1. If he will make a statement on the planned future link between the M6 toll motorway and the M54. [42342]

The Highways Agency is working with the local highway authority to consider the benefits and disadvantages of providing an upgraded link road between the M54 and the M6/M6 toll motorway. The study work is in its early stages and an initial assessment of the options will be complete by the autumn of 2006.

The Minister is dead right in saying that the study is in its early stages because an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has revealed that the Highway Agency says:

"The current position regarding the M54 to M6 Toll Link is that development work has not proceeded as quickly as originally"

planned. He recognised the importance of that link road to strengthen not only the economy of mid-Wales, but those of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and greater Shropshire—

And North Shropshire.

And North Shropshire, as my hon. Friend points out. Indeed, the link would benefit everywhere west of the M6 toll, so when will it be ready?

We have already recognised that, in principle, we would be minded to support the scheme, but we must consider the details. In particular, one of the things that we must decide before we design such a scheme is where the new capacity between the midlands and the north-west will be provided—will the M6 be widened, or will there be a parallel toll road? Until we make that decision, we cannot decide on the design of the junction.

Does my hon. Friend know that the M54 was recently voted one of the most popular motorways in Britain? That is, of course, largely because it goes to and from Telford—

And Shropshire.

And wider Shropshire, of course. However, one of the problems that the business community in particular complains about is the fact that people cannot go northbound directly off the M54 on to the M6, and there is no direct link, of course, to the M6 toll road. It would be particularly advantageous to local business in Telford and across Shropshire if those links could be made. Will the Minister look very seriously at the proposal?

I have no doubt that the quality of the drive experience on the M54 and the destinations that can be reached on it are responsible for its popularity. On paper, the case for the scheme looks very strong— I can certainly understand the benefits to the local economy—but we must consider it very carefully, and we must also consider the disadvantages and weigh the benefits against those disadvantages. In particular, we must know what we are going to do with the M6 before we can finalise the design scheme, so we cannot commit ourselves at this stage, although I repeat that it looks as though there is a strong case.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that any such road will almost certainly go through my constituency, that there is great uncertainty in South Staffordshire, because of the doubtful outcome of the M6 inquiries, and that the sooner we can know precisely what the Government will propose, the better?

I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and such things must be disconcerting for his constituents. This matter has been going on for many years, even before this Government came to power, so I certainly understand his concerns and realise that he wants as early a decision as possible. I undertake to provide as early a decision as I can. I understand that he has already met the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss the issue, and if I can be in any way helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents in the meantime, I will certainly try to do so.

The non-trunk roads that motorists are using in the absence of the link road are mostly in the Stafford constituency, so may I assure the Minister that there is a lot of public support locally for the link, that it would make rural roads safer and that it could solve the problem of the present bottleneck where the M6 toll road joins the M6 motorway? May I add my voice to that of those who are urging him to treat this matter with some urgency?

Once again, I can certainly understand the need for a degree of urgency in this matter, but my hon. Friend has already been engaged in detailed discussions with me about the future of the M6, which is also a matter of great concern to him, so he will understand that there is also a lot of sensitivity about that. I cannot make assumptions about the design of the M6 until we have finished our consultation, so we cannot make assumptions about the design of the junction until we have made that decision. I will offer urgency proportionate to the complexity of the decisions that must be taken.

I should like to echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) about the importance of this road. As I have mentioned on many occasions, Shrewsbury is the only county town without a direct rail link to London.

Oh, no, it is not.

It is. Does the Minister agree that the road will be vital to provide better communication for Shrewsbury, thus encouraging business investment?

All I can do is repeat again that the case for the scheme looks strong on paper. It looks strong on economic grounds and on the basis of its benefits for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but we have to examine it carefully. We must consider the design carefully and weigh up the disadvantages before we can make a final decision. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and I am happy to continue discussing the matter with him in the future.

2. If he will take steps to make the train journey from Cardiff to London less costly for passengers. [42343]

The saver return and season ticket fares from Cardiff to London are regulated and limited to an average annual increase of 1 per cent. above inflation. There is also a wide range of other unregulated fares. They are set by operators and will often offer cheaper travel, especially if booked in advance.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that the first class return fare from Cardiff to Paddington is £199 and that one can fly to Athens and back for less? Is he also aware that the Apex return fare is £24.50? Is there anything that he can do to try to make Apex returns more widely available and less restricted so that many more of our constituents can travel up to London to visit us?

Fares must be competitive. Unregulated fares must compete with the fares of airlines and buses and the cost of using a car. However, regulated fares are lower in real terms than they were in 1995. There is a balance to be struck between what the taxpayer and the fare payer pay. As my hon. Friend says, there are quite a number of good deals on lower fares. It is important that they are publicised and that people are aware that they are available.

