What plans he has to allow more commercial freedom for municipally owned bus companies. [159429]

May I convey my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's apologies for his absence? He has written to the Opposition and your good self, Mr. Speaker. He is taking part in the Transport Council in Brussels.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is in Brussels, which has an excellent municipally owned bus company, just as Cardiff has Is it not about time that we looked again at the commercial freedom of municipally owned bus companies, which are shackled by the regulations introduced under the Tories in the 1980s, when there was a fetish for privatisation? Is it not time to consider giving them the freedom to develop properly integrated public transport systems in our cities?

My hon. Friend will know that municipally owned bus companies operate in a competitive market, alongside private sector buses, in some 17 towns and cities in this country. I am happy to share his comments about the efficacy of Cardiff's municipal bus company, but the; Government intend that those companies should continue to be free to get on with the business of running their buses, without any advantage or disadvantage because of their municipal status.

Is not the problem with buses not the commercial freedoms of the municipal companies, but the way in which the subsidy provided by the public sector for bus services is so heavily skewed in favour of certain parts of the country?

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in asking about how poor Surrey's buses are during a question on municipally owned bus companies. In the first instance, he should take up the case with Surrey county council, which, I believe, is neither Labour nor Liberal Democrat-controlled.

Is not one of the problems with the better integration of bus services—whether municipal or privately owned—the attitude of the Competition Commission to matters such as the interchangeablility of fares and tickets? The Competition Commission seems to take the view that they may be anti-competitive, so bus companies and organisations cannot serve the public in the way that they want by making bus fares interchangeable.

I can happily tell my hon. Friend that he is just a tad behind the times. Last week, I had the great pleasure of launching the Solent travelcard, which involves some 14 bus companies working together, with interchangeable fares, in Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire, so that people can travel throughout that area without worrying about the confusion of whether they have the right bus ticket for each bus company. I hope that that, rather than what my hon. Friend describes, is a portent for the future.

What plans he has to amend the guidelines for siting speed cameras. [159430]

The safety camera partnerships have prepared their 2004–05 operational cases on the basis of the "Handbook of rules and guidelines for the operation of the national road safety camera programme", dated 31 October 2003, which includes the criteria for the sitting of cameras. The handbook is kept under review.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, although several speed cameras in my constituency have a negligible bearing on safety, the guidelines prevent us from getting a speed camera in the worst accident blackspot in the area—on the A21 at Flimwell, where 11 fatalities and nearly 100 accidents have occurred in the past five years—because the police say that the speed limit cannot be reduced because the traffic goes too fast. We cannot get a speed camera in place exactly because the speed limit is too high. Will he acknowledge that the guidelines for speed limits and speed cameras need to be integrated, so that we can address the problem of the worst blackspots and remove those cameras that have no real bearing on safety?

I note that the hon. Gentleman has called for a relaxation of the rules on the placing of cameras. That is certainly echoed by a number of authorities around the country that have written to us after we asked them at Christmas whether all their cameras met the criteria, and we will consider that. The police have a certain amount of discretion, but we will look at that. Of course he may want to have a discussion with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—the Conservative spokesman—who has a very different view on such matters.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some people still do not get it? If we could reduce excessive and inappropriate speeds, we could reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads. If education is the problem, could some more money from speed camera fines be used for education—specifically, for speed awareness courses?

We have no such intention at the moment. The money from fines goes entirely towards maintaining cameras and ensuring that they are in the right places. I am sure that my hon. Friend has noted, as I have, that although I have asked the hon. Member for Ashford several times to tell us where the 4,000 cameras that are in the wrong places are, as yet we have heard nothing from him. I look forward to hearing him speak at the Dispatch Box today.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the introduction of a large number of speed cameras in Hampshire, the fact is that fatalities in Hampshire have risen over the past two years? Is he aware that a representative of our safety camera partnership—I think that that is a misnomer in any case—is reported as saying:

"Where we've put cameras, we've had a reduction in casualties… Deaths might have gone up on other parts of the road. I don't know what happens away from our cameras"?

