My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, has made the following written statement in the other place today:

"The Compensation Bill has been published today.

The Bill will provide better safeguards for consumers of claims management services and will reassure those concerned about possible litigation that the law of negligence takes the social value of activities into account and that they will not be found liable if they adopt reasonable standards and procedures.

The Bill sets out the proposed legislative framework for the regulation of claims management services to provide effective protection for consumers and to tackle the bad practices that have been a common feature of the claims management sector. Regulation will be applied initially to areas where consumers are most at risk—personal injury, criminal injuries compensation, employment, housing disrepair and claims for redress in relation to the mis-selling of financial products such as endowment policies.

The Bill will provide for regulation that is effective, proportionate to the risk involved, and creates the minimum burden necessary. The Bill will deliver a level playing field of consumer protection so that whomever a consumer seeks advice and assistance from they can expect a quality service and proper mechanism for redress if a problem arises.

The Bill will make it an offence for claims management services to be provided by persons who are not authorised under the new regulatory regime or who are not already fully regulated by another regulator such as the Law Society or the Financial Services Authority.

The Bill will provide for the Secretary of State to appoint or establish a body to regulate the claims management sector. Regulatory responsibility will only be given to a body that is competent, has appropriate governance and other management arrangements in place and will provide benefits to consumers. If no suitable body can be appointed or established, the Secretary of State will regulate directly.

The Bill's provision on negligence reflects recent judgments of the higher courts. It makes clear that when considering a claim in negligence, in deciding what is required to meet the standard of care in particular circumstances, a court is able to consider the wider social value of the activity in the context of which the injury or damage occurred. It provides that the court can have regard to whether requiring particular steps to be taken to meet the standard of care might prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken or might discourage people involved in providing the activity from doing so.

The Bill forms part of a wider programme of work which is being taken forward across Government, and in partnership with stakeholders, to tackle perceptions that can lead to a disproportionate fear of litigation and risk averse behaviour; to find ways to discourage and resist bad claims; and to improve the system for those with a valid claim for compensation."

I am pleased to announce that CarillionEnterprise, sponsored by Carillion Services Ltd. and Enterprise plc, has been awarded the Regional Prime Contract covering the Ministry of Defence's estate in the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East of England, North West of England and the whole of Wales. This follows the successful conclusion of discussions with CarillionEnterprise which was appointed as preferred bidder in May 2005.

The seven-year contract, worth in the region of £550 million, is the fourth in a series of five such regional arrangements to cover the estate and provide for capital works, property maintenance and facilities management services, throughout the Central region of England.

The MOD has undertaken to make significant improvements in the overall condition of its estate by changing its organisational structures and introducing Prime Contracting methods. Encouraging innovation and efficiency, Regional Prime Contracting is a key initiative that aims to provide a better quality of service and greater value for money through suitably incentivised contracts conforming to the principles of "Smart Acquisition". The remaining Regional Prime Contract covering the East region is expected to be awarded later this year.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) will be held on 7 November in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will represent the UK.

The agenda items are as follows:

Report on Informal Heads of State/Government meeting (Hampton Court, 27 October 2005)

The Presidency will report back to Member States on the outcome of the meeting and indicate any areas of action to be taken forward.

Financial Perspectives

This will be the first full ministerial discussion of future financing during the UK Presidency. We expect it will focus on the outstanding areas where further progress is needed, with the aim of providing a useful basis for working towards a deal at the European Council on 15–16 December.

WTO/DDA

The Commission will update the Council on the latest state of play in the WTO negotiations.

Avian Flu

The Presidency will update Partners on latest developments and invite the Commission to do the same.

Kosovo

The Council will discuss how best the EU can support a final status process for Kosovo and what contribution on the ground it might be able to make to a Kosovo settlement. Council Conclusions are expected.

Iran

The Council will focus on how the EU should take forward its relationship with Iran taking into account developments in the EU's areas of concern (including Iran's nuclear programme, human rights record, approach towards terrorism, and opposition to the Middle East Peace Process). The Council will also discuss the remarks made by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad calling for "Israel to be wiped from the map." Council Conclusions are expected.

Syria

Following the publication of the 20 October report by Detlev Mehlis on the assassination of former Lebanese President Rafic Hariri and the approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1636, the Council will focus on the EU's relationship with Syria. Council Conclusions are expected.

