Whether he has discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer ring-fencing revenue raised from camera safety partnerships for road safety purposes. [173493]

The rules of the safety camera programme provide that the resources from speeding and jumping traffic lights are ring-fenced and can be applied solely to safety cameras, enforcement and information.

Surely the Secretary of State realises that that is not good enough. First, speed cameras are raising huge sums of extra money as an alternative form of taxation. Secondly, they are not improving road safety. Thirdly, would it not be better if the ring-fencing, if he needs it, included driver instruction?

On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, the vast majority of the money that is raised goes back into the cost of installing and operating the cameras. I think that I am right in saying that about £17 million, which is a small fraction of what the Department spends, goes back to the Treasury. The important point is that all the evidence says that speed cameras do reduce the number of serious injuries. The right hon. Gentleman can shake his head if he wants to, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the last independent study that was carried out showed a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured. I would have thought that the time had come when road safety should not be a political football, but an issue that unites all Members of the House in ensuring that fewer people are killed and seriously injured on our roads.

Some parts of the country, such as Staffordshire, have speed awareness courses for offenders who exceed the speed limit by only a small margin. The running costs of those courses are paid by the offenders themselves, but they involve some set-up costs and a little bit of capital. Would it not make sense to allow money from speeding fines to pay for such courses to be available all over the country?

I am not sure that I would want to do anything that actively encouraged people to think about collecting fines for the purpose of generating income. As I have said on countless occasions, the best speed camera is one that does not collect a single penny in income because it has persuaded people to slow down.

The House will be aware that the Government shortly want to consult on a more variable scheme that allows fewer points to be imposed where someone is found to have gone marginally over the speed limit, with perhaps a greater penalty if they drive far too fast. One of the options that we want to consider with the Association of Chief Police Officers is whether, as an alternative to fines, we could introduce driver awareness courses. The objective must be to get across to people that speed kills. A person who is hit by a car going at 40 mph has a 90 per cent. chance of being killed. We need to get that lesson across to people. This should not be about raising money, but about encouraging people to drive safely.

This is a red letter day for Transport questions. For five months, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the roads Minister, has stood at the Dispatch Box during Transport questions rubbishing Conservative policies on speed cameras; now, the Government have started to adopt them. On 21 April, we produced a 10-point plan for road safety. Two days ago, the Government announced that they would introduce variable penalty points for those caught speeding by cameras—number four of our 10 points. We welcome the Government's conversion. If the Secretary of State adopts one of our policies each time he has to face Transport questions, the world will become a better and safer place. Let me allow him to remove any remaining doubts that all he was doing on Sunday was producing a press release—

Order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Transport questions, and he must put a question.

Can the Secretary of State tell us when the consultation period on this policy shift will end; and will he commit himself to introducing these changes before the end of this year?

What my colleague, the roads Minister, said was that at the beginning of this year the hon. Gentleman implied that some 4,000 cameras were in the wrong place. So far, as at 11 o'clock this morning, we have yet to hear from him about one such site.

In relation to our announcement over the weekend, there is limited value in trading political points as to who thought of what idea first, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to do that, I draw his attention to the fact that of his 10 points, four were already Government policy. As regards the variable system of penalty points, the Government first canvassed that idea in 2002.

However, in the light of the fact that every day 10 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads, would it not be better if we looked at measures that improved road safety, including reducing the speed at which people travel? I would have thought that we now have the opportunity to reach an all-party consensus in relation to such matters. If improvements can be made to speed cameras, let us make them. In addition to that, I hope next month to publish details of all speed camera sites in the country so that people can see why they are there and the difference that they are making.

I also hope to publish a further independent study, and we shall wait and see what progress has been made. However, I am optimistic that the campaign to reduce speed is having an effect.

The Secretary of State did not answer the question about whether he would commit himself to doing anything about the matter. Of course we all want consensus—that is why I welcome the fact that he is adopting some of my policies. What does he say to the Police Federation, whose chairman said last week:

"I believe some cameras are there as a revenue generator. I think police get the blame for that. I think it has been quite destructive."?

Not only Conservative Members but the police, who have to enforce the traffic laws, say that the Government are wrong. They call for an audit of the position of every camera and we agree. Since the right hon. Gentleman is in the mood to adopt our policies, will he adopt the proposals for an audit of every camera position and end his current stance, which is dangerously damaging to relations between the police and the general public? He should know that, without the support of the police, he will not get better road safety in this country. He says that he is in favour of better road safety-will he adopt 'more of our sensible policies to achieve it?

The hon. Gentleman seems more concerned about what he regards as his policies than road safety. On the matters that he raised—inasmuch as I could discern them—we propose, as I said, to consult about a variable points system. We will do that next month and I hope that we can introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.

The representative of the Police Federation said that some motorists, not the police generally, believe that the cameras are revenue generators. As I said previously, in the light of the controversy, I asked the Department to examine every site in the country with a view to publishing details of each camera site so that people can see why the cameras were put there and the difference that they make. I have no doubt that it will be necessary for me to ask the local partnerships to consider whether cameras should be present on some sites or whether they should be moved elsewhere. However, the vast majority save lives. It is interesting that— [Interruption.]

Order. I must stop the Secretary of State and emphasise to Front-Bench Members that we have spent 10 minutes on one question. I must move on to Question 2.

What assessment has been made of the role for the public sector in the provision of rail passenger services. [173494]

As I said in my statement to the House on 19 January, a key principle of the review is that the public and private partnership is right for the railways and will continue.

The Select Committee on Transport is disappointed in the Government's continued, apparently ideological insistence that the private sector is the only way in which rail passenger services can be provided. Will the Secretary of State explain why, if the public sector can be shown to be safer, more efficient and cheaper, it should not run rail passenger services? As a relatively dogma-free Minister, will he consider the Committee's call for a rethink about the option of retaining South Eastern Trains in public ownership?

On ideology, it is a big mistake to assume that everything that the public sector did on the railways was good and everything that the private sector has done is bad. My hon. Friend mentioned safety. The safety record of the railways has been improving year after year for several years.

Let me give hon. Members one reason why I believe that the public and private sectors should operate together. The private sector brings in approximately £11 million every day. Without the private sector, the public sector would have to find that money. I strongly believe that the public and private sectors can work together. That happens in many parts of the world. In this country, the relationship is not right and that is why I set up the review.

