With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the transport innovation fund, as well as setting out how we are taking forward the development of a national road pricing scheme.

We said in our manifesto that we would examine the potential for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation towards a national system of road pricing, which, with a range of other measures, would tackle congestion in the long term. Congestion on the roads is a complex problem, which will need a range of measures to tackle it successfully. They include investment in public transport, as well as measures to get more out of the network, for example, through better traffic management and car pool lanes.

Our strong economy, demography and the fact that we live on a crowded island mean that we need to plan ahead now for the pressures that we will face in the next 20 to 30 years. Road pricing is about making journey times by car more reliable for motorists and getting more out of the road network. Today I want to set out what the Government are proposing for developing the concept of road pricing further, the role of the transport innovation fund and further work that needs to be done.

My Department is also publishing its two new congestion targets today. They focus on improving the reliability of journey times on the strategic network and the movement of people on urban roads. The Government set out their intention to establish the transport innovation fund in the White Paper, "The Future of Transport", which we published last July. We pointed out that, without radical measures, including more effective demand management, road congestion would get worse. That is why we need to consider whether road pricing would allow us to get more out of the network, especially at peak times.

If we were to implement a national road pricing scheme, we would not do it all in one go. That would not be possible. A road pricing feasibility study that was published in parallel with the White Paper last year recommended that it would be far better for local or regional schemes to be piloted to test approaches as road pricing was further developed. The transport innovation fund is part of that. Indeed, the fund is central to the approach that I set out in the White Paper. It offers substantial long-term investment and will support smarter, better management of the capacity that we have. It will also ensure that we can plan ahead to prepare for the long-term challenges that we face.

The transport innovation fund will be used to support the delivery of infrastructure schemes that will promote our national productivity. Transport that is well planned and sensitive to our environmental and social objectives is fundamental to our sustained prosperity, through road improvement as well as rail and light rail schemes, for example. The fund will also be used to support local plans that will help to tackle congestion. We are looking for proposals that combine some form of demand management, such as road pricing, with better public transport. These pilot schemes will contribute to our work on national road pricing.

Today, I am publishing further information on how we expect to deploy the transport innovation fund, which will come on stream from 2008–09 and is set to increase over time, reaching some £2.5 billion by 2014–15. We are also today asking local authorities to bid for development funding, which will be made available over the next three years to support planning for local demand management schemes in which pricing is a major element. We have set aside £18 million between 2005–06 and 2007–08 to support preliminary scheme development by local transport authorities. These schemes could ultimately be funded from the transport innovation fund. Within the fund, therefore, we are prepared to ensure that up to £200 million a year is ultimately available to support such local pilots. If more good schemes emerge, more can be made available.

The guidelines for bidding for this pump-priming development work are today being placed in the Library, published on the Department for Transport website and sent to all local highway authorities in England. If a local authority or group of local authorities in Scotland or Wales wish to introduce road pricing pilot projects, they could do so in conjunction with the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly Government. The Department will be happy to work with the devolved Administrations on such schemes, given their national implications.

Ahead of any future national scheme, parts of the country already experiencing congestion may wish to develop road pricing schemes to improve travel within their area. If road pricing is to be developed, we need to pilot a scheme covering one or more local authority areas or, for example, a passenger transport executive, in which congestion is already a problem and the local authorities want to do something about it. We want to work with local authorities to develop and implement a pilot scheme for road pricing. No decisions have been taken on where such a pilot might take place, but we hope to identify partner authorities willing to work up pilot proposals within the next year. We hope that they will then start work on the ground with support from the transport innovation fund when it comes on stream.

As well as making available the money through the transport innovation fund, we are taking forward a programme of work that would enable us to take decisions on road pricing in the future, and which covers three key areas. The first relates to the shape of a national scheme. National road pricing could take different forms, and we are looking at the options and the scale of benefits that each would bring. We are also looking at how best to address the environmental issues, particularly the problem of vehicle emissions and climate change. We clearly need to encourage the development and use of cleaner vehicles. However, we also need to avoid designing a scheme that is too complex or costly to run.

The second element of our work relates to technological capability. We need technology and systems that can be provided at an affordable price and to a satisfactory level of reliability. We need to engage with the industry to discuss the technologies that exist today and those that might be developed in the future. Much of the technology already in use for commercial purposes might be suitable, and might come with the benefit of working in practice. For instance, one UK insurance company is already piloting a new system of pay-as-you-drive insurance, which uses a satellite box fitted in the car to calculate the cost of the insurance premium on a monthly basis, and sends to car users as an itemised bill that looks almost exactly like a mobile phone bill.

Many cars are already fitted with technology that combines satellite positioning with mobile communications to provide facilities such as useful information on road conditions, and in 10 to 15 years, such technology will be commonplace. But we need to establish what technological options there are for putting together distance, place and time of travel. We are looking at what is working now, and how we could approach pricing in a way that allowed us the scope to benefit from future technological development. While cross-party support to examine the benefits that road pricing might bring is important, the lesson of recent times is that we need a consensus not just among politicians but among the public. We are considering how to provide the safeguards that would need to be built into the system: for example, to respect individuals' privacy and to ensure that the right price is put on the right journey in a way that motorists can see and understand.

A great deal of work has already been done on some of those issues in the development of the lorry road user charging scheme. That has confirmed that a distance-based charge has the potential to be a workable and practical way forward. But our thinking on national road pricing has developed further. We are now taking forward work on a national system of road pricing, so it is right for us to take forward the plans for distance-based lorry charging as part of the wider work on national road pricing—to develop a single, comprehensive, cost-effective system.

Although, therefore, the current procurement for lorry road user charging will not continue, we will continue to work with the industry and to ensure that we carry the full experience gained from the project into the wider work to develop a national road pricing system for cars and lorries. We will also continue to work with the haulage industry to ensure that its needs are represented as we develop a national road pricing system.

For the sake of completeness, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I ought to draw the House's attention to a written statement made by the Treasury today. In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, owing to the sustained volatility in the oil market, the annual inflation-only increase in the main fuel duties would be deferred until 1 September. The Financial Secretary has today announced that the Government will not go ahead with the planned inflation increase on 1 September, including for rebated oils, biofuels and road fuel gases. The position will be reviewed again at the time of the pre-Budget report.

Today's statement is somewhat overdue. The Department's July 2004 White Paper, "The Future of Transport", stated that

"mechanisms for deciding on allocations from the Transport innovation fund will be published alongside regional guideline budgets in the 2005 budget."

Well, they were not. What we see now is another example of a total lack of openness in the run-up to the election.

Last year's White Paper undertook to establish the so-called transport innovation fund, the purpose of which was expressed in the inevitable jargon that bedevils the well-meaning intent that goes with this policy—that the Government wish to

"give our delivery partners incentives to develop and deploy coherent, innovative, local and regional transport strategies . . . which will include road pricing, modal shift, and better bus services".