MEPP

Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner is expected to present the Commission's Communication on EU support for the Palestinian Authority. The Council is also expected to announce the launch of an ESDP Police Mission in the Occupied Territories (EU COPPS) to build on the work led by the UK to support the development of Palestinian civil policing capacity. Council Conclusions are expected.

Iraq

The Council is expected to welcome the recent approval of the new Iraqi Constitution. Council Conclusions are expected.

Belarus

The Council will focus on the deteriorating situation of human rights and political freedoms in Belarus and the need to address these concerns, particularly in the light of Presidential elections in 2006. Council Conclusions are expected.

UN World Summit follow-up

The Council will briefly discuss the EU's commitment to playing an active role in ensuring that the reforms agreed at September's UN World Summit are fully and urgently implemented. Council Conclusions are expected.

Today I am announcing that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is launching a new, rapid process for assessing drugs and other treatments. The single technology appraisal process will be used initially to produce faster guidance on life-saving drugs which have already been licensed and on new medicines close to when they first become available. This new process is in addition to NICE's standard process.

NICE is starting work immediately on five topics as a first tranche. NICE will also be consulting widely on the new process over the next three months. The Institute will consult with organisations representing patients, healthcare professionals and the healthcare industries on the details of the new process. Comments arising from the consultation will be taken into account alongside the lessons learned from developing guidance on its first tranche.

The new faster process will benefit many thousands of patients, especially those with life threatening conditions. It will provide greater certainty about the provision of important new treatments, as well as enabling the National Health Service to plan better for the introduction of new drugs.

The Youth Justice Board's Annual Report and Accounts for 2004–05 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies have been placed in the House Library.

I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has reappointed members to the Tribunal (including a President and Vice President) by Letters Patent for a period of five years, as provided for by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The reappointed Tribunal members are:

Lord Justice John Mummery—President

Sir Michael Burton—Vice President

Mr William Carmichael

Sir Richard Gaskell

Sheriff Principal John McInnes QC

Mr Peter Scott QC

Mr Robert Seabrook QC

The Tribunal considers proceedings brought under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the intelligence agencies and in respect of the investigatory powers covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, by all public authorities. It also considers all complaints against the intelligence agencies and all complaints against public authorities in respect of the powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Tribunal, which is independent of Government, has full powers to investigate and decide any case within its jurisdiction.

I am announcing today statistics relating to anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs).

An ASBO is a civil order that protects the community from behaviour that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator.

ASBOs were introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and have been available since April 1999. They can be issued to anyone aged 10 years or over. They impose restrictions on the behaviour of individuals who have behaved in an anti-social way and protect communities from often longstanding and highly intimidating activity.

Breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence and can lead to custody. The maximum penalty for breach of an ASBO is five years imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 for an adult offender. Data on the number of ASBOs issued are updated quarterly.

New figures for the period up to March 2005 are now available. These figures show that for the period between April 1999 and March 2005 the number of ASBOs issued (as reported to the Home Office) was 5,557. The number of ASBOs issued in the quarter January to March 2005 is 897 and represents 16 per cent. of the total number of ASBOs issued over all quarters. Of those ASBOs issued, 53 per cent. were to adults and 44 per cent to juveniles (3 per cent. of ASBOs are age unknown). Some 50 per cent. were orders on application and 50 per cent. were orders on conviction.

The Home Office is notified by courts of ASBOs issued. However, evidence is emerging of some under-reporting of the number of ASBOs issued. The courts are requested to provide the Home Office with statistical information concerning all ASBOs. This has not happened in all cases, and the Home Office is currently working with Her Majesty's Courts Service to address this under-reporting.

A new single standard IT system (LIBRA) is planned to be implemented in all magistrates' courts during 2006 onwards and this will improve the quality and timeliness of data. Where data are not currently reported by the courts on time, data for previous quarters are reconciled to take account of any late court returns.

I have placed in the House Library a briefing note containing information about ASBOs and the ASBO statistics issued today.

I have today laid before both Houses the annual report for 2004–2005 of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Andrew Leggatt.

I am grateful to the Commissioner, and his office, for this report and the work that has gone into preparing it.

I have today laid before both Houses the annual reports for 2004 of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood. Some sensitive information has been excluded from the reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner in accordance with Section 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

I am grateful to the Commissioners for their reports and the work that has gone into preparing them.

