When he expects to bring forward proposals to amend the law on speed cameras. [184914]

The Road Traffic Act 1991 provides for the use of cameras, and the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 provides for their operation to be met from fixed penalty fines. The recent independent review of the first three years of the safety camera programme confirmed its effectiveness, with a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites. We have no plans to amend the law on cameras. However, when the legislative opportunity arises, we propose to shift from the present three-point fixed penalty for all categories of speeding to establish a band of penalties from two to six points to distinguish between higher and lower offences.

:I am grateful for that answer, but my support for speed cameras somewhat diminished recently after I was done by a camera for driving at 37 mph. I have discovered since that different speed camera areas impose penalties at different speeds, which does not seem right. I have also discovered that there is no proportionality between excess speed and the penalty and points imposed. Will my hon. Friend make progress with the review and introduce more flexibility, because public support for the system will otherwise be eroded?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his frankness and honesty. He knows that if he exceeds the speed limit, he runs the risk of getting a penalty. He is right, however, to recognise the concern expressed by many that those who exceed the speed limit by a small amount receive the same penalty as those who exceed it more seriously. It is important for the punishment to fit the crime, so we will look for a legislative opportunity in a road safety Bill to introduce a new penalty points system under which the punishment more accurately reflects the severity of the offence.

What will the Minister do for the increasing number of motorists who appear to be troubled by notifications sent out wrongly by agencies because of inadequate crosschecking of vehicles by speed enforcement agencies or congestion charging agencies?

The position is very simple. If people want to challenge a speeding offence, they have the opportunity first, to send for photographic evidence, and secondly, to challenge the penalty in court. For parking and other offences, they may go to the local authority, then the adjudicator. There are plenty of checks and balances for people who may be wrongly accused.

As a result of opposition in some quarters, safety camera partnerships are sticking rigidly to the guidance that there must have been lots of casualties at a site during previous years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sometimes means that avoidable deaths happen because of a lack of speed cameras? Does he agree that a good example of that are those motorcyclists who crash and die at sites where there is no history of previous crashes? Should safety camera partnerships not be allowed the discretion—we should be open about this—to site speed cameras in places where they anticipate that accidents and deaths will happen if there is no intervention?

As a general rule, we want cameras to be put only in places that meet the strict criteria on numbers of deaths and injuries. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a certain flexibility in the partnership scheme to give the police and local authorities some ability to site mobile cameras, especially in places where they anticipate problems.

I do not want to change the rules.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) may not want to change the rules, but I have letters from Conservative council leaders who want the rules relaxed. He might want to get in touch with his local authorities to find out what they are saying.

What is his name?

Well, I have a letter here from—

Order. The Minister should send a copy of the letter to the right hon. Gentleman.

I am glad that the Conservative party policy of proportionality for sentencing is gaining more support among Labour Back Benchers. Will the Minister address the serious problem of the number of people killed on the roads? Will he comment on figures from the Kent and Medway safety camera partnership showing that an average of 11 people were killed every year at the worst black spots before the partnership was formed and the cameras put up, but that the average number killed since the partnership started is 12? The project manager for the partnership is honest about that and says:

"The number of fatalities across the county is staying fairly stubborn … It's not as encouraging as we would like."

We have never said that cameras are the only answer to preventing death and injury on our roads. The hon. Gentleman will know from the figures for Kent of the substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured where the cameras have been placed. The overall figures for the number of people killed on the roads—I have said that this should not be a party political point—show, sadly, that some of them are motorcyclists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said. Incidents sometimes happen on country lanes and in other places where cameras would have no direct effect, so we are considering other measures as well. However, as these are the last Transport questions this term, I hope that before we complete them the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will tell us where the 4,000 wrongly placed camera sites are, because he has not told us yet.

As patron of RoadPeace, I welcome the experiment conducted to allow the organisation's "Remember Me" poster to be placed on the side of cameras. Does my hon. Friend agree that that helps the motorist to put the issue into context—that the cameras are placed there to reduce deaths on our roads?

I have seen that campaign. We wanted the cameras to be conspicuous and signed because we wanted not to catch people but to slow them down. I have looked at the RoadPeace proposal to put a figure or something at the side of the road depicting someone who may have been injured or killed. We will continue to consider it, but we would not want it to distract drivers and be a further road safety disbenefit. I would also be worried in case such a memorial to someone who had died was defaced, removed or damaged. That could make the grief for the families who have lost someone even greater.