First, the Hampshire partnership informed us that its cameras were in places that met the Department's criteria. Secondly, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talk to his partnership to find out what has happened on accident reduction in places where cameras have been sited. If he is saying that there are more casualties in his area, he may be arguing for more road safety features, which might include more cameras. He might want to have discussions with the hon. Member for Ashford, who I notice is silent on this matter and seems to have given up on providing the evidence that he says exists to show that 4,000 cameras are in the wrong places.

If anyone can identify one of the useless cameras that is not working, I will do them a deal. I will swap them the road humps that I still have in Warsop in my constituency for a speed camera. I have a whole series of constituents who want speed cameras. If a community wants a speed camera, should it not be able to decide that through a ballot in a referendum instead of being fobbed off with useless excuses about why it cannot have one?

I know my hon. Friend's views on road humps, and I think that he would agree that finding appropriate measures in a specific area is what reduces the speed of traffic. I know that his view is shared on a cross-party basis because we have received a letter from West Sussex county council, which says of cameras

"However their activities are somewhat constrained through the strict rules on where cameras can be deployed. I receive many requests from parish councils and others for more flexibility on this issue."

I am always willing to meet popular demand.

"No partnerships are going to say cameras need to be taken down because they would risk not being able to cover their costs … In fact the pressure is on them to keep putting up more cameras just to pay for the ever-rising numbers of staff"?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, although I do not think that he had intended to do so before I challenged him. First, the Metropolitan police have quite properly reviewed their cameras, as we asked all partnerships to do. The letter that we received from the London partnership told us that all its cameras were in places that met the criteria. The hon. Gentleman is essentially saying that the criteria should be altered or adjusted. He still has not substantiated the comments that he made to the Media around Christmas and new year saying that most of the cameras were in inappropriate places. That is not shown by evidence from councils because I have letters from all the partnerships—if he wants to have a look at them, they are from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councils and from chief constables. If he wants to say that cameras are in inappropriate places, he should come before the House with evidence, but so far, he has failed to do so.

The Minister appears to be deaf, as I have just pointed out that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said that he wants to remove hundreds of cameras. He may wish to treat the commissioner with contempt, so let us see how he reacts to the chief constable of Durham, a county with a very good road safety record, who writes that the cameras catch vehicles exceeding the speed limit in only 3 to 4 per cent of collisions. He also says—significantly, this is the issue that the Minister consistently ignores—that unlike many police forces Durham has

"not reduced the number of road policing officers".

In the case of Durham, I had asked for an explanation of the reason why casualties had gone up, whereas they have gone down in many neighbouring authorities. The hon. Gentleman has still not dealt with the main point. He has backed off from talking about those 4,000 sites, and I believe that the ought to withdraw that comment. I have received comments from the partnerships, many of which cover areas represented by his party, including his own partnership in Kent. It referred to his remarks in the press, and said:

"When is the non-sense that is regularly promoted in the national media going to be proactively countered?"

Could the Minister tell the House how many motorists who keep within the lay when passing speed cameras are prosecuted? Is it not time that we strengthened the guidelines so that the safety partnerships can consider any site where there has been a personal injury? Should we not give priority to consideration of the families of people who die or are seriously injured on our roads?

That is the point The policy is not about catching people or raising money but about reducing death and injury on our roads. It has been manifestly shown that, where cameras are sited, there is on average a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on the road. My hon. Friend makes a good point—people who stick to the law and stay within the speed limit are driving safely. The vast majority of motorists do so, and they are not fined.

What steps are being taken to reduce costs in the railway industry; and if he will make a statement. [159431]

If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to reduce costs within the railway industry. [159432]

Controlling costs is a key challenge facing the railways, and both the Government and the Office of the Rail Regulator have made that clear to rail companies. Over the past eight months or so, considerable progress has been made on getting a grip on costs and delivering greater efficiency, and the rail review is examining what can be done to accelerate that.

