1. If he will make a statement on rail infrastructure in the south-east. [51241]

The national rail network in south-east England, like that of the rest of the United Kingdom, is owned and operated by Network Rail, which is investing substantial amounts across its network, including in south-east England, to help to address years of under-investment. Total investment in 2005–06 is expected to be about £3 billion.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that the Evening Standard has been running a campaign to stress the importance of safety in our stations, but he will also be aware that safety is not only an issue in the capital. In my constituency, Camberley station has witnessed an upsurge in antisocial behaviour recently. I invite the Minister, when he invites companies to tender for the franchise currently held by South West Trains, to ensure that passenger safety and security are at the heart of the tendering process so that my constituents have the protection they deserve when they travel.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that everybody should feel safe on the railway, and I can give him the assurance he seeks. In the consultation document about the letting of the franchise, we made it clear that safety, security and the condition of stations were key factors, which we shall reflect in the tender documents when they are issued to the shortlisted bidders.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Transport strategy for rail services from Brighton proposes the closure of the direct train line between Brighton and Watford? The train link to Reading is also due to be abolished. That is inconvenient for the elderly and disabled among my constituents. Given those changes to rail services from Brighton, what assurances can my hon. Friend give my elderly and disabled constituents that barrier-free travel north to stations outside London will still be accessible to them?

My hon. Friend should be aware that we are looking into a number of opportunities to change services. There is a consultation and her views will be taken into account. She should bear in mind, however, that we need to ensure that we make the best use of existing rail capacity, and underused services sometimes have to be rationalised. When that happens, we have to ensure that there are alternative services, but at the end of the day we have to get the greatest number of people on to existing capacity, which is what we seek to do. However, my hon. Friend's views and those of her constituents will of course be taken into account.

What discussions has the Minister held with Network Rail about improvement of the electrification of the stretch between London Liverpool Street and Shenfield, which will not only be important for the Olympics but which Network Rail says is the single biggest impediment to improving punctuality between London and Norwich? If he has not held such discussions, will he do so; and if he does so, will he let me know about it?

I have had no such discussions, but I am sure that my colleagues who more regularly deal with such things are in constant communication with Network Rail. They will have heard the hon. Gentleman and I shall ensure that he is notified when discussions take place.

Today in London we are all celebrating because at last the Mayor of London has been able to take over the running of the north London lines, which is a triumph for national Government working with London government. We will see a £25 million enhancement programme for our stations, eight trains an hour on the north London line through my constituency—

Order.

rose—

Order. The hon. Lady should sit down while I am speaking.

The purpose of a supplementary question is to ask a question, not to make a statement about the good work that the Mayor of London will be doing for us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me right. I wanted to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he agrees that the north London lines should be included on London's tube map to celebrate that success.

I have noted my hon. Friend's comments and certainly share her view about the excellent work of the Labour Mayor of London. I shall pass on her comments about the tube map.

The Secretary of State made a welcome announcement a few months ago that the Eurostar terminal could be used for domestic services, but is the Minister aware that it was not included in the tender proposals for the South West Trains franchise? Will he do something about that?

Yes, the company will be able to use those facilities and we shall look into how we can facilitate that.

I too welcome the decision to bring the west London line and the north London line under the control of Transport for London, and urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it is accompanied by sufficient borrowing powers in the capital spending review to ensure that TFL can develop London's orbital lines into a real service for Londoners.

Of course the funding will be transferred, but I should add that London has already received a very generous settlement from the Government.

I listened carefully to the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) about the South West Trains franchise. I read the tender document this morning. It sets out about 12 overall objectives for the new franchise agreement. It makes no reference at all to safety. Why?

The hon. Gentleman should read it again: the consultation document very clearly refers to safety and to the state of stations.

I did read it, and it is the Minister who may need to read again, because I can assure him that it makes no reference to safety. The Government promised in their 10-year plan to enable passengers to travel safety and to feel secure. Since the plan was first published, the number of violent assaults taking place on trains and at stations has risen by 43 per cent. Does the Minister think that the Government are keeping that promise?

First, let me tell the hon. Gentleman what the consultation document states, since he seems to have had a little bit of word blindness:

"Bidders will be expected to demonstrate in their bids how they will achieve a continuing improvement in service levels at stations, address issues of safety and security, accessibility".

Perhaps he will get himself a new pair of reading glasses.

Certainly, it is true that the figures on attacks at stations that we produced this week are very disappointing. However, the mechanism by which they were calculated changed halfway through, which gives them a false air, unfortunately. Nevertheless, one is one too many. That is why we have increased the number of British Transport police on mainline stations and the underground by 50 per cent in the past two years—we have increased it by 300 in the past year alone—and it is why we are working to invest in CCTV at stations and to improve station services. We are making that investment because we believe in ensuring people's safety, and the hon. Gentleman has consistently voted against that.