The Minister knows of my support for appropriately sited cameras as a tool for reducing casualties and saving lives. Is he aware, however, of recent media reports that call into question the statistical accuracy of the benefits of cameras through something called regression to the mean, which is not taken into account? Will he look into those claims, as it is clearly vital that the public should have full confidence in the benefits of cameras in order to support them?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his party for their support for the road camera partnerships and for reduction of death and injury on the roads. That just shows that there is good sense on the issue in his party, which has yet to prevail in the Conservative party.

What recent representations he has received on ultra-light railway systems. [184916]

Since January, my Department has received 13 letters on ultra-light railway systems.

Are James Skinner's claims for the fuel efficiency of ultra-light rail convincing?

As my hon. Friend knows, of the 13 letters that I have received, 13 came from Mr. James Skinner. What he and, indeed, other operators propose does have some attraction, and the Government have supported that. However, we have reached the stage at which Mr. Skinner and others need to engage in a commercial undertaking to pursue these matters so that they can be developed further. The Government cannot give grants to individuals here and there without the prospect of commercial development. I have explained all that to Mr. Skinner in nine replies. I dare say this exchange will prompt another letter, but I shall stick at it.

For months, Hampshire county council and Portsmouth city council have pleaded for a funding decision on the light rapid transit system between Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth, which is thought to be one of the most attractive in the country. Is the Secretary of State aware that the compulsory purchase orders are to go ahead today? It is monstrous that that should take place in the absence of a decision. What is the reason for the delay on the funding decision, and when can we expect it?

In approximately one hour.

Does the Secretary of State agree that something that light rail and standard rail systems have in common is the fact that too many disabled people find journeys intimidating or impossible? Does he further agree that at the current rate of progress our rail systems will not be disabled-friendly until 2035? Will he get a grip on the problem and take action to make rail journeys more accessible and accommodating for people with a disability?

The right hon. Gentleman's general point is a good one—we should make sure that transport is accessible. As for railway carriages, my recollection is that they will be compliant by 2025, not 2035.

That is still too long.

Let me explain something to the right hon. Gentleman. The average life of railway carriages is 25 to 30 years. If we made them completely compliant, rolling stock would have to be replaced much earlier, which costs money. It is a bit rich of a party that is committed to cut transport spending by £2 billion to lecture us on doing things quicker. We are replacing most of our rolling stock so that next year, I think I am right in saying, Britain will have the youngest rolling stock fleet anywhere in Europe.

What recent studies he has made of the possibility of reinstating dual tracking on the Waterloo line from Salisbury to Exeter. [184917]

The Strategic Rail Authority examined the case for dual tracking in 2000, when tendering for the South West Trains franchise. Given the costs involved and current resources, there is little prospect of that work being taken forward in the short term. Our immediate concern is to make the most efficient use of the existing network infrastructure. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, however, because we certainly need to identify the stretches of infrastructure that could most benefit from track modification.

I am grateful but depressed by the Minister's reply. We certainly do not need to identify a problem on the Salisbury-Exeter line, as it is already well known. Devon and Cornwall business council and the East Devon chambers of commerce are convinced that the future economic prosperity of the south-west peninsula depends on two things—the immediate dualling of the A303 and improvements to rail, freight and passenger services, particularly on the Waterloo-Exeter line. Exactly four years ago, as the Minister mentioned, the Strategic Rail Authority was approached by South West Trains, which wanted to upgrade the track so that it could deal with speeds of up to 100 mph. Given that 42 per cent. of delays on that line are between Salisbury and Exeter, when will he be able to give better news to my constituents and others living in the south-west peninsula?

The hon. Gentleman has researched his subject very well, as demonstrated by the length of his question. However, he has a much better chance of getting a positive answer from the Government than from his Front-Bench colleagues, who want to cut spending on the railways and transport.

This particular line is a success story, but it has a problem with capacity. What reassurance can the Minister give my constituents, who felt at the time when the franchise was advertised that there was a definite commitment to dualling the track? Until the track is dualled, trains will just become more overcrowded and people will go back on to the roads.

There is no question but that that is a crucial stretch of railway, but there are other ways of increasing capacity, such as lengthening trains. I give the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) an undertaking to look at the issue and to talk to the SRA and Network Rail about it. Capacity, as the hon. Member for North Dorset will know, has already increased dramatically—the number of passengers using that stretch of line has grown over the past few years because there are more trains. We can do an awful lot with modern signalling technology to increase capacity, but longer trains might provide the answer in the short term. As I told the hon. Member for East Devon, I am prepared to look at the issue and engage in discussion with the SRA about increasing capacity still further.

