If he will make a statement on the Translink guided busway proposed between Dunstable and Luton. [179609]

Translink was given provisional approval for funding of up to £78.39 million in the 2004–05 local transport settlement, subject to statutory powers and planning approval being obtained. The scheme is now the subject of an application to the Secretary of State for approval under the Transport and Works Act 1992. It would not be appropriate therefore for me to comment on its merits, as doing so could prejudice our consideration of the application.

Yet again, the wishes of the people of south Bedfordshire, as expressed in every survey of public opinion undertaken, and the wishes of all their county and district councillors, irrespective of party, are being ignored. They resent having an unwanted, expensive and bad value for money scheme imposed on them. Will the Minister please, even at this late stage, agree to put on hold the plans for Translink until a full and proper evaluation is undertaken into an alternative light rail scheme with feeder bus services, which would save the Government about £70 million and win them the undying affection of the people of south Bedfordshire?

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not able to put a hold on a process that has started to unfold under the Transport and Works Act 1992, but I can assure him that heavy rail and light rail alternatives to Translink were thoroughly assessed by the Department. Patronage for such projects was shown to be insufficient, and the alternatives did not offer value for money, despite some of the projects included. If he is serious about heavy rail or light rail alternatives, he might have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and explain to him what public expenditure means.

My constituency could be served by Translink, but, unfortunately, only really effectively if it is a guided busway because bus services offer flexibility. However, does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole scheme could be expanded to cover much longer distances and a much wider area, especially when housing between Luton and Milton Keynes is developed in future years? Will he continue his strong support for the Translink busway scheme, which we strongly support in Luton?

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. All I can say at this stage is that we will wait and see how the process under the Transport and Works Act develops for the Translink project, but I am sure that the Department will entertain any subsequent well-founded applications and treat them in the appropriate manner.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that better facilities for the disabled are provided on the (a) rail network and (b) underground systems. [179610]

Since 1999, we have required all new trains to be fully accessible. We have worked with industry and issued guidance on improving access to stations, as part of the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In addition, London Underground has a key network strategy to make more of its key stations accessible.

My hon. Friend will know that very few stations on the new underground map are marked as having disabled access. He will also know that travelling on the underground is a nightmare for many people who have disabilities. Even if they know that they can go to a station where they can get to the platform, they do not necessarily know whether the train will be at the right level to get on. Very often, they do not know what will await them at the other end of their journey. That is not acceptable for disabled people in 2004. When will the Government do more to ensure that we really meet the requirements of disabled people?

I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will know that 40 underground stations are currently accessible without stairs or escalators. Given the peculiar difficulties associated with the age and infrastructure of much of London's underground, Transport for London has developed a key network strategy to make about 100 stations accessible to disabled people. Stations outside that key network will be connected to it by fully accessible bus services. That is all fine and proper, but greater awareness and publicity is still needed when that network is in place to allow people to know not just where they can start their journeys, but where they can finish them with the same accessibility, as my hon. Friend suggests.

The Minister may know that the Minister of State wrote to me on exactly this issue last month. I am grateful to him for his letter, which was constructive. Does the Minister agree that the Department's current position is that there will be some money, sometime—we do not know how much and we do not know when—to make railway stations disabled friendly? Will he give the House some idea whether there is any target for improving railway stations in that respect in the next few years and, if so, when that is likely to be delivered? What is the earliest possible date on which a very busy station, such as Tunbridge Wells in my constituency, can be made disabled friendly?

I shall look into the specifics of Tunbridge Wells in more detail and get back to the hon. Gentleman. He will know, perhaps far more than others given his background in finance, that I am unlikely to make any commitment on a specific budget line for the overall rail budget when we are some weeks away from the spending review. However, I will write to him in the fullness of time specifically about disability access to stations.

Discussion about accessibility for people with disabilities is too often restricted to those with the more obvious disabilities that require wheelchair usage. Is the Minister content with the progress made in recent years on enabling those with hearing or sight difficulties to use station services more effectively? Does he agree that progress could be made on that as well?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Accessibility is not simply about wheelchair access, although we do need greater progress in that regard. There have been significant improvements throughout the rail network and the bus and tube network in London and elsewhere on the availability of real-time passenger information and the greater availability of assorted tactile, oral and other forms of information for those passengers with a degree of disability that is, perhaps, more hidden than other disabilities. The point that the issue is not simply about wheelchair use is strong and I take it on board.