Today, therefore, we get this somewhat unexpected announcement. Given the past track record of the Secretary of State's Department, we will all be suspicious that something of far greater magnitude is going on behind the scenes, about which we are not being told. From what he has said today, we can now see exactly what he is up to.

The entire statement is only obliquely about the transport innovation fund. In fact, it is about the introduction of road pricing. For the Secretary of State to label it as a statement on the innovation fund, and then at 20 minutes' notice to reveal that it is in fact a detailed announcement about road pricing, makes a complete mockery of our parliamentary proceedings, and makes it very difficult for an Opposition spokesman, or indeed the whole House, to have any respect for his integrity in honestly handling parliamentary courtesies.

The innovation fund is not in any way about helping local authorities devise integrated transport policies for their local area: it is the Trojan horse through which nationwide congestion charging will be established throughout the UK. Why could not the Secretary of State have been honest and straightforward about that in advance? Perhaps that is why we now know why the fund's budget will increase from about £200 million to £2 billion over the next 10 years.

This is not about innovation but about centralisation and the imposition of road pricing. The supposed benefit to local communities is in fact an extension of the central power of Ministers to direct money where they choose, outside the usual system for allocating funds, and to establish road pricing through the back door. Were this genuinely about the innovation fund, many of us would want to know what the Secretary of State's definition of innovation is. I might not be alone in sharing a concern that this centralised scheme might create perverse incentives for local councils to devise schemes that spend a budget, rather than support schemes that they really need.

Were this genuinely about the innovation fund, we might also ask whether the fund will be applied to "innovative" schemes already under way. The Secretary of State has mentioned in written answers to me and to others that the Manchester metrolink will be a candidate for money from the fund, but can he guarantee that other ongoing projects will be able to apply for money?

I read in the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the White Paper last year that the fund would be used to support

"innovative mechanisms which raise new funds locally".

We now know that by that he meant congestion charges and higher road taxes. Now that we are aware that this is all about road pricing, let me repeat some, if not all, of the questions I asked the right hon. Gentleman on the occasion of his lecture to the Social Market Foundation, to which I have not yet received a reply.

Will every road have a price levied on it? Will local people have a say on local tariffs? Will there be one national scheme? Will the Mini pay as much as the Bentley? How will foreign cars be charged? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the civil liberties issues, given that the state will trace our every move? How long will car-tracking data be held? Will the police and the Security Service have access to that data? What is the status of the "spy in the sky" technology? How much will a tracking box cost? What will the pilot scheme assess if it is working only in a limited local area? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an unqualified guarantee that the motorist will be no worse off as a result of what he is proposing?

The Secretary of State has not played straight today. It is the hallmark of his Department, and in my opinion it is no way for the business of government to be conducted.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman struck that tone. [Interruption.] In some ways it did not surprise me, however.

For the sake of completeness, the hon. Gentleman might wish to report that he and I have had a number of conversations about this subject, and about road pricing. I said, among other things, that I would be happy for him, and indeed his colleagues, to visit the Department to discuss the issues.

We are still waiting.

I understand that arrangements have already been made for such a meeting. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that he has somehow been wronged. He knows, as do others who have dealt with me, that I try to be straightforward. I am also rather puzzled by his reference to having received the statement "at 20 minutes' notice". I devoted considerable effort to ensuring that he received it, and supporting papers, an hour in advance as usual, and he should have done so.

The hon. Gentleman said that last year we published outline proposals for the fund, and that its purpose was not clear. I refer him to page 134 of the White Paper published last year, which states:

"We will establish a new Transport innovation fund, to support the costs of innovative and coherent transport measures—which will include road pricing, modal shift, and better bus services. And we will also support innovative mechanisms which raise new funds locally."

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can say that he did not know what the transport innovation fund was for. True, the information was on page 134, perhaps requiring the reader to peruse the preceding 133 pages, but it was fairly clear. Similarly, in the opening paragraph of my statement today I made it clear that I wanted to talk about the innovation fund, and about how we were progressing with the national road pricing scheme. [Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman keeps pointing at the monitor. As he will know—but perhaps he does not; I am not sure that he was ever in the Government—it cannot carry an entire essay. It tends to truncate the headlines. I think that he is making a fuss about nothing.

The hon. Gentleman made a couple of more important points. He asked about Manchester. The position on Manchester and its access to the innovation fund is exactly as I described it on 16 December last year in a written statement to the House. The fund is there to encourage local authorities and passenger transport executives to consider imaginative ways of dealing with congestion.

As for road pricing, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of big questions still need to be answered. I raised the matter a few weeks ago and returned to it today because I believe that the country has an obligation to look at the problems that we face over the next 20 or 30 years and do something about them. I am bound to say that I was pleasantly surprised when the hon. Gentleman said on the day of my announcement that he was prepared to consider some of these proposals. The attitude that he struck today is rather different and I am somewhat surprised by it. I should point out to him and his colleagues that these are huge issues and that they need to be looked at. If we are to make progress, we will need to consider piloting in a smaller part of the country, rather than going straight to a national scheme. I am pleased to tell the House that different parts of the country have shown a surprising amount of interest in beginning to tackle what is a big problem—one that will affect successive Governments in years to come.

For people in my constituency, the only means of transport into the conurbation of Newcastle is by bus or car, so they will have to be charged for going there. There is a rail link—the Blyth and Tyne line—but there is no money to be spent on it. Will this innovation fund spend money on such rail links?

We are already spending considerable sums on the railways—in fact, in the past seven years we have doubled the amount being spent. Moving to road pricing involves moving away from the current system of taxation to a charge based on distance travelled, so it is a big step. The objective is to get more out of the existing capacity, but I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan): much of the detail still needs to be worked out, but if we do not start thinking about the system's possibilities, we face a future of increasing gridlock. I will get back to my hon. Friend concerning the railway line that he asks about—he has mentioned it on several previous occasions—but as he will appreciate, I do so without promising anything specific.

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement. But in keeping with the experience of the official Opposition spokesman, my office received this unusually long statement—compared with normal statements in this House—only 20 minutes beforehand. As the official Opposition spokesman also suggested, a title for today's statement such as "Road User Pricing" would perhaps have been a more accurate description of the subject that we are briefly debating today. However, our position on road-user pricing has not changed. We welcome this debate, we agree with the Government that radical measures are needed, and it is of course sensible to implement pilots first. Only in years to come will the House be able to tell whether the transport innovation fund has proved effective in funding delivery of the pilot schemes.