The Secretary of State will know that the publicly-owned South Eastern Trains has performed reasonably well since it came into being under the stewardship of Michael Holden. Does he know that there are sinister rumours of a possible delay in the franchising process because of the disputes about timetabling in mid-Kent? Does he agree that the franchising process is already inordinately long and creates enormous uncertainty for investment, passengers and staff? Will he commit himself to doing everything possible to ensure that the process progresses according to the original timetable?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Strategic Rail Authority is consulting on the Kent franchise at the moment, and it is important that that consultation tries to build as much consensus as possible. He will also know that many people in Kent have reservations about what is being proposed and are making strong representations about it. We need to get this right, and I agree with him that the objective must be to ensure that the franchising process is completed as quickly as possible, so that we can have a degree of certainty. I do not think that anything we are doing in the review will affect the Kent franchise; it certainly will not hold it up. What is needed is for the review to reach a conclusion as to what trains are necessary and when they ought to run.

Is the Minister aware that, according to a written answer from his Department, it is estimated that £3.85 million—nearly £4 million—is to be spent on tendering the integrated Kent franchise to facilitate the privatisation of South Eastern Trains? How much money has been spent on negotiating new passenger franchises since 1997? Would not that money have been better spent on direct investment in the rail services, rather than on wasteful franchises such as these?

No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. While there are undoubtedly examples of franchising, and some franchisees, not having been as successful as they should have been, other examples show a better quality of service and better provision for passengers than there was in the past. I am happy to defend the fact that there is inevitably some expenditure involved in the franchising process. I strongly believe that having both private and public sector involvement in the railways is good, but it is important to ensure that the right framework and relationships exist, which is what the review process is designed to facilitate.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that, since the South Eastern Trains franchise became an SRA company, there has been a 9 per cent. improvement in services. We have already heard that the proposals for the integrated Kent franchise have been widely condemned by passenger groups, Transport for London and councils. Will he not therefore, accept the value of keeping that franchise in the public sector as a comparator of the public sector versus the private sector, especially as it seems rather a waste of £4 million to provide a franchise that does not meet passengers aspirations?

As I said when we discussed South Eastern Trains at last month's Transport questions, there has been an improvement it performance right across the train operating companies in the south-east—not just in South Eastern Trains. which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is now being operated on behalf of the SRA, but in the companies in the private sector as well. Naturally, I am very glad flat performance is improving. Indeed, at present, there are quite significant improvements in performance. The job for the railways is to ensure that that continues.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the recent report from the Transport Select Committee comments that:

"Nearly a third of the franchises were no longer expected to function in the entrepreneurial, risk-taking way that was one of the fundamental justifications for private sector involvement in running train services, but simply to function as fee paid agents of the SRA".

What, therefore, is the justification for these services still being run by the private sector?

My hon. Friend is quite right, as was the Select Committee, to draw attention to the fact that, in 1995 and 1996, the then Government were anxious to get the whole franchise system away as quickly as possible. It is clear to me and every one else that some of the deals struck at that time were not good value for the taxpayer. It is well known that the promises made in 1995 and 1996 by one or two franchises in particular seem to have been built on wildly optimistic assumptions. It does not follow from that, however, that having the private sector involved through franchises is wrong. Far from it: I believe that they can bring significant improvements, in terms of both financial discipline—and, therefore, costs—and customer service. There are many examples round the world of the public and private sectors working together. What was wrong in this country was that the model established during the privatisation in the early 1990s was flawed, and that is what we are putting right now.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the public sector might enable more coaches to be run on trains? Is he concerned that c2c is proposing to redeploy five of its four-coach class 357 trains to a different line, resulting in a phasing out of the 12-coach trains on the c2c line, which is already impossibly overcrowded? Does he think that the public sector could do anything about that?

I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was so hostile to the private sector; perhaps he should have a word with some of his colleagues. Whoever is operating the trains, whether in the public or private sector, will redeploy them from one service to another. That is what happens when one is running a railway. I do not know why c2c has decided to redeploy these five trains, but I will look into it. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman looks in the back pages ofRail magazine—the trainspotters' guide to where every carriage is—he will find out where they have gone.

What plans he has to revise the role of the independent rail safety regulator after completion of the rail review. [173495]

The rail review is continuing to look at the regulation of safety. As I said in my statement to the House on 19 January, the Government will publish their proposals in the summer.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Health and Safety Commission took over the safety remit in 1990, there has been a steady improvement in safety? Does he agree that those who criticise the Health and Safety Executive for gold-plating safety on the railways are sending out the wrong signals to the public because they give the impression that safety is not the priority?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that safety must be in with the bricks. It is absolutely fundamental to the running of the railway, as it is to other parts of the transport sector. Undoubtedly, however, there are too many organisations involved in rail safety and we need to look at that in the review. When the HSE wrote to me at the time of my announcement, it made the point that there was a plethora of industry standards, some of which were over-cautious or applied in an over-cautious way. The culture of safety is of concern to the railway industry, but we must make sure that we have a far more streamlined system of responsibility. That works in other parts of the transport industry and it can work in the railways.

If we cut away all the waffle, is not the Secretary of State attacking the regime put in place by his own Government and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)? Is it not true that the Government got it wrong and still do not know what to do? As privatisation took place 10 years ago and his Government have been in power for seven of those years, does not the blame for current problems on our rail network clearly rest with him? Will he come clean and admit to the House that, on railways, Labour has let the country down?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman could not keep his face straight. I say to him in the nicest possible way that in the months following the loss of his last seat, he must have reflected on the reasons for that loss; rail privatisation might have been one. He says that the Government do not know what we want to do. I have just been reading an article in The House magazine by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—who, sadly, is not with us today—in which she states Conservative policy; it is to wait and see what the review comes up with.

For a number of years, we tried to make the system that we inherited work. I tried to do that, but I came to the view that if I asked myself whether the system would last for the next 20 or 30 years, the answer was no. It is clear from the review and all the representations that people are looking for a more streamlined, straightforward structure. The way in which privatisation was carried out was a disaster; this country has paid a heavy cost, both financially and in terms of organisation. That is something we are sorting out.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that whatever plans he has for reviewing rail safety, he will try to make sure that they are in place by May next year when we plan to open the Vale of Glamorgan railway line for a passenger service for the first time since Beeching shut it in the 1960s? May I invite my right hon. Friend to join me on the inaugural journey across the Porthkerry viaduct, through beautiful Rhoose, Aberthaw, Llanilltyd Fawr, Llandow and on and on?