The Government are very grateful for the continuing involvement of the whole range of interested parties in the development of the Company Law Reform Bill. Development of the Bill has proceeded on as consultative a basis as possible throughout, and has relied crucially on the close involvement of a wide range of businesses, business organisations, and other individuals and bodies.

Publication of the White Paper "Company Law Reform" in March this year was a key stage. The White Paper set out the Government's policy proposals in almost all areas of the Bill, and included draft clauses in many of these areas. Many further clauses were subsequently published on the website, along with further explanatory material, including a Government statement published on 19 July 2005.

Consultation has revealed continued broad support for the underlying thrust of the Bill, and for the great majority of the specific policies within it. Many comments of detail were received on the draft clauses. The Bill as introduced takes account of these comments and benefits very significantly from the suggestions made.

The full range of the Government's proposals is now set out in the Company Law Reform Bill, introduced to Parliament on 1 November. This statement sets out the main areas where, in the light of the consultation process or of other recent developments, the Government have made more substantial policy decisions in key areas since July.

Directors' duties

There were many detailed and helpful responses on the proposed statutory statement of directors' duties. In the light of those responses, the Government have decided:

that it is still fully committed to an approach based on "enlightened shareholder value", but wants to ensure that this adequately reflects wider expectations of responsible business behaviour. The duty to promote the success of the company will therefore place greater emphasis on the long-term consequences of business decisions, and on the need for directors to take account of factors such as the interests of employees and the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment so far as reasonably practicable.

to make it clearer that the statutory statement is (with two exceptions in respect of the duties on conflicts of interest) a codification of the current law and does not change the current position on authorisation.

to make it clearer that most of the duties continue to be fiduciary. This is important in respect of the remedies for breach of the duties.

to make clear that the clauses on directors' liabilities change the law on ratification so that the necessary majority to ratify a wrong has to be reached without the support of the wrongdoers.

True and fair accounts

It is a very clear common sense principle that the auditor's role is to ensure that accounts give a true and fair view of the company's financial position. Whilst some of the terminology differs, this is the aim both of our own UK company law traditions and modern International Accounting Standards.

The current law reflects this basic principle. However, the statutory framework is complicated and has become more so over time, combining both UK and Community law provisions. The Government is therefore taking the opportunity in the Bill to restate s.235 of the Companies Act to express the principle more clearly in the legislation.

To underline the point, the Bill also includes a new clause providing an express duty on Directors to ensure accounts give a true and fair view. We are requiring that auditors take this new duty of the directors into account when they conduct their audits, to underline the point that directors and auditors should approach the accounts with the same common sense objective of ensuring that accounts give a true and fair view of the company's financial position.

Resolutions and meetings

Minimum_notice_period_for_AGMs

The Government had originally proposed reducing the statutory minimum notice period to 14 days, as a simplificatory measure. But several stakeholders have commented that the original CLR recommendation may have been overtaken by EU developments. The proposed EU Shareholder Rights Directive is currently consulting on introducing a minimum notice period of 21 "business" days for quoted companies AGMs.

Some stakeholders have also argued that such a change could conflict with the increasingly important "shareholder engagement" agenda. In the light of these concerns, the Government have decided to retain the current law (21 days for AGMs and 14 days for other general meetings), at least pending further clarity at EU level.

15_day_holding_period

This White Paper proposal was intended to foster shareholder engagement, by giving shareholders a 15 day "window" where they can act upon the information disclosed in the company's annual accounts and report and lay resolutions for the general meeting. But stakeholders raised significant concerns that it might cause practical difficulties and thus impose additional costs in implementation, particularly in conjunction with our other proposal to shorten the timeline between the financial year-end and holding the AGM to six months.

The Government are still keen to foster the underlying policy of shareholder engagement. The Bill will therefore ensure that shareholder resolutions requisitioned before the end of the financial year-end should still be circulated at the company's expense.

Institutional Investor Voting

The White Paper said that the Government were continuing to explore the proposal that institutional investors should disclose how their voting rights had been exercised, as had been recommended by the Company Law Review. The Government published draft clauses on this on 14 October 2005. The proposal has attracted considerable stakeholder comment with views polarised. Some consultees argue that such a mandatory disclosure regime will be costly for industry and that the benefits are unclear. Others strongly support the measure. The Government believe it is important that institutional investors take an active part in the governance of companies in which they invest and disclosing how they have voted is a helpful measure in this context. The Government would prefer disclosure to become the norm without statutory action but recognises that a voluntary approach may fail to deliver this outcome. Our approach is therefore to encourage disclosure without compulsion in the first instance but we consider that a power should be contained in the Bill against the possibility that sufficient disclosure does not take place on a voluntary basis. If it becomes necessary to exercise the power, the Government will consult fully with interested parties on any mandatory regime which might be considered, paying regard in particular to possible costs and benefits.