A number of questions arise from the statement. Is the transport innovation fund new funding, or has the money in fact been taken from elsewhere in the Department for Transport budget? The statement makes it clear that such funding is available only for pump priming, yet for many projects there will be revenue implications. It is regrettable that, apparently, the transport innovation fund will be unable to provide such support. Will the Secretary of State say whether there is any risk of local authorities that have secured transport innovation funding discovering that they then have to underwrite the costs—underestimated costs, regrettably—associated with providing free bus passes, for instance? The risk is that funds coming into the system at one point might have to go out at another.

The transport innovation fund might deliver the pilots that we need to test the feasibility of road-user pricing—or not. In three years' time, when the fund really comes on stream, the House will find out.

I shall ask for inquiries to be made about the provision of advance sight of today's statement. All that I know is that I asked that it, together with the supporting documents, be in the hands of the official Opposition an hour beforehand, which is the normal practice. I must say that that did not always happen in my time in opposition, but I do feel strongly about this issue and if something has gone wrong, I apologise. I will find out what happened, given that it appears to have happened to both principal spokesmen.

The transport innovation fund will rise from about £290 million to £2.5 billion by 2014–15. It is part of the additional money allocated to the Department for Transport in last year's spending review. The purpose of the fund is specifically to support innovative projects to tackle congestion and improve productivity. It is in addition to the normal course of funding that the Department embarks on, whether it be for local authorities, the Highways Agency, railways or whatever. The vast majority of the Department's budget is allocated in that way and the fund is supplementary.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about funding for pensioners' travel. As he will know, the Chancellor allocated an additional £350 million in the last Budget. That is a completely distinct amount, which is available from next year. It is wholly separate from the transport innovation fund.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point that, at this stage, before a pilot scheme has been established, it is impossible to evaluate it. My point is that if we as a country decide to make the change, it would be foolish to switch over from the present system to something entirely new without having seen, tried and tested a system. That is why I would encourage local authorities or groups of local authorities to work with us to achieve that. I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—that the transport innovation fund is also available for other measures. I used the example of Manchester, which has the opportunity to put in a bid, so the fund is not exclusively for road pricing. That is why I said that the transport innovation fund is about the transport innovation fund.

We all know that there is severe congestion in all parts of the country. In my constituency on the west of Newcastle, the A1 is very heavily congested in the morning and the evening, partly as a result of commuters from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) making their way into the Tyneside conurbation. May I tell my right hon. Friend that I support the principle of differential pricing, which I believe is a way of getting better capacity out of the roads? However, I believe that it will be unsuccessful unless we have working patterns different from our current ones. In that connection, does my right hon. Friend agree about the need to consult employers, trade unions and school governors about working times?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about that. Indeed, a number of employers are already looking into varying the times at which their employees start and finish work. That is happening in different parts of the country and I believe that it will become commonplace in the years to come. As to schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is considering the problem with local education authorities. Something like one in five cars on the road at 10 minutes to 9 in the morning are on the school run.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the A1. Much of the traffic comes from different parts of Newcastle, Gateshead and the surrounding areas. When the Department considered a study that was set up to examine the problem, we realised that whatever happens to transport in Newcastle, it will have to be looked at across the piece. It is not just a question of the A1, as much of the volume on that road is commuter traffic rather than traffic coming down into England from Scotland. We certainly need to reflect further on the problem.

The Secretary of State may be relieved to hear that at least one of his predecessors is not unsympathetic to the concept of road pricing, but subject to a crucial condition that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) mentioned—though the right hon. Gentleman did not reply to him. Is this proposition to be revenue-neutral on the motorist and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those who travel in rural areas on lightly used roads may find that their motoring costs go down?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about transport—not just when he was Secretary of State, but since. He will understand some of the problems that we face, but I have to say that they have got rather worse, simply because of increased pressure on the roads, since he was Secretary of State.

Bring him back!

We have no plans to do so, as they say.

I have made the point on a number of occasions that if we move to a system of road pricing, we would be moving away from the present system of taxation. We could not have a charge on top of a charge. It would have to be something instead of the present system. I strongly recommend that the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not already done so, have a look at the feasibility study that I mentioned in my statement. It found that we could have almost 40 per cent. less congestion at peak times and that nearly half of people would pay less than they do at present. In fact, if we could reduce even 4 to 5 per cent. of the volume of traffic at peak times, it would have a very dramatic effect. I understand perfectly well where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from on this matter and I am grateful to him for putting his point so reasonably.

My right hon. Friend is obviously right to try to achieve consensus on the proposed scheme, although the attitude displayed by the Conservatives, and the less than wholehearted support given by the Liberal Democrats, suggest that that might be hard. Will he ensure that we do not end up putting all our eggs into the basket of the national road user charging scheme, at the expense of the fairly radical measures to tackle road congestion that must be taken in the next 10 or 15 years? Congestion will get a lot worse before any road user charging scheme can come into effect.

As I said in my statement, we must secure a degree of consensus on this matter. Consensus among politicians is desirable, although achieving it may take time and in the end may not be possible. However, there also needs to be a wider debate in the country on these matters, as they represent a huge change. On the day that I gave my speech to the Social Market Foundation, a Conservative Member stopped me and said that we would have to see how long the consensus lasted—

Was that me?

No, the hon. Gentleman thought of that some time later. Consensus may be difficult, but we have to achieve it. The easiest thing in the world is to say and do nothing, but that would be the worst possible option for most motorists, and that is why we must look at these matters.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House that I have made some inquiries—or inquiries have been made on my behalf—about the statement text. Apparently, it left my office at 2.35 pm, but something went wrong subsequently. I apologise to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen for that. Their predecessors will know that, when I make statements, I make a point of getting the text to those who need it the requisite hour before.

The Secretary of State will know that the highlands and islands have long laboured under very high fuel charges. Should not any road pricing scheme ensure that fuel prices in those areas are substantially lower than at present, given that people currently pay as much as £1 per litre?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am well aware of the fuel prices in the western isles, as I have paid those high prices on many occasions. He is right, to the extent that road pricing would depend on distance travelled and on a given road's level of congestion. Various prices were modelled in the feasibility study that we published last July, but a lot of work remains to be done. If any national system were established, it would be UK wide. Scottish local authorities' participation in the piloting process would depend on whether they wanted to take part, and on their willingness to work with the Scottish Executive.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the fund will not be used for schemes that are not revenue neutral? People are worried that it will be used to raise additional revenue for the Exchequer, so will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will not be the case even locally?

The pilot schemes would work on the basis that people would be rebated the cost of their fuel, and they would run alongside the present system, so I am not sure the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman would arise. The aim of the pilot studies is to look at the technicalities involved in the scheme, and to determine whether it would work. The studies will also try to find out whether people's behaviour can be changed. The fund is also available for necessary improvements in public and other transport, and will not to be devoted solely to the road pricing scheme. A concerted effort to deal with congestion in a particular area means that money must be put into all aspects of transport, not just one.