Can the Minister tell us how many mainline stations have tactile facilities to allow those who are blind to purchase tickets? Such facilities have been in operation in stations in the far east for years. Surely, as we are modernising, we should be dealing with that. Does he also agree that there is a tendency to forget that people with disabilities have a right to move about freely?

I certainly accept the second point. The whole purpose of accessibility, in its broadest dimension, in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, is about people's right to move around as freely as possible. I do not know the formal answer to how many mainline stations have that tactile dimension to ticket purchasing, but in researching further the wonder that is Tunbridge Wells station and disabled access to it, I shall also write to the hon. Gentleman in that regard, with a specific answer.

What investment his Department will be making in the refurbishment of Blackpool tramway. [179611]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand, there are many pressures on the transport programme and there are several major light rail schemes currently under consideration. We will announce a decision on Blackpool as soon as we can.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he confirm that all the Members of Parliament who represent the Fylde coast and who have an interest are in the Chamber? Will he also confirm that sustaining an existing transport system, like the Blackpool tramway, is compatible with Government policy? Does he recognise the importance of the project to the regeneration of Black pool and the effect that it will have on the Fylde coast? This project, as it exists, should not be the subject of a determination using an optimism index. The system works and needs to be sustained. Can we have the Minister's support?

The right hon. Gentleman is well known for his optimism. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friends who have campaigned for the project for a long time. I must remind him. however, that a great deal of investment has gone into light rail. Indeed, the number of passengers carried on light rail has increased by 86 per cent. since 1996–97. We will certainly consider all the light rail schemes that have been proposed, including Blackpool. I hope that we can make an announcement on Blackpool in the short term rather than the long term.

My hon. Friend will be well aware from his previous incarnation in the tourism game that the Blackpool tram system is very well used and patronised, not just by tourists, but also by residents. Picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), will my hon. Friend convey to his officials and those charged with making a final deliberation that, whether or not an optimism index is reasonable, it is not necessarily reasonable to apply the same optimism index to a blue-sky scheme as it is to one that is tried and tested, which has no nasty surprises in terms of rerouting utilities and things of that nature?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the nature of the scheme. It is long established. We know its strengths and limitations. I shall certainly pass on his observations to officials in my Department.

To reinforce the point again about the importance of the Blackpool tramway, is my hon. Friend aware that it goes through Cleveleys all the way up to Fleetwood and is an existing service, used not just by tourists, but by local residents' My constituents in Fleetwood use the tramway to travel down into Blackpool to work and to get back home again. Equally, tourists in Blackpool use it to go up to Fleetwood to enjoy the facilities there. It is vital that the investment is put in to ensure that the tramway, which has been in existence for 100 years, continues for another 100 years.

I commend my hon. Friend on the case that she has made for the Blackpool tramway and on reminding the House that it is a working tramway that carries people to and from work in the centre of Blackpool. I can only repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)—we are well aware of the importance of the scheme, but we must consider it in the context of a number of other proposed schemes, all of which are regarded as important to their neighbourhoods.

If he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for the British Transport police. [179612]

The British Transport police are funded primarily by the rail industry, and this year its budget of £162 million includes funding for 100 extra officers on the London underground.

Is it not fundamentally unsound that a key part of the British police service that not only enforces law and order on trains and at stations but conducts sophisticated anti-terrorist operations on the underground and at mainline stations should be dependent on grudging and capricious contributions from the private rail companies? Can the Minister not insist that those companies fund the British Transport police at the same level as the rest of the police force?

I do not think that it is wrong that the railway industry funds the British Transport police. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as the Government fund quite a lot of the railway, public money is going to the transport police one way or another. We have just set up a new police authority that will have the job of looking at the budget needed by the British Transport police, especially in light of the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate to be published tomorrow. It shows that certain aspects of the force need to be looked at, and it has the power to get money from the industry to the police. However, the budget has been increased by about £25 million, and the Government have funded £2 million-worth of expenditure on the anti-terrorism measures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Money is therefore going into the force, and force numbers have been increased.

The Secretary of State will nevertheless be aware that the increase in force numbers was needed because on the London underground and the overground trains British Transport police are being called on to do more to contribute to security. Will he insist that the new police authority tells the train companies that they must pay up and look cheerful, as they need those dedicated forces and had better get on and find the cash?

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said.

Smile then.

