To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the Mobile Homes Act 1983. [9346]

My Department is currently considering a number of concerns raised by mobile home residents relating to mobile home legislation. It is too early to say what will be the outcome of those considerations.

I am delighted to hear that the matter is under active consideration. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although park home living can be a comfortable, peaceful and safe way of life for elderly people in their retirement, there are significant difficulties with the legislation due to severe loopholes within which poverty and exploitation can exist? I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is considering the legislation. Will she also examine the role of local authorities in the inspection and registration of park home sites? Does she agree that the way forward is through a clear partnership between the sensible and able parts of the industry, park home owners, local authorities and a reforming Labour Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been learning a great deal about park homes as they are now called, or mobile homes as most of us know them. I look forward to meeting the all-party group later in the year to consider some of the issues that he has raised.

If the hon. Lady reviews the law relating to mobile homes, will she take care not to diminish excessively the rights of site owners to control the sites, because in areas such as my constituency, where Kingfisher park has a central location, a site could deteriorate rapidly if site owners did not have their current powers to control the site and maintain high standards?

Of course we are concerned to support the overwhelming number of reputable site owners. However, we are also concerned about a number of disreputable site owners. We want to achieve the correct balance so that site owners and those living on the sites feel safe, secure and able to work together for the betterment of all.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to involve a comprehensive range of expertise in developing his proposals for a regional development strategy. [9347]

We are conducting wide-ranging consultation with all the main stakeholders nationally and in the regions on our proposals for regional development agencies involving stakeholders.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend. I know of his long interest and campaigning zeal for regional development since the early 1980s. Will he take great care to make sure that all the stakeholders are involved? If the regional development strategy seems to be in the ownership of local authorities, we shall lose enormous expertise from the private sector, co-operatives and—very importantly—the universities. I hope that all the stakeholders will be at the forefront of implementing the policy and making sure that it works.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about those matters, which we are discussing with all the parties that he has mentioned. We would need public-private partnership operations to be reflected in the development associations and agencies, as they have been in Scotland and Wales—another successful innovation of a previous Labour Government.

Will the Secretary of State tell us something about the Government's proposals in relation to integrating environmental policy into regional development policy? Does he have proposals, for example, at regional level to build on local Agenda 21s so that we have regional sustainable development strategies? How does he envisage that linking with the development of regional government in England?

We very much support what the hon. Gentleman has said. Indeed, it is reflected in today's announcement of proposals for the Greater London authority, which see a strategic role for the environment in London as much as in any other region. It is important that sustainable development means that economic and environmental considerations are taken together, which is often to the benefit of the prosperity of the regions involved.

May I say how much businesses and local authorities in East Anglia are looking forward to the establishment of a regional development agency? When my right hon. Friend considers the siting of the agency's headquarters, will he consider the economic impact that it could have, and consider siting it in the less prosperous parts of the region rather than in parts which always seem to be used by the Government for offices?

I have never had any doubt that every region wanted a development agency. The tours in which my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has been involved have convinced us all the more of that. I recall that, before the previous Government came to power, they proposed in their manifesto to abolish the Welsh and Scottish agencies. They chose not to do so as soon as they saw the very valuable work done by the agencies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the welcome for regional development agencies about which the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) talked is not remotely shared around the country? Is it not a fact that the new regional development agencies will not only have exceptionally wide powers, from acquisition of land to financing of business, but that every member of the boards of the RDAs will be appointed by the Secretary of State? Rather than reducing the power of quangos, as he often claims, is he not in the process of creating one of the most powerful new quangos that the country has ever seen?

It is a bit of a cheek for any Opposition Member to talk about the role of quangos, since they created many thousands of them—involving billions of pounds—which were not accountable to the ordinary electorate. We intend to make our agencies accountable. Today's statement on London showed that. When we have completed the consultation and the White Paper is published, the right hon. Gentleman will see—if he waits—the conclusions of those discussions. He belonged to a Government who did not believe in a directly elected mayor. I see that they have changed their position in opposition. Perhaps he will change with the consultation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage recycling for environmental reasons. [9350]

We are looking carefully at both existing measures and at possible further measures to increase recycling. Recycling makes sense only if it represents the best practicable environmental option for a particular waste stream.