Towards the end of his statement, the Secretary of State made an announcement about lorry road user charging being suspended and rolled into total road user charging. The Chancellor promised hauliers a level playing field with the rest of Europe as they move from fuel tax and towards road charging. Will they now see that level playing field disappear over the horizon?

The hauliers are concerned about two things. First, they are worried about what they pay in comparison with what lorry drivers from France or Italy pay. Secondly, they are worried that a national scheme would mean that they would have to meet the costs of the lorry scheme, which might be higher than otherwise. The hauliers did not want the complexity that would arise if a scheme for the rest of transport were introduced after a lorry scheme, and that is something of which we are very conscious. The difference is that although the lorry duty charging scheme was first conceived in 2000 or 2001, matters have moved on since. It makes sense, if we are looking at a national scheme—specifically, at putting a fair amount of money into a pilot scheme—to bring the two things together. It would be a mistake to continue one separately because it was designed with slightly different objectives in mind.

As I said earlier, we are determined to continue to work with the haulage industry, and we work closely with it through the forum that was established five years ago. I hope that the announcement about fuel duty today will also help the industry.

When the Secretary of State considers technology, why does he always consider hammering the British motorist? Why is he not looking at technologies being researched in the United States to increase traffic density two or three fold, which would allow 100 million cars on our roads without congestion? Has he looked at such research? He talks about spending £2.5 billion on road pricing. Why not spend that money looking at ways to increase traffic density without the congestion that we do not want?

There are some 32 million cars on the UK's roads, and I do not know how on earth we would get 100 million cars on them. I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman runs around his constituency promising to fill the roads to the point of gridlock, because that would not make any sense. If the hon. Gentleman was asking about the management of roads and ensuring the free flow of traffic, he may be aware that we are about to introduce a measure similar to one used in the United States, on the M42 in the west midlands—which is not a million miles away from the area that he represents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme would provide a genuine incentive for individuals to seek more environmentally friendly forms of transport and that it would also be of benefit to those pensioners who use their cars only once or twice a week and thus do not get value for money out of the present system?

If someone uses their car rarely, the scheme will benefit them. It is also important that we maintain measures that encourage people to drive environmentally friendly cars, on top of other measures that the Government have introduced to encourage greater fuel efficiency and the growth in the use of biofuels.

Will the Secretary of State clarify one important message in his statement? In paragraph 17, he said that local authorities will be encouraged to bid for development funding, available in the next three years, to support planning for local demand management schemes where pricing is a major element. Does that mean that local authorities that have a different sense of local priorities—for example, authorities that wish to invest in a relief road or in soft measures to improve bicycle use or bus use—should take from his statement the message that they should not bother?

No, that is not right. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it, but last December, when the issue arose in relation to Manchester and its metro, I made it clear that nobody is telling Manchester that it has to adopt road pricing. The Department supports several measures, including relief roads and measures to encourage cycling. The scheme is one part of my proposals for the transport innovation fund. It is an important part, but it is not the only thing that we are going to do. We are doing, and will continue to do, other things in transport. However, if we are to pilot road pricing, we need to be prepared to spend some money doing so, and that is why I attach considerable importance to it. The Department will of course continue to fund other schemes, including relief roads and the other transport measures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The Secretary of State has rightly attacked the rail companies for their proposals for congestion charging on the railways. What proposals does he have to review the system of public transport regulation to ensure that their charging policies complement rather than undermine his welcome move to road pricing?

In any transport system, we have to ensure as far as we can that the schemes are complementary. My point about the railways was that a policy predicated on saying to people, "Don't go on the railways"—it more or less suggests that they should stay at home—is doomed to failure and I would not support it. The hon. Gentleman is right. As we try to introduce measures to ease the flow of traffic and make it easier for people to get around, other modes of transport need to complement that. We need to continue to invest in a wide range of transport and continue to ensure that we develop schemes that might make transport, and car travel in particular, easier in future. That is why we wish to establish the transport innovation fund.

We suffer from appalling congestion because we distribute our road assets in a manner similar to the manufacture of iron bars in Novosibirsk under the Soviet Union, so I am sympathetic to the idea. But I should like some clarification to the reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The Secretary of State has used phrases such as new money, so if road pricing is to be brought in, can he clarify whether that money will entirely replace vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, which will be abolished?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his preparedness to look at these things. As I said to his right hon. the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) a few moments ago, if we were moving to a new system of charging on the basis of distance travelled, varied according to how congested a road is, that would be in place of the present system. We cannot have a situation where we simply impose additional charges; it would be a radically different way of looking at these things and we need to see whether it is feasible. We need to consider whether the gains that we think would come from such a scheme are possible. If we could achieve it, there would be a huge prize. Far from having 100 million cars on Britain's roads, as his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) seemed to be hinting we should, most people would rather have roads that can be driven along rather than being used as a very big car park.

Will the Secretary of State accept that we cannot preserve our roads only for rich people? In my constituency, there is genuine concern about some of the figures that have been talked about in the press—for example, £1.34 a mile, which would mean that a nurse commuting from Broxbourne to Chase Farm paid about £120 a week in charges. We could give her all the free petrol she could use and it still would not cover the £120 charge.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have pointed out to his constituent that the study from which the figure of £1.34 was derived stated that the charges would range from 2p a mile to £1.34, and the £1.34 would be paid by only 0.5 per cent. of the population, on a very narrow range of streets, at very busy times. We have to be grown up about these things, but inevitably, given a range of figures, people reporting these matters tend to go for the highest rather than the lowest. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will want to tell his constituent that, and if he likes, I will happily write him a letter making that point, which he can pass on.

May I say gently to the Secretary of State that we do not all live on one island, overcrowded or otherwise? People who travel to and from my constituency are among the few who already pay charges, which vary, depending on congestion and distance, and considerably exceed £1.34 a mile. My constituents pay road fund licence fees and petrol duty in addition. The Secretary of State has a rural bus grant and the Chancellor has announced half-price bus fares for pensioners, so will the Secretary of State tell us whether the transport innovation fund can be used to extend those benefits to passenger ferry users?

I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The transport innovation fund is not intended to fund concessionary travel of the sort to which I think he refers. I know that he had hoped to be in the Chamber at Transport questions to raise that point last time, but unfortunately he could not—I do not know whether the ferry held him up. Concessionary travel might be part of an overall strategy, but the hon. Gentleman asked specifically whether the fund could be used to support such travel—like the £350 million that the Chancellor has allocated for concessionary travel for pensioners—and the answer is, no, that is not what it is intended to do.