Is it not time to have a look at the profits made by rolling stock companies and the charges that they impose on train operating companies for the hire of railway equipment? Is it right that £144,000 a year is paid for a two-coach Pacer, when it originally cost £350,000 to build and lasts for 20 years? Is it not time to include ROSCOs—the rolling stock companies—in the remit of the regulator so that their costs and the proportion of costs that they pass on to train operating companies and ultimately the taxpayer can also be looked at?

That is a good question, and it is certainly addressed in the rail review. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, over the past seven years, ROSCOs have invested more than £4 billion in new rolling stock, and 4,000 carriages—about a third of the total UK fleet—have been replaced. We are interested in considering charges and profit margins to see how it might be possible to get better value out of our railways in general.

Will the Minister confirm that, in attempting to cut costs in the railway industry, safety will never be compromised, so that events such as Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar will never happen again?

Yes. I appreciate the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I find it curious, since the ethos of the railways has always been safety first, and it continues to be so. We should not be risk-averse as a society. There will always be risks involved in running the railways; we have to cut those risks down to an absolute minimum. The railway authorities are trying to do precisely that.

On costs, will my hon. Friend look into the upgrade of the electricity supply on network south-east to ensure that we are getting value for money? I have been advised by the Strategic Rail Authority that even once the electricity supply is upgraded, we will not be able to run 12-car trains across the entire network throughout peak periods. If we do not plan for the long-term future, we may soon find ourselves unable to run longer trains or meet capacity needs. I urge him to look into that matter.

I will certainly look into it, although I have not heard the report myself. The absurdity of having leased and ordered huge amounts of new rolling stock without realising that it could not be run on the southern region because the electricity supply was not up to it has become a famous misdemeanour in the administration of the railways. We are spending £1 billion on upgrading the power supply to the southern region in the belief that it will enable us to run new and longer trains that will serve customers better.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the Strategic Rail Authority's recent announcement of its review of community rail partnerships such as that in my constituency between Whitby and Middlesbrough? Does he agree that that will drive down costs on the railways by re-establishing the important link between local communities and the railway industry?

Yes, I do. There are opportunities for all kinds of imaginative ways of running the railways better. Often, local circumstances dictate how best the railway should be run in that area, and a great deal can be done to tap the creative potential that is there to provide better service for customers.

Does the Minister agree that the amount of cost mismanagement on the rail system demonstrates incompetence on a monumental scale, especially as the number of bureaucrats involved in supervising and regulating the industry has increased fivefold in the past decade and the amount spent on consultants has tripled in one year? Who among all those bureaucrats and consultants is responsible for proper cost controls and internal audit? Is it the Strategic Railway Authority, Network Rail, the rail regulator or, ultimately, the Government? Where does the buck stop?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the industry is administered in far too complex a way. There are too many chiefs, and the lines of command are too long and need to be shortened. We must be able to make decisions—very often, vital decisions—uch more quickly to produce a better railway. The Office of the Rail Regulator has identified £5 billion-worth of savings. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the confusion that exists. When I came into this job last July, the cost of the west coast mainline upgrade was about £14 billion. It began at £2 billion, and is now down to about £7.5 billion. Those cost predictions are flexible, by any standards. We are getting a grip on the situation, but that should have happened long before last summer.

My hon. Friend knows that Network Rail tries hard to get control over costs and it should be encouraged to do that. However, there is still too much fragmentation. Will he ensure that Network Rail has access to a sensible set of costs and that contractors are told that the days of fleecing the taxpayer are over?

Yes. Network Rail's decision to take maintenance contracts in-house is a good start that will probably save the taxpayer approximately £300 million a year. More important, it will get the work done more efficiently and probably to higher standards. That is good news for those who use the railways and will lead to building up a skills base in Network Rail. That will be useful to the organisation in future.

Is the Minister thereby apologising for the fact that since 1997, the cost of providing; our railways has trebled? Does he agree with this week's report from Transport 2000 that much of the extra money

"has been wasted on inefficiencies and incompetence at every turn"?