2. What steps he is taking to ensure greater co-operation between Network Rail and train operators. [51242]

The changes made in the Railways Act 2005 are designed to improve efficiency and co-operation across the rail industry. As part of those changes, Network Rail is now accountable for performance and co-ordinating rail industry planning and operational management.

Under the Tories' botched privatisation, Railtrack and the train operating companies were constantly fighting one another, and the main losers were the travelling public. With Network Rail in place, instead of Railtrack, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all parts of the rail industry work together for a better service—for example, the rail interchange that was opened last week in my constituency at Burscough? What improvements does he believe—

Order. One supplementary question is fine.

It is important to point out that, of course, working together is a very significant part of improving performance. That is why reliability is improving, with the number of on-time trains reaching more than 85 per cent and, of course, with the record investment of £87 million a week that is going into the railways. We have introduced joint control centres along lines, such as Birmingham to Waterloo, and joint improvement plans are being set up between the train operating companies and Network Rail. Of course, we are working together on projects such as that in my hon. Friend's constituency at Burscough Bridge station, which I opened last week.

Bitter experience—most recently, yesterday—has taught me to expect all trains from Worcestershire to London Paddington to be at least half an hour late, largely owing to the creaking infrastructure. Will the Minister urge Network Rail to co-operate much more effectively with the train operating company and listen to First Great Western's very practical and affordable suggestions to improve the infrastructure on the line and the reliability of services?

Clearly, part of the problem is that money was not spent on the infrastructure over the previous few decades, particularly under the Conservative Government, but I have raised the issue with First Great Western and Network Rail. Of course, we want to see further improvements, and significant investment has been put in place on the Great Western lines to ensure that improvements take place over the coming years.

Does greater co-operation include discussions with the Office of the Rail Regulator? Will my hon. Friend look particularly at services on the Great North Eastern Railway main line, where the Office of the Rail Regulator has blocked plans from GNER to deliver the extra 12 services promised in its franchise?

I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. Of course we have made representations about the fact that we have concerns, and we want services to improve as well—so, yes, such discussions take place.

Co-operation between Network Rail and the train companies is so poor that three out of 10 cancelled trains are cancelled because of Network Rail. Co-operation between the Department for Transport, the Association of Train Operating Companies, Network Rail and Alstom is so poor that Alstom has closed the UK's only test track for trains without formal prior discussions. Does the Minister believe that the Secretary of State for Transport's efforts to improve co-operation on the railways have been more or less effective than his intervention in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election?

The point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make about the Alstom test track is an interesting one. The fact remains that railway performance is improving. We have record investment in new rolling stock, the youngest railway stock that we have had for a number of years and more than 1 billion passengers used the railways last year. It is the fastest-growing railway in Europe. Significant improvements are being made but, of course, there are still things to do. About 20,000 train services run every week, about 1.2 per cent. of which are cancelled. Of course, we need to improve that, and it is something that we are working on.

Will my hon. Friend deny the suggestion that the only way in which the executives of Network Rail can be persuaded to fulfil their full potential for their not inconsiderable salaries is by privatising Network Rail?

I do not think that we have any proposals to privatise Network Rail, but the working relationship between the train operating companies, Network Rail and the Government has been important in securing improvements to the railways. Network Rail has improved its performance and its efficiency, but there is clearly still more to do on the railways. We want to see further improvements on the improvements that we have already made.

Does the Minister realise that one of the biggest obstacles to improving the rail infrastructure is the sheer complexity of the number of bodies involved? For example, we desperately need an extension to the platform in Bromsgrove, but it is not clear who is responsible for paying for it. Is it Network Rail; is it Central Trains, which is about to lose its franchise; is it Worcestershire county council under the local transport plan; or should the Minister's Department provide the money? Will he tell me who we need to go to in order to get this necessary rail infrastructure improvement?

If we are talking about the mess made to the organisation of the railways, we have to go back to the Tory party and what it did to Railtrack and so on. We have now set up a new structure on the railways involving the Department for Transport, Network Rail, which is responsible for performance, operating and improvement, and the train operating companies, which are responsible for improving the service. Clearly, the answer to the hon. Lady's question depends on who owns the platform. Bringing together the partners is an important part of any business case or reasoning for developing the platform or changing it.

3. What plans he has to support voluntary and community rail links; and if he will make a statement. [51243]

The Government encourage communities to support franchised local railway services via community rail partnerships. We recognise the role of voluntary organisations in running independent railways. We will not normally provide direct financial support for independent lines, but will consider working with local authorities to implement specific improvements where they are value for money.