As the foundry industry is a recycling industry, will my hon. Friend support its strong case that the greensand that it uses should be treated as inactive waste and therefore subject only to the lower rate of landfill tax of £2 per tonne rather than the higher rate of £7 per tonne? Now that the Environment Agency has commissioned a special study into the matter, will the Department make appropriate representations at the appropriate time to ensure a fair outcome for the foundry industry and those employed in it?

As my hon. Friend will know, the landfill tax has been in existence for less than a year. We plan to look at how it operates this autumn, and I shall ensure that his comments are passed on to the people responsible for doing that. We shall see whether we can ensure that greensand has been properly classified for the purposes of landfill charge.

Have the Government accepted, and are they implementing, the strategy set by the previous Government, aimed at recycling one quarter of all household waste by 2000 AD?

We certainly hope to achieve the targets set by the previous Government, and perhaps even to improve on them. However, the mechanisms that they put in place for achieving the recycling targets are totally inadequate. As yet, only 6.5 per cent. of material is recycled and 12.5 per cent. recovered. The previous Government were good at setting the target but not so good at examining ways to achieve it. We shall consider issues such as recovery, waste minimisation, recycling, and the effects of the way in which the landfill tax works, so that we can introduce better incentives for reaching the targets that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I welcome the progress made towards increasing the recycling of glass, but will my hon. Friend examine ways of encouraging manufacturers to recycle bottles, which is common in other countries, as a means of making further energy savings?

As my hon. Friend will know, the markets for recycled material are only just beginning to be established, and because of the large fluctuations in prices for such materials, they are not yet stable. My hon. Friend will be aware of the waste packaging regulations that have just been introduced, and we are assessing how those work. The Government are not only examining ways of encouraging the creation of markets for recyclable materials, but thinking about what we can do to encourage a more stable atmosphere, in which people can recycle.

On the basis that Governments should lead by example, is the ministerial team happy with the record that it inherited, especially with regard to Government Departments? What steps do Ministers plan to take to improve on the previous Government's record?

We are more than anxious to examine best practice at local authority level and in other areas. The Government can learn a good deal from some of the innovative schemes that local authorities have put in place. However, only 8 per cent. of local authorities are approaching even the targets that the previous Government set. Clearly, we must look to our own behaviour, which is why I recently hosted a conference on green procurement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the English regions are not excluded from forthcoming decentralisation legislation. [9351]

A Bill to provide for regional development agencies was announced in the Queen's Speech and will be introduced in the autumn. That will be a first step towards decentralising decision taking in the British regions.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware of the welcome in the country for Labour's moves towards handing some power back to the people, after the years of corrupt Tory rule during which the Conservative party treated the state as its private property, ruled from London? As a fellow South Yorkshire Member of Parliament, is the Minister aware that, in a year or two, when we have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a mayor in London, the 7 million people of Yorkshire might say, "What about us?" What plans does he have to continue the process of ensuring that the voice of the British regions is heard, and that they have more accountability and more control over the decisions that affect their daily lives?

I thank my hon. Friend for the due modesty that he always shows in asking supplementaries. I assure him that we fought the election and won it handsomely on a major constitutional change; we shall follow that through. As I said in my answer, the first step is to get regional development agencies into being and then to encourage the formation of chambers. We shall then move towards elective regional assemblies when that has been determined by the people in the regions.

I recognise the importance of local government and I am personally sad that many duties and responsibilities were removed from local government in recent times. I speak as somebody who served in local government, and that is why I am so supportive of it. It is, however, important that government functions be taken as close to the people as possible because what affects people is government functions and responsibilities. Is it not right, in decentralising and moving in the way that the Minister has suggested, to tell people how much the change will cost and what existing local authority levels or authorities are likely to be reduced or abolished in the movement towards what the Minister described as regional agencies and regional assemblies?