We have discussed the matter several times and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is generous, will admit that we inherited a ramshackle vehicle in the form of Railtrack and a system that was fatally flawed. We are trying to create a much better railway system. That will take some doing because he was right about the grave flaws, some of which continue to exist. We have tried to tackle them in the past seven years but there is no question that we have not been entirely successful. If that sounds like an apology, I hope that he will accept it

rose—

Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two goes today.

It is true that costs were one third of current costs. They have increased by so much because there had been no investment in the railways before we took them over. That was proved when the terrible accident occurred at Hatfield, and Railtrack—the company that the Conservative Government set up—had no idea of its asset base. When we began to realise the number of broken rails and the extent of repair that was needed to the infrastructure, we understood that the railways needed investment. The Government are doing precisely that for the first time in 30 years.

The economy is booming, especially in cities such as Leeds, which acts as a magnet and draws in an ever increasing number of commuters from areas such as mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we need to cut the profits of the ROSCOs, which were a result of privatisation, we should try to run more trains and strengthen provision for people such as those in my constituency who use the Airedale and Wharfedale lines?

I am sure that we could run more trains on the Airedale and Wharfedale line. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Japan, where rail infrastructure is 25 per cent. greater than ours. It has 20,000 km of track whereas we have 16,000 km. Last year, the railways in this country carried 1 billion passengers—the highest number since 1961—but the Japanese carried 21.7 billion. We ought to be able to squeeze much more capacity out of our railways. We have much to learn from the Japanese and we had better start learning it.

What plans his Department has to review the cross-subsidy of airports in the south-east. [159434]

The Government have no such plans.

Many airlines at Heathrow and Gatwick strongly oppose the idea of cross-subsidising a runway at Stansted. They would not benefit from that, and it would serve their competitors. Given that opposition, what assurances has the Minister received from BAA that it will be able to fund the whole le scheme, including road and rail access?

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do exactly what is in the White Paper, where we clearly say that the Government will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. We expect BAA to bring forward plans for the development of new capacity at Stansted in a way that is responsive to market needs, and to provide the necessary funding. We fully recognise the independence of the Civil Aviation Authority and its role in regulating the sector, and the Government expect the CAA and BAA to secure an appropriate framework to bring the development to fruition.

Is not the best way to deal with the crocs-subsidy issue to follow the advice of the Select Committee on Transport, and break up BAA? That would not only deal with cross-subsidies but remove something that has been a great barrier to providing runway infrastructure in the south-east for the past 60 years.

The CAA has made it clear that its policy of regulating each airport on an individual, stand-alone basis was introduced earlier last year, after consultation, to underpin commercial disciplines for airport development. The CAA has no plans to consult on that again. That would remain the reality, regardless of who owned the airports in the south-east.

The expansion of Stansted airport is of great local interest, as is the expansion of East Midlands airport. When will the Minister respond to my e-mails and rearrange the cancelled meeting on that?

The hon. and learned Gentleman should be very clear today, although he was not at the business statement, that that meeting, which was called not by his good self but by another east midlands Member, was duly cancelled by that Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman's notion that my office cancelled it is erroneous. I am more than happy to have that meeting, which was to discuss the change of name at East Midlands airport, and any subsequent meetings, and I shall answer his e-mail in due course.

If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on tramway refurbishment. [159435]

Tramway refurbishment is a matter for the local authorities or the private concessionaire.

I am grateful to the Minister for his useful and illuminating answer. He knows Blackpool well, and he knows the support that the hon. Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and I have given to Blackpool borough council's application for assistance in the refurbishment of its tramway. The Minister also knows the importance of that project to the whole Fylde coast transport infrastructure, and he will appreciate that it is the key to further evaluation of possible light rail developments to Preston and beyond. In the light of those points, when is his Department likely to make up its mind on giving support to Blackpool? Does he recognise the importance of keeping the existing tramway infrastructure in good condition?

It is important to keep the existing tramway system in good condition, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Department's decision on the bid will be made in the context of the wider transport programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will endeavour to make an announcement shortly.