What plans he has to change the role of the passenger transport authorities in England. [184918]

We have no specific plans to change the role of passenger transport authorities in England. However, "The Future of Rail" White Paper sets out new arrangements for passenger transport executives in England, in relation to their rail functions. These changes will bring about some consequential changes of function for the PTAs.

I very much welcome last week's announcement, which gave more powers to the passenger transport authorities. May I encourage my hon. Friend to go a little further and provide even more powers to excellent PTAs such as Merseyside to find ways to improve bus and rail services?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He will know that the overarching group for the PTEs, PTEG—the passenger transport executive group—welcomed the comments in the rail review. My hon. Friend will also know that we published the rail review last week and that the statement that will follow today's questions deals with all other aspects of transport. I hope that my hon. Friend will be keen enough to stay in the Chamber and listen to the statement.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) in his pleas to the Minister to give passenger transport authorities more power over private local bus companies. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that the Go-Ahead group and its subsidiary, Go North East, propose severely to curtail bus services in west and central Gateshead in my constituency? Will he please look at that as a matter of urgency? Surely private bus companies ought to be subject to the same kind of public service agreements as local authorities and other public bodies, so that people who use the services can have some influence over them.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the rail review and what we have done with PTEs. I was recently up in Newcastle, which I think is fairly close to Gateshead, to discuss a range of matters with Nexus. If I need to return or to speak to the firm down in London about specific aspects of bus services, I will be more than happy to do so.

What plans he has to re-regulate buses; and if he will make a statement. [184920]

I shall set out proposals in relation to buses in my statement that follows Question Time.

My right hon. Friend leaves me in a difficult position. I assure him that I shall listen carefully to his statement later. Does he agree that we can no longer justify having one system of bus regulation in London, which leads to clear accountability for public money, and another system of bus regulation, or deregulation, in the rest of the country, which leads to a more expensive system, no clear accountability for money, and profits nearly twice as high outside Greater London than in Greater London?

My hon. Friend puts me in a difficult position as well, but let me try to be helpful. The regime for buses in London has always been different, as my hon. Friend knows. It is, though, quite an expensive scheme. Bus subsidy in London has gone up dramatically, and it will go up still further over the next few years. In the rest of the country, it is clear that patronage has gone up in areas where there have been good local authorities and good bus companies—for example, in Brighton, Leeds, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh. It is striking that in some places, the system has worked well. In other parts of the country, there have been difficulties. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for one thing: he has promised to be present for my statement, so that is the one. If he sticks around, he might catch your eye again, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be able to say something more.

Can I tempt the Secretary of State to say a little about how privatisation has helped rural bus services and patronage? In particular, is he aware of the problems in north Yorkshire, where some bus services are not as frequent as residents would like, especially to enable them to attend hospital appointments?

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is trying to make out that privatisation or deregulation is a good or a bad thing. She is wearing yellow, so perhaps she is in Liberal Democrat mode and is taking both sides of the argument. As she well knows, local authorities and her council in particular have the power to provide more bus services if they want to. Opposition Members sometimes overlook the fact that the remedy sometimes lies rather closer to home than here.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), because the same bus company serves both our constituencies, and I am still getting letters of complaint about it.

In order not to reduce the excitement, I suggest that if my hon. Friend cares to stick around he will learn more. Buses are not quite the same as railways, but some changes are necessary, and I shall set them out shortly.

What assessment he has made of traffic congestion in Southend-on-Sea; and what is his policy on the construction of a ring road around the borough. [184921]

The assessment of traffic congestion in Southend is, in the first instance, a matter for the borough council as the local transport authority. We look to it and to other local interested parties to bring forward proposals for a ring road if they consider that it should be a candidate for Government funding, and we will duly assess it in those terms should it ever arise.

Does the Minister accept that the residents of Shoeburyness, to the east of Southend, go through nightmares every day trying to get through the serious and worsening traffic congestion on the arterial road? Would not local authorities and others take the issue more seriously if the Government were to indicate that they would not allow more development on Government-owned land in Shoeburyness? As this is a desperately serious problem, should not the Government take the initiative?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning about Shoeburyness, growth areas, east of England regional assembly transport plans, and the London to Southend study. Should those form the basis of subsequent plans and applications from Southend borough council for a ring road, we will consider that with heightened interest.