I am well aware of the fact that not everyone in the UK lives on one island. I do not live on an island, but I know an island well and it is expensive to cross the sea to go there, so I understand that point perfectly. The hon. Gentleman will know that under successive Governments ferry fares are not always based on what it would cost to drive along a road—but there are other benefits to living on an island, as I am sure he knows.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a warning symbol to be prominently displayed on the packaging of pharmaceuticals which act on the brain and central nervous system so as to impair dangerously the consumer's ability to carry out certain activities; and for connected purposes.

This is the second time for this Bill—I secured a ten-minute rule motion in the last Session, but the general election meant that the Bill fell, as the scheduled Second Reading date was after the election. Since then I have continued to consult on the proposal with national organisations, as well as locally with pharmacists in my constituency, directly and through the Barnet Pharmaceutical Committee, which is very supportive of the Bill, as is my local primary care trust. I have also held a consultation with local residents, and the responses that I have received are overwhelmingly in favour.

Turning to the substance of the Bill, a psychoactive pharmaceutical is one that has a direct action on the brain and thus exerts its clinical effects, such as reducing depressive symptoms or levels of anxiety, or inducing a good night's sleep. Such pharmaceuticals are also used to treat panic attacks, post traumatic stress, obsessive-compulsive disorders and allergies. The direct action on the brain needed to alleviate the symptoms also gives the potential to affect other nervous functions for the accurate performance of the tasks of daily living, whether at home, on the roads or in the workplace, including the rate of information processing, alertness and attention, visual processes, motor co-ordination and memory. I would hazard a guess that most of us in the House today know someone who has used these perfectly legal drugs without knowing that if the user were then to take to the roads their judgment could be just as impaired as if they had drunk alcohol well over the legal limit.

Over a five-month period, Professor Hindmarch of Surrey university conducted a pilot study in which blood samples were collected from people at two hospitals treating accidental injuries. The results of the study implied strongly that the presence of tricyclic antidepressants and benzodiazepines presented an increased risk of accidental injury. Under a different pilot scheme, information on contributory factors to road accidents was collected by 15 police forces in 2002 and 2003. The influence of drugs was recorded as a contributory factor proportionally on a par with the effect of excess alcohol, although it is not clear what proportion were legal or illegal drugs.

In 2001, the Transport Research Laboratory published a study to measure the incidence of drugs in fatal road accident casualties. An earlier study published in 1989 had found that the incidence of medicinal drugs, at 5.5 per cent., and illegal drugs, at 3 per cent., was relatively low in comparison with alcohol at 35 per cent. However, the 2001 study, based on results collected between 1996 and 2000, found that the incidence of medicinal and illegal drugs in the blood samples of road traffic fatalities was three times higher than in the previous study, at 24 per cent., while the incidence of alcohol had fallen to 31 per cent.—again, figures roughly in parallel.

A Canadian study of fatal road accidents in 1981 found that drivers who had used benzodiazepines were found culpable in 98 per cent. of the cases examined. Drivers involved in fatal road accidents who were taking antihistamines were found culpable in 72 per cent. of cases.

There is no defined limit for drug use as there is for alcohol, and no such clear-cut test as the random breath test. Moreover, the law does not make a distinction between illegal or misused drugs and "over-the-counter" or prescription drugs, taken as directed by a GP or other medical practitioner. Just as we have come round to welcoming a culture that emphasises the need for warnings about alcohol levels—driving while drunk is no longer tolerated, and for most employers drunkenness at work is a dismissible offence—it is time to ensure that those using psychoactive drugs are aware of their effect.

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency provides advice to medical professionals, and doctors and pharmacists should provide information when dispensing prescriptions or other medicines. The Department for Transport is also currently researching the attitudes of UK health professionals about providing "fitness-to-drive" advice to the public. This includes an examination of advice given in relation to medication. However, this is not enough. Clearer labelling seems to me an excellent way both to alert the public to the unexpected hazards of what they may be taking to cure their ills, and to provide a clear safety message, triggering the need to consider the risks before driving or embarking on potentially hazardous work. Who would be willing to wield a dangerous power tool if they knew that their reactions might be seriously impaired?

At the moment, there may be a pharmacy sticker stating, "Do not drive if you feel drowsy," or, "may cause drowsiness". But of course by that time it is already too late, as the safe limits will have been exceeded. Inside the package, there may be a tightly folded patient information leaflet. If people manage to unwrap it, they find the print so small and illegible that they need a magnifying glass to read it. Of course, for those of our fellow citizens or visitors to our shores who speak little or no English, the leaflet is of little use or no use at all—and as the language used is very rarely plain English, it is often not much help to the rest of us either.

I do not believe that such warnings are adequate. The labelling is ambiguous and unhelpful. The patient is extremely unlikely to have insight into the actual level of drowsiness that is being caused in the brain. At present, those unclear or inadequate warnings could also leave the drug manufacturer, the prescribing doctor or the dispensing pharmacist at risk of a civil action for compensation for negligence if the patient suffers injury as a direct result of taking the medicine, without fully appreciating the risks, as a consequence of such a poor warning. The pharmacist who adopts present good practice by verbally supplementing the warning may well not escape liability, as things stand. The proposals in my Bill would significantly reduce, and probably eliminate, that risk of civil liability.

My Bill would require the external packaging of those medicines known to have an effect on judgment to be prominently marked. I propose the use of a red triangle, meaning quite simply, "the use of this medication could seriously impair your judgment," although the Bill leaves the precise design of the warning to be decided after appropriate consideration and consultation. The main classes of medication, although there are others, that would fall into the red triangle category would be benzodiazepines, which are available only on prescription and used primarily for anxiety or sleep disturbance; tricyclic antidepressants, which are also available only on prescription; and antihistamines, which are available over the counter to treat common complaints such as hay fever and conjunctivitis.

A report compiled by Loughborough sleep research centre identified those medicines that are available over the counter with the potential to cause drowsiness and, therefore, the potential to be hazardous. From the literature, it is clear that one antihistamine group—the H1 receptor—is particularly sedative and is even used for the relief of temporary sleep disturbance in some circumstances. The impairment caused by the recommended doses of at least two of those drugs is greater than that caused by the legal blood alcohol concentration limit for driving in this country. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to the sedative effects of those drugs.

I do not suggest that those drugs are dangerous in themselves or that their use should be curtailed in either prescription or over-the-counter sales; rather, what I advocate is that, because those drugs will continue to be used regularly by huge numbers of the population, a red triangle marking would stand as an unambiguous warning that the ability to drive or work safely might well be impaired on taking the drug. That would give users more control over their activities and an option to seek different medication if appropriate. Choice and control in avoiding preventable accidents are of paramount importance.

This view has already been taken in other countries. In Canada, a warning symbol was introduced under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996. In other countries such as France, the Netherlands and Denmark, a clear system of symbols is used: green if it is safe to drive; amber if caution is needed; and red to show that people must not drive. The European Commission has acknowledged the benefits of such a system and referred to the need for the appropriate labelling of medicines in the European road safety action programme for 2003 to 2010, which aims to halve the number of people killed on the roads by 2010.

