What practical advice his Department plans to issue on alternatives to the development of green-field sites to planning authorities to meet growing housing demand. [24886]

What measures he is taking to encourage house building on brown-field sites; and if he will make a statement. [24888]

I hope to be making a statement to the House on the whole issue of household growth later this month. Meanwhile, national planning policy encourages local authorities to use previously developed sites for housing. This helps regenerate our towns and cities and helps to protect our countryside.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Local people have plenty of good sense and resourcefulness. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when he changes planning policy, he will give more say to local people than the previous Tory Government ever did?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. My statement to the House will introduce greater flexibility into the criteria that will allow greater thought and priority to be given to the judgment of people in local areas.

I hear what my right hon. Friend says. However, I put it to him that the signals that have come from his Department thus far are ambiguous. For example, is my right hon. Friend aware that Newcastle, which has 7,000 empty housing units, is proposing to colonise 1,200 acres of green-belt land? Easington, which has acres and acres of brown-field sites following pit closures, is planning to build on green-field sites in some of the few unspoiled villages remaining in county Durham. In Sunderland, acres of listed Victorian properties are sliding towards dereliction because of developments on green-field sites outside the city. I put it to my right hon. Friend that that sort of madness is deeply ingrained and must be stopped rather than merely discouraged.

I well understand my hon. Friend's point about making a judgment between using green-field and brown-field sites for housing. In the case of Newcastle, much of the area available for brown-field sites has been built upon. My hon. Friend mentioned the different problem of empty houses, which we must address also.

When the right hon. Gentleman re-reads his answer, I wonder whether he will notice that he mistook "green-field" for "green-belt". Is that not one of the problems? When the right hon. Gentleman produces his statement—the whole House hopes that he will build upon his article in The Times—will he agree to revisit the decisions that he made regarding Newcastle, Stevenage and West Sussex and try to recover the ground that I fear he has lost, and which his statement might help him to regain?

I take the right hon. Gentleman's more serious point about making a proper judgment between green-field, green-belt and brown-field sites. I am bound to say that I am somewhat confused about his position and that of his Front Bench, which seems to change nightly. The Opposition cannot decide what areas should be given to green-field and to brown-field site development. The Tory party manifesto refers to 60 per cent. for brown-field areas, the consultation document says 50 per cent., both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) have said that it should be 75 per cent., and a meeting of the shadow Cabinet a few days ago appears to have changed the figure to 66 per cent. However, the record of the Conservatives when in office, over their last 10 years, was 42 per cent.

Will the Secretary of State answer a specific question? Will he explain to my constituents in Mid-Sussex why, after the most exhaustive and careful examination and the finding of the Government inspector, he should have torn up and thrown aside the structure plan for West Sussex, which had been so carefully prepared and agreed to, and which was the basis upon which we could go ahead? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he tore up that excellent piece of work?

It is difficult. The hon. Gentleman will realise that West Sussex is seeking a judicial review of the decision. I thought that I had made it clear that the number of houses that it was proposed to build was contrary to what we thought to be the best judgment for the area. Clearly the inspector and I had a disagreement about the matter. We shall argue the case in the appropriate place. As I have said, it will be a matter for judicial review. That is all that I can say about the matter at this stage.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the early 1980s, when the then Tory Government promised a bonfire of planning controls? Over the following decade they managed to build too few houses in the wrong places for the wrong groups of people. Now the Conservatives wonder what the problem is.

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The statement that I shall make to the House shortly will cover many of the points that he has raised. The review that we are conducting of the planning machinery will have an impact on many of the decisions that are taken in future.

The Minister's comments would be more welcome if the Government had not recently made a series of major decisions allowing green-field and green-belt development. Would it not be appropriate, given that the Government themselves say that that policy must change, to announce a moratorium on any further major permissions until the Government have announced their new policy?

I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he will realise that I am governed by statutes. Whether I agree or disagree with the inspector's report, I have to operate within a certain timetable. I am left with no choice about that. Therefore, I have taken the decisions that I have. I have intervened, disagreed or agreed, whatever the position may be. I have no choice in the matter until I make a statement to the House in a couple of weeks' time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the beautiful open Pennine countryside around the huge conurbations of Manchester, Sheffield and other cities in the north has been preserved because of Labour Government policies, which have been implemented by Labour local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend recognise in his forthcoming statement that if there is any dilution of the present controls and a dependence on commercial interests, the present safeguards will not apply, especially to the beautiful countryside in the Pennines.