Which body will have future responsibility for setting priorities for rail investment. [184922]

In future, the Government will have control of the level of public expenditure and set the national strategy for the railways, but operational responsibility will pass to Network Rail. Full details of the responsibilities and future structure of the rail industry are set out in the White Paper that I published last week.

I wonder whether I can tease out that answer a little more. I have three very different rail investment needs in my constituency. One—the small change in Network Rail's budget to increase capacity between Worcester and Droitwich by new signal and new track—is quite modest. The second—a private sector bid to build a new Worcester Parkway railway station—is a significant investment that will also involve public money. The third is a major re-dualling exercise between Worcester and Oxford to improve reliability for passengers on that line. Each is very different from the others. Who will decide between them and set the priorities in the new railway environment?

In future, those matters will be decided by Network Rail unless they involve major investment, in which case they will come to the Department because we have to provide such funding anyway.

My right hon. Friend may not yet have seen a report published this morning by Catalyst, the left-wing think-tank. It shows that in the eight years before privatisation, Government support for railways was on average a quarter of European average spending, yet in the same eight years productivity in British Rail was substantially higher than the average for European railways. Despite my right hon. Friend's welcome statement, does he accept that we will not get real value for money from the public purse until the railways are back in public ownership?

No, I do not. I have said that many times before. My hon. Friend needs to reflect on the simple fact that every week we spend about £73 million of public money and get about £73 million of private money. If we nationalise the railways, we say goodbye to £73 million a week. Equally, we find that buying back the railways would cost perhaps in excess of £25 billion, which we do not happen to have in the till at the moment. If my hon. Friend does not believe me, I can do no better than to refer him to ASLEF, whose input into the rail review was quite interesting. It said:

"The proper debate should not be about public or private ownership but about the appropriate relationship and dividing line between the two."

Whoever decides priorities on rail investment—I am not clear who it will be; it seems to depend on size—will the Secretary of State give me an undertaking that he will give higher priority to the many relatively inexpensive, small-scale schemes in the London area that could make such a big difference to the plight of the London commuter? I am thinking of an extra platform at London Bridge, for example. Will he undertake to give that kind of scheme a higher priority?

Those are matters that Network Rail will need to consider, but a number of measures have already been put in place. Two major measures are helping London commuters and the hon. Gentleman's constituents in particular. One is the upgrading of the power supply to trains going south of the River Thames, which is costing just under £1 billion. That was money that Railtrack did not even think about spending, so it is an example of how additional money is making a difference. The hon. Gentleman will also have noticed that we have new rolling stock in all London stations, particularly those from which trains go south of the river. It is now very obvious that that rolling stock is being put in place. At some point, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his Front-Bench colleagues, because none of that could be done if £2 billion were cut from transport spending.

The Minister will be aware that Nuneaton has had two brand new platforms as part of the west coast main line modernisation, but in the new set-up of changes in responsibilities, who will look at getting value for money from the contractors who work for Network Rail?

Network Rail will, and the contracts will be supervised by the rail regulator, who has imposed a requirement to find 31 per cent. efficiencies, making about £1.5 billion a year, which is quite a significant sum. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the west coast main line. When the first phase is completed at the end of September, it will make for a much better journey. I know that it has been a long haul and that there has been a lot of disruption, but it will make journeys better. This is an example of what can be done if Governments are prepared to make steady, sustained high levels of investment, as opposed to cutting transport spending, which would have completely the opposite effect.

I suppose this question would be a bit easier to answer in Scotland, as the Secretary of State helpfully transferred power to the Scottish Executive in his statement last week. Can he confirm that the necessary resources will accompany the transfer of power, so that the Scottish Executive will be able to pursue their rail objectives and priorities? Will he tell us how Scotland's share is to be calculated, given that he is about to announce massive infrastructure building in London and the south-east on the Crossrail project?

We are also spending rather large sums in other parts of the country. In particular, Network Rail spends more in Scotland than it gets back in track access charges. One of the reasons why the Forth bridge, which we all know and love, has been kept going is that Scotland has that bigger spending power. That is all part of the benefit of being part of the United Kingdom, on which the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect. On the resource transfer, I said last week that that was something that we and the Scottish Executive needed to discuss. However, the general principle behind my proposal has been widely welcomed in Scotland. There are advantages to being part of the United Kingdom, as most people in Scotland accept. That is why the poor hon. Gentleman is sitting there all on his own.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is consistency of investment that is warmly welcomed, along with the fact that the Government are committed to long-term plans? Will he give us an undertaking, however, that he will look closely at the rate of return of contractors and rolling stock companies, which really are walking away with gold bars at the expense of the taxpayer?