How can one smile when talking about railway finances? Believe me, it is simply not possible. Every day, I go to the office and see a black cloud hanging above my desk, but I shall try to be cheerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), however, is absolutely right—the British Transport police do a first-class job, and we are asking them to do more. In the current climate, we are likely to ask them to increase the amount of activity that they undertake, which is why it is important that the organisation is properly equipped and funded. I believe that that can and will be done, and we are looking at it in the context of the railway review.

Is the problem not whether the Secretary of State is cheerful but that he is complacent? There is more violent crime, fewer detections and, notwithstanding his remarks about increased numbers of transport police on the underground, there will be a reduction of 150 transport police on the overground as a result of the £40 million deficit in the British Transport police pension fund, which only last year Ministers assured us was in surplus. The running costs for the new police authority are six times higher than forecast, so why do the Government not apologise for that manifest failure?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about police numbers—they will not be reduced. As for crime, yes, it has increased in some respects, but on the other hand theft on the London underground and criminal damage to railway carriages has been reduced. Detection rates for robbery have gone up. I am certainly not going to say to the House that there are not still problems and more that needs to be done, but the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to claim that police numbers are to decrease. They are not. They will remain exactly as they are at present. As I said earlier, there will be 100 extra officers for the London underground.

What plans he has to increase the number of rail freight interchange facilities. [179613]

The provision of rail freight interchanges is primarily a matter for the private sector rail freight industry and commercial property developers. The Strategic Rail Authority published its strategic rail freight interchange policy in March this year. The document aims to facilitate the development of a network of commercially viable rail freight interchanges by providing guidance for planning authorities and developers.

My constituency lies midway between the M1 and the M6 and the ports of Hull and Liverpool. A huge industrial development is to take place at junction 21, called the Kingsway industrial development. A tremendous number of heavy goods vehicles run through and around that part of the north-west. Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the points that I have raised and give some guidance to the private sector developers who are developing freight terminals, when the Government come to designate and plan for the future?

I am prepared to talk to anyone who is interested in such developments, because the country needs them. I remind my hon. Friend that the railway is privatised and those developments are driven by the market, as they should be. I am sure that he has made a compelling case to the developers for the kind of facility that he mentions. We are keen to get as much freight as possible off the road and on to the railways.

The Minister is aware that on average, 80 per cent. less carbon dioxide is emitted by one tonne of freight that travels by rail, rather than by road. Is he also aware that the logistics industry believes that rail freight should be a viable economic alternative to road haulage, but that will depend on the development of rail freight interchanges or rail freight villages? Given that such developments are both environmentally and economically desirable, what can the Government do to help the planning process, particularly in view of the failure of that for the west London freight village?

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been conducting a major review of planning law and practice. In conjunction with the Strategic Rail Authority we are looking hard at how it might be possible to push projects forward. The hon. Gentleman knows that many considerations have to be taken into account. Those often entail environmentally sensitive areas, the prospect of noise for local residents and so on. That is always difficult: everyone is in favour of moving freight on to the railways for environmental reasons, but no one wants freight terminals at the bottom of their garden.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) referred to the east and west ports, Hull and Liverpool. One of the problems is the lack of a high-speed rail link between the east and the west. We have the links between north and south. Has my hon. Friend the Minister given any thought to the possibility of developing a high-speed rail link from the east ports to the west ports, which would be of tremendous value to those moving freight across from the west coast to the east coast and into Europe?

We are very much aware of the issue, but the huge sums that are currently being spent to upgrade the west coast main line will enormously increase the capacity for freight trains on that line. Also, we are doing a great deal of work to link the north—west via the west coast main line from the eastern ports, such as Felixstowe, which are major container ports. We will bring that traffic down, including 9 ft 6 in high boxes, which are essential, via the north London line, across on to the west coast main line and up to the north-west. There is a great deal of work going on, as we are anxious to achieve that. We are keen to see much faster transit of freight by rail from the east coast to the west coast.

Is the Minister aware of a project recently considered in Solihull to link the Land Rover plant to the west coast main line? Surely, that would be compatible with the Government's policy of road on to rail. Would he care to give an indication that, if the Ford Motor Company were to revive that plan to connect the Land Rover plant to the west coast main line, the Government would approve and indicate their approval?