Order. The Secretary of State has received the invitation.

What his policy is on encouraging more freight to be transported around the UK through south coast ports. [173496]

The Government are keen to see freight transported by water rather than road where this makes sense. Our water freight grant scheme offers help towards investments, including port facilities, where these will allow freight traffic to be transported by sea or inland waterway rather than by road. The scheme can fund facilities at any port.

I am glad to hear the Minister's enthusiasm for sea transport. He will be intimately aware of the capacity of Shoreham harbour, in my constituency, for bringing aggregates and other building materials by sea for use along the south coast nearby. However, getting freight into Shoreham harbour by water will be successful only if we have the road infrastructure to get it out and distribute it. In the interests of joined-up thinking in his Government, will the Minister bring pressure to bear on his transport colleagues to ensure that road improvements around Shoreham harbour, and especially a proper link road to the A27 trunk road, go ahead? Without those, the Shoreham harbour maritime vision will simply be unworkable.

I shall certainly pass that communication to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and reassure them that there is one member of the Conservative party who obviously does not subscribe to the £600 million cuts that his party's policy will bring to transport.

My hon. Friend will know that we are rapidly running out of capacity in the south-east ports, which is a matter of great concern. Will he give me an undertaking that no more decisions will be taken on ports development unless there is a clear and firmly adhered-to plan to expand capacity, rather than to cut it back?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we must judge each application on its merits. Sometimes, when there are internationally recognised environmentally sensitive areas that must be protected, we have to take inspectorates' judgments very seriously. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the need to have adequate ports throughout the country to ensure that we can trade properly. We are one nation in the world that depends, probably more than all others, on our ability to trade across seas.

Is it not clear that on ports policy, as on so many other policies, Labour has let this country down? Why is it that in respect of three key south-coast ports—Dover, Shoreham and Poole—the Minister's Department has not even been prepared to agree with the Treasury definition of those ports as public corporations, which is inhibiting vital investment?

In the port of Shoreham, for example—I know that the hon. Member for East Working and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) hoped that I would say more in my answer to him—we are definitely considering an application for an award of freight grant relating to facilities there. I must say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that this Government take the problems of ports very seriously. They were neglected badly under the previous Government, but this Government will ensure that we have adequate port facilities so that we can trade properly.

When considering the development of south-east coast ports, will my hon. Friend also consider all the other ports around the country? Inland waterways are one means of transporting freight and taking the pressure off our roads. My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent launch of a large freight-carrying vessel for our inland waterways, and we need more of those if we are to succeed. Will he support that programme?

Yes, indeed. We are very interested in helping the technology that must be developed to carry big loads, including on inland waterways. Our freight grants programme provides help towards the capital costs of equipment such as cranes where that investment will help to make water transport a viable alternative to roads. That applies to inland waterways and coastal shipping. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that this year's budget is £9.5 million. In the past two years, we have awarded 12 new water freight grants worth just over £3.5 million. Those grants will save about 17 million lorry miles during the next 10 years.

If he will meet the Al Safelink campaign to discuss future strategy for the Al north of Newcastle. [173497]

Yes, I will be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and a small delegation of representatives from the Safelink campaign group.

I look forward to that meeting. Will the Minister prepare for it by examining the Al's strategic importance to industrial development in the north-east, which is recognised by all those involved in regeneration work? Will he also take into account the increasing importance attached to the A1 by the Scottish Executive, who pointed out in the national planning framework for Scotland the importance of improving road and rail links between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and Aberdeen and Newcastle, in terms of regeneration in both countries?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that according to the Al multi-modal study, which represents the local voice on this issue, there are fewer accidents on that road than on many others. It has also been said that dualling from Alnwick to Berwick is not justified in terms of traffic or of economic benefits, but that does not mean that we are not undertaking substantial work on the Al in that area; indeed, the Stannington and Seaton Burn junctions, the Morpeth to Felton dualling and the Adderstone to Felton dualling constitute £106 million-worth of work. But as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in the light of the study and the view expressed by the Scottish Executive, further work is not thought to have any economic benefit.

What plans he has to reduce noise pollution from light recreational aircraft. [173498]

Light aircraft have to comply with an internationally agreed noise certification standard unless they were on the UK register before 1980. This standard was tightened for aircraft certificated after 1999. There are currently no plans for additional measures to reduce noise from light aircraft, although we expect aerodromes to set, and to enforce, appropriate rules to minimise noise nuisance.

Does the Minister understand how sorry we feel for him, given this can of worms with which he must deal? My constituents are pleased to put up with the noise of fast jets and military helicopters five days a week, but for two days a week and particularly during the summer weather, their quality of life is diminished by light recreational aircraft. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country will have their quality of life diminished by the pilots of some 8,000 light aircraft and, of course, of those "lawnmowers" that take to the skies, and which take so long to get across them. As part of his big conversation, will he please start a debate on the balance between the right of pilots of light recreational aircraft to fly in our skies, and the right of the vast majority of our citizens to have peace and quiet?

I am sympathetic to the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. In addition to the certification standard and the general noise standard, there are considerations in terms of the planning framework and the other frameworks that need to be taken into account. However, I shall look into the matter further and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 multi-modal study. [173499]

The two major projects recommended by the multi-modal study are progressing as follows. As the hon. Gentleman will know, following the receipt of objections, the guided bus system being developed by Cambridgeshire county council is to be examined at a public inquiry, which begins on 28 September. A public exhibition of the options for the A14 is expected to begin in September, and will include exhibitions in Cambridge and Huntingdon. It is expected that an announcement on the preferred route will be made in spring 2005.

My understanding is that if every private vehicle travelling between Huntingdon and Cambridge were left at home and public transport were used instead, the traffic flow on the A14 between those locations would be reduced by only some 5 per cent. Can the Minister therefore confirm that, whatever the outcome of the public inquiry into the proposed guided bus system, the road improvement scheme will certainly stay in place? Moreover, could he please give a date for completion of the roadworks?

I have outlined the two major projects emerging from the multi-modal study, both of which remain in the system and are being developed. The Al4 improvements form part of the programme of targeted improvements, and one set of improvements is not dependent on another. The outcome of the inquiry depends somewhat on how the objections to the guided bus system are dealt with in the first instance, but as I said, the preferred route for the Al4 will be announced in spring 2005.