The hon. Gentleman has asked an interesting supplementary. We are dealing here with regional development agencies. I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely interested in manufacturing.

That is not an answer.

There are three parts to the question which I have answered already, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had listened.

Will the Minister consider giving official recognition to regional chambers that already exist through voluntary means? In the north-west five years ago, for example, the public, private and voluntary sectors came together to form the North-West Regional Association and the North-West Partnership, which have brought public, private and voluntary sectors together to develop strategies for the region. Will my hon. Friend consider giving official recognition to such bodies pending the setting up of new ones?

We shall look carefully at the consultation document. As my hon. Friend knows, it went out a few weeks ago and it will conclude on 5 September. We shall reflect on all the 10 English regions in response to the document and we shall then give a considered reply. I hear what my hon. Friend said, and her point will be taken into consideration when we review the position.

I say to the Minister, the Secretary of State and their team that the Liberal Democrats greatly welcome the honouring of the manifesto commitment to produce a Green Paper on London government. We look forward to others for the other regions of England.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is a bit rich for Opposition Members to protest when we are honouring manifesto commitments, but I know that they have great difficulty in understanding that we are doing so.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his consultations on devolution in London and the regions of England. [9352]

As my right hon. and hon. Friends said, we have consulted on our proposals for setting up regional development agencies in England. Comments are invited by 5 September. As regards London, my right hon. Friend has today laid before the House copies of the Green Paper "New Leadership for London; the Government's proposals for a Greater London Authority". We shall consult on those proposals between now and 24 October.

I welcome progress on this issue, because it shows that the contagion of devolutionary democracy has spread from the banks of the Taff to the banks of the Thames, and even to the Tyne.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the Government's response to the clear and legitimate wish of the people of England for effective action on more devolution and a more effective say over their local economies. We are interested in delivering for the people of London and the regions of England.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that extra layer of unwanted and unwarranted bureaucracy, which will work alongside county councils, district councils, town councils and parish councils, will inevitably reopen the debate on unitary authorities?

As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, in our proposals for London we are sweeping away a large number of unaccountable quangos that were set up by the previous Government, and in their place we are creating a streamlined, slimline authority. That has been warmly welcomed by those people who understand the needs of London government.

In his announcement today, my hon. Friend proposed a new strategic authority for London with an elected mayor. That may be welcomed by the people in London who were distressed at the abolition of the Greater London council. When we discuss the regions, we shall consider the proposals for a new strategic authority. Will an elected person act as spokesperson for the entire region or will my hon. Friend recommend that English cities in the regions consider the possibility of an elected mayor? If so, how will that fit into the current system of unitary authorities?

As my hon. Friend will know, the framework that we propose for London includes a directly elected mayor working with a directly elected assembly. It is interesting to note that the Conservative party, having previously opposed that concept, has recently begun a somersault. In our proposals for the regions, we shall be keen to encourage democratic innovation. A Bill will be introduced in the other place to allow innovation in local government arrangements, including the possibility of directly elected mayors in English councils. The framework that we propose for regional development agencies will allow a good measure of discretion locally on how those arrangements can best work.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under his proposals, London will have not only a mayor, but a new Greater London authority with 32 members and a London regional development agency? Does that not create an unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy? Will he tell the House what new charges the Government are considering in order to finance that bureaucracy?