The East Lancashire Railway is a very successful voluntary rail company. It passes through my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). However, there is no direct passenger rail link from those areas to Manchester Victoria. Will the Minister consider a joint evaluation with the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority to see whether it is possible to create a link through Heywood that would satisfy, and provide benefits to, the public and all three constituencies?

I know that my hon. Friend is a very strong campaigner for improving public transport. A few months ago, I opened a new bus station in his constituency and I know that he also campaigns to try to improve rail links. The East Lancashire Railway is part of a heritage railway that brings in lots of income and visitors to the area. However, on the point about extending its use to mainline services, I must say that we have not received any representations from Manchester or Lancashire about reopening the line for passenger services. However, we will consider any scheme that may be put forward.

The Isle of Wight railway now has a community rail partnership in place. When the Minister lets the new franchise for the Isle of Wight, will he invite potential bidders to propose as many imaginative schemes as possible? For example, that could include consideration of whether it should be light rail or heavy rail, the installation of a crossing point at Brading to improve connectivity to Portsmouth and Waterloo and improvements to the rolling stock. We have some of the oldest in the country—

Order. The hon. Gentleman can drop the Minister a note on these matters.

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We have gone through a consultation process on the new franchise, and clearly we will examine its results when we consider the invitation to tender. He is right to highlight the importance of community railways. We now have six such schemes throughout the country and there is increasing support for community rail development, so it is especially important to involve the community, whether that is businesses, local authorities or members of the public.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work that is done by the Penistone line partnership in my constituency. The partnership runs the Huddersfield-Penistone-Sheffield line and last year more than 1 million passengers used its facilities. What is my hon. Friend doing to increase passenger numbers on the railway further and reduce costs to the travelling public?

As my hon. Friend says, the scheme is a successful development that forms part of the Government's overall commitment to community rail development. As part of the overall growth in the railways, we want more people to use the line. If we get more of the community involved in supporting the service, including businesses and local authorities, and make the service attractive, I am sure that it will continue to grow.

4. If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for road pricing. [51244]

We are working with local authorities and other areas to develop a road pricing scheme that tackles congestion. That will allow us to pilot technology for a national scheme.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The Transport Committee has called for a proper evaluation of congestion and its impact on the UK economy. Is such an analysis by the Department in the pipeline, and when is it likely to be published?

Numerous studies have made the rather obvious point that the more congested the road system, the greater the disadvantage to the economy. The bigger question to address is what we do about that. Clearly, we need additional capacity, which is why, for example, we completed a major widening of the M25 just before Christmas. We need to manage the road system better, which we are doing throughout the network with, for example, traffic management officers clearing up after accidents. However, those two measures would not be enough on their own. We need to examine whether it might be better to replace the existing system of paying for road use with distance-based charging. As I have said on many occasions, if we do not do that, we will face total gridlock. We are not short of analysis, but we need to concentrate on solutions that will reduce congestion in the longer term.

While my right hon. Friend is working on that, are we not making the best the enemy of the good? Many of our motorways are almost urban slip roads around the great cities of Britain, yet we have one of the few motorway systems that involves no charge. Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing in the interim a vignette of £30 to £40 for motorway users, including all foreign cars and lorries that come into Britain, but allowing rural people who do not use motorways not to pay that extra money? Such a simple and practical scheme could be put in place until his all-singing and all-dancing road pricing and satellite in the sky operation comes into being, for which we might have to wait a little after the end of his term of office.

Having been here for almost four years, I would not bank on that. I am not sure how much thought my right hon. Friend has given to the matter, but it simply would be neither feasible nor desirable simply to toll motorways if we thought that we would adopt a completely different method of charging for roads a few years later. I have said before that a national road pricing scheme is some years off, but I believe that we can pilot such a scheme regionally in the next five years or so. Simply charging for some roads, but not for others—[Interruption.] I shall come on to the vignette in a moment. Although my right hon. Friend prides himself on his knowledge of matters European, I think that he would find that the Commission would come down very hard on us if we tried to impose something that discriminated against foreign drivers, because the Single European Act is supposed to stop that. The short answer is that I do not think that he is advocating a good idea, but I will be more than happy to discuss it with him afterwards.

The Secretary of State announced that 30 local authorities have expressed an interest in piloting a road-pricing scheme. Will he expand a little on the way in which the Government plan to help those authorities that wish to proceed only on a revenue-neutral basis, or which are concerned about the impact of road pricing on social inclusion?