What forecasts he has received about traffic levels on the A34 and A40; and if he will make a statement. [173500]

There are currently two studies looking at the A34 between the M40 and the south coast. Those are a strategic review of the Highways Agency's programme of works for the A34 and a scoping study by the regional planning body and Government office for the south-east to decide how to address the wider role of transport in the area. Average flows on the A34 in 2003 were approximately 34,000 vehicles each way. The hon. Gentleman will know that the A40 around Oxford is currently the responsibility of Oxfordshire county council.

I am grateful for that answer, but will the Minister ensure that the review of the A34 that he mentioned includes the single carriageway stretch of the A40 between Witney and Oxford? Is he aware that that road has some of the worst jams in the south of England every morning and every evening? Is he further aware that the transport network review being carried out by Oxfordshire county council is predicting that traffic volumes on that stretch of road could increase by another 20 to 25 per cent? Does he understand that that could turn it into a giant car park, as a result of which the whole west Oxfordshire economy would grind to a halt? Given that the county council is now considering the option of widening the road, will he ensure that his Department stands ready to fund this much-needed project?

As has been pointed out to the hon. Gentleman in the past, the A34 is the responsibility of the Highways Agency and we are undertaking an appropriate study of that particular road to establish what improvements need to be made. I am also aware that Oxfordshire county council is undertaking a review of its own roads, but I am not as yet aware of any application to the Department for funding under local transport plans. The hon. Gentleman will know—he was told on a previous occasion—that earlier proposals for the dulling of the A40 were turned down by the Tory Government in 1994.

What assessment he has made of the case for the Ormskirk bypass. [173501]

My hon. Friend will know that it is for Lancashire county;council to determine priorities for local road building and to make bids for funding accordingly. I understand that the council proposes to develop and submit a bid for a bypass in 2005 as part of the Lancashire local transport plan. We will certainly consider any such bid on its merits.

Over the last 50 years it has become a tradition for roads Ministers—and, indeed, shadow roads Ministers—to appear in Ormskirk town centre to say that the congestion is terrible and that the town needs a bypass. Yet we still do not have it. I would hate the current roads Ministers to break that tradition, but I hope that they will turn up to cut the first turf of that much-needed bypass. Would my hon. Friend take it on himself to shake the county council a little to speed the matter up? As I said, we have been waiting for more than half a century.

I know that my hon. Friend has worked hard to persuade the local authorities to do something about the bypass. I can give him an undertaking that we will certainly contact Lancashire county council to see how quickly it is proceeding with the project.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) will know that the A56 village bypass in my constituency is joint second with his on the Lancashire county council list. I urge the Government to ensure that if the bypass in my constituency is built, it does not go along the line of the old railway and disused Colne to Skipton line and that the track bed is preserved. At some stage in the future, we want to be able to reopen that railway.

I will certainly take that valuable information into account.

How many speed safety cameras have been removed in the past 12 months because they do not comply with the sitting criteria. [173502]

The safety camera partnerships keep the continuing need for their cameras and the level of enforcement under review. Those enforcement issues are best determined locally in response to local developments and concerns. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noted as well as I have that, despite my constant reminders to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), at no fewer than five Question Times, we have not yet heard about the 4,000 cameras that he says were put in the wrong places.

In view of the constant criticism of some newspaper editors and politicians who seemingly wish to aid and abet law-breakers, will the Minister confirm that, on an average day, 10 people are killed in road crashes and that excessive speed is a contributory factor in some of them? Does he believe the it the views of those who want the speed cameras removed might change if they lost a member of their family in such a road crash?

The hon. Gentleman reminds us that nearly 10 people a day are killed on our roads. It is estimated that one third of those deaths, and many injuries, are caused by people travelling at inappropriate or excessive speeds. That is why we are determined that the safety camera partnerships should carry on their good work. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, on average there has been a reduction of 35 per cent. in the number of people killed or seriously injured at places where cameras are sited. Cameras are mainly sited in urban areas, where the number of deaths and injuries involving children is falling fastest. The hon. Member for Ashford will have to consider very carefully his policy of removing the cameras without justification, which could cause the numbers of children being killed or injured to rise again.

One of the local papers in my area recently carried a story in which the Essex safety camera partnership was is said to be

"effective … the best in the country and highly professional."

The item also quoted Rodney Bass, Essex county council's Tory highways cabinet member, as saying:

"The partnership is an extremely professional and constructive organisation."

Can my hon. Friend understand why anyone, including one of the Opposition Front-Bench team, should be calling for the partnership to be scrapped?

I have been wondering about that. There seems to be something of a split among Conservatives on this matter. Front-Bench spokesmen here say one thing, but many Conservative local authority leaders—not least Rodney Bass—tell us something else. Many have written to us, asking to relax the standards required for fitting the cameras, or saying how necessary the cameras are. Some openly disagree with Tory Members about the need for cameras in their areas. I think that this would be a good time for the hon. Member for Ashford and his colleagues to back off from their previous position, as it is clearly nonsensical. It would be good sense for everyone if we could reach some common accord on the issue of road safety.

How many people have lost their driving licences in the past 12 months after accumulating 12 points as a result of speed cameras and other measures?

A substantial number of people will have lost their licences in that time because they will have accumulated 12 points. People who get caught and are given three or six penalty points must reflect carefully on their driving and the speed at which they do it. Some people may have lost their licences, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a large number of people are alive today, and have not been seriously injured, because of the cameras that are in place.

What steps he is taking to ease congestion during road works on trunk routes. [173503]

The Highways Agency designs roadworks in a manner that minimises disruption to the road user. Where possible, planned works take place during off-peak hours. As many lanes as possible are kept open, following notification to the public.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Highways Agency is carrying out an extensive works programme at junction 15 on the M40, the Longbridge round about. That is a very severe pinch point in the road network. I am very pleased that the work is being carried out, and I lobbied hard for it for a long time. While it is being carried out, however, carriageway restrictions from time to time cause very severe congestion. I have asked the agency to look at how the work is phased, and to consider doing more at night, but it is not very keen. Will my hon. Friend discuss the Longbridge work with the agency, to see whether these temporary difficulties can be overcome?

I can tell my hon. Friend that I have done that already, in the light of the parliamentary question that he has tabled. I understand his concern, on behalf of his constituents, about the delays on that stretch of road. The work being carried out is necessary to improve traffic flow and safety. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the work on the island will be completed in the next two weeks, and that all the works in the area will be finished by September. Unfortunately, night work is not always possible on this project. That is due in part to the need to ensure the safety of the work force, as there is a hole 1 m deep at the side of the road, and to the fact that the work being undertaken is of a type that it is difficult to conduct during the night. However, my hon. Friend makes a serious point, and I shall urge the Highways Agency further to expedite the work.