In today's Evening Standard, Simon Jenkins said that there is a clear need for the new mayor of London to be subject to a framework of democratic accountability. The Government are providing that in the form of the mayor and the assembly. We are streamlining the administration of London government and establishing a framework that will ensure that Londoners will be able to get better and most cost-effective services. There is no substance whatsoever in the allegation that charges will be substantial increased to pay for that. It will be a streamlined authority that will be cost-effective and will deliver value for money for Londoners.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether it remains the policy of the Government to work towards the objective of a democratically elected regional government for the north; and through what stages they intend to reach that objective. [9353]

It remains our aim that the people should be able to decide, region by region, whether they want directly elected regional government, but that is a long-term goal. In the meantime, we are committed to supporting regional chambers established by local authorities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us in the north want to set a course towards democratic regional government and regard the proposed regional development agency as very welcome but only the first step? Does he further agree that there must be a regional representative body to accompany the agency and that when the Lord Chancellor said at the weekend that there was no evidence of demand in the north for regional government, he was not speaking for the Government as a whole?

Our position on democratic accountability is laid out clearly in the manifesto and we have made it clear that regional chambers, based around local authorities, will be the first step towards that long-term objective. To the best of my knowledge, the Lord Chancellor was not speaking on behalf of the Government when he expressed his personal opinions in a wide-ranging article in the Observer. The manifesto commits us to regional chambers and, in the long term, to elected regional assemblies.

As well as considering devolution within England, have the Government given any thought to devolution to England? Is it not time that thought was given to an English Parliament or Assembly to follow the precedent that the Government are setting for Scotland and Wales? When will the people of England have a proper voice in the matter?

The right hon. Gentleman is the last person who should lecture us on democracy. We have to dismantle the wholly undemocratic quangoland that he and his Government set up. We shall address the longer-term issues when we have sorted out all that lot.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will conduct an environmental audit for the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement. [9354]

A number of such audits have already been undertaken locally, including those conducted by Lancashire, Cumbria and Cheshire county councils, and the quality of life and sustainability audit recently completed by the north-west region of the Association of Local Authorities.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he consider again the question of an audit? If he were to carry one out, he would find that, in early July, there was a release to atmosphere of an extremely noxious substance that came in the direction of Fylde and caused great upset to many of my constituents, 300 of whom rang Transco to complain about what they thought was a major gas leak; it turned out that there was a sulphurous release from an oil and gas development operating in Liverpool bay. Will the Minister make early investigations into the matter? What specifically does he intend to do to prevent such noxious substances from reaching the atmosphere again?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a release from Broken Hill Proprietary—BHP—and I am certainly concerned about that; we are following it up and considering what action we can take, including prosecution.

In considering any environmental audit in the north-west, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the land known as Kingswater park, which is the only open countryside that my constituents can reach on foot? Will he note that, at a public meeting at Fairfield golf club on Friday evening, hundreds of local residents expressed their total and angry opposition to any attempt by North West Water to ruin the land with its greedy and vandalising fingers?

I am very concerned about North West Water on a number of counts—not least because the north-west has a far worse record than any other part of the country in adhering to the bathing water directive. I am also concerned about the issue raised by my right hon. Friend; if he would care to give me details, I will take the matter up personally with North West Water and, indeed, call the company in.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the process of environmental audit could usefully be extended to enable consideration of how the target of building 60 per cent. of new homes on previously developed land can be achieved? Or do the reported threats of the Minister for London and Construction to cover green-field sites with concrete mean that the Government have abandoned planning policies that protect the countryside and the green belt—notably, in such places as Uxbridge?

The Green Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which was issued by the former Secretary of State in the last Government—or perhaps I should call it the not-so-green paper—proposed that, initially, 50 per cent. of all houses should be built on green-field or countryside sites. The proposal was subsequently changed to a 60:40 split. That split comes from the last Government; it certainly does not come from us.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he intends to take to increase investment in London Underground. [9375]

We are urgently looking at various options for public-private partnerships to increase investment in the underground, and we recently appointed Price Waterhouse to examine the financial implications of a range of options. The aim is to achieve our manifesto commitment

"to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money for taxpayers and passengers".

Given the now glaringly obvious success of railway privatisation, and given Labour's willingness to change its mind about projects such as the Birmingham northern relief road, will the right hon. Gentleman now take up one of the options that he left lying around in a "Panorama" studio and admit that privatisation of London Underground is the best way forward?