Will the Minister assist people from my Bridgend constituency who are disabled and may wish to go to Cardiff to shop, or come to London to see their Member? They have to plan their journey at least 24 hours in advance so that they can access the platform without going over horrendous sets of steps. The railway station insists that it must be given a minimum of 24 hours' notice to open a side gate to give people access to the London and Cardiff-bound platform. Can the Department give any assistance?

I will have a look at that and get in touch with the operator. We have announced the £370 million access for all fund to make access to the railway better for disabled people and those with prams. We will make an announcement in the near future about the stations that will be part of the first stage of the programme.

3. What assessment he has made of the number of motorists who will be using roads in England by 2014. [42344]

The Department estimates that there will be about 36.4 million driving licence holders in Great Britain in 2014, compared with just over 32 million in 2004. Furthermore, 27 million cars were licensed in Great Britain in 2004 and we think that that will grow to 31.3 million by 2014.

The M1 is due to become even more congested due to the Government's plans to build 100,000 houses between junctions 13 and 16. Is the Minister aware of the special problems with junction 13? The much-needed dualling of the A421 to get people off the M1 into Milton Keynes appears to be going nowhere because the plan falls between two regions that have given it different priorities. May I simply ask the Secretary of State to knock some heads together and arrange a meeting of the planners from the two regions to try to ensure that the much-needed project moves forward?

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are about to receive from different parts of the country their views on priorities for transport. There will undoubtedly be roads that affect different regions, in which case the Department will have to reach a view. The Government have made additional money available for several projects in Milton Keynes. On public transport, we made about £24 million available for rebuilding the station, which we hope will help as well. I am aware of the point that he makes about roads. There are a lot of pressures on the road budget, but in some cases we will have to find out what we can do to enable traffic to flow better.

Before 2014, the Olympics will of course come to London, which will bring an enormous number of visitors and lead to additional traffic on the roads of this country. My constituency hopes to take advantage of the boost to tourism, but I am worried that visitors who wish to drive to Portsmouth will be deterred by the bottleneck at Hindhead. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the South East England regional assembly that the Hindhead tunnel is the top transport priority for the south-east region?

I am aware that the region attaches considerable importance to the Hindhead tunnel. I am also aware of considerable concern about the cost increase. Ministers will examine the matter in the fairly near future.

I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry). There is concern in Hampshire and other parts of the south of England that major road projects are, in effect, parked on the hard shoulder while priority is given to infrastructure projects relating to the Olympic games. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that projects such as the tunnelling of the A3 at Hindhead will continue to have priority?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's aim is to continue to spend increasing sums in parts of the country where road improvements are necessary. The money for projects that will be needed for the Olympics has already been allocated, so that has no bearing on decisions relating to Hindhead or any other area.

The hon. Gentleman and the House will accept that, as I have said before, our problem in relation to roads generally is that we have not spent as much as we should have over the years. Looking at the figures earlier today, I noticed that in 1990 the then Government had 500 schemes in their roads programme; by 1997, the number was down to 150 because of spending cuts. We have been able to increase the amount of money available and a number of projects are now possible, but inevitably it will take time to put in place all the projects that we want.

I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to consider road pricing as a way of tackling congestion on our roads, rather than building more roads. I also welcome last year's decision to include Bristol in one of the feasibility studies, but does he accept that our efforts to get motorists out of their cars and on to public transport will fail in the face of the situation in my constituency, where First Group, which runs the buses, has increased fares three times in the past year, most recently by up to 22 per cent.? Will he respond to that?

When tackling congestion in Bristol or any other city it is important to achieve the right mix of adequate public transport, including affordable bus services, and appropriate measures to restrict traffic growth. That is especially important in a city such as Bristol, which I visited just before Christmas and which is already quite severely congested. I welcome my hon. Friend's remark about road pricing. I agree that we need a sensible building programme—additional capacity is needed in some places—but we must be mindful of our environmental obligations. The key is to balance the two, which is not always easy, but I believe that it can be done.

Another way to reduce pressure on the roads budget and on the roads is to invest more in railways. One way to reduce pressure on Milton Keynes would be to invest in the east-west rail link, which will eventually link Southampton and Felixstowe via Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes. The project has the comprehensive support of every local authority along the route and it has been the subject of more surveys and project reports than any other scheme that I can think of; all it requires is a Government funding commitment. It seems strange that Milton Keynes is expanding purely on the basis of increased road use. May we have some sustainable communities and investment in the railways, especially the east-west rail link?

I am glad that across the board the Conservative party is repenting the sins of the past. I recall that the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Conservative Government, when Government spending on rail fell dramatically until 1996. One reason we have problems in some parts of the railways is that, as with roads, we did not spend money when we should have.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there have been a number of studies in respect of the east-west rail link, but even though we have doubled spending on railways since 1997, I am not convinced that that project is the right place to put our money. I believe that other areas where we need to increase capacity take priority over that scheme. If he and his colleagues are saying that we need to spend more on transport, they are absolutely right, and if they have changed their mind about the position that they have taken in the past few elections, that is very good as well.