The Minister is always very helpful, but will he ensure that there is more co-operation between the Highways Agency, local highway authorities and the utility companies? That would mean that, when a trunk road was subject to road works being carried out by the utility companies, the alternative route—which may not be a trunk road—would not be subject to works at the same time. To my mind, such co-operation would be sensible and would limit congestion.

My hon. Friend—[Laughter] The hon. Gentleman said such nice things about me, I thought that I would define him as my hon. Friend. He makes a good point. The Highways Agency is looking to make sure that the works that it carries out are, where possible, co-ordinated with other local works. The hon. Gentleman will know that the new centre in Birmingham and the new regional information centres that are being set up will give far better information to

motorists. Also, traffic offices are now in place around the midlands—not quite into the hon. Gentleman's area yet—and they are helping to keep the traffic flowing.

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point and it is something that we are mindful of in all the programmed work that the Highways Agency undertakes.

My hon. Friend will be aware that roadworks are caused largely by damage from heavy vehicles. I am sure that he will be familiar with the fourth power law, relating axle weight to road damage. Would it not be a sensible way forward to invest more heavily in rail freight, especially that which is capable of taking road trailers on trains? That would take traffic off the roads, reduce the level of road damage and reduce congestion.

My hon. Friend asks a very clever question. Of course we are making efforts to take freight from the roads on to rail where we can, and where possible on to water, as the Minister of State said earlier. Notwithstanding that, the road network will still be needed to carry the vast bulk of traffic. Most roadworks are due to deterioration caused by all road users over a long time. So it is not an either/or. We must spend money on our rail system for freight and passengers, but it is essential to keep the road system in good condition. I am pleased to say that the Highways Agency roads are probably some of the best maintained not just in the country but in Europe.

What assessment he has made of the reliability of information provided to passengers (a) on stations and (b) on trains about services and alterations to them. [173504]

The latest national passenger survey shows that 13 per cent. of respondents were dissatisfied with the provision of information about train times and platforms at stations and 23 per cent. dissatisfied with the provision of information during the journey.

I thank the Minister for that genuinely helpful reply. I have decided that, should the charms of this place ever be subdued in my breast, I will find another way to serve my constituents—to stand on the platforms at Droitwich Spa, Worcester Shrub Hill or Worcester Foregate Street stations and advise them what the trains are actually doing. I remind the Minister of scenes of chaos at Worcester Shrub Hill on Monday when trains were transformed while standing at platforms or eventually, of course, cancelled. When the Minister is talking to train operating companies, will he ask them to review all their procedures in relation to information? When he is talking to the Strategic Rail Authority, will he ask them to give a high priority to information systems within the funding available to them?

I can certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman will have to put on a bit more weight if he is going to become the Fat Controller of Worcestershire, but I have no doubt he could do the job if he were asked.

There is nothing more infuriating than being on a train that has stopped without explanation or indication of when it is likely to move again. The point is a very important one.

A number of train operating companies have taken this task very seriously. I pick out—

GNER.

Certainly. I think First Great Western is improving a good deal and South West Trains now has some impressive electronic kit at stations which keeps the public well informed in real time about where trains are and how long it will be before they get to the station.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a contributory factor to the problems that have just been alluded to is that when the railways were privatised eight years ago there was a complete lack of vertical integration? Britain's railways had always been vertically integrated going right back to the 1820s when construction was first started on the network. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be some move towards reintroducing vertical integration? There seems to be indications from the Government that that may be the case. If it is to take place, the most Sensible way to do it would be inside the public sector rather than our handing ever greater tranches of power to the private sector, which has already made such a hash of running Britain's railways.

I would not agree with my hon. Friend's last point. He is very young still, but I can remember what British Rail was actually like. I advise him not to look back at that bit of history through rose-tinted spectacles. It was very difficult, at times. One of the key themes of the rail review is to discover how the parts of the railway can speak to each other much more coherently, so that we can inform passengers where trains are, how long delays are likely to be and so on. Some interesting experiments in integration are taking place, including one run by South West Trains in which the Wessex train control centre is doing some valuable work.

What the civil contingencies grant for emergency planning was for Greater London, (a) in total and (b) broken down by borough, in each year since 2000. [173513]

With leave, Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to reply. I wish to pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office who—I am delighted to inform the House—is taking paternity leave because of the birth of his daughter. I am sure the whole House will wish to pass on their good wishes to him and his family.

The civil defence grant is paid as a contribution to the emergency planning function of those local authorities that have a statutory duty of civil defence, which in London is the 32 boroughs, the Corporation of London, and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The total payments to those authorities have increased from £1.75 million in 2000–01, to £2.8 million in 2004–05.

I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on our best wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and his family.

Does the Minister accept that all those authorities have told the Government that they have not been given enough? Does he accept that the money that they have been told they may get this year they still have not received? When will the negotiations, which are apparently still continuing, about the money London needs for civil defence and emergency planning be completed so that there can be certainty about the services available to this city and its citizens to protect against an undesirable and obviously unwished for terrorist attack?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an important question. I accept that local authorities say that they do not get enough money and they are within their rights to do so. However, I have checked the situation and I can tell the House that the amount of civil defence grants paid to the boroughs has increased from £1.74 million in 2000–01 to £2.8 million now. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that while local authorities play a key role in civil defence, they are not the only agency involved. Discussions are indeed continuing between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government and the representatives of London authorities.

Could my hon. Friend explain to my constituents in provincial England how the balance of funding for civil contingencies is decided and, in particular, address the concerns of some of them that most of the money is going to London, which may not adequately reflect the real balance of risk in the UK?

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. What is referred to as resilience work is important throughout the UK. The Government have provided an extra £330 million for that purpose, in addition to the loca1 authority money. That sum was earmarked before the tragedy of 9/11. Of course, the regional resilience teams have been established in the devolved authorities and throughout each English region, and they are being provided with the resources that they need to do that important job.

But surely the Minister is aware that since 2002 the grant has been frozen and that the Government's intention is to continue that freeze? How are London's councils to manage the new duties imposed on them under the Civil Contingencies Bill and how can the Government claim to be increasing London's security when they have frozen that important grant? Does that not confirm what the Metropolitan police said in the Project

Unicorn report that Government policy is "outdated"? Is not that yet another, more serious example of Labour letting London down?