In considering future investment in trams, the Minister might like to reflect on the success of the Sheffield supertram, which carries 12 million passengers a year. I hope that he will consider favourably plans for its extension to Rotherham. Will he also reflect on the complete nonsense of bus deregulation, which means that we do not have integrated transport at local level because trams and buses do not run together, and that we do not have proper joined-up timetabling or through-ticketing? Does he agree that to receive the best return on investment in trams, we need to ensure that buses and trams are co-ordinated at local level and do not run in competition?

I agree with my hon. Friend that, wherever possible, properly integrated transport systems for passengers should be constructed. That is not rocket science, but there is not a blueprint for one system that works better than all others. Transport systems need co-ordination and joint input, and local authorities, private companies and passengers' representatives should be able to get together to deliver just that.

If he will make a statement on the level of piracy and armed attacks against UK flagged merchant ships. [159436]

The number of piracy and armed attacks on United Kingdom flagged merchant vessels has risen from one or two a year in the mid-1990s to six in 2003. That is clearly unacceptable. Over the years, my Department, in partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has launched a range of initiatives to raise the profile of the issue around the world. We continue to work with the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union, the International Maritime Organisation and the maritime industry on this issue.

I thank the Minister for that very helpful and comprehensive answer. He will be aware that the problem is particularly acute in Indonesian waters around the Malacca straits and Bintan island, where, last year alone, there were 121 reported incidents. Will he add his weight to the call by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers for the Royal Navy to provide protection for our merchant fleet in areas where there is a known danger?

The incidents are fairly narrowly focused. Of the six incidents involving UK ships last year, two took place off Guyana, and the others took place off India, Vietnam, Cuba and Nigeria. I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that they were therefore widely spaced around the world. I am pleased to say that no one was injured in any of them; the ships were all at anchor and the incidents mainly involved robbery. We are working closely with those countries, in particular, and with the IMO to try to rid the seas of this problem. Given its geographical spread, however, I am sure that he will appreciate that it would be almost impossible for the Royal Navy to make even a minor impact on such a situation. We are mindful of the problem, however, and I am aware of NUMAST's concerns. We take this issue very seriously.

The Minister will be aware of how narrow the dividing line is between piracy, armed attacks and terrorism against shipping. What processes are in place to brief the merchant marine on the intelligence regarding the threat that faces it when travelling in such dangerous waters?

The hon. Gentleman will of course know that we cannot discuss in the House matters of security or of how we pass on such information in this context. He will probably be aware, however, that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has made available to all UK flagged ships clear guidelines on how they should react in these circumstances. The United Kingdom also played a major part in drawing up the IMO's code of practice for ships. Furthermore, much of the work that we are doing internationally on port security also relates to maritime security. There is therefore a lot going on in this area, and there are a great many concerns. We are addressing these problems and taking a lead in the world on ensuring that we solve them.

What steps he is taking to improve the safety of school transport. [159437]

Buses, coaches and minibuses used for the transport of children to and from school are subject to safety standards, as are all passenger-carrying vehicles. Before such vehicles go into service, they are inspected and certified. After that, they are tested annually and can be subjected to random roadside checks. I am not aware of there being any particular problems with the safety of school buses.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that in a rural area such as my own, the safety of children being transported on school buses is of the utmost importance to their parents. What opportunities will the new Bill being published on school transport provide to ensure that schoolchildren are taken on buses that are fully fitted with seat belts and that we get rid of the invidious three children to a seat rule?

The safety of children on transport to school is absolutely paramount to us. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have policies to encourage cycling, walking and, of course, the use of buses rather than cars. He will also be aware that seat belts have to be fitted for journeys that children take within the school day, but that does not always apply to buses. The issue of seat belts has not presented a major problem to us, but over a period of time seat belts will gradually come in, because buses are gradually being fitted with bucket seats rather than bench seats, which will overcome the problem of three children sitting in a seat for two. Even that has not presented itself as a problem, however. One of the biggest problems that we have found often involves not the state of the bus but the behaviour of the children.

I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the tragic death of my constituent, Stuart Cunningham-Jones, on the way home from school. Does he have plans, however, to review the minimum standards, and the ludicrous three-for-two arrangement, in the light of the coroner's report and the recommendations by both the jury and the coroner in relation to that tragic death?