I do not think any of the authorities that have expressed an interest in road pricing have looked at whether it should be anything more than revenue neutral. I announced just before Christmas the funding that was available for seven areas, and later this year I will announce funding for more areas. I have made it clear, however, that we are prepared to provide that funding, because I want to be able to choose, probably next year, a particular area where we can pilot the scheme. Until we conduct a pilot we will not be able to bottom out the technical problems or evaluate how people behave in practice. However, I am proposing to help local authorities to do so by providing funding.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that organisations such as the Road Haulage Association are extremely concerned about any further increases in road pricing. Has he recently met the association and, if not, would he consider doing so in the near future to discuss its concerns?

My fellow Ministers and I meet the Road Haulage Association regularly. It was supportive of our work on lorry road user charging—a form of road pricing—which was included in the national scheme. It recognises that anything that we can do to reduce congestion is of great help to its members. It believes that that means that everyone who uses our roads should pay to do so—I think that that is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was trying to make earlier—which would be a far better system in many ways than the current one.

In December, the Department of Trade and Industry announced that the Government have invested €136 million—according to my calculations, that is about £93 million—through the British national space centre and the Department for Transport in Galileo. Do the Government intend to introduce a comprehensive road pricing scheme for both private and commercial vehicles using Galileo technology?

It remains to be seen whether we use Galileo or GPS. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that last year I made the point that many organisations, including insurance companies, wish to provide satellite equipment for cars. Norwich Union, for example, offers pay-as-you-drive insurance. The Government believe that if we can use existing technology or work in partnership with others who do so that would be much better than the Government having to invent a system on their own, as the history of doing so by successive Governments has not been an altogether happy one. Galileo would have other uses besides road transport.

Would it be indelicate to raise the question of the tolling of bridges, particularly the M25 bridge in my constituency, which is road-priced. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that if road pricing for the M25 is introduced the burden of a toll for my constituents in south Essex and for people in north Kent will be lifted, as they subsidise M25 users with their tolls on the Dartford crossing, which is unfair and unsustainable?

My hon. Friend is quite right. If we introduced a system of national road pricing the whole question of tolls on that bridge and, indeed, others would have to be considered at the same time.

5. What consultants he has employed to advise on subsidy for rail services; what the terms of reference are for this project; and if he will make a statement. [51245]

Consultants are employed to advise on replacing rail franchises on a case-by-case basis. They typically assist in drawing up invitations to tender and in evaluating the bids received. This will involve understanding the level of subsidy or premium payable in each case.

Does the Minister agree that someone who wants to travel from Banbury to Oxford by rail to go to work, or someone who wants to travel from Bicester to Oxford by rail to study is no less deserving of rail subsidy mile for mile than a long-distance commuter? If there is to be a debate about rail subsidy and which services the taxpayer subsidises will it be an open and transparent debate, not one that simply closes local lines?

A great deal of subsidy is still paid to the railways—£87 million a week is spent on them, with improvements in reliability and more passengers voting with their feet and using the railways. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the recently published closures guidance, which we were required to produce under the Railways Act 2005 to replace the Strategic Rail Authority closures guidance, which will cease to be produced when the SRA is wound up. We want to ensure that the railways expand and that more people use them. There are no plans for wholesale station or line closures. More people are using the railways, and more investment is being made in them. This is about a growing railway, and we want to achieve a better, more efficient railway.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked about the service between Bicester and Bletchley and the spur from Aylesbury to Bletchley. Does my hon. Friend agree that in assessing that section of rail, account should be taken of the Milton Keynes-south midlands growth area, the additional housing around Aylesbury and Milton Keynes, and the contribution that that section of rail will make to facilitating that housing development and encouraging the people who live in those houses to travel by rail, instead of adding to the burden on the road system?

As my hon. Friend knows, I went to Milton Keynes to announce a significant investment in Milton Keynes railway station to ensure greater capacity, taking account of the growth in housing. I am sure she will agree that that is an excellent scheme, which is benefiting from community infrastructure funds. It will allow improvements in capacity and in rail services generally for people in that part of the country.

In view of the continuing support that the Government have given to rail services in rural parts of the United Kingdom, will the Minister assure my constituents that he will liaise with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that a rail line under threat that goes through my constituency will receive increased support to ensure its continued maintenance for commuters using the line?

It would be best if the hon. Gentleman spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I will pass on his comments.