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said—[Interruption.] I think that we can agree that the then Labour Government set up a legislative framework after the second world war. The previous Conservative Administration built upon that framework and were able to double the number of areas in the green belt. There is no dispute about that. I remind the House, however, that that was the result of Labour legislation. Despite all the controversial decisions that have been taken in the nine months since we have been in office, the designated green-belt area is greater now than when we came into power.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that one of the problems that is caused sometimes by restrictive housing policies in rural areas that are designed to protect the countryside from unnecessary development is that local people on low incomes are forced out of the housing market as a result of competition with people with high incomes moving in from urban areas to rural areas? Do not restrictive policies in rural areas need to be accompanied by special measures to protect the needs of local indigenous rural areas? What ideas has the right hon. Gentleman about that?

It is important that we concern ourselves with the provision of social housing. The argument between green belt and brown-field sites is not necessarily totally about that issue. Indeed, in green-field areas, sufficient consideration has not been given to the provision of social housing. We are talking about the provision of housing and where it is distributed, and my statement must address itself to that point. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait another couple of weeks.

Taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), surely what matters are not the words used by the Secretary of State about the countryside but the decisions that he takes. Is it not a fact that there is widespread concern throughout the country that, even if the public win their case before an independent inquiry or panel, it will be overturned by the Secretary of State?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I read the leaflet produced yesterday by the Opposition called "Save Our Countryside", which seeks an assurance that never again would a Government ignore and overturn the recommendation of an independent planning inspector. I presume that Governments will always reserve the right to judge whether the planning inspector is right. We recognise that. It is a proper judgment that Governments have always observed on these matters.

What measures his Department proposes to reduce the numbers sleeping rough in towns and cities outside London. [24889]

We have announced more than £20 million of funding for rough sleeper strategies in 18 areas outside central London. I can announce today a further £1.5 million of pump-priming funding over the next 12 months. That will support local rough-sleeping strategies in 16 new areas and fund additional hostel staff in five existing areas.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank her for the fact that Nottingham has already had some help with the rough sleepers initiative. I am pleased that the initiative will also be passed on to other areas of the country. I understand that the social exclusion unit is doing some work on the rough sleepers initiative. How does she plan to co-ordinate, through her Department, what happens to rough sleepers?

I am one of the Ministers attached to the social exclusion unit, and rough sleeping is one of the first three issues that it is looking at. We are determined that we will make it much less necessary for people to sleep rough on the streets of Britain, and are determined to do what we can to tackle the causes of homelessness as well.

I am glad to hear what the Government are doing to reduce the number of people sleeping rough. It is a disgrace that anyone sleeps rough. An average of 3 per cent. of local housing owned by Labour local authorities is unoccupied, and in Islington it is 6 per cent. Why cannot it be used by people who are sleeping rough?

Much attention has been paid by local authorities throughout the country to how to bring unoccupied houses back into occupation. We also have to face the enormous number of properties that the previous Government allowed to be left aside, and that is taking a lot of sorting out. We want to ensure that every single house in this country becomes a home, and that we tackle the things that currently lead to people losing their homes and having nowhere to live. We are determined to tackle that, and hope that we will get the support of Opposition Members in so doing.

How many and what proportion of local authorities with responsibility for education, are receiving less than the amount that has been passported through the capping regime to raise standards in schools as a result of the increase in revenue support grant adjusted for changes in nursery voucher funding and increased national non-domestic rate. [24891]

One hundred and sixteen out of 150 local education authorities—or 77 per cent.—have an increase in revenue support grant and NNDR entitlements that is less than the increase in their 1998–99 standard spending assessment for education.

Before Christmas, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that the cost of extra spending on education this year would not fall on the council tax payer. Will he confirm that the figures that he has given show that the only way in which the vast majority of councils will be able to spend extra money on education to protect our school budgets this year will be by cutting social service budgets or increasing the council tax?

As the hon. Gentleman will know only too well, the increase in education spending—£835 million—has been fully matched by grant. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Minister seems to be modelling his approach to answering questions on that of the Prime Minister. Will he now say simply, in language that even those outside the House can understand, that, because of his local government settlement—despite all the boasts about the importance of education—more cash will go to schools next year only if other services are cut, or if council tax payers suffer a massive increase?

The hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to come to the House and raise such matters, when he knows full well that his party's decisions would lead to real-terms increases in council tax. That was the legacy of his party's Government. He also knows—and it is disingenuous of him to pretend otherwise—that the £835 million increase in education expenditure has been fully met by grant.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, although the additional education money has been handed over, some local authorities have not come out of the spending round very well—especially Derbyshire, which has ended up at the bottom of the pile?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. [Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members seem to be trying to line themselves up with my hon. Friend's comments, given that he was directly criticising the policies of the last Government.

What action the Government are taking to reduce fuel poverty. [24893]

We have cut value-added tax on fuel to 5 per cent., and pensioner households will get extra help with their heating costs this winter and next. This year, at least 400,000 low-income households should benefit from the home energy efficiency scheme.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he considered the role that the environment task force can play in trying to improve energy efficiency? To that end, what efforts is he making to ensure that people receive not only money for the labour, but cash towards the cost of the materials required? The labour in itself will not make a house more energy-efficient.

We are indeed looking to the environment task force, under the new deal, to generate energy-efficiency projects for the fuel poor. The hon. Gentleman is right: the grants that we will provide are intended not simply to ensure that training is provided, or indeed that payments can be made to managers and contractors, but to cover payments for the equipment and plant that may be necessary. We have been examining the matter seriously, and I think that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the final figures he will see that we have taken it fully into account.

Will the Minister explain why Ministers talked out the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, a private Member's Bill? Does he understand how disgusted old-age pensioners are in my county at the Government's actions in connection with cold weather payments?

Let me make it very clear that we have already taken substantial action to assist pensioners with heating costs this winter and next winter, and that, for the period after that, we will—[Interruption.] I hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps he could just listen for a moment and he might learn a little.

How many members of the north-east rural development agency board will be chosen for their ability to contribute a strong rural perspective. [24894]

Our White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity" made it clear that, outside London, each RDA board will include at least one member who can contribute a strong rural perspective.

Does the Minister realise that there is a distinct jobs crisis in more remote rural parts of the northern region and that it cannot be addressed by measures—necessary as they are—to deal with urban problems in the region? The crisis is made much worse by what is happening in our farming and fishing industries and by the effect of the strong pound on export industries. Does he recognise that it is vital that we have people on the RDA who have some experience of trying to earn a living in the countryside, if we are to ensure that we have measures that will address its problems?

We take on board the right hon. Gentleman's concerns. That is what the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and I have been doing in discussions throughout the rural areas. I think that there is now a consensus that we need to bring together both the urban and rural areas to find solutions to these problems. We are applying the single regeneration budget through the RDA and the right hon. Gentleman will know that, in that way, it plays a major role in assisting rural regeneration. For far too long, rural areas have been left out in the cold. We are going to be bring them in and have a comprehensive approach to regeneration in both rural and urban areas.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that he has a structure for attracting candidates to the north-east RDA board that is flexible enough to include interested people who are in the midst of their career, not just the retired and people who are overcommitted? Will he be flexible in trying to attract entrepreneurs, academics and people who can give a little less time than the three days that I believe are predicted?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have clearly said that we want to broaden as much as possible the selection process. I again invite hon. Members to send to my Department names that they believe should be considered for the posts of chairman, deputy chairman or member of the board. We will be more than willing to accept those. We will make the process as transparent as possible and it will be in line with Nolan. We want dynamic people—whom we can attract from the regions—to drive the agenda that is laid out in the White Paper.

The process is anything but transparent. In Committee this morning, the Minister and his colleagues rejected an Opposition amendment which would provide for consultation with rural interests before appointments are made to regional development agencies. That rejection shows that the Government are engaged in a betrayal of rural interests.

What a load of claptrap, and this morning we heard it all in the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman is not even a member. We gave comprehensive answers. As the White Paper clearly states, we are addressing rural and urban concerns with equal power. This morning's Opposition amendments were negative.

If he will make a statement on the democratic accountability of the regional development agencies. [24895]

Regional development agencies will be non-departmental public bodies and as such they will be accountable to Ministers. However, RDAs will be responsive to regional views and will be required to give an account of themselves to those who have an interest in their work.

