With permission Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the next stage in implementing our transport investment programme. I also want to set out how we are planning ahead to meet the pressures we know we'll face on our roads in 20-30 years time.

The pressures now on road and rail are well known. We are dealing with the consequences of decades of under investment coupled with the pressures of rising prosperity. We are one of the largest economies in the world. People are better off and travel more.

Our future prosperity depends on us helping people and goods move around as efficiently as possible. And we must do this in a way that is consistent with our environmental and social objectives.

The government is committed to sustained high levels of investment in transport with £180 bn public and private investment over 10 years. That's a 45% increase in real terms compared to the previous decade.

Last December I announced major investment in roads, light rail and local transport in the light of recommendations from studies of 5 strategic routes.

Today I am announcing the next stage - my decisions in relation to a further 11 studies. Covering the South Coast, West Midlands, Tyneside, South and West Yorkshire, Hull, the Thames Valley, the M25, the M60 around Manchester, and the corridors between London to Ipswich, Norwich to Peterborough and London to the South Midlands.

Full details of all my decisions will be available in the vote office. But today I want to set out the approach we are taking.

First we are making better use of existing infrastructure, improving the way it's managed and dealing with bottlenecks

Second we are improving public transport so that it provides a better choice

Third we are investing in new capacity where's it's needed to tackle congestion and improve safety.

And fourth planning ahead for the pressures we know we'll face in 20-30 years time.

I will deal with each of these in turn.

The first stage must be to make better use of the road capacity we've got.

That's why we're giving the Highways Agency new powers to manage traffic. And why the Agency is establishing a regional control centre in the West Midlands next year to monitor trunk roads and provide up to date reliable information to motorists

Mr Speaker, not all roads are congested all of the time. But sections of many roads are under pressure during at least part of the day. Which is why from next year on the M42 at peak hours, we will see controlled use by cars of the hard shoulder operating under stringent safety conditions.

This, combined with variable speed limits and other measures, will ease congestion and help keep traffic flowing. So today I have asked the Agency to assess the results of this pilot before I consider the case for widening the M42.

Following study recommendations, I am asking the Agency to examine improved traffic management to tackle congestion on other routes including Thames Valley, parts of the M60 in Manchester and sections of the M1, M62 and M18 in South and West Yorkshire, including the possibility of hard shoulder running at peak hours there as well.

We shall be consulting motoring organisations and others to make sure we get the detail right.

We also need to continue with road improvements to tackle bottlenecks to improve safety and reliability.

So I am asking the Highways Agency to work up proposals to tackle bottlenecks. Including improvements to a number of junctions on A19 in Tyneside; improvements to junctions and limited widening on the M27 around Southampton and improvements at the Brook Street interchange between the M25 and A12.

The second element of our strategy is to invest in improvements to rail and other public transport to provide a better choice for travellers.

Work is already underway to improve the main rail arteries - for example there's a £9 bn upgrade of the West Coast Main line, plans to enhance capacity of the East Coast Main Line and a strategy to make better use of capacity for Midland Main Line. As well as a £1bn investment in a new power supply south of the Thames and the biggest replacement programme for rolling stock ever seen in this country.

Against that background, these studies made a number of further recommendations. Some of their objectives are already being taken forward by the SRA including:

a new hourly service between Ashford and Brighton to be introduced with the new franchise in 2005 a proposed hourly service from London to Leeds via Nottingham and the SRA is examining the business case for re-opening the East - West rail link between Bedford and Oxford.

In Kent, the SRA is also examining how to integrate new and existing domestic services to make better use of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

The Thames study also recommended better public transport links between the Thames Valley and Heathrow. The SRA and BAA are developing a new service to Heathrow which they aim to start late next year, enabling more people to travel to the airport by public transport, from both the Thames Valley and West London.

Over 10 years we will invest £33 billion direct public expenditure on rail. By 2005, we'll be spending double what we did in 2001.

I am asking the SRA to look at how they can meet other study objectives through their work to make better use of the network and the refranchising process.

But most journeys are local trips of less than 5 miles. So within our 10 year investment programme, we have already included £19 billion capital spending to improve local transport across the country, and last December I announced substantial investment in local public transport.

The West Midlands study specifically looked at local transport in the largest conurbation outside London. It recommended major improvements, including extensions to the light rail system and substantial investment in better bus routes.

In the light of this, I have decided to make up to a £1bn available for further improvements to local transport in the West Midlands over the next 7 years, dependent on the PTA bringing forward realistic plans.

By next year we will be giving local authorities three times more money for local transport as they had in 1997. And today, I am asking authorities to work up proposals for a range of improvements recommended in the studies.

I also support recommendations for local authorities and bus operators to develop extended network of bus and coach services making this a more attractive option.

So we're making better use of existing capacity. And we're investing in improvements to public transport. But even doing all this, there will still be pressures on road network.

On any view, existing capacity isn't enough to cope with today's demands let alone the pressures we will face. As the 10 year plan made clear, we need to widen and improve trunk roads to tackle congestion and improve safety and make journeys more reliable.