EU directive 2001/83, dated 6 November 2001, deals with the Community code that relates to medicinal products for human use. Article 62 states that warning symbols may be used on the packaging of medicines to provide a clear warning of possible adverse effect. It states:

"The outer packaging and the package leaflet may include symbols or pictograms designed to clarify"

the detailed technical information and a summary of the product characteristics, which are useful for health education and are set out on the packaging and patient information leaflet.

Red triangle symbols are currently in use in Denmark, France, Iceland and Norway, and other versions of similar symbols are used in Austria, Belgium, Italy and Spain. The UK is lagging behind continental Europe. We should move towards a visible warning on those medicines that will leave no adult in any doubt about their potential effects. The red triangle is an obvious, visible warning saying, "Be careful what tasks you choose to do. Do not drive. Do not operate machinery." We need to act now to cut deaths and injuries on the road, in the workplace and at home. I hope my Bill will find favour with the House today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Stephen Pound, Martin Salter, Mr. David Hamilton, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Angela Eagle, Miss Anne Begg, Ann Keen, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Andrew Slaughter and Paul Flynn.

Pharmaceutical Labelling (Warning of cognitive Function Impairment)

Mr. Andrew Dismore accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a warning symbol to be prominently displayed on the packaging of pharmaceuticals which act on the brain and central nervous system so as to impair dangerously the consumer's ability to carry out certain activities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May 2006, and to be printed [Bill 39].

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill covers the aspects of the Government's five-year strategy on asylum and immigration, which was published last February, that require primary legislation. The purpose of the strategy is to make migration work for Britain. It includes measures to make our immigration system simpler, clearer and more robust. The reformed system will explain publicly and clearly who we will admit to the UK and why, and who we will allow to stay in the UK and why. It will also show that we enforce the rules rigorously in every respect.

The UK needs economic migration. We welcome people who migrate here to work and study—they are an essential part of our society and economy. Anyone who looks back over the recent years and decades will be able to give testimony to the major contribution that they have made to the life of this country. We need migration to fill the gaps in our labour market that cannot be filled from the domestic work force. Of course, the Government will continue to welcome people who are genuinely fleeing persecution. However, as we do so we will not—and cannot—tolerate abuse of the system. That explains why the five-year strategy contains four major work streams, in each of which we work with a range of other countries to improve the effectiveness of our system.

Has the Secretary of State considered carefully the interaction of the Bill with legal aid provisions and the warning of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs that lawyers deciding whether applicants face possible human rights concerns if deported should not have to gamble on funding decisions? Bearing in mind that the Government are sending people back to Zimbabwe and have been subject to challenge in the High Court on these matters, does he not realise what a chill that message sends through those who are concerned about the safety of those people?

Yes, we have considered those relationships. The Bill deals with some of those matters and the Lord Chancellor has made proposals in the other place on legal aid. He will continue to examine carefully the general aspects that the right hon. Gentleman raises. However, I hope that he agrees that it is important for legal aid resources to be focused on the people who most need them—the very people whom he described in his example. That is the purpose and intention of the Lord Chancellor's proposals.

May I ask my right hon. Friend about another aspect of legal intervention, namely, the way in which solicitors batten on to immigrants in this country who have legal problems? They charge money even for applications and then botch cases. I heard of a case this very afternoon involving the appalling Thornhills company in Manchester, which has botched cases so that they have to come to Members of Parliament anyway. Will my right hon. Friend make solicitors involved in immigration matters registrable in the same way in which advisers are?

My right hon. Friend is completely correct, so perhaps I can take this opportunity publicly to urge Members to let the Home Office know if they are aware of people who behave in the way in which he describes so that those cases can be dealt with. We set out in our five-year strategy specific proposals to deal with the problem because the sad fact is that a number of decent people are essentially taken in by fraudulent practitioners. That process is misleading and causes despair—it is simply a money scam in a wide variety of different ways. I take what my right hon. Friend says seriously and invite colleagues to communicate to us cases that need to be addressed, as he did in his intervention.

As my right hon. Friend progresses through his speech, will he address the problem of foreign students and the right of appeal? I am sure that he is well aware that universities are worried about that.

My hon. Friend is correct that there are concerns. I hope that he will forgive me if I address that matter later in my speech.

The Home Secretary should be aware that the proposed replacement of indefinite leave to remain with the right to remain for a period of five years, subject to revocation by his Department at any time, is of considerable concern. Further to the pertinent intervention of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), may I put it to the Home Secretary that the Aegis Trust, which is properly concerned with the genocide in Darfur, is horrified by the number of cases of asylum seekers from Darfur whom the Home Office judges it safe to return to Khartoum? That displays a truly staggering ignorance of the sinister character of the state apparatus in Sudan.

With great respect, the fact is that these are difficult issues. The Home Office is advised, as we rightly should be, by the Foreign Office about the conditions in any given country, whether it is Sudan, as the hon. Gentleman describes, or Zimbabwe, to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred. The principle, which must be right, is that we look at the circumstances of the individual and take those into account in the judgment process. I acknowledge that they are difficult judgments. I also pay tribute to the work of various non-governmental organisations that work in those areas. We talk to them—not all of which agree with us on every point, of course—about the right way to deal with the problem.

I listened to what the Home Secretary said about the need to consider individual circumstances. He will remember that recently he said in response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) that all Members' representations in asylum cases will be looked at carefully. Yet as I understand it, Mr. Absolom Mashamba, featured in The Times this morning, has been moved from Campsfield house to Heathrow for deportation to Harare tonight, despite the fact that his case has appeared in a British national newspaper and that I gave detailed representation to the Home Secretary's ministerial colleague last Friday. I have heard nothing back. Even if I receive something this afternoon, there is no opportunity for me to make further representations on the basis of that. Will the Home Secretary assure me that he will stop the removal tonight so that further legal action can be taken by that man, who has been on hunger strike for 10 days?

rose—

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I remind the House that we are talking about the Bill. We should not use it as a peg to deal with individual cases that are under consideration.

I hear your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will proceed with what I have to say about the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman's representations were considered, as was my commitment to the House. I am not going to comment in detail on individual cases, but the issues are as I set out. Every individual case, including representations from Members, will be carefully considered.

The approach taken in the five-year strategy was to identify four major streams of work. First, we wanted to establish a single points system for those coming to the UK to work or study. That would be designed to ensure that we target those workers that the UK most needs, that we simplify the current system so that it is easier for employers and applicants to use and for the public to understand, and that we make it more robust against abuse. That will be accompanied by measures to tighten our rules for permanent settlement and to simplify the appeals system. We will consult before the summer on what the new system might look like, but the legal measures needed in primary legislation to deal with that are covered in clauses 1 to 10 and 42 to 44.