6. If he will extend bus regulation as it applies in London to the rest of the country. [51246]

As part of the preparation needed to implement a road pricing scheme, I am considering ways to make it easier to run bus services by mutual agreement. We are discussing with the Office of Fair Trading how this can be done, consistent with competition law.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's helpful remarks. He is aware that when people from a city such as Manchester travel to London, they are often amazed at how comprehensive the bus service is. They compare it with the post-deregulation period in Manchester, where bus services have been withdrawn from the estates and other areas where people live, and they draw the conclusion that we need re-regulation to ensure that we get back to the kind of bus services that London has and other cities expect. Can my right hon. Friend help us with that?

I think I can. As my hon. Friend knows, my Department and I have been in discussion with the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, among others, about how we improve public transport, particularly bus services. The problem is that it is not possible for representatives of a local authority and two bus companies to sit down and reach an agreement about the adequacy of the bus service, matters of fares and so on. If we are to achieve greater demand management and introduce road pricing and other measures, there must be such an agreement. If we are to say to people, as in London, "Don't take your car, but get on to public transport", the public transport must be available in the first place. I am not satisfied that the present system of dealing with buses deals with that. I have said before that I do not want to go back to the pre-1986 legislation because that had its own problems, but I think we can make a quantifiable change in the way in which bus services are provided outside London. That is what we are discussing, and I hope to have something further to say in the not too distant future.

I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members will be as flabbergasted as I was to hear that the number of bus services in the north-west traffic areas increased, according to parliamentary answers that I have received. That certainly is not the case in south Manchester, where we have seen the systematic removal of services over a number of years, including most recently the service to Manchester royal infirmary on a Sunday. Does the Secretary of State agree that tougher regulatory control would allow the PTA to direct bus services where they are most needed, rather than where the bus companies can make the most profit?

Bus services and routes will change from time to time, depending on passenger demand, but the changes that I am proposing will make it easier, provided that they are implemented with other measures to reduce congestion, to ensure that bus services run where they are needed. As I said a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), if we want people to use the bus, we must ensure that there is an adequate bus service. However, bus services, like any other public service, will change depending on what people want.

Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's response, may I ask whether he is aware that Stagecoach Manchester has told me that it wants the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive to have more powers, not least to co-ordinate in a stronger way the bus network and to tackle congestion, which is having a detrimental effect on services, particularly in south Manchester? Given the discussions that his Department has had with the GMPTE, can he advise me as to what powers he will look at providing it with specifically to tackle traffic congestion?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is as much in the interests of bus operators as of everybody else to ensure sensible management of the amount of traffic going through the streets of Manchester, as well as other places. That is why the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority is currently looking at the measures that it needs to take over the next five to 10 years to reduce the amount of traffic coming into the city and improve public transport. We are working closely together to achieve that. In terms of bus services, it will be possible to deliver such improvements only with the powers that will be necessary to ensure that buses are running where they are supposed to be running, as they should be if we are to persuade people that they should leave their cars at home. We discuss these matters not only with the Greater Manchester PTA, but with Stagecoach and other bus operators.

Does not the fact that bus usage in London since the mid-1980s has risen by almost 60 per cent., whereas in the rest of England and in Wales it has fallen by almost a half, show that the London model, which combines public planning on routes, fares and timetables with competition for specific contracts, has been a huge success, while deregulation has been a disaster?

The position varies across the country. The hon. Gentleman is right that London bus usage has increased dramatically, but he should bear in mind two things. First, the Mayor of London has deliberately introduced measures such as the congestion charge and others to encourage people to leave their cars at home. Furthermore, through the support of central Government, the Mayor is spending more than £400 million supporting those bus services. In other parts of the country, such as Brighton, York, Oxford and Cambridge, where bus companies and local authorities are working well together, there has also been an increase in bus patronage. What I have been referring to is further measures that are important and indeed necessary if we are to see an increase in the use of buses, particularly in larger conurbations such as Greater Manchester or in the west midlands, where I believe that we need to do more to reduce congestion on the roads and improve public transport. As I said in reply to the previous question, I am determined to ensure that we have a pilot for a national road pricing scheme, and improved public transport is an essential part of that.

Local authorities spend a great deal of Government money seeking to increase bus use by designating bus lanes, building bus shelters, improving disabled access and traffic management systems and running information systems. However, that works well and increases bus use, which has happened in York, as my right hon. Friend said, only if there is a good partnership between the local authority and the bus company. Does he agree that it would be helpful if bus companies were to consult local authorities when they intend to raise fares or change timetables, rather than just inform them?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. If public transport is to work, co-operation is needed with everyone who can make that possible. There really is no excuse for bus companies and local authorities not talking to each other.

7. What assessment he has made of the likely impact of developing Birmingham New Street station on the transport infrastructure of the west midlands. [51247]

Proposals for redeveloping the station are being worked up jointly by Birmingham city council and Network Rail.