Again, if my hon. Friend is around shortly, she will hear that I have more to say about longterm spending plans when I set out the spending plans for some years to come. On value for money, she is quite right; she is equally right about the rolling stock companies. Last week in my statement, I specifically said that the contracts that were signed at the time of privatisation did not represent good value for money, and that we need to ensure that we get better value for money. I am sure that she and her Committee will return to that issue sooner rather than later.

The Secretary of State acknowledged in an earlier answer the vital role that is played in investment by the private sector. Does he recognise that investment by train operators would increase substantially if the Government replaced the present system of two-year rolling franchises with contracts that gave the train operators a long enough period in which to make investments for the benefit of passengers and to see a return on those investments? Why is it the Government's policy to cut private investment in railways?

I think that I was kind enough, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, to send him my rail review proposals more than a week ago. He will have seen, therefore, that our proposal is not for a two-year rolling contract. There was a press report to that effect, which the hon. Gentleman seems to have confined himself to citing. I advise him that that is never a great idea. We envisage a seven-year, renewable franchise. In addition to cost and performance, the company's past performance would be taken into account. Interestingly, after last week's announcement the rail companies responded positively, because they recognise that it is a much better system than we have at present. The hon. Gentleman tries to make out that if he cuts £2 billion from transport spending he will recoup it from the private sector, but there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that. Cuts of £2 billion in transport spending would have a devastating effect on rail and road services.

What recent action his Department has taken to review the operation of pensioner concessionary fare schemes in England. [184923]

We are considering what improvements can be made to the administration of concessionary travel schemes in England for the benefit of local authorities, transport operators and concessionaires. We have no plans to change the statutory minimum requirement for concessionary travel for older and disabled people, or to prevent local authorities from offering more generous schemes.

The operation of a statutory scheme for minimal provision throughout the whole country is very welcome, but does my hon. Friend recognise that people in many parts of the country have considerable concerns when they look at the London scheme, which offers the freedom pass, and other parts of the country that offer free travel? Why cannot people living in every part of this country have as good a scheme as London has?

As part of the spending review White Paper, we have undertaken to review the administration of concessionary fare schemes to see whether there is scope to simplify their operation, particularly in relation to the examples quoted by my hon. Friend. I accept that disparity between neighbouring authorities' schemes does not work in many people's favour.

When the Minister conducts his review, will he consider devising some means whereby local authorities can calculate the value for money that they get for their contributions to schemes such as the London-wide freedom pass? Authorities such as the London borough of Havering have no means of knowing how many journeys they receive in return for their contributions. As we know, some pensioners make extremely good, frequent use of the pass, whereas others who are entitled to it put it behind the clock where it gathers dust, but both cost the council the same.

If that is the emergence of a nascent Tory policy on concessionary fares—that they should be means-tested, and that pensioners in Havering should have their number of journeys restricted—I will pass that on to the local Labour party in Havering. I am sure that it will review it with some interest.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Yorkshire regional assembly of local councils, which, following a campaign by the Wetherby, Boston Spa and Tadcaster News, has set up a feasibility study to examine the possibility of mutual recognition of bus passes across the county of Yorkshire? If that comes off, it will allow pensioners from Selby district, for example, to travel in West Yorkshire and enjoy cheaper bus fares?

I will be more than happy to congratulate the assembly, not least because that is precisely what we are trying to do by reviewing the entire administration and bureaucracy of concessionary schemes. It must be right that pensioners throughout a region such as Yorkshire know what is available, and not just in their district.

What plans he has to encourage the introduction of yellow school buses. [184924]

Both the Department for Transport and the Department for Education and Skills recognise that well-designed, dedicated bus schemes can reduce car dependency for the journey to school. The Department for Transport is providing £18.7 million to support a large-scale pilot in West Yorkshire and, subject to affordability, will consider further proposals submitted through the local transport plan process.

Given that yellow school buses have the potential to remove congestion, eliminate the school run, improve air quality and the environment, allow local authorities to rationalise their transport arrangements and provide a safer and more disciplined way to get kids to school, ought we not to do more? Can I expect to hear more on the subject of school buses later today?