I am aware of the tragic death of Stuart Cunningham-Jones. Now that we have seen the coroner's letter on the matter, we are considering his recommendations carefully. In his letter, he said that on this occasion seatbelts did not play a part in the tragedy, but he emphasises that the behaviour of the children on the bus was a major factor. Bus drivers who work the school run are receiving special training, and the Department for Education and Skills is also examining the issue. The draft Bill that was published yesterday will address not just issues relating to the use of buses but safety issues.

Given that most deaths and injuries on public service vehicles are caused by passengers being flung around in a crash, why does the Minister not simply say that all new buses and trains should have seatbelts fitted so that they match the standards of private cars? Our children would then be a lot safer.

The rules, of course, are that all new coaches and minibuses must have seatbelts fitted. There is not an intention to fit seatbelts in buses on scheduled journeys, mainly travelling at slow speeds in urban areas, partly because it is totally impractical to do so. Generally, the problem is not in relation to buses that travel around city streets relatively slowly but in relation to higher speeds in other areas and on other roads. We are not complacent about the issue, however, and clearly, we will have to address it even more seriously in future.

When he intends to visit Nottingham to travel on the Nottingham express transport system. [159439]

My hon. Friend's skill at tabling questions is unsurpassed, as he is both timely and prescient, given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Nottingham yesterday to open the Nottingham express transit line 1 and had the opportunity to meet local authority officials to discuss local transport issues and their successes in Nottingham.

Clearly, the Secretary of State is ahead of the time, given that fee-paying passengers were not able to use the tram until 5.58 this morning. The Minister will be aware that the local authorities, Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council, have worked for many years to open line 1, and want to create a network—line 2 and 3. Will the Department work closely with the local authorities to ensure that we have a network to meet customer needs across Nottinghamshire?

My hon. Friend will know that we expect the first line to attract an estimated 11 million-plus passengers and to be a real boon to Nottingham, not simply in transport terms but as a catalyst for regeneration. We always work closely with local authorities as and when they determine plans for future additions to networks, and we look forward to receiving Nottingham's subsequent plans eventually. Nottingham will base that on a very strong record in terms of local transport planning, in both county and city, which is to be commended.

Having been at the launch with the Secretary of State yesterday, may I say for the record what an elegant figure he cut?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that for 10 of those 16 years the matter was in another party's hands. I expect any analysis of the bids as and when they are received to be done swiftly. The important point is that, following all that has been done so far by the authorities, both city and council, there has been a significant increase in public transport patronage. We want that to continue in a broader context.

If he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding who pays for the cost of security at small airports. [159440]

Government policy is that the aviation industry should cover all its operating costs, including those incurred in the implementation of security requirements. It is free to choose how to comply with the standards required, and how it wishes to pass the costs on to its customers.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the impact of the policy in the highlands and islands? In April, passengers for Tiree will be forced to pay a £20 surcharge, and those for Campbeltown will have to pay £12. Those extra charges will have a devastating effect on the economies of small islands and remote communities on the mainland. Will the Government reconsider the policy, and cover the cost of security at small airports? It could be funded from air passenger duty. The cost of security could be spread across all air passengers, rather than the brunt being borne by those using small, remote airports.

We do not want an aircraft travelling from Barra, Campbeltown or Tiree to a major city airport such as Glasgow to be subject to less security than an aircraft operating from any other UK airport. We propose, however, to introduce a regime tailored for smaller and lighter aircraft and the airports from which they operate, commensurate with the nature of such operations and the risk that they pose. We shall consult the industry shortly. We simply cannot compromise on security, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is a fair one.

If he will make a statement on the importance of Crossrail to (a) London businesses and (b) the development of the Thames gateway. [159441]

All those issues were covered in Cross London Rail Links Ltd.'s Crossrail business case, the recent review of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering. He will make an announcement on the future of the business case in due course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Crossrail's impact on the Thames gateway depends on the continuation of the line from the Isle of Dogs to the channel tunnel rail link at Ebbsfleet via the south bank? Does not the realisation of that potential in turn depend on confidence among private investors that the line will be built according to a credible timetable?

