What plans he has to review the methodology used to calculate anticipated housing need in non-metropolitan counties. [14842]

The methodology used to produce the latest household projections for the regions, counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs is set out in "Projections of Households in England to 2016" published by the Stationery Office in March 1995. That methodology has been subject to extensive public scrutiny. My Department is continuing to examine the extent to which household formation is affected by economic and social factors, in line with recommendations in the 1996 Environment Committee report on housing need.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he accept that everyone agrees that there must be enough houses for local people to live in, but that not a single local authority in Somerset—I am sure that we are no exception to the rest of the country—believes that the inward migration figures without employment are sustainable, that brown-field sites are available in rural areas, and that our green-field sites should be taken up in a suburbanisation of Somerset? Will he change his view?

The matter is under consideration by the regional planning council, whose projections are 11 per cent. more than the councils in the area accept. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, such matters are decided by a panel that is set up to consider the disagreement between the regional planning council and Somerset council. As soon as the panel reports, I am sure that it will make its recommendations to the council. It is to meet first in January.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if the figures that are projected for Devon are accepted, the increase in the population of Devon will be approximately 30 per cent? That is an impossibility, if we are to keep the country heritage of the county. All Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, ask the Government to reconsider.

The Government are always involved in considering such figures, but the regional planning council examines all the considerations to be taken into account and arrives at those figures. We do not limit people's movements in this country; people are free to move where they wish, and we must try to meet their requirements for housing. That brings us to the conflict between green-field and brown-field sites, about which there is so much controversy. Those are matters for public debate, and the debate is clearly under way.

Does not the Secretary of State understand that the Government's refusal to raise the 50 per cent. target for the proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed sites will not only destroy huge areas of beautiful countryside, but reflects the fact that this Labour Government neither care nor understand anything about rural life?

The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the Government's position. We have adopted the figure of 50 per cent. set by the previous Administration; the previous Administration aspired to 60 per cent. in brown-field sites; and the round table on sustainable development suggested 75 per cent. We are reviewing the options under the Green Paper on household growth that was produced by the previous Administration. There have been more than 700 responses and the Government have not yet taken a position on the matter, except to endorse the present 50 per cent figure. We think that right and proper. We think it right to have proper consultation, as we are doing. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

What representations he has received regarding the structure and functions of the proposed regional development agencies.[14843]

We have received around 1,500 responses to the issues paper on regional development agencies, which we published on 11 June. I have today placed in the Library of the House a list of those responses, and copies are available for inspection at my Department's library.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that these matters were high on the agenda of the recent conference of the Yorkshire Tourist Board, at which I spoke? Is he aware of the excitement with which tourist operators particularly view the prospects for the proposed regional development agencies? Will he ensure that the best of our private enterprises are allowed to operate on and with these regional development agencies within the guidelines set by the Government?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, which are reflected in the 1,500 responses that we have received. There has been detailed dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I think that my hon. Friend will find that the White Paper reflects those responses and reacts to the very positive mood of the private sector in the regions.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great deal of concern that the regional development agencies may be used as a basis for regional government? Will he please confirm that that is not the Government's intention? With regard to Lincolnshire, will he accept that it is best grouped with Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk rather than with the east midlands counties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire?

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that we won the general election on 1 May, and that we won it on the basis of our manifesto, which spells out very clearly the Government's devolution strategy. We have embarked upon that strategy, which has been endorsed by Scotland and Wales—and London will be given the opportunity to do the same.

How soon can the Minister place on a fast track regional government for the north-west region? Does he accept that limited self-rule is imperative and that there is unanimity among the Confederation of British Industry, all employers federations, local government, trade unions and Members of Parliament about the need to get it off the ground as quickly as possible? Is it really necessary to hold a local referendum before we do that?

The simple answer for my hon. Friend is the same as that which I gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: we have made a commitment to the British people and we will live by the contract in our manifesto. If my hon. Friend waits to see the White Paper that will be published later this month or in early December, I think that he will find answers to the many questions raised by his colleagues in the north-west.