The second aspect to the strategy is that the Government are introducing a new asylum process, building on the major successes that we have had in reducing abuse of the system and speeding up the treatment of applications. The reduced asylum intake will enable us to fast-track almost all new cases and to maintain contact with asylum seekers at key points in the process, so that we are in a better position to remove individuals whose claims are not justified. The new process will be simpler and more effective for genuine refugees and it is complemented by a new strategy of refugee integration, which we published in March this year. Most of this part of our proposals will be dealt with by changes to administrative processes and by changes to the immigration rules through secondary legislation. Clause 38 develops our strategy of refugee integration effectively.

The third part of our proposals establishes a fully integrated immigration control that is intelligence-led and uses new technology to check people before they depart for the UK, on arrival, while they are here and on departure from the UK. By 2008, we will fingerprint all visa applicants, who will have their details checked before they can board aircraft for the UK under the e-borders programme. Identity cards will help us to ensure that people do not work illegally or fraudulently claim access to services and benefits. We will check people out of the UK so that we know who has overstayed. Those checks will be supported by measures to crack down on employers of illegal workers and by closer working with the airlines to deal with individuals who use forged documents or who destroy them en route. Those measures are a major part of the Bill and are dealt with in clauses 11 to 36.

Finally, we want to make a major new effort to increase the removal of failed asylum seekers. We will use £30 million of savings from the asylum budget to recruit 500 new front-line staff and we will continue our efforts to reach more agreements with major source countries on returns, building on the considerable successes that we have already achieved. That will help us, by the end of the year, to return more failed asylum seekers than there are new unsuccessful claims. We will achieve all of that through international co-operation—not through fortress Britain—with our European Union partners during the UK presidency by working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and by developing partnerships with major source and transit countries for immigration. Clauses 39 to 40 cover those measures.

The Home Secretary referred to the problem of illegally employed migrants which, as he and many hon. Members will know, has often resulted in human tragedy. Is he, like me, concerned about reports from an unnamed Government spokesman that just 12 individuals are employed in the central team dealing with that problem? Can he confirm that number—and if it is not correct, how many are there?

I cannot confirm the number from the Dispatch Box, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. We are working closely with our colleagues across government, in the Department of Trade and Industry and elsewhere, to increase the impact on people who are employing illegal migrants. The measures in the Bill that I am about to set out will give us more power to do just that.

May I thank the Home Secretary for listening to hon. Members' concerns about family visit appeals? Is it still the Government's policy to remove the right of oral appeal? If so, where have abuses occurred in the system? Other hon. Members and I rely on that system to show that the immigration system is fair because people have a right of oral appeal.

We are ready to listen to my hon. Friend and many colleagues on both sides of the House who are concerned about the issue. As he knows, it is not addressed in the Bill, but it is certainly a matter of concern that he has raised with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and me. Our policy remains as set out in the document—there should not be oral appeals, but we acknowledge that the process gives rise to a good deal of concern among many colleagues, so we are ready to continue discussing it with an open mind to see how we can make progress.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that appeals are rarely successful if heard on the basis of papers? The oral appeal allows the sponsor to state the appellant's case through a representative while the Home Office puts the case of the entry clearance officer. Removing that appeal would undermine people's ability to visit close relatives. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not do what the Tories did and undermine the appeals system.

First, I confirm what I said a moment ago—we are ready to discuss the situation and listen to the points made by my hon. Friend and others. Secondly, in my opinion the solution to the problem lies in achieving better and more effective decision making at the initial level in the process.

A number of complaints have been made to me by hon. Friends and others that our decision taking is not as accurate as it needs to be and does not take full account of all factors. It is important that we get a better level of co-operation than we have been able to achieve between the communities that we are discussing and the Home Office. All that is part of the same approach. I say again that our minds are not closed on the matter that my hon. Friend raises, although I am sceptical about some of the points made in that regard.

May I elaborate on the disquiet that I and others feel about the proposed withdrawal of appeal rights for overseas students and migrant workers, which could have a negative effect on the British economy? With regard to family visits, there is a need for great sensitivity towards different cultural groups in their understanding of the role of core family members. Will my right hon. Friend reinforce his determination to listen to these points and re-examine the matter in Committee?

As I said a moment ago, I shall deal with that point in a moment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is there a problem with the quality of some of the decisions taken by entry clearance officers, but that some of the problems stem from the subjective tests applied? We need to ensure transparency and accountability in the decision making.

My hon. Friend puts his point clearly. One of the problems with the whole system has been a lack of transparency and clarity, both for the country as a whole and for the individuals who go through the system. It is important to establish a much clearer system. That is one of the reasons for the points system that we propose for people who come to the UK to work and to study, which will attempt to be much clearer, in the way that my hon. Friend described, for people who are thinking of coming to the country so that they can be better dealt with. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of a clear, transparent system. That is the thrust of the five-year strategy.

The Prime Minister has stated that he wants the number of failed asylum seekers deported to match the number of people coming in, yet in the first quarter of this year the number of new applications is still running at double that. Does the Home Secretary consider that target unrealistic?

No, I think that it is entirely attainable. It is based first, on reducing the number of people seeking asylum in Britain, and secondly, on increasing the number of people who are returned to their country of origin. I shall give one clear example. We have stated clearly to our colleagues in the rest of the European Union that we believe that it is important that the EU as a whole gets a return agreement during our presidency—that is, before the end of December this year—with Russia, Ukraine and Morocco. Those are not mainstream problem countries from our point of view, but they are significant nevertheless. There is a series of such moves that we are seeking to develop and I believe we will achieve the target that we have set.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that entry clearance officers enjoy enormous powers of decision making and, to my knowledge, are not subject to any scrutiny by the Home Office? Will he reconsider the system of giving too much power to entry clearance officers, which cannot be challenged other than in an appeal in a court of law?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It is true that the decisions taken are important for the people concerned. I do not accept, however, that there is no scrutiny by the Home Office more generally on the matter. In fact, there is a great deal of scrutiny of the way in which the process operates. As a result of that scrutiny we published the five-year approach that we set out last February, precisely to try and improve the quality of the work that is done. The new asylum process that we are setting out in the document and that some aspects of the Bill seek to take forward is designed to improve the quality of the work. I know, and my hon. Friend knows, that there are many cases where we have not done as well as we should, but our approach must be to improve, and that is what the Bill is about.

rose—

I shall make some more progress, and then I may give way again.