It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to continue to blame the last Conservative Government for all the problems with our transport system. His Government have been in power for nearly 10 years now. Does he remember that five years ago the Government published a detailed strategy on transport and how all the problems would be solved during the current decade? It was called the 10-year plan for transport. Can he tell the House why so many of the commitments and promises made in that document have been abandoned?

In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have been very careful in the past four years not to lay all the problems of underfunding in transport on the Conservative Government. [Interruption.] True, they were in power for 18 years and one might have thought that something would be done during that period, but unfortunately the underinvestment goes back through successive Governments right back to the 1960s. The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was that in 1992 Government support for the railways was about £2 billion, but by 1995–96 it had plummeted to £431 million. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the years that followed there were severe difficulties in relation to the railway because of a backlog of maintenance and investment. Money is essential, not just on the railways but elsewhere.

In relation to the 10-year plan, the Government set out a spending programme for 10 years—one that was renewed and increased in the spending review in 2004. There is a key question that the hon. Gentleman must consider—I do not expect him to answer it today, but at some point he will have to tell us. It is all very well to say that his approach is changing and that he now understands that investment is necessary, but is he able to come up with the money to do so? He must know that his leader is committed to spending less on public expenditure than we are.

So let us look at the Government's real commitments on spending. For example, in the 10-year plan and in many of the things that the Secretary of State has said since, he has talked about solving the congestion problems on our roads, or at least contributing to solving those problems, by getting freight off the roads and on to the railways. Can he explain why his Department has cut funding for rail freight by nearly half in the past three years?

Rail freight has gone up 36 per cent. over the past few years. I have said before in the House on many occasions that I do not believe that the way to encourage freight is continually to subsidise it. We want to encourage the carriage of freight that is a commercial proposition. I am surprised that a Conservative Government—Conservative Opposition, rather—[Interruption.] It is worth reminding people of the threat that there might be a Conservative Government one day. We know what happened when there was a Conservative Government—investment in roads and in railways was cut, and we know the consequences of that. As the hon. Gentleman is in such a combative mood, can he tell me what the Tories' policy is on the railways? His leader said in December:

"Britain now needs a concerted programme of road building",

yet the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that

"there must be an assumption against road building".

What is the Tory party policy on it?

4. What steps he is taking to increase safety on the roads. [42345]

We continue to develop and implement our wide-ranging road safety strategy. The 2004 casualty figures show that we are now over halfway towards our 2010 target of a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured, and over three quarters of the way towards our 50 per cent. target for children.

The Minister may know that South Swindon is the home of the new Honda Civic, one of the safest cars in its class. Will he join me in congratulating the Honda Civic on being Motor Trend magazine's car of the year? Does he agree that even Swindon car-makers cannot build a car that stops the driver using a mobile phone while driving or ensures that the driver is licensed and insured? Those are still two of our most challenging road safety concerns. What is he doing to counteract them?

First, I am happy to congratulate Honda on the success of the Civic, and my hon. Friend's constituents on their work in producing it. Such improvements have to some extent come about because of changes that have been made, such as the Euro NCAP test. It is worth noting that that has its 10th anniversary this year, and the standard of safety of vehicles has gone from about two stars on average when it first came in to about four or five stars. The Honda Civic is a contributor to that.

When the Road Safety Bill returns to the House shortly, my hon. Friend will see that we propose to legislate to make it an endorsable offence to use a mobile phone while driving. People will get not only an increased fine, but three points on their licence. It is beyond me why people continue to use a mobile phone while driving, when hands-free sets are so cheap. In addition, my hon. Friend will find that a new offence is introduced in the Road Safety Bill, which makes being the owner of an uninsured car an offence, if the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has not been notified that it is off the road. That, alongside efforts to allow enforcement from the record, will mean that we can clamp down hard on uninsured driving. I hope to see some uninsured cars going straight into the crusher to teach people a lesson.

The Minister and I have corresponded about my constituency, which has sadly experienced more than 20 fatal road casualties in the past year, many of whom were youngsters under 25. Nationally, 24 per cent. of convictions for causing death or bodily harm in road traffic accidents involve drivers under 21, who make up only 4 per cent. of drivers on the road. Clause 1 of the Road Safety Bill gives the Minister the power to award grants to local authorities to fund education and training. When the Bill is enacted, will he give guidance to local authorities to encourage them to implement such measures?

I will certainly review that possibility. Improved training and efforts to make young drivers in particular understand the dangers of the road and the need continuously to improve and not to try to exceed their skills are important parts of our campaign. Young drivers are clearly involved in a high level of accidents, so it is vital that we get those messages over to them. We should encourage peer pressure to get drivers to behave more sensibly. As well as working with local authorities, we must do more work with the insurance industry to encourage young drivers to do pass plus and other similar initiatives.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Scottish Executive's excellent campaign against speeding on the roads, which is bold and depicts the consequence of speeding as a child's coffin? Will he examine that campaign and consider rolling it out across the whole of the UK?