I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have inherited an underground system whose investment programme was slashed by the last Administration, along with the overrun of the Jubilee line extension project. Already, there is a shortfall of more than £700 million. The answer to the long-term investment problems of the underground is to appoint the financial advisers whom we have appointed to examine public-private partnerships. We entirely reject the outright privatisation solution of the Conservative Government.

Anyone using public transport in London will welcome my right hon. Friend's views, but I hope—in fact, I am sure—that he will look carefully at the real costs to the taxpayer of privatisation before there is any suggestion that too much private company money is put in. Does my right hon. Friend agree that—as the privatisation of the railways shows—privatisation is a way of making money for the companies, but certainly not a way of improving services for the consumer?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about some of the previous contracts on privatisation. I have been appalled on seeing some of the previous contracts arrived at between the private sector and the Department. We are looking carefully at some of those deals to avoid the mistake of giving over completely to the private sector, at the direct expense of the public sector and a poorer-quality service.

If I were to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that my Liberal Democrat colleagues, on questioning hundreds of commuters who use the three underground stations serving the people of Uxbridge, found that they were overwhelmingly of the view that London Underground should remain, in the majority, in public ownership, what would he say to them, and will he give an undertaking today that will happen?

We would obviously say, "Vote Labour," and I hope that people will do so in large numbers to get an underground system that meets their needs and requirements. We are looking at all those options, as we have spelt out in a previous reply to a question in the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to ban bull bars on vehicles used on public roads. [9376]

Unfortunately, progress on the European initiative to control bull bars has been slow and we are therefore reviewing other available options to tackle the bull bar issue effectively. My noble Friend the Minister for Roads will be making an announcement on how we intend to take this forward.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major improvements in road safety in recent decades has been the redesign of vehicles, resulting in vehicles that absorb and reduce the shock of collisions by crumpling objects or by deflecting the objects or people that are hit? Bull bars reverse that trend and concentrate and multiply the force of a collision, often at the level of a child's head or vital organs. Was it not a disgrace that the previous Parliament and the former Minister for Transport in London talked out a Bill to reform and to ban bull bars, despite support for the Bill from 250 hon. Members on both sides of the House? When will this Government do better?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the redesign of vehicles has certainly enhanced driver and passenger safety. Furthermore, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's determined campaign on this issue. We intend to ensure that it reaches a satisfactory conclusion—if we cannot get European action, we will take national action.

On that point, is the Minister prepared to consult with the European Commission? Does he accept that unilateral action to ban bull bars in this country will be strictly illegal under the terms of the European treaty and our membership of the European Union?

No, I do not accept that. Of course we will maintain a dialogue with the European Commission. The hon. Lady will be aware that the previous Government had a rather long dialogue, not only with the European Commission but with other members of the Council. We are determined that action will be taken. Of course European action would be better and more effective, but if we cannot get it, we believe that there is scope for national action.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revive the crossrail project. [9377]

We are awaiting Railtrack's views on crossrail. We shall consider the project in the light of those views, once received, and of our own examination of transport priorities for London.

Will my hon. Friend give urgent further consideration to the Montagu report on crossrail, which concluded that crossrail was economically important and viable, and to the views of London Pride that an east-west rail link across London is the first priority needed to improve transport links?

I am aware of both the report and the representations made by London Pride on this issue. It is vital that we prioritise London's transport needs strategically. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the organisations he mentioned will welcome the publication today of our Green Paper on an assembly for London, which will include strategic responsibility for transport and traffic in London.

Even given the Green Paper, crossrail will need, at a reasonable estimate, a guarantee of some £3.5 billion. How can the Minister square that with the idea that a London assembly will not have special fund-raising powers? Is she saying that, despite its needing £3.5 billion, crossrail will receive a high priority in an integrated transport policy?