I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that one of the clear signals from last year's election was that people want a complete rejection of the centralising "Whitehall knows best" mentality of the Conservative party. The previous Government ran the most centralised party machine since the holy Roman empire. As a former Sheffield steelworker, the Minister will know the importance of not creating quango outposts of Whitehall. I invite him to go part of the way towards the full monty by saying that we need real, democratic accountability for RDAs. Their members will take important decisions, and they must be connected democratically to the regions from which they come. We should start finally to dismantle the centralised Tory state that has done so much damage to our country.

I thank my hon. Friend for, as usual, a forthright question. I again assure him that it was set out in the manifesto on which we fought the 1 May election that we would set up regional development agencies in the English regions. There will consult the chambers that are being set up in all nine English regions, and in the fulness of time we shall give the people of the regions through a referendum or other such mechanism, the opportunity to state whether they want a directly elected regional assembly. As my hon. Friend rightly reminds the House, we were overwhelmingly elected on the basis of our manifesto.

Does not the Minister's answer confirm that regional development agencies will lead to less accountability, more bureaucracy, considerable duplication of effort and much local authority confusion? They are a sop to Labour leaders in boroughs such as Gateshead and others in the north-east. What might be suitable for the north-east is not necessarily suitable for other large parts of the country. Very few people want such bodies, and they will not be of any real benefit to the people of Britain, will they?

If regional development agencies are such bad models, I cannot understand why the Conservative Government kept them for 18 years. It was in 1975 that a Labour Government introduced the Scottish and Welsh development agencies, and the previous Administrations kept them. If I remember correctly, it was Prime Minister Thatcher who used those models to set up a body in Northern Ireland. We are giving England the same good institutions that exist in Scotland and Wales. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there were 1,500 responses to our consultation and almost universal acceptance of the concept of regional development agencies.

Does the Minister agree that the effectiveness of regional development agencies can be maximised by them working closely with regional chambers? It is in the chambers that policies on transport, the environment and further and higher education can be developed and linked to essential economic development.

My hon. Friend has tremendous experience in the matter. As she clearly said, the partnership and bottom-up approach that regional development agencies will use in creating regional partnerships will address issues such as a weak competitive base and create more wealth for our nation. The Government will endeavour to create such an approach by ensuring that the Bill—if Conservative Members will allow us to get it through the House—is an enabling measure that brings together all the partnerships to bear down on the serious issues confronting the regions.

What steps he is taking to encourage employees within his Department to travel to work by means other than private car. [24896]

All Departments have been asked to draw up and implement green transport plans with the objective of minimising the environmental impact of Departments' transport activities. To achieve that objective, all civil servants and Ministers will be urged to use public transport for official business and, whenever possible, for commuting. Walking or cycling short distances will also be encouraged. My Department is taking the lead in the development and implementation of the policy.

May I welcome the commitment shown by the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment to developing an integrated transport policy—which I support and which is a most welcome change from the previous Government's transport policy? However, for Ministers to be entirely effective, they will have to ensure that their own house is in order and that their Departments are whiter than white—or greener than green. Might it be helpful if the Secretary of State did not use a four-litre Jaguar and if he persuaded his colleagues to use public transport more? Some Ministers—including the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department—have not so far travelled by train.

I have clarified the Department's approach to the matter. The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are circumstances in which cars are necessary—for example, for security reasons, in Northern Ireland. Figures alone do not tell the whole story. Nevertheless, in my own case, of the 31 journeys on official visits that I have made outside London since I was appointed, one has been by car, four by air and 26 by rail.

What steps he is taking to improve facilities for pedestrians in order to support walking as a mode of transport. [24916]

I chair the walking steering group which is introducing a national walking strategy and good practice guidance. [Laughter.] These will help local authorities to improve conditions for walking, including its integration with other transport modes. We expect walking to feature more prominently in local land use and transport planning.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that local authorities can do a great deal more to encourage people to walk to work, to school and to their local shops? Would not that help to eliminate the 48 per cent. of car journeys that are shorter than two miles—thereby improving the air pollution and congestion that have been left behind by the previous Administration?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am sure that she will be delighted to learn—if she does not already know—that we have managed to increase the amount available for local authority transport packages. For 1998–99, £85 million has been allocated, compared to £79 million for 1997–98. Virtually all the packages that we are funding include measures to help pedestrians. I should tell Conservative Members who seemed to find the idea of a walking steering group so risible, that the group was formed in 1996, when their party was in government.