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government said last July that, in principle, Crossrail would be a very good thing for London and its transport network. I trust that he will forgive me for not going into detail about specific parts of specific lines, given that I received the Montague report only about two weeks ago. It is currently being analysed, and a report is soon to be produced.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the long-awaited Crossrail project is vital to the regeneration of the east end? Many people in London are waiting for a positive sign from the Government.

As the Government said last summer, Crossrail is indeed an important project for London, but we must not put all our eggs in one basket. We must give due weight to the myriad transport and other schemes that are already regenerating east London. East London, and its regeneration, need not wait for the green light to be given for Crossrail.

If he will make a statement on the administration of the infrastructure of the rural railway network. [159442]

Responsibility for the infrastructure of the rural railway network rests with Network Rail.

I am grateful for that full reply. Will the Minister comment on the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation document, and in particular on the alarming implication that local authorities such as North Yorkshire county council may have to pay for some rural railway networks in future? Will he also confirm that the rolling stock that is to be passed to voluntary groups and local authorities will be in the best possible state, and that the speed limit that is set will ensure that the structure will not be inferior to other parts of the network?

As the hon. Lady knows, the document that the Strategic Rail Authority has published is a consultation document. I should remind her that, in general, community rail lines are typically local or rural in character, have a speed limit of 75 mph or less, run a service that is of an hourly or lesser frequency, and have a single operator or one franchise operator plus freight, so there is a lot of leeway. This is not about closures or loading new costs on to local authorities, but it certainly is about trying to tap the existing potential for perhaps running some community railways better.

What steps the Government take to ensure that people appointed to public bodies are representative of the society they serve. [159449]

The Government want boards of public bodies to be both appointed on merit and representative of society as a whole. On 17 December 2003, we published "Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2003". This document explains the action being taken across government to increase diversity on the boards of our public bodies, and the targets that Departments have set for 2006.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Given that the Government rightly believe that the best decisions are taken by boards that best reflect local society, will he agree to add to the seven Nolan principles a further committed principle for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments: that public bodies should reflect local communities and society in general?

I know of my hon. Friend's considerable interest in this matter. The Government acknowledged the importance of the Nolan principles of public life when they were published. Of course, they were produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was established at that time. Its work continues under Sir Nigel Wicks. and I shall certainly consider whether this matter would be better directed towards it. I should none the less add that we are keen to encourage people to involve themselves in public bodies at a local level in the first instance. That is why, for example, such work has been taken forward in relation to school boards.

As the Minister's reply to me of 3 March shows, the number of appointments and reappointments to public bodies over the past three years demonstrates that four times as many Labour party appointments have been made as Conservative—or, indeed, Liberal Democrat—ones. This Government now wish to impose that system on judges. Can we expect similar results, and is that another reason why the Government are so frightened of the Constitutional Reform Bill being sent to a Select Committee of the House of Lords for proper scrutiny?

That seems a pod effort, but it is important to start with some of the facts. More than 80 per cent. of those appointed to public bodies over the past five years were not themselves politically active. When a Labour Government are in power, it is only natural that a number of Labour supporters a re keen to offer themselves for appointment to public bodies. But as I said, it is important that decisions be made on the basis of merit, and we want public bodies to be representative of society as a whole. In that regard, the hon. Gentleman might do better to direct his attention towards the supporters of other political parties, and to encourage them to participate in public bodies.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the innovation of the lottery boards? They have found new members by a process of lot, or random selection, which has led to the appointment of people who would not otherwise have been found for these posts. Will he embrace this innovation and encourage other public bodies to see how it could be developed?

For judges?

As the sedentary comment of my hon. Friend suggests, one has to be careful about the question of the particular public bodies that adopt this approach. It is clear that we are looking for a high level of expertise for certain public bodies, so although I am interested in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) cites, we need to consider the capabilities of those offering themselves for service, rather than simply making a random selection.