On the latter point, my hon. Friend will have to wait a few more minutes, and perhaps he will hear something on that. He is absolutely correct: getting children on to buses and out of the car is very important in reducing congestion and improving air quality outside schools. We must be careful, however, to ensure that encouraging the use of buses does not divert children from walking and cycling to school, which are better for their health. He will probably be aware that in September last year we published the "Travelling to School" action plan and good practice guide. We have also provided £7.5 million to local authorities for school travel advisers, all of which will help improve the journey to school, and particularly the take-up of school buses.

Pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2004, Official Report, column 368W on Irish-registered vehicles, if he will make it his policy to collate separate statistics for foreign-registered vehicles not displaying current road tax. [184925]

We recognise the problem of illegal use of foreign vehicles on British roads and are determined to take the necessary steps to control it. I have asked the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to work with the police and other enforcement agencies on the question of how best to take action against unlicensed foreign vehicles. As part of the process, they will collect statistics on the numbers involved.

I am glad to hear that, but in the interests of joined-up government will the Minister speak to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has recently been making some rather unconvincing statements about antisocial behaviour and being tough on crime? Is he aware that up and down the country, in Leicestershire and, I suspect, in Devon, so-called Travellers are bringing a great deal of misery to people through antisocial behaviour and often criminal activity? They use Irish-registered vehicles with no road tax, and the police say that they can do nothing.

The Home Office has not kept records of prosecutions in such instances, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the DVLA will now keep such records.

If he will make a statement on his future road programme. [184926]

The Highways Agency is currently proceeding with a programme of 81 major trunk road schemes. Further schemes are being prepared for entry to the programme and will be considered in the light of our priorities and available resources. Our transport strategy document, published today, provides further details of our plans for the road network.

Can the Minister name two other neighbouring cities the size of Newcastle and Edinburgh that are not linked by a dual carriageway in this country, let alone Europe? The Government are a laughing stock in the north-east because of this. Can we expect some good news in the document that is being published today?

As my hon. Friend probably knows, I visited the A1 a couple of weeks ago to have a look at the road myself. We have invested, or will invest in the coming years, nearly £100 million. The multi-modal study, which was intended to establish local views, showed no support for full dualling from Newcastle to the Scottish border. However, the improvements from Morpeth to Felton mean that there will be dual carriageway or motorway all the way from Alnwick to London. Although I cannot promise dualling throughout, I can tell my hon. Friend that past and future improvements constitute a major investment in the road.

What on earth is going on with the A21 at Hurst Green? The Minister has now broken his third self-imposed deadline for coming up with his preferred scheme. In a letter to me on 15 July, he said that he was aiming to present his proposals by the autumn, but on 19 July he wrote that he was aiming to make an announcement later in the summer. Is it any wonder that people are losing all confidence in the Government's handling of this proposal, given that hundreds of homes have been blighted by Labour's indecision and stalling?

Oh dear, that really was not very good at all. The hon. Gentleman came to see me about the road, and I thought that we had had a perfectly sensible discussion about the improvements that we are making to it, the importance of which we do recognise. He should tell his constituents about the policy of his Front-Bench colleagues, which is to cut the roads programme. Under it, there would be no improvements at all, either this year or next.

When considering future roads programmes, will my hon. Friend impress on the Highways Agency the need to reduce noise from motorways through resurfacing and noise barriers, so that the people who live near them can have some quality of life? Will he further ensure that the Highways Agency implements such measures, particularly noise barriers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: intrusive noise from motorways is very disturbing for people who live close to them. All new or resurfaced roads now have quieter surfaces, and it is this Government who have set aside dedicated ring-fenced funds for resurfacing some of the concrete roads that, although of very good quality, tend to be much noisier than black-top roads. The Highways Agency has the issue very much in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend that the roads will be resurfaced over time and that, once they are, they will be quieter than they were, say, 10 years ago.

All this is mere words. Every day, the Government are fleecing motorists through £120 million in motoring taxes, yet they reinvest just £2 million in new roads every day. That is what this Government must be held accountable for, and we need a better deal for the motoring public.

I am very interested to hear that this Chamber is about words—that will come as a total surprise to everybody here. We are improving junctions, widening roads and making various improvements throughout the country. Such improvements are significant and they represent the very substantial investment that this Government are making in our roads system. Will the hon. Gentleman go back to his constituents in Christchurch and peddle the line taken by the shadow Chancellor—

Order. I call Mr. Ivan Henderson.