May I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her enthusiasm for the walking steering group? Will she reassure me that the Ramblers Association is a member of the group? If so, I am sure that it advised her that best step that she could take to make life worthwhile for walkers would be to attack the problem at the Devil's Punch Bowl and at Hindhead common, and to approve the A3 Hindhead tunnel scheme as part of the trunk roads review.

I must congratulate the right hon. Lady; no opportunity to mention her constituents' concerns passes her by. A national walking strategy cannot be imposed, or solely owned, by the Government or by any other one group, however. We believe that the number of interested parties who make contributions to the steering group will best serve the needs and rights of pedestrians.

Notwithstanding the Minister's response, is she aware that some organisations, particularly cycling groups, are worried about the lack of any proposed national strategy on walking?

I understand the difficulties that cyclists face because there is no particular strategy highlighting the needs of vulnerable road users. However, my discussions with the walking steering group and cyclists groups reveal that there is a shared agenda. It is entirely possible for us to move forward on the understanding that we have to provide more access to our roads, which are not the exclusive reserve of one form of transport.

If he will review his response to the inspector's report on the Birmingham northern relief road in respect of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canal. [24917]

The formal, legal decision has been taken and cannot now be reopened. That decision placed obligations on Midland Expressway Ltd. to carry out advance work and facilitate restoration of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals, if and when they are restored to a navigable state.

My right hon. Friend will know that the canal scheme is a major scheme for the entire west midlands canal network, with enormous potential for tourism, recreation and employment. When the inspector approved the Birmingham northern relief road, he insisted that the canal scheme was safeguarded. My right hon. Friend will know that there is enormous dismay at the Government's decision not to safeguard the scheme or ensure that the developers safeguard it. If a privately funded toll road does not safeguard major public schemes, will not many people consider the cost much too high?

I understand the potential benefits of the restoration of those and other canals, and I can well understand my hon. Friend's disappointment. I know that he and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), along with members of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals restoration fund, met my noble friend Baroness Hayman to discuss the issues. I understand that it was a constructive meeting and that some useful suggestions were made.

Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will consider the impact of the Birmingham northern relief road on adjoining motorways, particularly the M42, which is subject to part of the review? Can he say when the review is likely to be completed?

I can give the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks. She will be aware that the BNRR was given the go-ahead because of the need for a new strategic route to serve the west midlands, the north-west of England and Scotland. On her specific point about the timetable for the conclusion of the review of our trunk roads programme and the subsequent announcements, I expect that to be later in the year, probably in the summer.

What plans he has to increase the level of investment in the London underground. [24918]

What plans he has to modernise the London underground; and how they will be funded. [24924]

We are in the final phase of developing proposals for a public-private partnership to provide London Underground with the funding that it needs to increase investment and modernise the network. We shall shortly be in a position to make an announcement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the underground should remain in public hands and be publicly accountable, and that, if there were any danger that it would be broken up and sold off—as there was under the previous Government—it would follow the same pattern as British Rail and end up in the hands of a bunch of spivs and jackals? Three years after privatisation, trains are slower, there is less investment and the railway companies are crying out for increased subsidies.

My hon. Friend can be assured that we have set ourselves against the privatisation of London Underground. The proposal will be a public-private partnership that is fully consistent with the underground being publicly owned and publicly accountable.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister rule out the proposal, reported in The Times as coming from the Prime Minister, to break the underground into many parts and sell 51 per cent. of the business to the private sector?

I have read many reports in the press of different proposals that I am considering. I reiterate that we shall not propose privatisation. We want a public-private partnership that is publicly owned and publicly accountable to raise the £7 billion that the underground needs. We have to be sure that we get the formula right. If we do not, we shall end up with a proposal like the channel tunnel rail link arrangement, which we have just seen fail.

In that public-private partnership, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the undertaking given to me in an answer by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that the current definition of public expenditure will remain unchanged? If so, how will he encourage private investment in the railways when his hon. Friends refer to those in charge as spivs and jackals?