I am grateful for that reply. My right hon. Friend will be aware that New Street is the busiest interchange station in the UK, currently running at around twice its designed capacity. Given the fact that that is not only unacceptable from the point of view of its role as a gateway to the west midlands, but a problem for the national rail network, what support will he feel able to give to the scheme to which he has just referred, which involves all the local partners and has been developed in consultation with the Government office?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That station carries far more passengers than it was ever designed for, and it is essential not only for Birmingham and the west midlands but for many other routes that run through the area. On any view, there will have to be a substantial public contribution, which may involve the Department for Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry or others. I hope that we will have a proposal in the not-too-distant future, because everybody agrees that we need to spend a considerable sum of money to improve that part of the network.

As someone who has used New Street station literally thousands of times and who will continue to do so, I fully support the redevelopment of New Street station. However, I urge my right hon. Friend to be careful in allocating development moneys to avoid an overblown plan for New Street station that will adversely affect other stations in the west midlands, including Wolverhampton.

When we replace stations, it is important that the replacement is sensible, and my hon. Friend is right that many railway proposals include more than is absolutely necessary. The site is complex and New Street station is extremely busy, so the development will almost certainly be tied to other development in Birmingham city centre, but I am confident that we will get something that is good for the railways as well as for Birmingham and the west midlands.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman is puzzled that I have not called him, but the west midlands and Reading do not tie in, unless he can find a link.

Does the Secretary of State agree that any developments at Birmingham New Street station will benefit from the unblocking of the current bottleneck in the national network at Reading station? If so, what is he doing to help Reading out of that situation?

It is true that a train going to Birmingham that is held up at Reading will arrive in Birmingham later than it should—I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. Reading is one of a number of stations where there are bottlenecks. Quite a lot of resignalling is needed at Reading, because the bottleneck affects services not only going up to Birmingham, but going down to the west country, and Network Rail is on the case.

May I call a spade a spade: given the hopeless dithering and chaotic failure to take a lead of the Tory-Liberal administration on Birmingham city council, I invite the Secretary of State to take a personal interest on behalf of the Labour Government, to take the matter by the scruff of the neck and to intervene to sort out the disgrace that is Birmingham New Street station? We should have a 21st-century station for a 21st-century city, but we cannot leave it to the Tories and the Liberals, because they cannot do it.

I assure my hon. Friend that I take a personal interest in the matter, not least because I am asked about it whenever I go to Birmingham. One big difference between now and the past is that we are prepared to put money into the railways, because many of the problems, whether they involve Birmingham or Reading, exist because the previous Government failed to do that.

8. if he will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the British Transport police. [51248]

Last October, I told the House that I would review the role of the British Transport police, and I hope to announce the conclusions of that review before too long.

The review of the British Transport police comes at a sensitive time. As the Secretary of State knows, violent crime reported on the railways has increased by 40 per cent. in the past five years, and passengers in London are seriously concerned about safety because of unmanned stations and partially manned stations. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that passenger safety will be prioritised as part of the review, rather than the review being used to fit in with the Government's wider regionalisation agenda for police forces up and down the country?

The hon. Gentleman is right that what matters is providing effective police for the railways—despite its name, the British Transport police is essentially a railway police force. He is also right that we must ensure that the safety of passengers is paramount, which is why we have increased funding to the BTP—the number of officers has increased by about 300 in the past year alone, and more than 200 officers are due to be recruited in next three years. We have spent a lot more money on CCTV, and policing on London underground has been increased, too. It is important that the BTP focuses its efforts on tracking down the people who commit such crimes. We must ensure that people have the confidence to use the railways and the underground, and part of our review of the BTP is about making sure that policing is firmly focused on that objective.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people responsible for the smooth running of our stations and trains have grave concerns regarding the possible demise of the British Transport police, with its very specialised experience?

Yes, the BTP does a very good job. We are having this review because, given the prospect of reducing the number of police forces in England and Wales, it makes sense to look at how the BTP is structured. It has to work very closely with police forces outside London because BTP officers tend to be more thinly spread in some areas and other forces need to help. In addition, the BTP is being asked to do an increasing amount of sophisticated work in relation to anti-terrorist activities in London, where it works with the Metropolitan police. The question that we are considering is whether it is best that it should remain as the BTP—[Hon. Members: "Yes"]—or be firmly focused. I hope that the review will be completed fairly quickly. My hon. Friend is right to say that the BTP does a good job in different parts of the country, and its work is appreciated.

Whichever version of the Government's 10-year transport plan one reads, it states:

"We want people to travel safely and feel secure."