My hon. Friend will be aware that although the London to Ipswich multi-modal study recommended dualling of the A120 from Harwich to Hare Green, it has not been made a priority. If there is a major change in circumstances and the planned port development of Bathside bay goes ahead—a public inquiry into that development is under way, but I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on it—will he review the situation and introduce road dualling, if necessary?

Yes, and I know that my hon. Friend has made regular representations about this road. Of course, if circumstances changed and major developments occurred in any part of the country in respect of a road serving a port or any other facility, we would re-examine the priority of the scheme in question.

If he will assess the effects on Cheshire of the proposed M6 toll road; and if he will make a statement. [184927]

The consultation document "M6: giving motorists a choice" seeks views at this stage on the broad concept of a tolled expressway alongside the existing M6. The document makes it clear that before decisions are taken, a careful assessment will be made of the wider social, economic and environmental impacts of any potential scheme, including the section of the route running through Cheshire.

I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, which will reassure the people of Cheshire. He will know that the north Birmingham relief motorway has been a great success because of the care that went into its design and the chosen line of route. Will he assure me and the people of Cheshire that, if this new road proceeds, the same care will be shown with the line of route, and that environmentally sensitive areas and the environment as a whole will be taken into account? I hope that it does proceed, because we need this express motorway. I support the toll road concept.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the success of the M6 toll scheme. For all the other projects undertaken by the Highways Agency, too, a very careful assessment of the environmental impact is undertaken. The M6 toll has been a success: the original M6 is much quieter than it was before. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that standards are improving all the time. When we undertake consultation on the road that he mentioned, the impact on the environment and on people will be foremost in our minds.

If he will list the current work programme of the strategy unit. [184907]

The strategy unit is currently working on six full projects, as well as working across government to improve strategic capability and providing leadership for Government social research. The six current strategy unit projects are: countries at risk of instability; deprived areas; improving the life chances of disabled people; legal aid; London; and police reform.

May I make a constructive suggestion on police reform? The police need IT solutions to help them to become more efficient—for instance, to cut the time it takes them to arrest a prisoner. Will the Minister bring forward the development of such IT solutions, which could release up to 25 per cent. of a police officer's time, as 25 per cent. more police officers on the street is what people really want to see?

I am sure that people will therefore welcome the Home Secretary's announcement this week of additional resources for community support officers. As I said in my initial answer, the strategy unit is undertaking a project on police reform under the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, the sponsor Minister. I am certainly happy to pass the hon. Gentleman's comments directly to her.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Geoff Mulgan, who has been head of the strategy unit for some time and is now retiring? He has one of the most fertile minds in the country and we were fortunate to bring him into government as a special adviser and then as a civil servant. When such people leave, we should say "thank you" to them.

That is indeed a happy task and I shall certainly pass on to Mr. Mulgan not only my best wishes, but those of my hon. Friend.

The strategy unit costs more than £5 million a year, but it has released just four final project reports since last July: each report has cost more than £1 million. How does that square with the Chancellor's new talk of efficiency, and where is the value for taxpayers' money in that?

I will certainly take no lectures from the Opposition on efficiency, not least from the party that introduced the poll tax and gave us black Wednesday. On the substantive point of the strategy unit, many constituents in many parts of the country would welcome, for example, the creation of the Assets Recovery Agency, which already is doing tremendous work in ensuring that the assets of drug dealers are brought into the criminal justice system. The strategy unit's work on child care provision in this country has been pioneering. In that sense, I believe that we get extremely good value from an innovative centre of government.

If he will make a statement on the recent appointment of the head of e-government. [184908]

On 25 May 2004, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Ian Watmore as the new head of e-government. He was recruited through open competition in accordance with the civil service commissioner's recruitment code. Mr. Watmore takes up his post in September 2004.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does Mr. Watmore's experience at Accenture impinge on the duties that he can perform, and what will he bring for the constituents of Bradford?

I am glad to say that Mr. Watmore's appointment has been very well received—not just within the supplier community, but in the trade press. People recognise that having a big hitter coming into government is further evidence of the seriousness with which the Government take this area of work. A protocol has been established and agreed, which means that he will not be involved in business decisions concerning Accenture, his previous employer. I believe that constituents in every part of the country will welcome the rigorous focus on project management that he will bring to a huge programme of work centred on securing value for money in our e-services.