It is not: the contrary is the case. The Project Unicorn report was commissioned by the Metropolitan police and there has been press speculation about it, but that simply goes to show the important point that in looking at such reports the Government are taking their responsibility extremely seriously.

"Outdated"?

The hon. Gentleman says that the policy is outdated, but I put it to him that the robust policies already being co-ordinated across all Government agencies, as well as local authorities—which is obviously important—are being put into an even more robust framework through the Civil Contingencies Bill, which the House will debate next week. We are far from not taking our responsibilities seriously and far from not providing the necessary resources; whereas his party would reduce public expenditure in that area.

Some of my constituents have told me that they are nervous about their children coming to London on school trips, especially to visit the House of Commons, owing to concerns about security on the London underground and in London generally. What reassurance can the Minister give my constituents? Does he believe that the exorbitant headlines in some national newspapers, which make people more nervous about visiting London, are winning the terrorists' battle for them?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There is always a danger that scaremongering will achieve by propaganda what terrorists want to achieve by violence. However, when researching this portfolio, I was very, very pleased by the amount of effort that is going into London. The fundamental review of London's resilience arrangements has been carried out and there is a new London-wide strategic emergency-planning regime. Enhanced command and control centres are in place and there are specific plans to deal with different types of possible terrorist attack. The Mayor—the very excellent London Mayor—has provided for 100 extra British Transport police officers. I can also inform the House that the closed-circuit television network on the London underground system is the most extensive anywhere in the world.

If he will make a statement on e-delivery of Government services. [173515]

The latest reported figures show that 68 per cent. of Government services are now available online. Departments continue to report steady progress towards the target of delivering all services electronically by 2005 and, most important, achieving high levels of use of those services. To maximize take-up

of services, the new Directgov site—www.direct.gov.uk—brings together information and services from many Whitehall Departments so that members of the public can have a single access point.

Will the Minister describe to the House the difficulties that have been experienced in rolling out and implementing the e-delivery programme in almost every Department? Can he understand the frustration of our constituents who are being driven dotty by this dotcom roll-out? Does he agree that there is no substitute for having a real person at the end of a phone line when those difficulties are experienced?

I respect the hon. Lady's point, but I do not agree. Of course, there are difficulties in implementing the strategy, but I should have thought that the House would see that it is positive and shows that Departments across the range are working closely together. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is doing—I can give the House some real examples. Last year, the system enabled 705,000 people to fill out their self-assessment tax forms and more than 60,000 people successfully obtained their passport. It provides a good service for the public and saves money for the taxpayer. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would support that.

:Will the Minister pass on to his hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office my congratulations on the delivery—if not the e-delivery—of his child?

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a point on the 2005 target for getting all services online? Does that mean January 2005, mid-year 2005 or the end of 2005?

:It means what it says. It means 2005—next year. So far, the figure is 68 per cent. and I am confident that further good news will be published shortly. Incidentally, according to a survey commissioned by the Cabinet Office from a respected City organisation, our e-environment is the second best in the world; we are second only to Denmark.

On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, if the date is not the end of 2005 I shall write and tell him.

:The Minister mentioned the number of people who have applied for passports and done their tax returns online. Will he outline what the Cabinet Office is doing to increase the availability of services for people who are not online?

:Of course that is a very important follow-up question. The capacity to get those services is all very well, but it is whether they are used that counts. Indeed, the Government have improved and refined their target in a way that the House would support. It is not enough just to achieve that target by 2005; the take-up is important, and we are providing extra money—more than £1 billion across Departments and more than £30 million to the regional agencies—to help us to achieve that aim.

:I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit unsolicited household visits to sill property repairs, maintenance and improvements; to provide penalties and powers of arrest in connection with this prohibition; to require all doorstep vendors of property repairs, maintenance and improvements to give seven days' notice in writing of an intended visit to a home; and to extend property owners' rights to cancel any contract entered into for the provision of property repairs, maintenance or improvement; and for connected purposes

The abuses that the Bill seeks to control are serious and widespread. A Trading Standards Institute survey in November 2002 revealed that, in the previous two years, nearly 10 per cent. of householders reported problems with or following cold calling for property repairs, maintenance and improvements. Translated nationwide, that would equate to 2.5 million householders being affected. An Office of Fair Trading "snapshot" survey in March 2002 found that 45 per cent. of doorstep selling complaints made to trading standards officers related to home maintenance repairs and improvements. The sums involved are not trivial. The average value of services for which people have been billed when they complain about property repairs was £2,264.

A ban on cold calling for property repairs and maintenance would be popular. The Trading Standards Institute report that I mentioned found that nearly 96 per cent. of householders do not want doorstep sellers cold calling. It is not just the amount of money involved or the number of people affected that make the Bill so necessary. Cold calling for property repairs is not just a way for cowboy builders to drum up trade; it has also become a preferred cover for criminals targeting vulnerable, frail and elderly people.

The case of a Mr. D reported in a West Sussex trading standards and Help the Aged inquiry is sadly typical. He is aged 87 and was approached at home by a group of men to whom he ultimately gave £9,200. The men originally said that his front drive needed doing. They started clearing the drive and then said that the back needed doing. They then said that the job was bigger than they thought and they wanted more money. This was refused after the intervention of Mr. D's friend, but it was only through the subsequent involvement of trading standards and Help the Aged that these predators were finally warned off.

Evidence is strong of a link between this sort of activity and distraction burglary, and there is also disturbing evidence of repeat targeting of the most vulnerable victims to organised criminal gangs. The comprehensive April 2003 Trading Standards Institute report argues for a bin and quotes one offender:

"Another team may have been and done work there and found them to be a soft touch.. They might be moving on or feel it's risky to go back and do it again. They will sell us the house for a cut of our take, or we might give them a soft touch of our own in exchange."

Recently, these vile, Artful Dodger-style modes of criminality have rightly attracted significant attention in the House. My hon Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) has raised the issue in two Adjournment debates, and has championed trading standards initiatives to tackle the problem. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) told us in an Adjournment debate that his own father had been a victim, and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) highlighted similar abuses in his recent Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill. I am grateful to all of them for their support.