British Transport police statistics show a 43 per cent. increase in violent crime on trains since 1999–2000. Can the Minister confirm exactly when his review will be finished and what steps he will take as a result to ensure that people feel safer when travelling on our railways?

We will complete the review as soon as we can, but it is important to carry it out thoroughly to ensure that we get it right.

It is true, as has been said, that the amount of reported crime has gone up. That is partly because all crimes are reported and recorded more accurately, but it is also the case, as the House will know, that there has been an increase in the amount of crime against individuals generally. We have increased the amount of officers and the amount of money available to spend on measures such as CCTV—every single penny of which, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, was opposed by the Conservatives at every opportunity. The House should be in no doubt that we are committed to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that the railways are safe. The fact that increasing numbers of people are using the railways every year tends to suggest that the vast majority have confidence in the system. That said, there is clearly a lot more to be done in relation to the fight against crime, and we will ensure that British Transport police and other police forces have the resources they need to do that.

9. When he last reviewed security arrangements on Eurostar. [51249]

Security measures are in place that are designed to be proportionate and responsive to the prevailing level of threat. They have been jointly agreed with the French Government to ensure comparability of standards. The measures are kept under continuous review by both Governments.

I wonder whether the measures are proportionate. Someone who flies to Paris buys a ticket with their name on it, and before they get on the aeroplane the name on their ticket is checked against their passport at least three times. Someone who gets on Eurostar to go to Paris, Brussels, or wherever does not necessarily have a named ticket and all that is checked is whether they have a ticket. We therefore have no idea who is travelling on Eurostar. Should not we review that arrangement to ensure that our borders are secure?

The arrangements are very different as between Eurostar and the airlines. Airlines have named tickets because they must have a passenger manifest in case of an accident and because they must carry out a reconciliation between the hold baggage and the individuals on the plane. There is no hold baggage on Eurostar, and it is not necessary to have the same passenger manifest. Nevertheless, I have noted my hon. Friend's comments and will ensure that they are relayed to the people who keep security on Eurostar under review.

10. If he will make a statement on the future of funding for light rail and trams. [51250]

Trams can be very effective in heavily trafficked areas. We remain prepared to support the introduction of trams when they are the right solution, but we must take account of the cost. In many cases, a well-designed and promoted bus-based system is likely to provide a more cost-effective solution.

The Under-Secretary's answer is as enlightening as the Department's usual communications on light rail. In the light of the Government's decision not to fund the Leeds supertram scheme, and figures that show that three times as much money is spent per person on public transport in London and the south-east compared with Yorkshire and the Humber, does he agree that the Department is failing on public transport outside London, that the Government's regional economic policy is a sham and that all that shows an ever-increasing—

Order. I call the Under-Secretary.

The answer is no, we are not failing on public transport policy. Indeed, we are doing well. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should speak to his Front-Bench colleagues about getting Liberal Democrat policy on trams right. During a debate on 1 February, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said:

"All that needs to be underpinned by paying attention to value for money, which is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the London assembly are putting forward a proposal to replace the tram scheme for London with a trolleybus scheme that could do the same job for about a third of the price."— [Official Report, 1 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 411.]

21. If he will make a statement on the progress of e-government. [51261]

The Government have made good progress on e-government, with 96 per cent. of services estimated to be online. Our flagship website, Directgov, has more than 2 million visitors a month. We have set a clear forward strategy for transformational government.

What steps are the Department taking to ensure that the lessons of e-innovation rounds 1 and 2, as they relate to local government service improvement and accessibility, are being rolled out to all councils in the country, including those that serve my constituency?

First, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who, in the months that she has been a Member of Parliament, has taken a close interest in such matters, lobbied me and discussed how IT can help enable the transformation of people's lives in her constituency? She is right that IT crucially enables local government's delivery of public services and I believe that approximately 30 local authorities are involved in the initiative. Of course, we would like it to be rolled out much further so that best practice becomes common practice throughout the country.

What investment has North Yorkshire county council made in e-government? Does the take-up reflect the investment?

I would assume that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) knew the position in North Yorkshire better than I do. Nevertheless, I can tell her that public services have been transformed and personalised throughout the country through changes in IT. In North Yorkshire, like the rest of the country, most of those services are highly effective and our constituents use them. For example, they may renew tax discs and pay tax online and visit Directgov. If the hon. Lady genuinely wishes to know the specific position in her constituency, I shall investigate and get back to her.