Offences

The White Paper consulted on changes to the framework of liability attaching to breaches of Companies Act requirements. These proposals attracted a good deal of comment. In particular, consultees were concerned about an apparent extension of liability beyond those officers of the company who are currently held to be liable for breaches. These comments focused on two specific White Paper proposals, namely that the definition of "officers in default" should be redefined and to some extent extended more widely within the company by the use of a new definition of "senior executive"; and the proposed inclusion of a category of persons, "responsible delegates", who would be newly liable in certain circumstances.

Concerns focused both on the desirability of the underlying policy, which many felt risked diluting the essential focus on the responsibilities of the directors themselves; and on the technical difficulties of defining these new categories of persons in ways which met the overall objective of increasing clarity. The Government share these concerns, and therefore does not now propose to take forward these specific measures.

The White Paper proposed to increase the maximum penalty for the offence of directors approving defective accounts to seven years imprisonment; and the July consultation proposed the same maximum penalty for the new offence for auditors who knowingly or recklessly issue an incorrect audit report. Stakeholders felt that these proposed penalties were excessive, and the Government have decided to remove the threat of imprisonment for both offences, for which the maximum penalty will therefore be an unlimited fine. Serious offences can still be pursued eg through a prosecution for theft or false accounting, each of which carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison.

Charges

On 19 July the Government launched a consultation seeking views on the economic impact of the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in respect of company charges. The timing of this consultation ensured that it would be possible to include a sufficiently wide power in the forthcoming Company Law Reform Bill to enable them to be enacted if there was firm support expressed for the Law Commission's proposals.

It was clear from the consultation that there is not a consensus of support for the proposals. The Bill will therefore not include a specific power to implement charges measures but the Bill will include a new power to make company law reform orders (as discussed in the White Paper), and this will provide a mechanism for implementing certain changes in respect of company charges, on matters of company law (as against property law) if wished. The Government will continue to consider and to discuss with interested parties exactly what changes should be implemented.

Paper free holding and transfer of shares

The White Paper said that the Government will be willing in principle to include provisions in the Bill which would permit companies to stop issuing paper share certificates. Many respondents argued that only a mandatory approach would achieve cost savings and wider business benefits, but they also agreed that it is too early to take a blanket approach and that more information is needed on the costs and benefits of a paper free approach. The Government believe it would be premature to take a decision on the case for a mandatory approach until there has been wider public consultation, but it does not wish to rule out the option for reform. The Bill will therefore extend the existing power relating to transfer of securities (section 207, Companies Act 1989) so that it can be used either to permit or to require the paper free holding and transfer of shares.

UK-wide law: Northern Ireland

On 7 September the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith) launched a consultation on the proposal that the new companies legislation should extend automatically to companies in Northern Ireland (as well as, as now, Great Britain). This proposal reflected the fact that legislation in Northern Ireland, though technically a separate matter, generally follows very closely the precedent of legislation in Great Britain, but with a distance in time which means that Northern Ireland companies do not generally get the advantages of new legislation until some time after their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts.

Consultation revealed substantial support for this proposal, and for the suggestion that certain other aspects of law which relate closely to company law (for example, limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships) should be legislated for on a UK-wide basis. The Bill reflects this position.

Company law will remain a transferred matter, and a future Northern Ireland Assembly could decide to resume responsibility for drafting separate Northern Ireland companies legislation if it considered it desirable.

Insolvency law

In the light of a recent decision of the House of Lords (Buchler and another v Talbot and others, re Leyland Daf [2004] UKHL 9) there may be an anomaly between liquidation and administration as regards the recovery of insolvency practitioners' expenses, raising concerns about whether or not companies will be advised to follow the most appropriate form of insolvency procedure. The decision is to the effect that for companies in liquidation the payment of the general expenses of the winding up cannot be paid out of assets which are subject to a floating charge ahead of the floating charge holder.

There may also be implications for both the general body of creditors and employees because floating charge holders may be attracted by the better returns that the more terminal liquidation procedure offers, as opposed to administration, which is more aimed at fostering company "rescue." For these reasons, the Government will change the law to ensure that for companies in liquidation general expenses of the wind-up can be paid out of assets subject to a floating charge ahead of the floating charge holder.