I have been told about that particular campaign, which complements our own campaigns in England. Equally, the police have brought the very good campaigns in Northern Ireland to my attention. We will continue to review all those campaigns and learn from the best of them, because it is important that we get the messages over.

I commend the excellent road safety scheme that the Minister has just mentioned. Some of us have campaigned inside and outside this House for many years about road safety on the approach roads to schools in rural areas. Does the Minister have any proposals to deal with that issue across the United Kingdom?

We have given local authorities powers to reduce speed around schools across England, and they can introduce 20 mph zones around schools. However, I have not instructed them to do so for all schools, because many schools in England are built on highways where it is not appropriate or sometimes even possible to reduce speed that much. In such areas, it might be better to use engineering solutions to separate the children from the road rather than automatically introducing 20 mph zones. Where reducing speed is an appropriate tactic, it is vital that local authorities use the powers that they have been given.

Is the Minister aware that in the past 10 years there has been the equivalent of one casualty every week on the A1 between Newcastle and the Scottish border, which is mainly due to the fact that the full extent of the road has not been dualled? When will it be dualled?

There are all sorts of reasons why there are high levels of accidents on particular roads. In the case of the road that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I realise that he may be disappointed that it has not been dualled. That has been considered. Several schemes have been reviewed for dealing with that particular road, and they will continue to be considered as necessary. However, it is important that as well as considering capacity on that road, we look at other reasons why accidents may be happening and address them on a case-by-case basis. I certainly understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the high level of accidents on that road.

The Minister will be aware—in fact, everyone is aware—that drink-driving is a tremendous danger on the roads, but is he aware that the police are also very concerned about the increasing number of people who are taking drugs? Research has recently shown that even a small amount of cannabis can almost double the risk of a fatal accident. Will he join the RAC Foundation and others and mount a campaign so that people are aware of these increased dangers?

I will not just join it—we have already started it. Over the Christmas period, I did several interviews with the BBC, including Radio 1, to get over to young people the message that drugs are a serious problem, that their effect might last for much longer than they realise, and that someone who has taken drugs is probably not in the best position to be able to judge whether they are competent to drive. The hon. Lady highlights a very important campaign. We will certainly build up our efforts in that respect. We will also look at other ways of testing for the effects of drugs to see whether we can come up with more effective strategies for testing drivers to determine whether they have been using drugs.

5. What discussions he has had with the rail regulator regarding recent rail fare increases. [42346]

Fares are regulated by the Department for Transport, not the Office of Rail Regulation. Unregulated fares are of course for train operators to set.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware that a passenger travelling from Coventry to London will be expected to pay between £7 and £10 on a standard journey for the privilege, yet the rail companies have cancelled trains or have run overcrowded trains. Will he have a word with the rail companies about that?

I am aware that from time to time it can be extremely frustrating if trains are cancelled. My hon. Friend will know that over the past few years there has been a lot of engineering work on the west coast main line as part of the general upgrade to allow for high-speed tilting trains. In addition, a lot of work continues to be done at weekends, which can cause disruption.

In relation to fares generally, hon. Members are always concerned when fares increase. All that I would say is that there has to be a sensible balance between what the taxpayer pays and what the fare payer pays. By way of comparison, in 1995, 85 per cent. of passenger revenue came from the fare payer; today, the figure is 57 per cent.

Rail travellers in my constituency are experiencing above-inflation rises in travel fares and a doubling in overcrowding on the trains that they use to come into London every day. Given the Government's increased support for railways in recent years, does not the Minister think that my constituents should be getting better value instead of having to stand every day on their journeys into work?

I would say this to the hon. Lady. Much of the rolling stock on South West Trains, including trains that her constituents will use, is new—it has been replaced over the past five years or so. That is due, to a large extent, to the additional support that the Government have made available to the railways. The hon. Lady is right, though, that overcrowding is an increasing problem. A variety of things need to be done. Additional capacity needs to be provided. In addition, a number of railway companies are considering changing their pricing to encourage people who can travel at different times of the day to do so. That has been a highly successful model on the low-cost airlines, and railway companies are doing it as well.

In the longer term, we as a country have to address the fact that there are capacity constraints in different parts of the network, and that that will require increasing investment. As I said earlier, the test for both political parties at the next election will be how much they are prepared to spend on investing in Britain's railways and other transport infrastructure. In my view, that is absolutely essential if we are to enable people to get to work and enable our economy to continue to grow.

The increase in fares is compounded by the overly complex ticketing structures. When will the Government lead a review of ticketing structures and at least set a timetable for the introduction of a national rail card?