I have not seen any sign of that project yet, but we will certainly take a look at it. Of course, when Ford built its Bridgend plant many years ago, it paid part of the costs of rail connection on to the great western main line, which has proved very successful in moving products out of that plant. We would certainly be interested in the project, and we are very interested in what part the private sector can play in helping to fund such projects.

What steps are being taken to reduce costs within the railway industry. [179614]

We return to the cheery subject of railway costs.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know that considerable costs have been incurred in the some what failed TCS or train control system on the west coast main line. Can he tell me whether the masts erected for the TCS system on the west coast main line are operational now for the purposes that we were led to believe they would fulfil? If they are not operational, when will they be?

The answer is that the masts are being tested at the moment. I shall certainly let the hon. Lady know when they come into operation.

Given the immense costs associated with infrastructure investment on the railway and the skill shortages across the industry, can the Secretary of State tell us what recent discussions his Department has had with Network Rail in trying to fill those voids of skill shortages in terms of engineers and the people who will be involved in rebuilding the railway?

We have had discussions with Network Rail about that issue. It is one of the reasons why costs have gone up. After many years of under-investment, considerable sums are now being spent not only on the west coast main line, but on upgrading the power supply for trains south of the River Thames. A whole lot of other work is also being carried out, which has an effect on labour costs. Network Rail is looking to see what it can do to improve the situation. Taking maintenance back in house has saved a substantial sum. Indeed, Network Rail is spending a lot less than it thought it would have to spend to get the same amount of work, simply because of the efficiency that it is driving through, having taken over from Railtrack what was a pretty shambolic situation.

Is anybody currently reviewing the optimal size of the network and thinking about closures of any portions of it? If so, will those involved consider conversion to busways or dedicated freight lorryways, rather than wasting those routes?

When I announced the review, I said that one of the things that we should be doing as a matter of course was keeping under review the new markets that were emerging for the railway, as well as the railway services that were not being so well used. The House will recall that, in January last year, when the SRA announced the removal of about 180 Virgin Cross Country services, many people were concerned. In fact, many of those services were not carrying many passengers. As a result of having taken them out, the reliability of Virgin Cross Country in respect of the remaining trains has improved. because the lines are less congested.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that private investment is one way to reduce costs in the rail industry. Some of us were looking forward to the Central Railway project, which would have provided significant economic benefits to the north of England, not least to Tinsley in my constituency, where a major rail freight terminal was planned. Members of Parliament and local authorities in Manchester, Yorkshire and the east midlands support the scheme, and the company says that it cannot envisage a situation in which the project would require public funds. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the project can go ahead, bearing in mind that the Government say that they cannot support the proposed private Bill?

Unfortunately, I cannot see a way forward for that project, which is a point that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear earlier in the year. I favour bringing private money into the railways—the Government spend about £77 million a week on the railways, and a similar amount comes in from the private sector—but I was not satisfied that sufficient private money was available to pay for the Central Railway project. I feared that, when the project was half built, the promoters would come to us and say, "We are awfully sorry, can you take it over?" On a number of occasions, I asked the promoters to guarantee that that would not happen, and they could not do so, which is why the Government made it clear that they could not make such a substantial commitment. I am keen to obtain private sector money, but if such private sector projects are to go ahead, we must be sure that they can be delivered.

In a spirit of helpfulness, which is appropriate at this early stage of my relationship with the Secretary of State, I shall suggest how to dispel the black cloud that hangs in his office on the issue of railway finance. Will he confirm that the dual regulatory system imposed by the Labour Government has substantially increased the costs carried by the rail industry? Does he agree that the burden that those costs place on passengers and taxpayers could be cut at once if the Government admitted their mistakes and rationalised the operations of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator?

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman wants to have a close and cordial relationship. In that spirit, I point out to him that on 19 January this year, I announced a review of the railway industry, and that review is examining the structures that he complains about. The SRA does not add greatly to the cost of the railways, but the structure set up under privatisation, which includes numerous interfaces between private companies, is undoubtedly costly. We set up the review to control costs and to obtain a better organisation to run the railways. If the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on that point, our relationship will be fruitful, cordial and perhaps even lasting—I look forward to seeing him on the Opposition Front Bench for many years to come.

What plans he has to change the number of speed cameras. [179615]

How many speed safety cameras have been removed in the past month because they did not comply with the siting criteria. [179620]

Decisions about increasing or decreasing the numbers of speed safety cameras are made locally by the safety camera partnerships, taking account of the handbook of rules and guidelines issued by my Department. At the beginning of the year, safety camera partnerships confirmed that all their camera sites fully met the deployment criteria. However, approximately 5 per cent. of cameras, although meeting the criteria for placement, may not reduce accidents, and we have asked local authorities and the police to examine other measures to reduce casualties.