On the first of the four work streams—the rules for permanent settlement and appeals—clauses 1 to 3 and 9 are concerned with appeal arrangements for people in the UK who are refused further leave or whose leave is varied. The clauses replace the current system with a single appeal at the removal stage, which would deal with all aspects of the case. An exception is made for people who have previously been recognised as refugees in the UK but who we judge no longer need our protection because their circumstances or the position in their country of origin has changed. The provisions ensure that someone who was a refugee can appeal against a decision that he or she is no longer a refugee before we move to take removal action.

Clauses 4 and 5 abolish appeals for work and study routes for those refused entry clearance overseas and those refused entry at a UK port or airport. That policy was set out clearly in the five-year strategy and was a manifesto commitment. However, I entirely understand the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Bedford (Patrick Hall). Major concerns have been expressed about student visas—more so than work visas—and we have to take those very seriously. My proposition is that appeal rights should be focused on asylum and family cases that raise fundamental issues. As I said, the introduction of the single points-based scheme will ensure that the rules for entering the UK to work or as a student are as clear, simple and transparent as they need to be.

Since I became Home Secretary—coming, as some Members may recall, from the Department for Education and Skills—I have been acutely aware of universities' concerns about these matters, which I have discussed with them in a variety of ways. The changes that we have made will ensure a much more direct dialogue with the universities about the visa system that operates. Universities justifiably complained that we had an inflexible system in which it was very difficult for them to have any impact on the operation of the visa system as regards renewals and a whole series of issues that needed to be sorted out. We are trying to make progress in those areas. Their two fundamental concerns relate to the cost of visas and the question of appeals. It is important to bear in mind that, given that universities are bringing £3 billion a year in business into this country, it is not unreasonable for us to make a charge that meets the costs as they go through. The number of people on appeal is a very small proportion of the overall student body, but it makes the whole process for all students far slower and less effective than it would otherwise be.

I therefore defend our proposals. Colleagues may want to make further points in Committee, but we have the right approach and that is how I intend to deal with the matter.

With regard to overseas students, I have come across cases in my constituency where entry clearance officers have directly gainsaid the judgment of a university offering a course. That is not right.

Serious issues have arisen in the university sector—or I should say more generally the overall education sector—regarding essentially bogus institutions that are a device for people to come into the country pretending to be students. Together with the Department for Education and Skills, we have taken strong steps to deal with that. I remain of the view that the way in which to deal with my hon. Friend's genuine concerns is to have a proper dialogue between the university sector and the Home Office about how to ensure that the visa system works in the most effective way.

As my right hon. Friend knows, I have two universities in my constituency, but I am still unclear about his comments on the abolition of the appeals mechanism if a university has only a small number of students. I do not understand how that affects other conditions and arrangements that he wants to make with universities.

I am sorry that I was unclear. The reason for the proposals in the five-year strategy is that the appeal process is massively time consuming and expensive for the visa operational system. We want to make it as simple and straightforward as possible. We therefore included the points plan, which will make it easier for people to know—before they come to a university in Coventry or elsewhere—exactly where they stand. I believe that the proposals will lead to a far better service for the individual students at the universities that my hon. Friend represents and for universities to enable them to move more effectively.

I plead guilty to the charge that the system for universities was too inflexible. It is necessary to achieve a better state of affairs, whereby my hon. Friend's concerns can be sorted out. However, I do not believe that the appeals system is central to that.

Will the Home Secretary explain the high error rate on student visa decisions? It is such that the Immigration Advisory Service claims that 60 per cent. of its cases are successful on appeal. The university of Sheffield argues that, in 90 per cent. of the cases that it brought, they were either successful or the refusal was withdrawn. Since the errors are so enormous, surely the appeals system should be preserved.

I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman cites. However, the most important way of addressing the appeals problem is to get a more accurate system of making initial decisions. The overall process that we have set out will achieve that in the ways that I have described.

My understanding is that one reason for the success of appeals in student cases is that additional information is provided on appeal, which leads to the initial decision being overturned. However, the universities have expressed a concern about whether, if the same person decides on the prospective student's fresh application, there will be prejudice against that student given the black mark against his or her name.

I do not believe that such prejudice will exist, but the working party, to which I referred earlier, to establish the discussion between universities and the Home Office on those matters will deal with those specific points. Let me add another serious point, which relates to my hon. Friend's remarks. It is important that people who want to study here apply to come here in a timely way. There are tricky issues about late applications and the way in which they are tackled that relate to his point about information. I hope that we can reach a state of affairs whereby those decisions are taken properly.

I understand what the Home Secretary is trying to achieve. Bogus colleges became a specific problem in the past couple of years. In the past year or so, the National Audit Office conducted a study of entry clearance and raised the question of the quality of decisions. Although Conservative Members are minded to accept the Home Secretary's arguments on appeals, the decision hinges strongly on improvement in quality. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake to take on board the proposals in the NAO report on the subject and inform an early sitting of the Standing Committee so that it can reach a judgment on the matter?

I give the undertakings for which the right hon. Gentleman asks to take the NAO proposals into account and to inform the Committee. However, I can go further: because of the importance of his point, which I tried to make earlier, I am prepared to say that if we do not improve the quality of decisions, the matter should be brought before the House to ascertain how we move forward.

I emphasise the universities' concerns about the money that is brought in. However, from the perspective of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, universities play a vital role in the long-term future economic well-being of this country by bringing people here and exposing them to our culture and our way of doing business. That pays long-term dividends when those people go back to be managers and decision makers in their countries. It is therefore vital that we have a system that ensures that as many people as possible get here as overseas students. To that end, when the Home Secretary says that he wants to make the system more transparent, efficient and effective, surely he can maintain the appeals procedure. If it is more transparent, effective and efficient, there will be fewer appeals.

I do not want to be dismissive or rude, but the general point is self-evident. It is critical for the economy that large numbers of people continue to want to study in this country in a variety of ways. It is important for the foreign policy reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggests as well as for economic reasons. Most importantly, however, British educational institutions, particularly the universities, must remain an attractive proposition—in what is, incidentally, a highly competitive marketplace—for people seeking to come to this country. Furthermore, so far as the Home Office is concerned, it is important that we deal with the applications of people coming to this country in the most effective and efficient way possible, which is what we are doing in these provisions.

Is it not the case that a significant number of the students from other countries who are accepted by British universities do not show up, and that others who do show up disappear rather quickly afterwards? Has it not also been the case, at least in the recent past, that some universities are in denial about this problem?

I would not be anything like as vicious and sharp in my use of language as my hon. Friend, but he accurately describes the state of affairs. The big issue involves a change of culture that runs right through the whole five-year strategy. We need to understand that responsibility for the migration and asylum system in this country is a matter not only for the Home Office and its agencies but for those who benefit from that migration. We are trying to form a partnership with the universities so that everyone can acknowledge their responsibilities in regard to dealing with the problem. I accept my hon. Friend's point, and I have set out what we are trying to achieve.