As to the democratic deficit to which he alluded, will the Minister confirm that regional development agencies are simply appointed bodies or quangos? Taking up the point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), will the Minister confirm specifically whether he is planning to have any elected regional assemblies in operation in the course of this Parliament?

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it perfectly clear on the record a few weeks ago that there will be no directly elected regional assemblies until after the next general election. That is the position. Quite honestly, we do not need any lectures from Conservative Members about establishing quangos—we are in the process of rationalising them, thank you very much.

If he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for meeting the target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels.[14844]

We shall consult next spring on a programme that will address our 20 per cent. target and the legally binding commitments that we shall have as a result of the Kyoto conference. All sectors of the economy must be prepared to play a part. I welcome the willingness of the chemical industry, for example, to make a commitment to reduce its specific energy consumption compared with 1990 levels by 20 per cent. by 2005.

I thank the Minister for his answer, as far as it goes. Does he accept that the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce energy consumption, and in particular carbon-based energy? To that end, will he join us in supporting—next week rather than next spring—the national home energy conservation week by lobbying the Chancellor to cut VAT on energy insulation materials to the same level as energy supply in his green budget later this month?

All these matters will be considered at the appropriate time. Taxation changes will be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has made a start in considering taxation with regard to environmental gains, as he did with the charge on petrol. There are many other things that we must actively consider in these matters. Transport has a very important part to play in reducing CO₂ gases. Our White Paper will be published in the spring. We are looking at renewable energy and at more efficiency in energy production. All these areas are actively under review, in line with wanting to meet the target that we set ourselves of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. of 1990 levels by 2010.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister remember the special contribution that coal and the coal energy generation industry has made in reducing targets? Will he accept my backing of everything that he is doing to protect the coal industry and coalfield communities?

Yes. It does well for the House to remind itself that one of the consequences of meeting our environmental target, which we are so proud to proclaim internationally, as one of only three countries to do so, was the considerable destruction of the coal industry. That has had tremendous detrimental effects on coalfield communities. That is why I set up a task force to deal primarily with this problem, because we have a responsibility to deal with the consequences of climatic change on the areas that are detrimentally affected by it.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister share the keen disappointment of so many people that President Clinton has reneged on the United States Government's commitment at the Rio summit to stabilise emissions by 2000 AD on 1990 levels, by putting it back by 13 years? Will the Deputy Prime Minister use whatever influence he has to try to get a change of opinion from the United States Government?

We should recall that only three countries achieved the target that was set at Rio. That is why all the nations have agreed the legal targets that we are attempting to impose now with the Kyoto conference. Although the Americans have said that they now accept those legal targets, to accept the zero target that they set themselves will mean a reduction in CO₂ gases of 25 per cent. —an even bigger cut than has been witnessed in some European countries. Nevertheless we must encourage them to do more.

What plans he has to encourage businesses to adopt environmentally friendly practices.[14845]

The Government are providing advice and guidance through the energy and environmental best practice programmes; promoting the take-up of accredited environmental management systems and encouraging public reporting by companies on their environmental performance. We are also increasing consumer awareness so that companies have better incentives to produce environmentally friendly products.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that in my constituency many small and medium businesses are working very hard, in association with the authorities and other organisations, to develop environmentally friendly practices? Is he further aware that all our efforts will be set at naught unless these are complemented by similar action from some of the global industries, in particular the large oil companies? How does he plan to respond to some interesting overtures that are being made by some of these industries, in particular BP and Shell, to develop policies and ways of working to combat the terrible effects of global warming and associated climate change?

I am certainly aware of the initiative taken by the Supersavers project in Peterborough, where very substantial savings have been achieved through the employer involving employees, in particular the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, in that project. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The leading companies have to be involved. She mentioned Shell. In fact Shell recently launched new, renewable businesses, and plans investments of more than half a billion dollars over the next five years.