The Department for Transport's recent survey into speed camera sites shows welcome reductions in speeding and in the number of people who are killed and injured, including a 43 per cent. reduction in the Thames valley area. Will the Minister accept that he should brave the wrath of the selfish 20 per cent. of drivers who think it more important to avoid fines than to keep people safe on the roads? Will he examine those roads where there are still useful prospects for speed cameras, including, for example, the B4009 in my constituency, where the two fatal accidents in the past two years might well have been avoided if a speed camera had been in use?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on speed cameras, the presence of which has meant a substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured. One would hope to hear whether the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has changed his view on the policy. I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if he can.

Following the 95 per cent. success rate to which the Under-Secretary referred, I draw his attention to a true story that was published in the Colchester Evening Gazette last week, which stated:

"The number of people killed or seriously injured at sites where safety cameras are in use in north Essex has dramatically fallen."

I have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Ashford in the House or after the correspondence on 29 January, when I wrote to him to ask whether he could tell us the location of the 4,000 sites at which cameras had been installed unnecessarily. When we opened the post this morning, there was still no response.

I am sure that my hon Friend the Under-Secretary knows that the press sometimes reports examples of speed cameras being vandalised, presumably by irate drivers. Are there statistics for the number of cameras that have been vandalised in the past couple of years? What is the Department doing to ensure that such vandalism is kept to a minimum?

Those who vandalise cameras put people's lives at risk They must answer a question: if a camera is vandalised and out of operation for a period of time, how many people have consequently been killed or injured? I have not got to hand the figures for the number of cameras that have been vandalised but it has happened to only a few and a minority of people are responsible. I hope that Conservative Members would not support such people—a minority who are determined to continue speeding and put people's lives at risk. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of motorists would reject that idea and such action.

On the assumption that speed cameras are designed to save lives in all our communities, is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary aware of the perception that there is a far higher proportion of drivers who speed in more affluent than in less affluent areas? Will he assure hon. Members that the cameras are located for genuine reasons, not by postcode?

The decisions about where to place the cameras are made locally by local authorities and the police. In the past three years, child casualties have fallen rapidly. In particular, the casualty rate among child pedestrians, who are mainly in the built-up areas of our cities, has fallen by approximately 33 per cent. That must be welcome and is another statistic on which Conservative Members should reflect. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashford will be successful in catching your eye so that he can tell us his current policy on the matter.

Although there is clearly an important role for speed cameras, which anyone of sense and reason would accept, does the Under-Secretary agree that the general public must be persuaded that the siting of the cameras is appropriate? Does he accept that some limitation might be placed on the power of cars that are available to young people to prevent over-powered cars from being in the hands of young, irresponsible drivers?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that his own Front-Bench colleagues have not shown sense and reason on this matter, but I shall leave the House to reflect on that. It is important that the cameras are placed where there have been high numbers of casualties. The Department set out those rules very clearly, and the response from the partnerships throughout the country was that the sites met those criteria. In all those areas, the vast majority of cameras are now reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the road.

Did my hon. Friend see the recent case of the pensioner who was prosecuted for taking his hands off the steering wheel to make a gesture at a speed camera? May I encourage my hon. Friend to make exactly the same gesture at all those who call on him to reduce the number of speed cameras, and who put the rights of people who break the law before the saving of lives?

As I understand the case, the person who was prosecuted had both hands off the steering wheel, which I would not commend to anyone. In the light of the independent report on safety cameras, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Ashford on this issue. After six months of asking him to withdraw his allegation about the 4,000 cameras, I hope that he will now take back what he said then and put safety ahead of opportunism.

I am delighted that, this morning, on his own admission, the Minister has withdrawn the absurd claim that he made when he wrote to me in January, that 100 per cent. of the cameras were in the right place. Even he has now admitted that only 95 per cent. are in the right place. He is, however, missing a serious point made in the report that the Government produced last week, which is that there are 384 camera sites at which the number of serious or fatal accidents has increased since the camera went in. If the Minister wants to take the credit for a reduction in accidents at the places where that has happened, he must also take responsibility for the increase in accidents at those 384 sites. Has he told the camera partnerships to take down the cameras that are making our roads more dangerous, and if not, why not?