Enterprise Act

Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002 creates a gateway for the disclosure of information relating to specific consumer and competition matters. In addition, it creates a gateway to allow certain information to be disclosed for certain civil investigations and proceedings overseas. The current Part 9 gateways do not in general allow information to be released by public bodies to business and individuals for the purpose of civil proceedings.

The Government launched a consultation on this area on 23 August 2005. This consultation does not close until 18 November 2005 and the Government look forward to responses. No decisions will be taken until the Government have had the opportunity to consider all such responses. However, without prejudice to the outcome of that consultation, in the event that the Government were to decide that some relaxation of the gateways was appropriate, it would be necessary to provide some legislative route to implement the specific measure. The Bill will therefore include a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe through secondary legislation circumstances in which such disclosures might be made.

Yesterday I informed the Transport Select Committee that I have given the go ahead for new security techniques to be trialled on mainland rail and underground stations.

The trial will begin in the New Year. It will test how effective new and existing technology could be to help counter the continued terrorist threat to the UK transport network.

The trial will form part of our ongoing consideration of transport security. It comes after the review of rail security following the Madrid rail attacks in March 2004.

I informed the House of that review on the 10 March 2005, Official Report, column 130WS. It examined security measures in place and potential improvements to current systems on the UK's underground and rail networks. The review identified a package of recommendations to enhance rail counter terrorist security. Some of these measures will be obvious to the public, others are not.

The attacks of 7 July and the continued threat from international terrorism make this work more urgent. The equipment trial I am announcing today is a further stage in this work.

Transport security measures have to be proportionate and responsive. Around 3 million people travel on the London Underground network and well over 2 million people travel on the country's rail network every day. It is important that we reduce the risk to those passengers whilst recognising that accessibility is important to people and business.

It is equally important that we do not ignore the benefits that new technology could provide us. Potential security benefits should not be disregarded without due consideration. We have to be ready to look at whether further action is appropriate and practical.

The equipment trial I am announcing today is an important part of our considerations. It will use some currently available screening techniques on the national rail and London Underground network for the first time. It will help establish whether there are benefits in the introduction of a system of fractional screening. This is the screening of a small proportion of passengers on either a random or targeted basis using new technology or other systems available to us.

The equipment trial will begin in the New Year for four weeks on the Heathrow Express platforms at Paddington station. Further locations for a small number of trials will be identified by my Department in consultation with London Underground, Network Rail and others over the next six months.

The trial will be a series of tests of screening equipment. At selected locations a small number of randomly chosen passengers will be asked to take part in the tests. This may involve either going through a scanner or being searched either by hand, with the use of portable trace equipment or with sniffer dogs. Bags may be passed through x-ray machines.

Most techniques will be familiar to the public, especially to those who fly. However some technology will be new. This includes the first use on the UK railway of body scanners using millimetre wave technology. This enables the operator to check for objects concealed in or under clothing.

In itself the trial is not designed to be part of the current security regime. It will test the usefulness of the specialist equipment and help examine the practical issues that may affect its future use in a normal rail environment.

It is not suggested that it will be possible to turn our rail or underground network into a closed system like an airport. Widespread screening, even on a fractional basis, as to be tested now, would be a huge step and not one to be taken lightly. No decision on its the future use has been taken. This equipment test is essential to ensure that when it is, the decision is based on reliable evidence and experience.

The trial will be followed by a period of evaluation. I will of course keep the House informed.

In July 2004, I took the decision to withdraw funding for the Leeds Supertram because of excessive cost increases. Since then we have been in discussion with the scheme promoters, West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (WYPTE), about their alternative proposals.

I have considered very carefully all the new information provided by the promoters. The latest tram proposals are still very expensive—costs are nearly 40 per cent. higher than originally planned. This proposal is also for a reduced scheme which places more of the risks with the public sector. It does not represent the best value for money for the people of Leeds or the best use of public money—particularly when compared to alternative proposals put forward by WYPTE for a top of the range rapid bus scheme. I therefore cannot support requests to re-instate the tram proposal.

Leeds Supertram was given approval in 2001 with a cap on the public sector funding of £355 million in 2001 present value terms. By July 2004, costs had escalated considerably to over £500 million.