At a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the Minister explored the possibility of fiscal incentives for companies. Does he agree with the general principle that any shift towards green taxation should be neutral, and that it should not increase the general burden of taxation?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said in his first Budget that he will pay particular attention to the issues of quarrying, water pollution charges and the landfill tax, which was introduced by the last Government at a low level. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any commitment that an increase in green taxes would automatically be offset, but I believe that there is a case—as there was in regard to the landfill tax—for giving companies an incentive by enabling them to make contributions to environmentally sensitive alternative objectives. That is a good model, and one that we will follow closely.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the successful efforts of small firms such as Cambridge Econometrics and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre—both of which are in my constituency—to persuade employees to walk and cycle to work rather than using their cars?

That is extremely desirable. I was asked earlier whether Ministers would participate and give a lead. I think that everyone who is in a public position should try to give a lead, and one of the best ways of reducing greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions—especially in the context of transport—is not just driving vehicles that are cleaner or more fuel-efficient, but using cars less: walking more, cycling more or using public transport. All of us, without exception, should be doing that.

Will the Minister consult a small company in my constituency called Environmental Engineering Concepts? Will he also consult the local council and the education and library board? They have produced a product which, when added to fossil fuels, causes almost complete combustion, reduced emissions and greater efficiency, and also pays for itself. It is so good that it has not been taken seriously. The last Government had an opportunity to examine the product, but I heard no more about it. I appeal to the Minister to follow the project through.

I would be extremely interested if the hon. Gentleman would send me details of that project. It is exactly the kind of initiative and breakthrough that we wish to support. I am saddened, although not surprised, that the last Government were so indifferent, but the hon. Gentleman will find that the present Government have a very different attitude. If he sends me the details, we will act on them.

When he next plans to meet representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss local government finance.[14846]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met the association a number of times to discuss local government finance, and I shall be seeing it again in December at a sub-group meeting of the central-local partnership to discuss the review of local government finance. We intend to meet the association regularly, and to involve it fully in taking forward policies that affect local government.

Did the Local Government Association, at its meeting with the Minister, repeat its estimate that local authorities will be about £1 billion short of funding this year? That shortfall does not take account of either the extra burdens put on local authorities for crime prevention and education, or the change in the Budget to advance corporation tax, which imposes a pension tax liability on local authorities estimated at £300 million a year. What will be the Government's attitude? Will they recompense local authorities for those extra burdens, or will they stand aside and watch what must inevitably be an extremely large rise in council tax rates this year?

In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a further £1 billion for local government to spend on education. If the hon. Gentleman cares to wait until the week beginning 1 December, he will hear how that money has been allocated.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Labour Members realise that she inherited a difficult task from the previous Government? Metropolitan authorities outside London face substantial difficulties because of the previous Government's attitude to them. When she allocates resources for the coming financial year, will she give careful consideration to the representations that have been made by the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities, which represents metropolitan authorities outside London?

I have received representations from a number of organisations and representatives of local government. They have all put a telling and pressing case to us. I assure my hon. Friend that we have listened to the points raised, and that we shall take them into consideration. We made a commitment in our manifesto to a fairer settlement this year. Hon. Members will be able to judge for themselves in the week beginning 1 December.

Before the Minister next meets the Local Government Association, will she and the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, at the time of the announcement of the settlement, they will publish figures that show the real impact of the grant settlement and the capping rules, rather than adopt the smoke-and-mirror tactics that the previous Government used time and again, and which the Minister always condemned when in opposition?

We shall endeavour to make what is an exceptionally complex system as straightforward as possible. We are also conducting a review of local government finance generally. We want to enable the ordinary council tax payer to understand the system. That is a difficult task, given the complexity of the system that we inherited, but it is one of our aims. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues assisting us in that process.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the election result on 1 May gave her and every Labour Minister the power to do something different? We had massive victories in parts of the country where we never expected them because people were aware of the distribution of money to local authorities, such as the fiddles for Westminster council and the paltry decisions for Labour-controlled authorities. Now that we have the power, and we are not a party of protest, let us ensure that we change those priorities, and that we also get rid of rate capping.