The Transport Committee is conducting a review of the structure of rail fares and we look forward to its findings. I readily accept that a wide range of fares is available, but there are an increasingly large number of pretty low fares—admittedly, there are restrictions on some. For example, it is possible to travel from London to Leeds and pay £128 for an open first class ticket, but the same rail company offers an advance ticket, which must be bought on the preceding day, for £9.50. In this day and age, most people are becoming more sophisticated about shopping around and looking for the tickets that they can best afford and that suit them best. I warn my hon. Friend and others that rationalisation or simplification sometimes results in less of a range of prices. There is therefore a trade-off between low fares and simplifying the system, which results in higher fares generally. I want to encourage more people to travel by train, and that means flexible train fares.

The south-west main line route utilisation strategy, which Network Rail produced in draft, proposes differentiating fares at the peak of the peak between 6 and 7 am and 7 and 8 as one means of tackling overcrowding. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to Network Rail that that is acceptable if such differentiation derives from a reduction in fares between 6 and 7 am but not from an increase between 7 and 8 am, which will drive people off the railways and on to the roads?

I take the hon. Lady's point. South West Trains is an interesting example of a train company that is trying out very low fares. It is piloting a £1 fare at specific off-peak periods because experience on buses and airlines, which I mentioned earlier, has shown that some people who do not have to travel at peak time may find it attractive to change their work and travelling patterns and travel at off-peak periods. We are trying to encourage people to use the railways, not drive them off them, especially in the part of London that the hon. Lady represents. I hope that she accepts that giving railway companies that flexibility might result in more people using the railways and some people travelling for less than they have to pay at the moment.

My right hon. Friend will accept that there is no point in having a wide selection of fares if no one can find out what they are. Will he encourage rail companies to use not obfuscation to keep the customers off the rail system but clarity to help them find the cheapest and the best tickets?

I agree. It is most important, no matter what product is being sold, that the travelling public—the customers—know what is on offer. In the past few months we have awarded new franchises and railway companies are paying more money into the railways than they did in the past, so it is in the companies' interest to ensure that more people travel by train. It is as much in their interest as it is in that of the travelling public. I repeat the point that a range of fares to suit different needs appears to be a good thing. If more of that occurs, more and more people will be carried by the railways. Indeed, last year I believe that more people were carried on the railways than at any time since just after the second world war, in the pre-Beeching era.

On 2 January this year, regulated rail fares, which are supposedly fixed at the rate of inflation plus 1 per cent., rose by an average of 3.9 per cent., despite the official figure for inflation in December being 2 per cent. Unregulated fares rose by 4.5 per cent. on average and some fares by more than 8 per cent. The Secretary of State will recall promising that the Government would seek real reductions in the cost of rail travel by continuing to cap increases in the most recently regulated fares below the rate of inflation. How does he believe that he has achieved that this year? Is it simply another abandoned promise?

No. I last set out our policy on regulated fares in 2003, when I changed the then policy, which was completely unsustainable. I said at the time that regulated fares ought to increase by RPI plus 1 per cent. I think that I am right in saying that regulated fares now account for about 43 per cent. of all fare income, so the majority of fares are not regulated and can therefore rise by more than RPI plus 1 per cent. As I said earlier, about 57 per cent. of spend on the railways now comes from passengers; in 1985, that figure was way up at 85 per cent. It is important that we strike the right balance, although it is a matter of judgment as to what the right balance should be. On any view, however, the railways have to be paid for one way or another, and that income can come from only two sources: fare payers or taxpayers. We are trying to strike the right balance between the two. To complete the point, and to reiterate what I said earlier, headline figures such as those that the hon. Gentleman has cited are sometimes not what most passengers pay. Recent figures relating to the London to Manchester route, for example, show that the majority of people buy either advance tickets or saver tickets.

In addition to the fare increases, travellers in the Network SouthEast area who use the pre-paid Oyster card face additional penalties because of the incompatibility of the Oyster system with that of the Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation—ITSO—which does not seem very smart if it cannot accept the Oyster card. It is not an insurmountable problem, but negotiations between the Department for Transport, the train operating companies and Transport for London seem to have reached an impasse. In the meantime, a lot of Londoners are going to miss out. Can the Secretary of State assist in trying to resolve this problem?

Yes, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course there will be some difficulties when there are two different systems, but it is important that we try to bring the systems together, because we want more people across London and the south-east to use public transport.

6. If he will make a statement on the recent Civil Aviation Authority report on low-cost airlines and the growth in air travel. [42348]

The Civil Aviation Authority published its report, "Demand for Outbound Leisure Air Travel and its Key Drivers", in December last year. The report contains an analysis of how various factors, including changes in income, wealth and air fares, affect the demand for leisure air travel. The Government's policy on these issues is set out in the White Paper that I published in December 2003.

