.

As I have said, we are keeping these matters under constant review. Many local authorities have not perhaps explored as fully as they might the total breadth and depth of the regulatory regime in the Transport Act 2000. We shall shortly examine the issue of quality contracts and how they prevail under the system. My hon. Friend's observations are not unique to Leigh or to the north-west, but if he considers all that we have recently reported on—such as the urban bus challenge, the rural bus challenge and the local transport plan settlement, which was reached just before Christmas—he will see that for this Government, the bus is absolutely central to an integrated transport system.

What work the strategy unit has carried out on the social aspects of alcohol consumption. [152263]

The Prime Minister's strategy unit published art interim analytical report on the harms associated with alcohol misuse on 19 September last year. The findings of the report are being used to inform the development of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy, which will be published shortly.

Given that the recent youth lifestyles survey revealed that only one in three under 18-year-olds who try to buy alcohol is refused, and that in 2002 just 162 people were convicted or cautioned in respect of under-age sales, should not our national alcohol harm reduction strategy involve a more rigorous approach to law enforcement and the provision of more alcohol-free places in which younger teenagers can enjoy themselves? I am thinking, for example, of the Hub, in Ashby de la Zouch, of which I am a patron. It was officially opened last Friday and it would benefit from a ministerial visit.

I shall certainly bear in mind that invitation and pass it on directly to the sponsor Minister who is developing this project. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. One reason why we wanted to undertake this study is the correlation between alcohol use and violent crime; indeed, criminal justice is one of the areas that are being explored. The study has not been published so I cannot go into detail, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will address education and communication—issues of particular interest to younger people—health and treatment, supply and pricing, delivery, and the issues of community safety and criminal justice that he raises.

Will the Minister undertake to place a copy of the study in the House of Commons Library once it is published, and will he consider authorising a similar study on the social aspects of cannabis use and its potential for causing road accidents?

Of course the study will be published, and I shall pass on the hon. Lady's views directly to the Minister in charge of sponsoring it. Consideration will be given to what studies should be undertaken by the strategy unit in due course, but I have certainly noted the point that the hon. Lady raises.

What action the Government are taking to ensure there are more people from the ethnic minorities appointed to public bodies. [152264]

This Government are committed to achieving greater diversity in public appointments. As of 31 March 2003, people from ethnic minorities held 5.3 per cent. of appointments—an increase from the 3.6 per cent. Figure of 1997. Individual Departments have developed action plans to ensure that even more progress is made in this important area.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but can he tell the House to what extent the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which gives authorities a new statutory duty to promote race equality, is assisting the work of his Department and of other public bodies?

My hon. Friend's point about the 2000 Act is an important one. It came about as a result of a very important public inquiry into racism affecting a group across society. In that sense, the legislation is already forming a key part of the thinking not just of one Government Department—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a recent announcement in this regard—but of a range of Departments, including the Cabinet Office.

The Government deserve some credit for the progress made since the 2000 report, "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments", but does the Minister recognise that there are still some very weak Departments, particularly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Ministry of Defence? Can he say whether progress has been made on including tribunals in the diversity programme that he oversees?

There are certain restriction—sage restrictions, for example—for tribunals, which do not apply to other public bodies. However, I acknowledge the point that Departments are at different stages in moving forward the diversity agendas and I am happy to communicate the points raised today and ensure that the hon. Member receives a direct reply.

The Minister will be aware that the Public Administration Committee's report suggested innovative ways of appointing people to various bodies. Will he assure the House that Departments will examine those innovative ways forward rather than carry on appointing in the same old way?

I understand my hon. Friend's point about the Publication Administration Committee's report "Government by Appointment", which was published on 10 July 2003. The Government responded to the proposals on 17 December last year, but I understand that only this morning the Chairman of the Select Committee made further comment, so these matters continue to be a feature of public debate.

What recent representations he has received on civil contingency planning. [152265]

The Government maintain a close dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders in their civil contingency planning work. The Government consulted publicly on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill between June and September 2003 and received 379 responses from civil protection professionals, representative organisations, lobby groups and interested individuals. We published a report of the results of the public consultation on 7 January this year. Engagement with a wide range of stakeholders continues with the development of the regulations and guidance under the Bill.

Is the Minister aware that the Thames gateway area is a flood risk area? Will he explain it to his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who wants to build on ground there that is at risk from flooding? That will cause serious difficulties for civil contingency planning in that region.

I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns directly to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I would, however, point out that he raises an important point in recognising that the Civil Contingencies Bill before the House at this stage does address the issue of flooding and will afford greater security to those affected by flooding in future by putting in place an appropriate framework of civil protection in this country.

Has my hon. Friend identified the need for an isolation unit in the region of Heathrow airport and the Greater London area to deal with a potential outbreak of, say, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or a bio-terrorist alert? Will he specifically consider the case for the Lister unit at the Northwick Park site as a suitable place for dealing such contingencies?

I recognise my hon. Friend as a fearless champion of local interests in his own constituency. I can assure him that, consistent with the lead Government Department principle, the Department of Health continues to review the Government's approach to exactly the sort of issues that he has identified. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed directly to the Department of Health.

Does the Minister realise that the police are so stretched that they have hail to reach a gentleman's agreement with Group 4 to back them up in an emergency? Why does he continue to reject our idea of setting up an emergency volunteer reserve to call on the skills of our people, and when will the Government take civil contingencies seriously?

I would, of course, point out that there are more police on the streets of Britain now than under the previous Administration. I would also point out that, if we look back to the last Budget of April 2003, we will find that an additional £330 million was awarded over three years for counter-terrorism projects in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. The Government clearly take civil contingencies planning seriously, which is why we introduced the Bill and why the extra resources were committed.

When the Strategy Unit will publish its report on the UK fishing industry. [152267]

The strategy unit's fisheries project was announced on 27 March 2003. The aim is to develop a long-term strategy for the sustainable future of the UK marine fishing industry. The report will be published shortly.

I must tell the Minister that I am disappointed—as are many of my constituents—that we still have no date for the publication of this overdue report. If he or the researchers preparing the report listened to people in fishing communities, they would know that those communities are in crisis. We need a strategy that goes beyond tinkering around the edges of the common fisheries policy—and we need it soon. Can we have the report soon?

That is exactly why the strategy unit has taken that long-term view. As the hon. Gentleman is interested in the unit's emerging thinking on the matter, I remind him that a conference was held in Newcastle on 1 October last year. The results were published on the website. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, I suggest that he address his concerns to one of the members of the steering board—the Scottish Executive's Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who has responsibility for fisheries.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with the strategy unit, which is so important for fishermen on the south coast. The unit has not yet reported, so will my hon. Friend look at what is happening on the south coast? Cod numbers are enormous there, but the fish cannot be caught because they are considered to belong to the North sea.

The fishing industry supports about 11,200 people in England, so it is not a matter of concern only to hon. Members with Scottish constituencies. I shall be happy to pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.