My hon. Friend correctly said that e-government services are widely available. However, the uptake varies greatly by region, age group and social grouping, as the publication "Digital Strategy" acknowledged a year ago. What progress has been made in bridging the digital divide and extracting the full potential of IT in delivering government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that IT has the potential to bridge the divide, which, left unchecked, would grow. There are excellent examples of that improvement throughout the country. I visited Eastserve in Manchester, a project in the western isles and another on an oil platform in the North sea halfway to Norway. They are excellent innovations and examples of the delivery of public services to people, regardless of their background and age. However, I agree that much more can be done and many comments and ideas are contained in our transformational government strategy, which was published in November last year.

23. What steps he is taking to enhance the Government's deregulatory initiatives. [51263]

We remain on track to deliver the radical programme of regulatory reform set out in the March 2005 Budget and the better regulation action plan published in May 2005. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will make it quicker and easier to reform outdated, unnecessary or over-complicated legislation.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most regulatory measures around is the temporary agency workers directive, which the CBI has described as a job destroyer? It would certainly damage employment in my constituency. Labour MEPs are in favour of the directive. Are Her Majesty's Government still totally opposed to it?

The United Kingdom Government support any initiative that manages to protect the competitiveness of UK business and the UK economy, so our position has not changed on this matter. We have heard these siren calls before, not from the CBI but from the Conservatives. It was of course the Conservatives who said that the national minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs and be bad for British business. The fact is that nearly 2 million more people are now in employment. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the position of the UK Government has not changed.

May I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging the reason for my absence from last week's debate on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? I was attending an important funeral. May I ask him specifically when he expects to be able to reply to the substantive points made on the Bill by the Regulatory Reform Select Committee?

The whole House accepted the reason why my hon. Friend could not attend last Thursday's Second Reading debate. May I again put on record the thanks of the whole House for the work that he and his Regulatory Reform Committee have done on this important issue? I confirmed on Second Reading that we would respond to the Committee's 17 specific and substantial recommendations before the Bill went into Standing Committee. I repeat that we remain open and sensitive to ways to offer further reassurances on the Bill.

Given the Minister's responsibility for deregulatory initiatives, and the merits of learning from successful experience in other countries, what assessment has he made of the merits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman's questions are very precise. I am not in a position to provide the specific information that he requests, but I can confirm that, in regard to the Government's better regulation agenda, we are looking at experiences across the world, especially of administrative burdens. We are learning from the Dutch, the Danes and others who match our aspirations and ambitions on better regulation. Importantly, we shall know that we have succeeded—as we are beginning to do now—when other countries look at our example. I met some colleagues from the new German Government recently, and they are looking to us for ways in which to advance their own better regulation agenda to help their economy.

Clearly, this was one of the key matters pursued by the Government under the UK presidency. What meetings did my hon. Friend have with his European Union colleagues to ensure that regulatory reform was not just limited to one country but applied to the rest of the European Union as part of our ongoing agenda to make the European Union more competitive?

My hon. Friend's analysis is correct. If the UK and the European Union are to succeed in the global economy, given the challenges from China and India, our ambitions for better regulation need to be much more robust. We hosted a conference in Edinburgh for regulatory reform Ministers from throughout the EU to further that agenda, and to determine how we could learn together from our best experiences in order successfully to create the dynamic European economy that we all wish to see.

The Department of Trade and Industry has recently published its list of forthcoming regulations to be made this year. It runs to a whopping 30 pages, and that is just the list. The Minister has said that he favours the principle of one in, one out. That is, for every new regulation, an old one should be scrapped. So why has not he, as the Cabinet Office Minister charged with responsibility for deregulation, published a list of the regulations to be scrapped? Or is he content that there is now £40 billion-worth more regulation than there was in 1997 and that it is rising fast? What is he going to do about that?

The hon. Gentleman has limited ambitions if all that he seeks to do is ensure that the DTI will publish simplification proposals and deliver on them. Not just the DTI but every Department is committed to publishing its simplification proposals by the time of the pre-Budget report, and the Bill will allow their implementation.

Labour Members make no apology for well-targeted, effective regulation that delivers protection for families, helps the working poor and protects our environment. It is a shame that the Conservative party has not yet flip-flopped on all those issues.

Does the Minister not agree that the reason the Government have failed so dismally on regulatory reform is that regulatory reform orders are initiated by Ministers? Ministers do not wish to reduce their powers; they generally act to increase them. If we are to succeed in reducing regulation, we need orders to be initiated from outwith the ministerial structure.

The hon. Gentleman plays an important part in the work of the Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). I assume that he has signed up to the Committee's report and its 17 recommendations. The Government are minded to adopt many of those recommendations. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring specific matters to the Government's attention I shall be happy to listen, but I do not recognise the economic picture that he portrays. We have the lowest interest rates, the lowest unemployment and record levels of employment in our dynamic economy, but we must do more, and our agenda will help us to achieve that.