How could the hon. Gentleman sit quietly by while the previous Government spent £150 million of taxpayers' money on a feasibility study for crossrail, £126 million of which was paid to consultants on a daily rate of pay for three and a half to four years? It is a little late for him to express concern about the overall cost of crossrail when the previous Government did nothing to bring it about.

Who would have the ultimate political responsibility for priority decisions on crossrail—the elected mayor, the assembly, or the Government? Or would it be a mixture of all three, which is exactly the same chaos that we have now?

The ultimate political responsibility rests with the people of London and whomever they vote for.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for the Birmingham northern relief road. [9378]

Before replying to my hon. Friend, may I refer to yesterday's written answer on this subject? It had been my clear intention that the material would be made available to hon. Members at 3.30 pm. Unfortunately, the arrangements failed and the material was late. I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House.

As my right hon. Friend will know, I do not agree with his decision. Can we at least agree that the relief road will not solve the traffic problems in the area and that that can be done only by reducing the number of vehicle movements on the road? How does my right hon. Friend plan to do that?

I agree with my hon. Friend that one private toll road in isolation will not solve the transport problems of the west midlands. We need a properly integrated transport strategy so that the people of the west midlands have choice. The new strategic through route that will be provided by the BNRR, along with a refurbished west coast main line, and local authority transport packages, will help us to provide an enhanced transport system in the west midlands. In particular, the BNRR will provide access to a new rail freight terminal at Hams Hall. Furthermore, with the policies that will be set out in our new White Paper next year, we shall move forward to a more effective transport system and better policies for the west midlands.

I never thought that I would hear myself say this, but I congratulate the Government and the Minister on their courageous and important decision, which will greatly benefit the north-west, the west midlands and the country. Many Conservative Members will back the Minister to the hilt in seeing the BNRR scheme through. It is about the most important thing that the Government could do in transport—well done.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Time is passing and this matter is very important. The Minister may be terribly embarrassed, but he should try to reply.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I too believe that the importance of that strategic through route goes beyond the west midlands. It is important not only for the west midlands but for the north-west of England and Scotland.

I understand the difficulty that my right hon. Friend experienced in coming to his decision in this case. Even those who are in favour of the road are incensed by the previous Government's behaviour in pulling the plug on the previously publicly funded road. The road would now be open and operating if that had not happened.

I understand—[Interruption.] I am not sure how Opposition Members want to play it. This is an important matter, and I can tell that it is important to my hon. Friend. I understand the stand that he has taken, and he has identified a particularly important point. Obviously, the decision to go ahead with the road was based on strategic transport considerations, but my hon. Friend points out a failure on the part of the previous Administration. Risk was involved. Had the Government rejected the inspector's report, we could have been legally liable for substantial costs incurred by the private company.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government accept the principle of road tolling?

That is an important issue. We will almost certainly want to consider it in the context of our important White Paper on an integrated transport strategy, which we shall publish next year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if it were possible for us to start with a blank sheet of paper, many Labour Members would not have come up with the proposed scheme for the road or the method of financing it? I agree that the importance of the Birmingham northern relief road goes well beyond the west midlands. Ninety per cent. of exports from the north-west travel through the west midlands. Although extra road capacity is not the complete solution to the problem, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need extra road capacity in that part of Birmingham in the west midlands?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I believe the House understands, it is our policy to encourage the movement of more freight by rail, but the reality is that at present less than 10 per cent. of all freight in this country moves by rail; it is moved on the road.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to review the regulatory regime for BAA with particular reference to the formula for landing charges. [9379]

The Civil Aviation Authority, as the airports regulator, determines the regulatory regime for the three London airports of BAA plc and last autumn fixed the price cap to apply to charges on airlines using these airports for the five years through to 2002.