The hon. Gentleman is now wriggling. What I asserted back in January was that we had been told by the partnerships—many of which are led by Conservative authorities—that all the cameras were in places that met the Department's criteria. The independent report that we commissioned and published has shown that about 5 per cent. of the cameras—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would be quiet for a moment, he would be able to hear what I am saying. The report has shown that, although the cameras are in the right place and meet the criteria, 5 per cent. of them are not having the effect that we want them to achieve. But does that not mean that 95 per cent. of them are having the effect that we want? The hon. Gentleman should now go back and reconsider his policy of taking cameras away because they are ineffective. It seems that the only person on whom that policy has been imposed is the former shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

What assessment he has made of the Strategic Rail Authority's proposed Integrated Kent Rail Franchise. [179616]

The Strategic Rail Authority's consultation on service patterns for the Integrated Kent Rail Franchise ended on 23 April. It is assessing responses before finalising the specification of services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the last time that the Kent rail timetable was reviewed was in 1963? What concerns me is that that coincides with another event of 1963, namely the great train robbery. We in Medway are concerned that the SRA will propose a reduction in commuter services. While we welcome the channel tunnel rail link domestic services stopping in the Medway towns, we have always argued that this should involve additional rail services, particularly given the 5 per cent. growth in the Thames gateway area. Will the Minister confirm that we need additional rail services rather than a reduction in peak commuter services into London, given the predicted growth?

May I remind my hon. Friend that railways in this country are not a free good? They cost a lot of money. We have built the first new railway for a hundred years, through Kent, which will benefit enormously the people of Kent, as it will benefit the rest of the country. His question about those services being entirely additional to those already existing raises a number of issues. Some of the domestic services will have to have pathways cleared in the existing timetable if they are to run and if people are to get into the centre of London more quickly—

Is that a no?

I hear the call from the Tories that they do not want any of this. That is fine. If they are reflecting what their constituents feel, and they do not want channel tunnel rail link domestic services into the centre of London, they should be honest enough to come out and say so. We will try to make sure that there is the maximum capacity in terms of passengers being able to access central London, both on the existing network and on the new network.

Under the Strategic Rail Authority's proposals, villages such as Hollingbourne, Harrietsham and Lenham in my constituency stand to lose all their rail services in the middle of the day and at weekends. Given that those are exactly the same villages that were decimated by the channel tunnel rail link workings in the mid-1990s, will the Minister undertake today to honour the commitments given at that time to ensure that rail services are improved?

I understand that the SRA has had 4,200 responses to its consultation. It is going through those responses, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman responded on behalf of his constituents. I assume that he would agree that the proper way forward is for the SRA to make the judgment as to how best to ensure that existing capacity is maintained and improved wherever possible, and that people can get from Kent into London more quickly. Those people's jobs depend on it, and many of the services provided in the economy of London depend on people from Kent being able to get easily into London.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the high-speed link is for the benefit of the whole country? In that case, should it not be top-sliced in respect of its cost, so that the SRA does not take that into account in determining what moneys are available to support the franchise?

I am not quite sure what system of payment my hon. Friend is proposing. All I know is that it must still be paid for, and that in the end, the Government pay for it.

The Minister will be aware that the overwhelming majority of those 4,000 responses to the Strategic Rail Authority were hostile—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) seems to get in an awful state when he is not called. I must tell him that those on the Front Bench put in a request, and it is not my fault when that happens. When he does not get called, he should take it in good spirit. That is important.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I will also represent the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who, I understand, feels strongly about this issue. The Minister will know, as he has referred to the 4,000 responses, that the overwhelming hostility to the SRA's proposals for the Kent franchise, which he also hears from his Back Benchers, is precisely because the SRA proposes cutting services to many smaller stations around Kent. Can he assure the House that we will not see a perverse effect from the billions of pounds that he has said have been invested in the channel tunnel rail link? As things stand, overall rail services in Kent will get worse. It seems a colossal waste of taxpayers' money to invest money in a new railway, and to have, as a direct result, worse rail services.

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle because I am sure that he could have put that question a bit better, as we have had this question time and again. I say to the Front-Bench spokesman that the industry is privatised, and that his party privatised it. The days of the Government being able to intervene on the railways, in the way that he describes, are long gone, and he knows that full well. What he is doing is making a cheap political point, and his constituents will understand it.