Last week, hon. Members may have seen coverage of the report by the Office of Fair Trading on doorstep selling, which was produced in response to the super-complaint from Citizens Advice. It is an important examination of that undesirable activity and the techniques involved, including the way in which those people worm their way into the confidence of elderly and often housebound people. It offered constructive suggestions, which Ministers will want to consider closely, including a welcome proposal for consultation on a ban on work or payment within seven days. The OFT is looking at the case for banning cold calling for property repairs and maintenance and has suggested that

"the DTI should consult on the option of such a ban and on specific issues and alternatives involved".

In view of the mounting evidence of abuse, I would strongly urge Ministers to go further and move swiftly to consult directly on legislation to implement such a ban.

A ban on such cold calling has already been discussed, and has the strong support of Help the Aged, for whose assistance with the Bill I am indebted. Jan Williams of the organisation wrote:

"Too often, when consumers are confronted on the doorstep, they end up paying high prices for work…not needed in the first place…and are left feeling embarrassed, their confidence is damaged, and they no longer feel able to live independently. Banning doorstep trading for property repairs would mean rogue traders were unable to take advantage of older people."

A ban also has the support of the Trading Standards Institute, whose team, including Brian Steele, the Leeds police co-ordinator of its distraction burglary project, and Stuart Pudney, head of trading standards for North Yorkshire, have worked tirelessly to gather evidence. Indeed, Ron Gainsford, chief executive of the Trading Standards Institute, said:

"The Institute has been working hard for over a year to gain support for this initiative…Older and vulnerable adults are often persuaded to part with thousands of pounds for shoddy or unnecessary work, and in some cases, losing their entire life savings."

Victim Support, Neighbourhood Watch and Sense, the charity for people with deaf-blindness and associated disabilities, support a ban. Importantly, it has the backing of the Federation of Master Builders, which says:

"Vulnerable consumers should be protected from being pressurized into purchasing repairs on their doorstep, often at grossly inflated prices and with shoddy workmanship".

A ban has the support of Detective Sergeant David Stone of Operation Liberal, a consortium of 11 police forces dealing with distraction burglary. I am delighted that Assistant Chief Constable Graham Gerard, the senior police representative on the Home Office distraction burglary taskforce, has confirmed that the police

"are often called to investigate cases where work is either carried out to inferior standards or payment is obtained and no work is undertaken. There are also cases where grossly inflated costs are claimed by the property repairers and intimidation is used to make the householder pay. Legislation that bans cold calling will greatly reduce the opportunities for rogue traders."

I do not wish to damn everyone who promotes goods door to door or companies that have demonstrated their probity and professionalism over many years. My proposal would impose nothing more than a mild inconvenience on them, but only the absolute clarity of a ban, backed up with tough enforcement powers, will protect elderly and vulnerable people from the vultures who prey on them.

The scale of some abuses and the harm done is shocking. I shall conclude with the story of Mr. H, whose daughter contacted trading standards after discovering that her father had been systematically targeted by rogue traders for about four years. An unknown trader carried out some work for Mr. H, then claimed that his garage needed underpinning, demanding over £10,000 to carry out the work. It then appeared that a trader had been returning almost fortnightly to carry out building work and obtain money. No paperwork, no receipts and no invoices had ever been issued. Mr. H had remortgaged his home in order to pay the trader a sum of approximately £80,000.

Help the Aged made it clear to me when we discussed options for action in this area that without a complete ban on cold calling for property repairs, backed with powers of arrest, those criminal elements would continue to be able to target vulnerable older people. That generation, many of whom in the second world war helped save our country and the values we hold dear, deserve better than that. I hope the House will give leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gordon Marsden, Mr. Paul Truswell, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Sandra Gidley, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mrs. Joan Humble, Lawrie Quinn, Ann Clwyd, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Mike Hancock and Mr. David Drew.

:I beg to move,

That the Order of 2nd March 2004 (Pensions Bill (Programme)) as amended by the Order of 19th April 2004 be amended by the substitution for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the following—

'4. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table. In that column, any reference to new Clauses or Amendments relating to Part 1, 3, 4 or 5 does not include new Clauses or Amendments relating to any arrangements for financial assistance for members where pension schemes are wound up.

5. The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.

TABLE
Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
New Clauses standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown, other than new Clauses relating to Part 2 or to any other arrangements for financial assistance for members where pension schemes are wound up; remaining new Clauses and Amendments relating to Part 1; remaining new Clauses and Amendments relating to Part 3; remaining new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 4; remaining new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 5	At the moment of interruption on the first allotted day.
New Clauses and Amendments relating to any arrangements otherwise than through the Pension protection Fund for financial assistance for members where pension schemes are wound up or relating to the categoreis of scheme in relation to which the Pension Protection Fund applies	Two hours before the moment of interruption on the second allotted day.
New Clauses and Amendments relating to Part 2; remaining new Clauses and Amendments relating to Part 6; remaining new Clauses and Amendments relating to. Part 7; remaining new Clauses; Amendments relating to Schedules; new Schedules	Three hours before the moment of interruption on the third allotted day.

5A. In the Table "allotted day" means a day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

5B. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the third allotted day.'.

The Pensions Bill is a long and technically complex piece of legislation. Following considerable scrutiny during 22 sittings—all enjoyable, I might add—in Standing Committee B, we are now returning to the House for consideration and Third Reading. Not only is the Bill large; it is also very important legislation, and hon. Members deserve time to discuss the amendments tabled at this stage, without debate being unduly restricted. We have a very full agenda to deal with on Report, and for this reason the Government propose to set aside a greater length of time than originally planned for the consideration and Third Reading of the Bill.

Members of the Standing Committee will recognise some of the amendments before us over the next few days, but the Government are tabling further new clauses to reflect changes brought about by both the Finance Bill and the European directive on occupational pensions. We will be hearing further about those subjects later today.

The programme motion before us means that we also intend to discuss today all the Government new clauses. We also intend to take today any amendments or Opposition new clauses that relate to the regulator, scheme-specific funding, retirement planning and part 5 of the Bill, which relates to personal and occupational pension schemes. This will give us a full programme of deliberation today.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

:Perhaps I can anticipate my right hon. Friend's question.

The exception to the new clauses is that Government new clause 34—this might have been my right hon. Friend's question—

:The English is poor.

:Yes, the English is poor. The exception is that Government new clause 34 will be taken tomorrow, together with amendments to it. That will be followed by new clauses and amendments that relate to the pension protection fund. The Government are fully aware that many hon. Members will want to join in the discussion of this new clause and the remaining business on the PPF. For this reason we believe it is important to set aside a reasonable amount of time for consideration of the subject and so have added a further day's debate for this important new measure. I trust that hon. Members in all parts of the House will welcome the opportuniy to support the Government's new proposals in this crucial area. We will conclude our business and any remaining amendments on Thursday, before moving to Third Reading on Thursday afternoon.