I am sure that I shall be able to reassure the House that what I have claimed about the public-private partnership will be fulfilled, but hon. Members must wait for the statement, which will come shortly.

Does not everybody, including the Secretary of State, agree that the way forward for the underground is through private investment? On public investment, will he confirm the figures given to the Transport Sub-Committee, which show, contrary to the impression he gives, that, since 1960, core investment, including renewals, has averaged £250 million a year at current prices and that no Labour Government in that period achieved even that average figure?

The reality is that, after 18 years of Tory Administration, there is massive disinvestment in the underground. One of the last acts of the previous Government was to reduce investment by over £300 million. We have to find a formula to finance proper investment in the underground. We shall do that and we shall make a statement to the House shortly.

What proposals he has to make buses accessible to disabled people. [24919]

We have recently published our proposals under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to require all buses and coaches to be accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users. Copies of the consultation document setting out the proposals, including a timetable for implementation, have been widely distributed to disability organisations, local authorities and the bus and coach industry. Copies are also available from the Library.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be warmly welcomed by organisations representing disabled people. Will she join me in congratulating Leicester City Buses, which has already introduced new vehicles—kneeling buses—which are easily accessible to people with disabilities and to people encumbered by small children and heavy shopping? Will she take every step to ensure that the timetable set out in the consultation document is adhered to?

I not only welcome but warmly welcome the initiative, as I do all such commitments by bus companies around the country. They have clearly understood that improving services to people with disabilities also provides infinitely better services to the whole community and will increase the number of bus passengers, which the Government strongly endorse.

I am sure that the hon. Lady has read many of the studies from around the world on examples of large amounts of money being concentrated on ways to get wheelchairs on and off public transport. Has it not been shown that very few people use such facilities? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shameful."] The previous Government's investment in motability and ensuring that taxis were available for wheelchair users is probably a better use of money. I am sure that we all believe that we should try to help. those who are ambulant but have difficulty in getting up large steps. I hope that the Minister will take that into account, rather than trying to be politically correct. She must ensure that we invest our money correctly to provide the best form of transport to get wheelchair users to and from work and the shops.

I agree with some of my hon. Friends that that was a shameful question. The hon. Gentleman talks about "our" money. Wheelchair users and people with disabilities also pay taxes. It is absurd to suggest that adaptations to increase accessibility on public transport are rarely used. We have to have the accessible transport before we can make any such judgment.

If he will make a statement on the enforcement of vehicle emissions standards by local authorities. [24920]

Seven local authorities have been given powers under regulations which came into force on 26 December 1997 to enforce vehicle exhaust emissions standards at the roadside. The seven authorities are Birmingham, Bristol Canterbury, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, Swansea and Westminster. Offenders will be liable to pay a £60 fixed penalty. We will be reviewing the effectiveness of the regulations over the next 12 months or so, with a view to extending the powers to all local authorities.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Given the fury felt by pedestrians and motorists when they see old decrepit vehicles, particularly buses and lorries, belching out black smoke and choking nearly everyone in sight, will she consider, when reviewing the regulations, allowing local authority trading standards officers to track down such polluting vehicles and take firm action against their owners, instead of having to rely on roadside checks or on referrals to the traffic commissioners?

Such facilities already exist. My hon. Friend referred to traffic commissioners. As I am sure she is aware, those who ply under operator licences are the responsibility of traffic commissioners. All traffic commissioners should publish details of smoky vehicle hotlines so that members of the public can highlight offending vehicles to them and the vehicle inspectorate.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the best way to control vehicle emissions is to ensure that responsibility for cleaner cars rests with manufacturers? With that in mind, will she take this opportunity to praise Westminster city council, which for years has run its pool cars on liquid petroleum gas, provided incentives for electric cars, run an exhaust watch scheme and is now one of the pilot authorities in the vehicle emissions testing scheme? Labour talks about it; Conservative Westminster gets on with it.

Westminster council has certainly got on with it—but under a Labour Administration. I am somewhat surprised that, in the hon. Gentleman's long list of praise, he neglected to praise my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who froze duty on gas road fuels in his Budget. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the proposals made in January by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman for concessions for cleaner lorries and buses through the reduction in vehicle excise duty. It is the Government's firm conviction that the protection of the environment must be at heart of all our policies.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she and her Department are doing in identifying vehicle emissions? Will she carefully consider the fact that, owing to vehicle emissions, the incidence of asthma, particularly among young children, is increasing in many of our towns and cities? It is therefore important that we extend monitoring of emissions in our towns and cities to address the problems of ill health among many of our citizens, particularly children.