I thank the Minister for her factual reply and suggest to her that the system of regulating the privatised utilities that she inherited is deeply flawed. Is it not outrageous that world airlines should land at one of the busiest and most congested airports, pay nothing to the taxpayer for the right to land and pay landing charges that are way below the economic and environmental cost that they cause?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue of airport charges is linked not only to international agreement but to the arm's-length regulation of the CAA. It is not correct to say that the charges at Heathrow are artificially low; in effect, they are higher than the charges at Gatwick and Stansted.

Is my hon. Friend aware that planes are now landing as early as 4.30 am, adding hundreds, if not thousands, of early-morning landings to the number contributing to noise pollution levels? Will she consider increasing landing charges before 7 am, so that the people of London, from Pimlico to the west, can get a night's sleep?

The setting of airport charges is the responsibility of the regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority. Neither it nor my Department has any powers to review the existing levels until 2002.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards ensuring that all bridges within the United Kingdom meet maximum axle loading requirements for freight transported by road. [9380]

We are confident that all bridges in England carrying trunk roads will be capable of bearing the heaviest lorries that will be permitted from 1 January 1999. The Government do not believe that it is necessary for all bridges on local roads to be able to carry such traffic. Local authorities are concentrating on ensuring that bridges on roads of greatest importance to such lorries are able to bear them.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I have spent most of my professional life building bridges. Does my hon. Friend agree that bridges are an important part of transportation and that the forthcoming review of transportation and the move towards an integrated transport system should take account of the needs of both freight and passenger traffic? Does she agree that all bridge authorities throughout the country should be allowed to participate fully in that debate?

My hon. Friend will be aware that it is the Government's overriding priority to see more freight moved by rail. That is why we hope to improve the freight grant scheme in order to ensure that the annual budget is fully spent. As part of the integration of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport, we hope that the planning regime will prevent the sale of land that could be used for freight terminal facilities.

Will the hon. Lady confirm whether the Government will pay all local authority costs for assessing both these road bridges and those owned by Railtrack?

As to bridges owned by Railtrack, that is an issue for local authorities and Railtrack to negotiate between them. Local authorities will have to make bids regarding the costs to them, as they did under the previous Administration.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the 44-tonne juggernaut in a few years will not only possibly have a detrimental effect on bridges but certainly have a detrimental effect on principal roads and other roads that are used for transporting goods to customers? Will she take account of that point when assessing that very complicated and important issue?

My hon. Friend may be aware that it is the opinion of several that 44-tonne lorries will not cause greater damage to roads and bridges by virtue of the additional axles and the reduced weight of those individual axles. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) earlier: it is of primary importance to the Government that we see a real shift to alternative modes of freight transport, not least to our railways.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to encourage more people to use road passenger transport services. [9381]

Encouraging greater use of public transport is a key objective in developing an integrated transport policy. Our White Paper, which will be published next year, will help to identify how best we can achieve that.

I agree with the Minister's comments, but does he not think that his aspirations sit somewhat oddly with those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, earlier this month, imposed a swingeing 9.3 per cent. increase in diesel tax? As the Minister has been singularly unsuccessful in persuading the Treasury to the Department's point of view and policy objective, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to use his influence to ensure that the Chancellor does not achieve his declared aim of increasing the tax on diesel fuel by 6 per cent. in real terms in every subsequent Budget?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, increasing fuel duty is not unique to this Government—on the contrary, the previous Administration raised that duty each year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that bus travel is very important—he hints at that in his question—and we are examining how best to encourage greater use of buses. That means making bus services as economical as possible. We want people to choose to travel by bus and to leave their cars at home because buses provide such a good service.

Is there not a large, mainly untapped, market for bus passenger transport for disabled people, who have difficulty in getting on buses and in being able to travel? If passenger authorities in various areas were encouraged to face up to that problem, they could make money out of that market. That would benefit everyone.

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. That is one reason why we want the fastest possible introduction of low-level buses: it will be much easier for disabled people to get on to a bus. Undoubtedly, throughout this country, there is great scope for increasing the use of buses by disabled people and by people who are not disabled.