Throughout our deliberations in Standing Committee we have had constructive debate on all the issues, and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for their co-operation—I hope that I can still say that in three days' time. They sought assurances that the timetable would allow sufficient time to discuss new clauses and amendments on Report, and I hope they agree that the Government have paid heed to their requests by providing the extra time.

I do not want to use up valuable time by debating this motion for longer than is necessary, because it seems more sensible and productive to spend our time discussing the real issues of concern to the House.

The Minister is right: we should not allow the programme motion to delay us for too and, but I shall make some quick comments on what he just said and the process by which the Bill has been considered in the House. I did not serve in Committee, and I pay tribute to the members of the Committee from both sides of the House who took on that onerous obligation.

When we heard that we would get three days on Report, we were pleasantly surprised because we thought that that would give us time to consider the Bill properly. We did not expect the Government to concede three days with quite such alacrity. At first, I thought that it was because the Minister is a reasonable man, but I now see that it is because we are considering 28 Government new clauses and 128 Government amendments. Even with three days, we cannot be confident that it will be possible properly to scrutinise 28 Government new clauses and 128 Government amendments.

This debate is the latest example of how the Government have presented the Bill. Hundreds of Government amendments and 36 Government new clauses were introduced in Committee, where the Minister, who is smiling in a slight guilty way, said:

"I had better not describe it"—

the Bill—

"as a work in progress".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 March 2004; c. 34.]

The Bill is clearly work in progress, and it has been subject to continuous amendment as it has made its way through this House.

The Green Paper was produced in December 2002 and the White Paper came out in June 2003, but nearly one year later, amendments are being tabled with virtually no time for scrutiny, which suggests that the Government lack a clear and rigorous strategy to tackle the pensions crisis. The Minister is like a schoolboy who is in a perpetual crisis about getting his homework in on time.

It is good to see the Minister in the House. We thought that he might be in Blackpool speaking to the National Pensioners Convention, where my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is now. Cynics might suggest that one reason why the Bill is on Report today is to give the Minister a good reason not to go to Blackpool to confront the pensioners, who might have told him what they think of the Government's record on pensions.

:Order. We are going far too wide of the programme motion.

I apologise if I am ranging more widely than I should. Does the Minister want to intervene?

Order. The Minister does not want to intervene because he would be out if order, and the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

:I shall restrict myself to saying that I am pleased to see the Minister in the House today, despite the possible alternative engagements.

:Will the hon. Gentleman apologise when he learns that a Minister is attending today's National Pensioners Convention conference?

:I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), is attending the conference, but she is not responsible for pensions. The Minister should be at the National Pensioners Convention conference.

:Order. We must get on to the programme motion.

:We will scrutinise the Bill as best we can, but it is difficult for the Commons to perform that role when so many Government new clauses and amendments are produced at such short notice. Outside bodies, which have considerable expertise to offer this House and which may be directly affected by the provisions, also find it difficult to put forward their comments in those circumstances. Perhaps the other place will take the opportunity to correct the mistakes that slip through here because we do not have sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly.

:Who could object to a three-day debate on Report, which, on the face of it, offers ample scope for debate?

I thank the Department for Work and Pensions because, along with all the new clauses that we must cover in the next three days, we have been given a briefing, which reached my pigeonhole this morning—obviously, I have read all of it. Some of the briefing relates to new clauses that we will consider in a matter of minutes, which makes a mockery of the suggestion that we are scrutinising this important Bill. We are enormously grateful for the briefing, which we will speed-read and spew back out as best we can.

Instead of moving this programme motion, the Government should have recommitted the Bill to Standing Committee, especially given the substantial new clause 34. New clause 34 arrived on our fax machines on Friday lunchtime, and we have had no time to scrutinise it in detail. As the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) rightly says, a lot of the material is technical. It took a long time for people to realise some of the major flaws introduced by the Pensions Act 1995, and I fear that the Bill will introduce many more unforeseen consequences, which just a few more days of mature reflection and detailed scrutiny in Committee would enable us to prevent.

Although the DWP has been helpful by advising us of what was coming, the Bill is not finished—some Government new clauses have not even been written yet. If we want a good Pensions Bill, we need proper scrutiny. Three days on the Floor of the House is not adequate when we are considering Government amendments on which the ink is still wet. The Bill should return to Standing Committee, and we do not believe that the programme motion provides for proper scrutiny.

:Although we do not want to be drawn on this matter, on occasions in the distant past Ministers have been reprimanded for not coming to this House of Commons. This is the first occasion on which I have been challenged for being in the House of Commons rather than by the seaside in Blackpool. I prefer being here to being in Blackpool, because the Pensions Bill is on Report, and my duty as Minister for Pensions is to the House of Commons.

:The objection is that the Pensions Bill is being taken on the same day as the National Pensioners Convention conference in Blackpool.

Feebler and feebler. The shadow Minister of State, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), must judge where his priority lies today, and I think that his duty is to this House of Commons.

On the serious issues, we said many times in Committee that the Bill is technical. I have made the point that we have had to amend it, and I apologise for that because I realise that it inconveniences those who wish to scrutinise it. We have always done our best to introduce information at appropriate times, but I have explained in Committee and to the whole House that we were under pressure to introduce the Bill. All other things being equal, we would have taken a year or two to get the Bill absolutely right, with all the semi-colons in the right places, perhaps by introducing a draft Bill. All other things are not equal, however, and tremendous pressure exists to bring security to those people in private companies who have final salary pension schemes and who risk losing all or a large proportion of their pensions, if their company becomes insolvent. Although people are impatient because we cannot introduce such security until April next year, they would be very impatient if we were not to introduce it for another year or two. Therefore, although I apologise as a matter of courtesy, I do not apologise for the fact that the Government are introducing the Bill, even if it means that we have to amend it more heavily and more often than would normally be the case.

:As I am sure the Minister understands, some people cannot retire at the moment such is their uncertainty about their pensionability. It is an issue of life and death for some people—that is why we have to introduce the Bill, get it right and do it quickly.

:Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the programme motion.

:Let me sum up by saying that notwithstanding the Bill's complexity, we think that three days is a very adequate amount of time for the House to consider it on Report and Third Reading.