Since funding was withdrawn, the promoters have made great efforts to reduce the scheme costs. Their submission of November 2004 suggested that the funding requirement for a revised proposal was £392 million, in present value terms. This was for a reduced scheme (the current proposal truncates the southern line) and with some risks taken back into the public sector.

The promoters say their latest proposal requires public sector funding of £348 million in 2001 present value terms. However, this simple comparison is seriously misleading because:

These figures are the total value in 2001 of the required public funding, at the prices ruling in 2001. In 2005, at current prices, the value would be £486 million—nearly 40 per cent. above the 2001 cap. And this is still a present value figure, so it understates the cost increase in cash terms over the life of the scheme.

But it is the cash costs that count. The current proposal requires £261.6 million of grant and a total of £1,142 million in RSG payments, associated with the PFI credits, up to 2040. The original proposal required grant of £294.5 million, and only £467 million in annual payments to 2032. Allowing for local contributions, the cost to Government has almost doubled, from £664 million to £1.3 billion, over 40 years.

At a meeting with local Council Leaders on 26 July 2005, the Under-Secretary of State asked for additional information on tram costs and for further work to be done on a top of the range bus option. The aim was to consider whether buses could deliver a better solution than light rail when all possible existing levers were used in an imaginative and cost effective way.

We commissioned Atkins to carry out the study, working closely with WYPTE and its advisers. I am grateful to WYPTE for all the work they have done with the Department on this study.

Atkins based their work on that previously done by WYPTE to look at a bus rapid transit (BRT) system as an alternative to Leeds Supertram. This work was submitted to us in November 2004. Atkins concluded that the work undertaken by WYPTE was "very thorough, and a good basis for considering a high quality bus alternative in the current study".

A BRT system is a new approach to meeting public transport needs. It would involve superior quality vehicles with many features similar to trams, including high quality vehicle interior, air conditioning, double glazing etc. It would be accompanied by fixed physical infrastructure in terms of dedicated stops, high quality shelters, real time information, off-board ticket machines etc. And it would be developed to operate as a complete system, with destinctive branding, priority at junctions, lengths of segregated track etc.

Atkins concluded that:

"The BRT option has the potential to offer a lower cost and better value for money alternative to the Supertram proposal. Atkins considers that a BRTsystem would offer many of the attributes of the Supertram system, including:

similar stop and service patterns with a higher frequency service;

similar overall journey times (including waiting time);

the majority of the physical features;

in the region of 90 per cent. of the forecast patronage for Supertram; and

most of the wider appraisal benefits attributable to Supertram

and these would be delivered at around 50 per cent. of the capital cost of the tram."

Atkins recognises that BRT has most of the advantages of the tram scheme, but not all, and there remains an element of risk in their conclusions given that a comprehensive bus system has not been delivered in this manner before in the UK. They also noted that, in a deregulated bus market, there were delivery risks that would need to be addressed.

The tram proposal remains extremely expensive, and in cash terms still costs much more than the scheme we approved in 2001. I cannot, therefore, approve the Supertram proposals. On the other hand, the bus study suggests that a top of the range bus system, designed and delivered in a way similar to a tram network, has considerable potential, and would be significantly better value for taxpayers. It could benefit more people and would be more flexible with scope for further extensions.

With the right commitment from central and local government, and the local bus operators, there is an opportunity here for Leeds to develop a showcase bus stytem that could lead the way for other cities.

I would encourage West Yorkshire PTE to take this opportunity and to work with my Department to develop proposals. The funding will be there for the right proposals.

We acknowledge Atkins' comments about risks in delivering a BRT system. However none of the problems identified by Atkins is insurmountable. I very much hope that the bus companies in Leeds will work constructively with the PTE to show what a high quality bus system can deliver. There are clear benefits to the bus companies in so doing. However, should it be necessary, I am prepared to work with WYPTE to give them the powers they need to make sure we get a system that works properly as part of an overall transport policy.

We have always recognised that trams can be very effective in heavily trafficked areas. We will continue to be prepared to support trams, where they are the right solution. But we will not do so at any cost, and in many cases a well designed and promoted bus based system is likely to provide a more cost effective solution.

Where trams are promoted, they will need to be developed as part of an integrated approach to tackling an area's problems, and they will need to be supported by commitments to complementary measures to deliver the benefits of increased public transport usage and reduced congestion. We will continue to work closely with promoters and the industry to seek to ensure that these benefits can be realised, and that the costs of tram systems are minimised and properly controlled.