In fact, the report shows that the boom in low-cost air travel has simply encouraged millions of Britons to spend more of their money abroad. The result is that our balance of payments deficit in tourism has mushroomed to £17 billion. In the light of that, and of the environmental impact of low-cost air travel, will the Secretary of State now stop claiming that all forms of air travel are automatically good for the UK economy? Will he also consider commissioning an independent study into the matter, to establish the full facts, both for and against?

I did not know that the Conservative party was in favour of exchange and travel controls. That seems quite a radical departure from its position over the past 30 years. The hon. Gentleman is right, however. It is worth bearing it in mind that, in 1998, about 8 million people travelled on low-cost airlines. The figure for 2004 was 54 million. I said before that, in relation to aviation generally, people travelling more for business and leisure was a good thing. I do not think that the Government are in a position to say to people, "You cannot go abroad. You must stay here."—[Interruption.] That is the logical extension of what the hon. Gentleman is arguing. I strongly believe that we should encourage people to use the railways, when that is a viable option. That is why we have put so much money into the channel tunnel rail link, for example. Its next phase will open at the end of 2007, and will cut journey times from London to Paris and Brussels.

We have also put a lot more money into improving the mainline rail services that compete with the airlines. For example, when work on the west coast main line is finally complete, people will be able to travel from London to Glasgow in four and a quarter hours, which is very competitive compared with the time spent travelling to the airport, and so on. The fact is, however, that people are choosing to travel more, and our job is to balance the need to enable them to do so with our very important environmental obligations. However, I do not accept the general proposition, which the hon. Gentleman appears to be advancing, that we should somehow force people to stay at home.

My right hon. Friend has just told the House of the significant number of passengers carried by the low-cost airlines. Those journeys take place mainly within Europe. In that context, Sir Roy McNulty of the Civil Aviation Authority recently told a Committee of the House that the fledgling European Aviation Safety Agency was both underfunded and understaffed, and that is was likely to run out of money quite soon in this financial year. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that travel within Europe under this fledgling agency will be safe, and that the problems in the agency will be put right?

First, for the sake of brevity, I should say that I have answered a series of questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in relation to this matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) might want to look at. Yes, the European Union safety agency has enough money. However, we are extremely concerned at the lack of progress it is making in doing its job.

I wrote to Commissioner Barrot to express the Government's extreme concern about the agency. I have also made it clear that I do not believe that there can be any question of it taking on any more responsibilities from existing national agencies until it sorts out some of the problems, which it has manifestly failed to do so far. In the meantime, however, I can assure my hon. Friend that our own safety regulator, the CAA, and National Air Traffic Services are keeping a close eye on the situation. We have made it very clear that we will not compromise safety.

Does the Secretary of State accept, in considering airport expansion, that low-cost airlines running low-cost passenger services with relatively small-capacity airliners in a business in which people pay per passenger, as airlines pay airports, do not produce a large return on extra flights? In considering expansion and, for example, the proposed runway at Stansted, does he accept that until Stansted attracts somebody other than low-cost airlines and establishes its first wide-bodied, regular service, it is difficult to see anybody being in favour of that new runway?

We seem to be getting more and more calls for state control from the Tory party; I am losing track of the movement that is taking place. No, I do not accept that proposition. The low-cost airlines, of which there are principally two at Stansted, are growing, profitable businesses, and it is not for the Government to tell them how they ought to run things. When we set out our strategy for airport development over the next 30 years—it is a 30-year programme—we came to the view that the south-east of England, on any consideration, will need an additional two runways, the first of which is at Stansted. The fact that Stansted, at the moment, is predominantly used by low-cost airlines does not seem to me to be a reason for stopping it, although I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and no doubt others do as well.

7. If he will make a statement on Government support for regional airports. [42349]

The White Paper "The Future of Air Transport" acknowledged the important role played by regional airports and supported their growth to serve regional and local demand. Policy initiatives such as route development funds and fifth freedom rights are helping to attract new services and to promote better connectivity for passengers at regional airports.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. She will be aware of the massive contribution that Dundee airport makes to the local economy, providing vital links to London that enable and encourage businesses to locate in Dundee. I am aware that, strictly speaking, this might be regarded as a devolved issue—perhaps even a local government issue—but is there anything that the Government can do to help to secure the long-term interests of regional airports such as Dundee? Will the Government consider, for example, public service obligations—

Order. One supplementary is fine. I ask the Minister to answer.

I certainly accept the case that my hon. Friend and others have made about the importance of Dundee airport, and we support Dundee and many others. Indeed, it receives public funding from the Scottish Executive in recognition of that, and it is for Dundee to work with the Scottish Executive. We have recently published the guidance on public service obligations and we will consider specific proposals in that respect.