You, Madam Speaker, would not want me to reveal precisely how we have sought to make the system fairer. That will be revealed in time, and I trust that my hon. Friend will note that we have heeded our manifesto and have sought to ensure that the distribution of money is fairer than ever it was under the previous Administration.

Will the Minister reconsider the answer that she has just given on pensions? Is she not entirely wrong to say that the pensions tax will have no impact on local authorities? That is what she just said, but what she means is that there will be no actuarial review until 1998. However, the impact of the pensions tax has effect now—it starts now and goes on next year and the year after. Will she reconsider her reply?

The impact of the changes in the Budget will not have effect in local government in the coming year. We have agreed the way forward with local government and the Local Government Association, and they are perfectly happy with what has been suggested. They know that there is going to be a review of the actuarial position over the next year, and we have said that we will take it into account when deciding next year's settlement.

In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's having said that he wanted to help coal mining areas, can we expect any improvement in the standard spending assessments for those areas, bearing in mind the fact that some of them have the worst SSAs in the country?

I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until he sees the settlement. We have made it absolutely clear that this is a very difficult year for local government because we inherited such a mess. Because it is such an important matter, it cannot be sorted out over night. There is an incredible deficit which local government knows must be tackled. We are determined to tackle the dreadful state in which the previous Administration put local government and to make sure that local government is able to determine how to meet the needs of the population.

What assessment he has made of the estimates made by local authorities of the costs to them in 1998–99 from the changes to advance corporation tax.[14847]

The Local Government Association, with the assistance of the United Kingdom steering committee on local authority pensions and my Department, is conducting a survey of local government pension scheme administering authorities to assess the impact of Budget tax changes on their pension funds, both for the current financial year and at 1 April 1999. The results will be available shortly.

Would the Minister be interested to learn that I have a letter from the director of finance of East Riding council, which says that in 1998–99 the additional contribution required will be £2.55 million? If that contribution is delayed until the following year, a further £75,000 will be needed every year. How does the Minister expect my council to find the cash? Are the Government going to increase the revenue support grant by £2.55 million, or will they expect the poor council tax payer to shoulder the burden of the first Labour Budget and another Labour tax increase?

When the figures are analysed in detail, the hon. Gentleman will find that he has referred to the gross costs—no account has been taken of any off-setting savings. A net figure will be necessary before an informed conclusion can be reached. The contribution of local government employers was fixed in 1995 for the four-year period to 1999. There are no powers to change contributions during that period. The impact of the changes, to which I referred earlier, and offsetting savings will be taken fully into account by the Government when we have received the full response to the survey from the Local Government Association. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing said, we have already made it clear that we will take full account of that when assessing financial contributions for 1999–2000 and years beyond.

What representations he has recently received concerning opencast mining planning policy in England; and if he will make a statement.[14848]

My Department has received a large number of representations in response to the consultation paper on opencast mining planning policy, which we issued on 30 July. In the light of responses to that consultation, the Government will decide what changes to policy guidance could and should be implemented in interim planning guidance.

Is the Minister aware that we have had more than enough opencast mining in north-east Derbyshire, and that we are currently fighting off three proposals—at Avenue Cokeworks, the Breck and junction 29? Would it not help us tremendously if the planning guidance notes contained a presumption against opencast mining—as was promised in the preamble to the 10 points that Labour issued at the general election? Will we be living up to our commitment?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government acted very swiftly to give effect to our manifesto commitments and issued a consultation paper on possible changes to mineral planning guidance. We have had 380 responses to that consultation, and consultation in Wales is still not complete. We are therefore analysing carefully the responses before deciding what changes may be appropriate in interim planning guidance. We shall take appropriate action. I assure him that, since the Government have come to power, no further opencast mining applications have been approved.

What proposals he has for the future of London Underground.[14873]

What is his policy on (a) privatising London Transport and (b) London Transport fares.[14874]

Today is the 10th anniversary of the King's Cross disaster. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to remember the victims of that terrible night, and, with gratitude, the heroism of the emergency services, who worked with such courage in their attempts to reduce the terrible toll.