When he intends to publish the results of the consultation on reducing the 21-month minimum waiting period for implementing a bus quality contract scheme. [179617]

We are considering the responses to the consultation, and we will be announcing its outcome shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, because anything that brings closer the day when we have better bus services will be very welcome. Is he aware that I often receive complaints from my constituents, in unparliamentary language, about the quality of some of our local bus services, particularly in my local villages? Recently, one bus service was removed to improve the service to another village—robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to investigate how to improve bus services. Will my right hon. Friend be willing to meet me when I have completed my local bus transport survey, to discuss its results?

My hon. Friend and other Members on both sides will agree that bus services are working quite well in some areas, where we have seen an increase in patronage and the services are satisfactory. In other areas, however, there have been difficulties. As I have said before, we are looking at those matters and will come forward with proposals in due course. I am firmly of the view that we should try to build on what works, then make adjustments to deal with aspects that do not work, rather than go back to the drawing board.

How people who cannot use the internet will be able to benefit from the Directgov approach to service delivery. [179601]

Directgov, which was launched earlier this year, is available not just on the internet but to 7 million homes with interactive TV. Cabinet Office officials are looking at other channels, such as mobile telephones, to make sure that Directgov is available to as many people as possible.

I thank the Minister for that response. I have visited the Directgov site and found it extremely useful, and I imagine that many of my constituents will find it useful. The many online centres in my constituency, including at Greenacre school, Breydon middle school and Great Yarmouth high school, have worked extremely well for the community. However, there are still many people, such as the elderly and disabled, who cannot access those online centres and find it difficult to fund digital television or personal computers. What assistance can my hon. Friend offer to my constituents in Great Yarmouth who cannot access those centres but would find it extremely useful to go online to the Directgov site?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, which raises several important issues. He is right to identify that there are a number of UK Online centres in his constituency—nine in Great Yarmouth and a further 13 within a 15-mile radius. The challenge of getting the United Kingdom online is one that the Government have embraced, although there are some specific barriers, which my hon. Friend identifies. Income continues to affect internet access: 12 per cent. of the lowest income groups have home internet access compared with 86 per cent. of the highest income groups. That is why the Government continue to pursue their anti-poverty strategy. The age gap is also considerable in terms of those who use online services. It is more difficult to get older people to use UK Online centres, so last year we ran the "Get Started" campaign, which specifically targeted the elderly community, among other groups, to make sure that we gave every advice and assistance to people who wanted to become silver surfers. I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out the strategy that the Government are adopting in relation to his constituency.

I congratulate the Government on the clear interface of the new Directgov website, which serves to highlight the inadequacy and complexity of many of the other Government websites to which it leads. Will the new head of e-Government who has recently been appointed have the authority to insist that other Departments use improved web standards to make them as clear as the Directgov site?

I thank the hon Gentleman for that typically charitable question. We of course take great pride in the Directgov site, which is a significant improvement on its predecessor, UK Online. We are receiving extremely positive customer feedback about the site. On the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman raises, when Ian Watmore takes up his new position in the Cabinet Office in September, one of his tasks will be to work effectively with other people in a range of Departments to ensure that our offering has consistently high standards. We believe that he will take to that task with relish, which is consistent with the whole drive towards e-Government that we have advanced during this Parliament.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of Government interfacing with the public is through services provided by post offices? Does he also agree that we should do everything possible to maintain a comprehensive post office network through which we can have a real interface between the Government, IT services and the public?

My hon. Friend has asked an important question about the future of post offices and I will happily communicate his point to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I would say, however, that if we reflect on the capacity for post offices to use banking services and, in particular, to drive profitability—we should not lose sight of the fact that the Post Office continues to be the largest retail network in the UK—the electronic offering of banking services from a range of post offices is entirely consistent with the good work being undertaken by Post Office management to ensure that the units are commercially viable wherever they exist in the country.

I welcome the Minister back and congratulate him on the birth of his daughter.

I hardly know where to begin in answering that question. First, pensioners will, of course, continue to be able to receive cash over the counter at their post offices, despite the scaremongering of Opposition politicians. Secondly, it is a characteristically Luddite position of the Conservative party to suggest that the Government should not match other sectors in society in providing web-based offerings of its services. Thirdly, I would point out that considerable progress has been made in getting the UK online under the present Government. On broadband access, for example, considerable progress has been made, and both the public and private sector have worked effectively to drive up the take-up level, so it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to suggest that his constituents would not want access to those services.