Will the Minister please consider carefully the potential growth of Bristol international airport, on the edge of my constituency of Weston-super-Mare? The growth plans it has outlined will inevitably result in significantly increased car traffic to and from the airport site. That will lead, inevitably, to greater road congestion in the area around the airport. Will she consider in particular potential expansion plans for junction 21 of the M5, which is the closest major junction to the airport?

I visited Bristol in the summer, and the case for Bristol airport is well made. It is very much supported by the regional government. It is also recognised that growth will bring with it consequences for road transport and road transport access. I know that the local authorities concerned are considering the specific measures that they can introduce to ensure that airport growth does not inevitably bring with it an unacceptable rise in traffic congestion, and that there are specific proposals, which we will need to consider carefully.

8. If he will make a statement on the use of speed cameras on roads. [42350]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written statement that I made on 15 December last year.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it is essential that motorists are satisfied that speed cameras are being operated as fairly and ethically as possible. Will he therefore please explain why magistrates courts committees are invariably part of speed camera partnerships? Does he not agree that that state of affairs can give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest, even if such a conflict of interest does not in fact exist?

I have had many representations on speed cameras, although that is not one of them so far. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in December last year I announced change to the funding regime so that the system was not biased towards putting in speed cameras—at the moment, they are effectively free. We are also considering the constitution of the groups that consider whether speed cameras or other safety measures should be put in place, including the police, local authorities and magistrates. As we develop that policy, we will take his comments into account.

It is good news that safety camera partnerships can introduce road safety measures other than just speed cameras. The Secretary of State should, however, be a champion of speed cameras. He knows that the four-year evaluation report states clearly that in areas where there is a speed camera, the number of vehicles exceeding speed limits falls by 70 per cent., and the number of people killed or seriously injured falls by just over 40 per cent. Will he confirm that, according to the report's methodology, about an extra 100 people have either been killed or seriously injured on our roads as a result of his Department's delay of over six months in implementing up to 500 speed cameras?

No, I do not accept that at all. The reason that the Government decided to delay approving new schemes is that, first, we were waiting for the four-year report, and, secondly, we had it in mind to change the funding regime, about which we had to tell the various organisations. At just about every Question Time over the past four years, and on every other occasion, I have made the point that speed cameras work. On any view, they save lives. I want to make sure, however, that we have the right funding regime and the right regime for operating them, and I believe that we are well on the way to achieving that.

20. What recent assessment he has made of the arrangements for the resolution of personnel disputes within the civil service. [42334]

The levels at which appeals are determined is a matter for the permanent head of the relevant department. That is in line with Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service best practice guidance. I am not convinced that there are compelling reasons to change the arrangements, but I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the specific constituency matter.

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and for taking the trouble to have an initial look at the case raised by my constituent, Mr. Paul Barford, who is currently under threat of dismissal from the Ministry of Defence. May I press him to consider specifically circumstances such as those in this case, in which an employee has complained that a Department has been perpetrator, judge and jury in personnel matters that might involve harassment, and in which the Department alone must determine the case? Will he examine changes to the civil service code and consider widening the scope of references to the Civil Service Commissioners?

The hon. Gentleman is right that I have spent some days investigating this matter on his behalf, as I know that he has raised it on several occasions with previous Ministers. The process was introduced in 1996, is undergoing review and is currently in line with ACAS best guidance. The relevant staff trade unions have not raised a specific concern. I think that it is the first such case that has been brought to our attention by a Member of Parliament, and I wish to confirm that when there is a matter of conscience the Civil Service Commissioners can, of course, become involved. That is established in the civil service code. I am happy to discuss the specific constituency matter that he raises.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent development of mediation services throughout the country? Many of our departments have a very good record in that respect. I think we should consider using such services more, especially to deal with personnel issues and disputes in organisations. May I urge my hon. Friend to take a close look at what is happening in some civil service departments, and discuss with those who have an interest the best way of extending mediation services throughout the service?

The Employment Act 2002 introduced a statutory grievance procedure to reduce the use of litigation as a first resort, and many Departments have established innovative processes and procedures to make that a reality. I should be happy to meet ministerial and parliamentary colleagues and those involved in extending those processes across Government, so that the Cabinet Office can share best practice throughout the civil service.

21. If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's administrative burdens reduction measurement exercise. [42335]

Since the Government launched the measurement exercise last September, a significant amount of work has been undertaken. This is the first time such an exercise has been tried in the United Kingdom. The results will enable us to focus on areas in which we can achieve significant reductions in the administrative burdens on business, charities and voluntary organisations.

The Minister will know that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, published last week, gives little or no indication of what resources the Government will commit to deregulation. Perhaps he would like to give us that information today.

The Bill published last week, which I assume the hon. Gentleman welcomes—there is no commitment in that regard—is an ambitious model for delivery of a better-regulation agenda for UK business, voluntary sectors and others. It builds on what has already been done to ensure that, for the purposes of the World Bank and a number of other reputable organisations, the UK is one of the most supportive regulatory and economic environments in which businesses can prosper.