If he will make a statement on measures to improve occupational health in the civil service. [159450]

The Cabinet Office works with Departments to promote a consistent approach to managing health in the civil service. It will continue to advise and monitor that area by collecting information on absence rates, facilitating the sharing of good practice and promoting the importance of occupational health in the workplace.

Have any comparisons been made of absenteeism due to sickness in the civil service compared with the private sector?

Finding statistics to make direct comparisons between the public and private sectors is difficult, but I understand that in some private sectors—such as manufacturing and production—sickness rates are similar to those experienced in the civil service.

Are there any specific measures to prevent memory loss among civil servants? If so, could they be extended to Ministers of the Crown?

I am tempted to reply that I have forgotten whether such arrangements are in place. I am unaware of any specifics but if there are, I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

What initiatives are planned to assist people with disabilities to use their talents by seeking civil service careers. [159451]

The Cabinet Office undertakes a range of activities to encourage people with disabilities to apply to the civil service and to increase the proportion of disabled people in the senior civil service. The summer placement scheme encourages people with disabilities to apply for the graduate fast-stream programme. The civil service also participates in Workstep—a Department for Work and Pensions initiative to help disabled people progress into mainstream employment where appropriate.

Even though the number of disabled persons entering the summer scheme might be relatively modest, that initiative will help to dispel discriminatory attitudes and practices in Departments, as well as giving graduates fast-stream access to more senior jobs. Can my hon. Friend confirm that it remains a central objective dramatically to increase the number of civil servants with disabilities in senior posts from the low level that this Government inherited in 1997? What progress has been made in the intervening seven years?

We are determined to increase the number of disabled senior civil servants serving the country, but recognise that there is more work to be done. I particularly welcome the summer placement scheme, which ensures that the key fast-stream route into the senior civil service takes forward our work in relation to diversity.

Constituents of mine report that the problem is less one of getting into the civil service and more one of barriers to progress within it. Is there monitoring of grading and promotions, to ensure that there is no discrimination against disabled people seeking to advance their careers?

Discrimination has no place in the civil service as a whole or the senior civil service. By definition, those entering senior posts have been promoted from the ranks of the civil service. I am keen to see continued and heightened progress in meeting the challenge of increasing the number of disabled people in the senior civil service in particular.

What plans he has to open up civil service jobs to external applications. [1159452]

Within the framework laid down by the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 and the recruitment code issued by the civil service commissioners, Departments and agencies have the authority to determine their own practices and procedures for the recruitment of staff to the home civil service—including whether to open posts up to external competition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if even more jobs were open to external advertisement, the civil service would be much more likely to reflect society and have a more diverse workforce?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The number of open competitions has increased and I am determined that—as the Prime Minister made clear in a recent speech—the service should be capable not just of offering expert policy advice but of assisting government in the delivery of policies.

What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. [159454]

The Government's position remains as set out in their response to the report of the Public Administration Committee on ombudsman issues. We are working with the parliamentary ombudsman and others in the ombudsman community to promote joint working and to ensure that arrangements are fit for purpose. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution to the work of that important Select Committee.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways to improve the ombudsman service is to remove the Members of Parliaments filter? Can he give an indication of when that is likely to happen?

That is one of the issues on which we are in discussion with the ombudsman at present. Under present arrangements, MPs certainly play an important role in channelling complaints through the ombudsman. but I understand that there is a range of opinions throughout the House on this important matter. The discussions will continue.

If he will make a statement on the progress of e-government initiatives within the Department for Transport. [159455]

The Cabinet Office is responsible for leading and supporting e-transformation in government. Within that, the office of the e-envoy is working to improve the delivery of public services and achieve long-term savings by joining up online Government services around the needs of customers. Progress on specific e-government initiatives at the Department for Transport is, however, a matter for Ministers in that Department. They will be able to confirm that specific initiatives are being developed in respect of transport.

Can the Minister comment on whether he believes that the Department for Transport is making a success of the vehicle registration system, and whether the level of failures in that system is acceptable?

I will, of course, be happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As I understand it, full capability for the electronic first registration of all vehicles now exists, with a take-up of more than 75 per cent.