What action is being taken to open up public appointments to groups who have traditionally been under-represented. [179602]

The Government want boards of public bodies to be both appointed on merit and representative of society as a whole. The 2003 publication "Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments" outlines the action being taken by each Department of Government to increase diversity on the boards of their public bodies, and the targets that have been set for 2006.

While welcoming the targets for diversity, which my hon. Friend has outlined, will he provide some practical examples of what the Government are doing to achieve them? Would one of my constituents from an under-represented group, for example, receive any practical assistance from the Government?

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it highlights the point that I sought to make in my previous answer. A new website is now available from the Cabinet Office—www.publicappts-vacs.gov.uk—in which available public vacancies are set out. Anyone wanting to access those opportunities to serve on a public body will now be able to do so in the north-east of Scotland and the south-west of England. There are a range of different ways in which those who do not have access to the web can obtain information—a newsletter is also provided—and I want to ensure that my hon. Friend is made aware of those opportunities so that he can, in turn, communicate them to his constituents.

I suppose that we should be modestly grateful that the Minister mentioned merit, but can he give us a guarantee that, in the matter of public appointments, merit will never be undermined or compromised by an obsession with so-called diversity?

If I recollect correctly, that is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has put that point to me. It is fundamentally the case, as I have set out previously from the Dispatch Box, that there is no inconsistency whatever between appointments on merit and appointments on representational aspirations. I believe that we should aspire to make our public bodies reflect the diverse nature of modern Britain. In that sense, I see no inconsistency between ensuring appointment on the basis of merit and making sure that we have diverse public bodies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of attempting to achieve that would be to pass the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, which is currently being blocked by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? That measure would ensure proper appointment to the civil service on merit rather than through long-out-of-date rules on nationality. Is it not time that the civil service reflected the society in which we live, rather than the society that the right hon. Gentleman thinks exists, but may never have existed outside his own rather peculiar imagination?

I am cautious about intruding on a private argument but, like many colleagues, I was disappointed at the failure last week to make progress on that Bill. My hon. Friend makes his point well: we must make sure that the civil service is genuinely updated in terms of its ability to ensure that diversity is achieved.

What guidance he has issued to regulatory offices concerning policy development in their areas of regulation. [179603]

The Government have recommended that all Departments and regulators follow the Cabinet Office guidance entitled "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessments". That guidance is available on the Cabinet Office website, and in the Library of the House.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important to maintain the distinction between the policy-making function—that is, the steering function—of the Government and legislature, and the implementing function of regulatory bodies? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that legislation that amends or changes the nature of regulatory bodies maintains that distinction?

I spoke at the recent conference of independent regulators, at which we addressed the specific challenge involved in recognising the distinctive role of regulators in the area of policy making. I also point out that the Government accepted the 14 recommendations in respect of independent regulators contained in the report from the Better Regulation Task Force entitled "Independent Regulators." I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a full copy of that report, and of the Government's response to it.

If he will take steps to increase the accountability of unpaid advisers working (a) within his Department and (b) across Government. [179604]

In its response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government agreed to amend the ministerial code to make it clear that Ministers are accountable for the management and discipline of their unpaid advisers. This amendment will be incorporated into the next version of the ministerial code.

Does the Minister accept that, although the model contract for special advisers provides some tenuous accountability for them, paragraph 51 of the ministerial codes states that there is no contractual relationship between unpaid advisers and the Department involved? Does that not mean that there is therefore no accountability in respect of people such as Lord Birt and Lord Levy?

I simply do not accept that characterisation, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my initial answer. We have accepted that the ministerial code needs to be amended, and the relevant precedent suggests that that should happen at the beginning of a new Parliament. The ninth report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was published in April 2003, and the Government's response to it was published in September of that year. It may be of assistance if I share with the House the substance of that response. As I have said, the Government accepted the case for amending the next version of the ministerial code to make it clear that Ministers are personally accountable for the management and discipline of their unpaid advisers. Further, the code will make it clear that Ministers must provide a level of information about unpaid advisers similar to that provided for special advisers. That information will include numbers, names and details of particular expertise, if appropriate. Finally, the letter of appointment for unpaid advisers will be amended so that it includes the requirement to uphold the political impartiality of civil servants, and the requirement not to use official resources for party political activity.