The Minister will know that one of the biggest e-government projects over the next few years is likely to be the IT programme for the NHS. What role, if any, will the head of e-government have in that respect?

That is a huge project for NHS procurement. A specialist team in the Department of Health works under Richard Grainger. He previously worked closely with Ian Watmore, and I am sure that he is looking forward to working again with the new head of e-government. We are determined to make sure that we have a centre of excellence for e-government at the heart of Government, and that we draw on the expertise in Departments. The evidence is that the NHS project is on track, and that tremendous work is being done.

What civil service resources he estimates will be needed to advance the Government's better regulation agenda in the next two years. [184909]

All Government Departments have a role to play in taking forward the Government's better regulation agenda. Allocation of specific resources to this agenda is the responsibility of individual Departments.

Last week's comprehensive spending review proposed to cut 150 jobs in the Cabinet Office, including in the regulatory impact unit. Does the Minister believe that such cuts might curtail his Department's consultancy capacity in crucial areas such as employee relations and communications? That is especially important, given that the recent performance of Departments and agencies for which his ministerial colleagues have responsibility—such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office for National Statistics—has been so woeful in that respect.

In the year to April 2004, the number of people on the Cabinet Office payroll fell rather than rose. As I indicated in my earlier answer, strong evidence is emerging that the scale of our investment in new technology and IT in particular means that there is scope for exactly the sort of efficiencies set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review.

If the Minister is sincere about the better regulation agenda, why does he not look at the problem of regulatory impact assessments? Even he would acknowledge that they are often published far too late, and that hindsight often proves them to be wildly inaccurate. Is not there a compelling case for looking again at a system that allows officials to assess their own legislation without having to publish any details of their calculations? As a result of that, the regulatory impact assessments carry scant credibility, in the House or outside it.

I simply disagree with that assessment of the importance of regulatory impact assessments across government. The fact that they are valuable tools, informing policy makers in the process of formulating policy, is evidenced by the fact that the EU is looking at the RIA process as one that might meet some of its own specific challenges. However, I draw attention to the work being done by the National Audit Office, whose report noted that sanctions are available to the Better Regulation Task Force. It is clear also, from the recent comments made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that RIAs remain an important part of our ongoing work to ensure better regulation across government.

What steps are being taken to ensure that Government websites are designed around the needs of the general public. [184910]

Designing services around customer needs has always been at the heart of the Government drive to put services online. The e—government unit has recently launched Directgov, and is assisting Departments with service design and delivery standards to meet these aims. Directgov was designed around the needs of the user by bringing together information, from across many Departments, in a way that makes it easy for people to find what they want online.

In my constituency of Great Yarmouth, two online learning centres, one of which is mobile, have given 5,000 of my constituents access to online services. However, many people needing information from Government sites still cannot get access to computers. Will my hon. Friend say whether there will be more investment in online sites for people in deprived communities such as Great Yarmouth, so that they can gain access to the information that the Government are making available?

There are seven UK online centres in Great Yarmouth, and a further 20 such centres in a 15-mile radius. To give the House a sense of the scale of the investment that we have made, I can say that £396 million has been invested in networks of the 6,000 UK online centres across the country. In addition, many households now have direct access to online services. Our key challenge is not simply to ensure that access exists, but that all sections of society have the opportunity to use the new technology and are encouraged to do so. We set up the "Get Started" initiative last year to make sure that people who previously had been denied such opportunities, such as older people, were able to use the new online centres.

What progress is being made against the target to put all Government services online. [184913]

Current figures show that 74 per cent. of Government services are already online, and Departments continue to work towards the target of 100 per cent. availability by 2005.

That reply shows the marvellous progress that has been made in getting Government services online. However, some people will always be excluded from using the internet, and pensioners are probably the largest group in that category. They might benefit a great deal if the internet were rolled out to post offices. They could access services, print forms and perhaps get advice from a sub—postmaster or mistress on how to complete them.

I am aware that in the past there have been numerous discussions with Post Office management about the availability of an electronic platform. The initiatives that the Post Office has taken in banking in recent years are evidence of the fact that they can embrace new services. However, as I said earlier, with 6,000 UK online centres across the country, there are now plenty of opportunities to gain access to the internet. The real challenge is to ensure that people have the skills and aptitude to use it effectively, and that work continues.