I preface my question by whole-heartedly endorsing everything that the Minister has said about the 10-year anniversary of the King's Cross disaster, and pay a sincere tribute to the members of the emergency services who fought so bravely that night to contain the fire and reduce the loss of life.

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has already recognised the major improvements that the Government have made in an integrated transport system. I am somewhat surprised that he does not welcome the lowest average increase—merely 1 per cent. over the rate of inflation—in the past decade. Under a Conservative Administration, that decade—for year upon year upon year—was marked by neglect of London Underground.

Do the Minister and her colleagues accept that the strongest reason imaginable for retaining majority public-sector control of London Underground is the King's Cross tragedy and the need for parliamentary accountability by Ministers for the safety of the capital city's public transport system? Will she confirm that the Government have ruled out not only total privatisation but majority privatisation? If not, why not?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have made a commitment not to go down the road of wholesale privatisation. We are examining the proposals of the financial advisers Price Waterhouse on the best way to proceed to ensure the future of London Underground but, whatever decision is taken, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, the House and London that safety and the improvement of safety will be a priority.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the state of the underground was an important issue in my constituency and throughout London during the general election? Is she also aware how much the Government's determination to secure the future of London Underground is welcome in my constituency, which relies on eight Central line stations?

My hon. Friend expresses a sentiment that is shared across London on the importance of our underground system in the creation of a properly integrated public transport system for this great capital city. Both I and my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the support that we are receiving from Londoners in our attempt to ensure that the underground is fit for them and for the 21st century.

I begin by associating myself entirely with the Minister's words about King's Cross, which was a terrible night that we all remember.

So they should, given that £1.8 billion of public money is going into the railway system.

If he will make a statement on investment in the trunk road network. [14875]

Capital expenditure on the trunk road network is planned to be some £1.4 billion in the current financial year, which includes investment in renewing roads and bridges. Investment plans for future years will depend on the roads review and the comprehensive spending review.

As an efficient economy needs an efficient transport infrastructure, does the Minister realise that, if the Government proceed with the moratorium on future road building, business will pay the increasing cost of continuing congestion?

I can only assume that that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Government's position. The hon. Lady is surely aware of the road schemes that we have announced and I am sure that she appreciates that we are carrying out a thorough review of the trunk road programme, as we promised during the general election.

I know that my right hon. Friend, of all people, will understand the importance of road links between England and the rest of the United Kingdom. Is he aware that the long single-carriageway section of the A 1 through Northumberland is a serious handicap to both the local and the national economy, including the whole of the east of England and Scotland? Will he bear that in mind during the review?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that, even against a background of the cuts that have been made in the roads programme over the years, and the growing recognition that we cannot continue to build more and more roads to meet the projected growth in traffic, real investment is needed in the existing network, including the Al.

The Minister refers to cuts in the roads programme. Does he remember that, this time last year, his party condemned the Conservative Government for not having kept more schemes in the road programme? Does he agree that it would be folly for this country to cut roads investment when our competitors throughout Europe are spending more?

No, I cannot accept that. We all know that, under the Conservatives, the road schemes were decided on not by objective appraisal, but by Treasury diktat. That is why we are looking thoroughly into which roads to build. We make no apology for that. We promised it in the manifesto. We are considering accessibility, safety, economic development and environmental impact.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the existing road network is neglected and worsening, with roads not repaired? The Government have inherited a major problem, and a lot of money will be needed to bring our roads up to standard.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There can be no doubt that the maintenance of our roads has been neglected, particularly the basic network. It is vital that we continue capital investment to ensure the adequate maintenance of our roads.

When he next plans to meet representatives of the British Road Federation to discuss road transport issues. [14876]

I met representatives of the British Road Federation and other transport organisations at a seminar to discuss freight issues on 29 October and on other occasions. My Department has held a number of meetings with the BRF and other organisations as part of the current roads review and to discuss the integrated transport policy.