Which brings me to the third element of our approach.

Today I am endorsing recommendations for improvements to some trunk routes of regional importance. For example widening to 3 lanes the A12 from Colchester to the M25; widening the M11 to 3 lanes between junctions 8 and 9 and a northern bypass for Dunstable and dualling the A421 from Bedford to the M1.

But we also need to invest in improvements to capacity on key arterial routes. Last December I announced proposals to widen to 4 lanes both the M6 between Manchester and Birmingham and the M1 through the East Midlands as well as other major improvements.

The recent studies recommended further improvements to strategic road arteries. Including further stretches of the M1 and the M25.

And today I am asking the Highways Agency to develop proposals to widen the M1 from the M25 to Milton Keynes to 4 lanes and also to widen parts of the M1, M62, A1(M) and M18 in South and West Yorkshire. This in conjunction with the measures I announced earlier will significantly expand capacity of the M1 from London to Yorkshire.

A third of the M25 already has 4 lanes. Today I am also asking the Agency to take forward the study recommendation to widen most of the remaining 3 lane sections of M25 to 4 lanes. And, as recommended by the West Midlands study, to develop a strategic link between the new M6 toll road and the M54.

Many of these improvements support the government's plans for growth areas in the Thames Gateway; between London and Cambridge and in the Milton Keynes - South Midlands area.

Mr Speaker we have to bear in mind our central objective is to enable people to travel, in a way that is consistent with our environmental and social objectives. And there are some recommendations in these studies I cannot accept.

As I have said before, unless there is an overriding public interest in a scheme, there should be a strong presumption against building roads through Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other sensitive sites. We have a clear duty to do everything we can to preserve the environment.

On regeneration grounds, the West Midlands study recommended dual carriageways around Stourbridge and Wolverhampton. But the justification was, as the local planning inquiry recognised, doubtful.

These roads would cut through an area of remarkable unspoilt countryside. I believe we can find better ways of achieving regeneration of the West Midlands. Which is why I am rejecting the proposals and instead support the case for the Regional Assembly's study of regeneration in the Black Country.

Similarly on the South coast, the Arundel bypass would cut across water meadows damaging an area of outstanding beauty.

I am rejecting this proposal as well as proposals to expand junctions with flyovers on the Chichester bypass and the proposal for a tunnel at Worthing. Each, in my view, has environmental consequences that are unacceptable and avoidable. And at an estimated cost of over £500 million there are question marks over the Worthing Tunnel's affordability.

There are problems on these roads, and I am therefore asking the Highways Agency to identify alternative solutions, recognising the need to support planned economic growth.

Also on environmental grounds, I am asking the Agency to take a hard look at other recommendations to see if there are less damaging alternatives.

For example, I accept the need for safety improvements at the level crossing on the A27 at Beddingham. But this road already runs through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and I am asking the Agency to redesign the scheme to reduce its impact on the surrounding landscape.

I've set out today how we've adopted a measured and balanced approach. Targeting action where it's most needed - making better use of existing capacity, investing in public transport and strategic increases in capacity. However I believe we now need to go further.

Which brings me to the fourth element of our approach.

Looking ahead, as the economy grows and people become better off, we know we'll face increasing pressures on road space. And, as I've said before, looking 20 - 30 years ahead we can't build our way out of all the pressures we face.

Now is the right time to examine how making use of modern technology could help us make better use of road space in the future. As we do this we'll approach it in a new context.

In the next 4 years, we'll be introducing charging for all lorries using UK roads based on the distance they travel. Accompanied by a reduction in fuel duty, overall the UK haulage industry won't pay more. And this would allow us in the future for example, by varying charges, to encourage lorries to use motorways at off peak times.

But clearly there's a world of difference between a scheme for 430,000 lorries and one for 26 million cars. No country in the world has done anything on such a scale before. And technically this is an entirely different proposition to congestion charging in London, for example, where a charge is paid to drive within a boundary.

There are many issues that need to be addressed - such as the protection of privacy and whether such a scheme could work technically. Which is why the time has come to set up a feasibility study to investigate these issues in detail.

Last month my department held a seminar for motoring, business and environmental groups and others to look at the issues. It was clear that for a scheme to be sustainable in the long-term there needs to be a consensus - not just politically but a consensus across the country.

So today I am publishing a discussion paper looking at managing roads to get the best out of the road space we have; the possibilities opened up by new technology; and getting the right balance between additional capacity and measures which ensure benefits are "locked in", whether through physical measures or pricing.

Copies of this discussion paper will be available from the vote office.

Our objective must be to provide a better deal for the motorist. Road pricing would be a radically different approach. But it could have huge potential to reduce congestion, to allow faster more reliable journeys. Giving motorists a better choice about how and when they travel. We'd be failing future generations if we did not test its feasibility and examine the gains that could come from it.

Mr Speaker we are investing in major improvements to our transport infrastructure - road and rail. Putting right decades of neglect and under investment. We're facing up to the pressures we know we'll face in the future.

I commend this statement to the house.