My hon. Friend makes a particularly accurate point. That is why the regulations will be reviewed over the next 12 months with a view to extending powers to all local authorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that procedure alone will not be sufficient to bring about clean air, which the Government are committed to achieving.

If he will make a statement outlining how he plans to tackle congestion on Britain's roads. [24921]

The Government are developing an integrated transport policy. As part of that, we are considering options for tackling congestion and pollution on local and national roads. We will announce how we intend to proceed in the forthcoming transport White Paper.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Government turn their mind for a moment from clobbering the motorist with threats of heavy increases in petrol prices to the Manchester airport eastern link road, which is left over from the previous Government's road programme? Residents in the area have fought very hard for the road. Although a third of it has been built, the rest has not. It is not even linked to the airport—and it is traffic from the airport of which the local area is supposed to be being relieved. I hope that the Minister can assure my constituents that the road will be finished before the Government complete their seemingly endless review.

The review is neither lengthy nor endless. I recognise the popular support for the road to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I pay tribute to his efforts to advance its cause—indeed, he raised the matter with my noble Friend Baroness Hayman. We shall make an announcement about that road, and others, in the summer.

I welcome the integrated transport review, but may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a pitfall against which we must guard? We should not proceed with the review of trunk roads before we have had the opportunity to put at the heart of our policies integrated transport and concern for the environment and sustainability. I am thinking in particular of the recommendations of the Government office for the west midlands.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says, which is why we attach such a high priority to our integrated transport White Paper. It is an indictment of previous Conservative Administrations that this transport White Paper will be the first for more than 20 years. In 18 years, the Conservative Government produced only a Green Paper—a consultation paper.

Does the Minister agree that a policy of taxing and taxing the motorist hits everyone, irrespective of need, and will not by itself tackle congestion? Is it, in principle, his policy to ring-fence the proceeds of any congestion tax and use them to improve transport, and is that also the Treasury's view?

In the consultation paper that we issued last August—about which we received so many responses and on which we held so many constructive seminars throughout the country—we made it clear that we were considering the possibility of new dedicated income streams. That would discourage car use—not necessarily car ownership—and also raise money not only for us, but for local authorities to invest in improved public transport.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Administration's policies, such as the deregulation of buses, a lack of investment in rail, and predict-and-provide road building, caused the congestion on our roads, which costs British industry and commerce £19 billion a year? Is not that a good reason for having a properly integrated transport policy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Current traffic projections, which are based on the assumption that policies will be unchanged, are not consistent either with developing a modern, competitive economy, as we must tackle congestion, or with environmental sustainability. We must tackle this issue, which is why we are biting the bullet and publishing the first transport White Paper for more than 20 years.

What initiatives his Department is pursuing to increase the current level of freight being transported by rail; and if he will make a statement. [24922]

We have already revitalised the freight grants scheme and secured a better deal for channel tunnel rail freight. We are considering further measures to encourage rail freight in the development of our integrated transport policy, on which we shall issue a White Paper in the spring.

I am sure that everyone agrees that moving freight from road to rail is a good, sound policy. What is being done to encourage Railtrack to modernise the gauge and move freight to the railways? Surely Railtrack should now consider using the international size of loading gauge. Is it not high time for us to ensure greater equality between road and rail? Should not road transport pay for the cost of the infrastructure and the damage that it does to the environment?

The hon. Gentleman is right to want an increase in the amount of freight moved by rail. The Government are putting their money where their mouth is. Some £15 million was spent on rail freight grants last year, this year we will spend £30 million, of which two thirds has already been spent, and next year the budgeted figure is £40 million. We are determined to increase the amount of freight that goes by rail.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that it will be difficult greatly to increase the percentages, given the fragmentation of the existing railway system. Will he consider carefully ways in which the companies can be encouraged to allow some expansion of freight paths within the existing system?

My hon. Friend is right. For far too long, freight has played the Cinderella to passengers on the railways. We are determined to improve the situation and, as part of that policy, we intend to set up a new railway authority, one of whose key objectives will be to examine ways to encourage more freight on to the railways.