As the Secretary of State has had the advantage of hearing the opinion of the federation, will he confirm that the Birmingham northern relief road will retain the utmost priority in his roads programme?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made it clear to the House that we intend to continue with the Birmingham northern relief road. It is in the programme and dates are being set. It is part of the strategic network and we have decided to continue with building it.

In the process of integrating our transport system with Europe, will my right hon. Friend recognise the important role of east coast ports such as Lowestoft, in my constituency? Does he accept that we need to improve the way in which those ports are linked to the trunk road system?

Those are some of the strategic decisions that we have to make. To be fair, there has been a programme for some decades giving higher priority to the development of roads to ports. My Hull constituency benefited from that with the M62. We are bearing in mind those important strategic freight considerations.

In view of the comments from the Opposition Front Bench a few moments ago, no doubt the Secretary of State will wish to remind the British Road Federation that the Conservative party made the biggest cuts in history in this country's roads programme. Will he also tell the federation that the Government will accept the national road traffic reduction targets proposed in a current private Member's Bill?

Yes, we have talked to those organisations about all the aspects that are in our minds. Traffic reduction is crucial. An integrated transport system is about finding out whether we can give more priority to the movement of freight on our roads by better management of the road system. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Tories, who have clearly forgotten that they were in power for 18 years.

Will my right hon. Friend also discuss with the British Road Federation the welcome input on environmental impact and an integrated transport strategy in the roads review? Will he ask the federation its opinion of the Bingley relief road in my constituency, which meets environmental and integrated transport criteria?

How did I know that that would come up? We are considering that in the roads review. When it is complete, my right hon. Friend will give his final statement to the House.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will discuss with the federation what has been described as a "parking blitz" on London, including draconian restrictions and sharp rises in parking charges? Does he accept that a car is still essential for many?

Yes, the car is still an essential component of movement, and it certainly will be. We are asking people to use them less and to use public transport more.

Get to the point.

I am coming to the point.

How many American-manufactured engines are awaiting the granting of a safety case for use in British railways. [14877]

About 250 freight locomotives are on order from the United States of America. The first are expected to be delivered to English, Scottish and Welsh Railways early next year. They will require both approval by the Health and Safety Executive and acceptance by Railtrack's new rolling stock acceptance board. That cannot be completed until the first locomotives have been delivered and tested.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but she will be aware that this is not simply a question of resupplying existing rolling stock. In my constituency, we make the best railway engines in the world, and we certainly repair them even better; under privatisation, that is essential. Will my hon. Friend therefore bear in mind the need, before we start importing other nations' rolling stock wholesale, to consider carefully the ability of British manufacturers and, above all, of British workers, to provide the best railway engines for our railway system?

I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend's remarks, but equally she will appreciate the fact that a commercial decision was taken by a private company. Unlike franchisees, EWS does not enjoy special rights granted by Government. None the less, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the opportunity presented by EWS's order for 2,500 wagons, which will be constructed at the old Adtranz works in York, thus providing 300 additional jobs for British workers.

Is the Minister aware that, in my constituency, we would welcome some new rolling stock, whether it were made in America, in Britain or anywhere else? Will she discuss the matter with Connex South Central, which is still operating ancient slam-door stock, so as to ensure that we have some modern rolling stock that will encourage more people off the roads and on to the railways?

We strongly endorse the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that I have regular meetings not only with the train operating companies but with the rolling stock companies, and that we are as concerned as he is to ensure that the vast amounts of public money that go into our railway system produce a high-quality public service.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, for the first time for about 50 years, we are seeing an increase in rail freight? Is not the reason why EWS orders locomotives from the United States the fact that the British locomotive industry has not made a genuine rail freight locomotive since the days of steam, whether in Crewe or anywhere else?

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that, as I believe, the last order for engines in this country was made in 1980. For almost two decades, the Conservative party totally ignored the major contribution that could be made not only to the economy but to the environment by greater movement of freight on our railways. In common with my hon. Friend, I welcome the changes that are being introduced into the freight industry.