The people who know most about how to get rid of bureaucracy are those who suffer from it within public services. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to establish a "bureaucracy-buster"? People working in public services could tell such an organisation, on the basis of direct experience, how bureaucracy could be removed, and the Government could then do something about it.

That is an interesting idea. Every month my hon. Friend comes up with another interesting and challenging suggestion. [Hon. Members: "Every day."] Every day, I am informed.

We have already contacted more than 145,000 businesses to try to assess the extent of the administrative burden that they are experiencing. We are also communicating with the voluntary sector and others. Following my hon. Friend's question, however, I will raise the possibility of a red tape-buster in the public sector.

Rather than concentrating on reducing administrative burdens, in recent years the Department has been spending much more on Government information and communication. Is it not ironic that a Department that is responsible for cutting administrative burdens on organisations such as those of which we have heard has increased spending on just the running costs of the Government Information and Communication Service from £543,000 in 1998 to a whopping £2.38 million in the current year? How is the taxpayer expected to react to a fourfold increase in the cost of putting out the Government's message, when burdens on businesses and the other organisations of which we have heard have just gone through the roof?

I am sad to see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is on the Back Benches this afternoon. I have missed his monthly 30-second diatribe—a single transferable diatribe—on better regulation. Perhaps he will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.

As for the question of Government communications, it is important to communicate the fact that we have record levels of low unemployment, record levels of public investment and record levels of public service reform to support hard-working families. We should note the contrast between today's figures and those under the previous Government. They were probably not that interested in reporting to the public the millions who were unemployed, the generations stuck on incapacity benefit and the vast underinvestment in our public services.

Local industrialists often tell me that there appears to be an ever-increasing flood of regulation coming from the European Union. What are the Government doing to ensure that such regulation is proportionate to the problems that it is designed to deal with?

The UK Government are involved in the sixth presidency initiative, which, as the name suggests, involves six consecutive presidents of the EU in a sustained effort to reduce bureaucracy and the number of directives coming from Europe. We are heartened by the Commission's efforts in recent months. During our presidency, it announced that it would withdraw a third of all legislative proposals, and last October it announced ambitious simplification plans, involving the removal of 90 proposals. We have a lot more work to do, and this year it is absolutely crucial that both Europe and the UK deliver on the better regulation agenda that the business community supports so strongly.

22. What assessment he has made of the compensation payments paid by IT providers to Government Departments because software provided has not been found fit for purpose; and if he will make a statement. [42336]

The recently published transformational government IT strategy set out a concerted approach to managing IT procurement across government. Individual departments are of course responsible for procurement. If software is not fit for purpose, they may seek compensation on the basis of the contract that they have negotiated.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Can the Government explain the public interest, and the commercial reasons why details of the compensation paid to EDS after the tax credit fiasco are not publicly available, given the apparent strength of the Treasury's case?

Of course, the specifics on many individual procurement compensations are placed in the public domain. Revenue and Customs announced the details of the settlement with EDS, which was £71 million. I will investigate the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I should re-emphasise that most IT procurements are successful; if compensation is an issue, it is for the individual Department concerned to negotiate it. There have been some good examples in recent months, such as the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health negotiating specific contracts that are much more generous in terms of compensation.

The Minister refers to the compensation provided for in contracts. During the last Parliament, the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I was a member, looked at EDS, the Child Support Agency and computerisation in general within that department. It became clear that some contracts agreed with computer software and hardware suppliers were very poorly worded. Is his Department overseeing other departments to make sure that the wording of contracts is sufficiently tight, so that, if things break down, the taxpayer is properly compensated?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there were weaknesses in previous contracts as negotiated, but the transformational government strategy, which has been widely welcomed, establishes a new way of dealing quickly with contracts, such as portfolio management across government and ensuring capacity and competition in the market. Importantly, it also provides for the recruitment to departments of chief information officers—experienced IT professionals who have first-hand knowledge of how to negotiate such contracts.

Returning to EDS, it is easy to blame IT contractors when, in fact, the commissioning department is at fault. Will the Minister confirm that the compressed time scale for introduction was set despite warnings from the supplier of a last-minute problem? Indeed, on 4 April 2003—the last day before the introduction of tax credits—the Government demanded a certificate of fitness for purpose, in anticipation of problems. Does not the eventual settlement contain what is described as a "significant confidentiality requirement" specifically to avoid embarrassment? Is it not clear that that confidentiality requirement will not in any way inhibit proper investigation by the National Audit Office?

I am not aware of the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I am happy to investigate the matter and report back to him. The fact is that the vast majority of Government IT projects, which are more complicated than projects in the private sector, are a success. Very high-profile examples are Directgov, the internet job bank, on which 4 million discrete job searches are made a week, and direct payment. More than 22 million individuals have had payments into their accounts enabled by successful Government IT projects and contracts.