Does the Minister know why or how leaves on a railway line can apparently render the whole line non-working? Can the Government suggest a remedy? Connex South Central could not get a train into London from Surrey today, because of leaves on the line. Is there an explanation?

New Labour, new leaves.

I hear what my hon. Friend says. As I am sure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is aware, the basic reason is the fact that I mentioned in my response to the previous question—the Conservative party's complete failure, in almost two decades in office, to invest adequately in our railway system. Its only answer was to break up an integrated railway system, and £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money is now going into that railway system.

If he will make a statement on the Government's support for concessionary travel and community transport schemes. [14878]

Concessionary travel schemes are a matter for local authorities. On community transport, my Department provides grant to the Community Transport Association's information and advice service, and to the rural transport development fund, administered by the Rural Development Commission.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the many concerns expressed by my constituents in Bedford, especially pensioners, at the proposal of the Conservative-controlled Bedfordshire county council to cease funding the concessionary fares scheme in Bedfordshire from next spring. Does she share the concerns of those people, and will she join me in asking the local authorities in Bedfordshire to work together as constructively as possible to ensure the continued safe existence of the concessionary fares and dial-a-ride schemes in my constituency, which are so important to the disabled and pensioners and so good for the environment, public transport and the local economy?

My hon. Friend will be aware that all such decisions are matters for local authorities, but I have little doubt that, with his commitment to his constituency and his constituents, he will do all in his power to ensure that the relevant authorities are brought together to discuss this issue.

Can the hon. Lady say whether, in her guidelines to the consultants who will be studying the future of London Underground, she has made it a requirement that the concessionary fare for old-age pensioners will be retained by the London boroughs? If not, from next year, old-age pensioners and other members of the travelling public will face diabolical fare increases, well above inflation. To be candid, something needs to be done urgently to put London Transport to rights.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a decision on the way forward for London Underground has still to be taken in the light of the options being examined by the Government's financial advisers. On concessionary fares, he does no service to the pensioners of London by raising the possibility that they will be lost. As he well knows, the concessionary fare scheme is funded by all boroughs, which have managed to fund it every year.

What steps the Government are taking to meet their commitment to establish more effective and accountable regulation by the Rail Regulator. [14879]

On 6 November, I announced three measures designed to strengthen railways regulation. The measures—new objectives for the franchising director, the publication of new guidelines on railway investment and a framework for co-operation between Ministers and the Rail Regulator—are the first fruits of our on-going review of railway regulation. We are committed to establishing a new strategic rail authority on which we will publish proposals next spring, linked to our White Paper on integrated transport policy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many members of the public are put off using the rail system by their inability to get accurate information and the right ticket? Does he therefore regret that the franchising director appears to feel unable to publish the full details of the survey that he carried out recently into the mis-selling of tickets?

The hon. Gentleman is right to be critical of the present arrangements. The interim package that I announced is a significant step forward. Information is vital, but we shall need legislation to put things right.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's strategy of moving both freight and passenger traffic from road to rail wherever possible, but does he agree that that policy is made immeasurably more difficult by the ludicrous fragmentation of our rail network that occurred under the previous Government, which makes any coherent transport policy harder to apply?

My hon. Friend is correct. That is why we have set out clear objectives for the franchising director. It is very important that the franchising director talks to local authorities. If we are to invest more in the network, build the new stations and get more freight on the railways, which is vital, we need a new start. That is where we are going.

The Minister's answer makes it clear that the Government, by their actions in changing the Rail Regulator and the franchising authority, are building on the success of the previous Government's privatisation policy. It is therefore implicit that they are endorsing railway privatisation; why will they not do the same for London Underground, which is so much in need of further investment?

Where has the hon. Lady been for the past three years? Is she unaware of all the reports? Does she not appreciate the fact that, under the current arrangements, an operating company can cancel trains for months on end without the franchising director being able even to fine it?