If he will make a statement on the closure of the South Dorset economic partnership and the implications of this for the Government's regional regeneration policies. [30620]

The South Dorset economic partnership is a local delivery organisation. How it operates and decisions about its future are matters for the local partners.

I am sad that the Minister has not thought to acquaint himself with exactly what is happening at the delivery points of Government policy. The Government have expressed their intention to regenerate jobs, particularly where defence jobs are being lost. Surely the South Dorset economic partnership demonstrates that Government policy is not working and that, because the regional development agencies are not providing funds, and the local authorities are not being given sufficient resources to assist, the excellent delivery of the South Dorset economic partnership is failing. Will the Minister please take some action and find out what is happening on the ground floor? By the time that the regional development agency is up and running, there will be no means left to deliver his policies.

We are keeping close contact with Dorset, where I understand that the three local authorities have withdrawn funding from the scheme. They plan to create a new organisation with a wider remit.

What representations he has received on the 1998–99 local government financial settlement. [30622]

The Department received 406 written representations within the deadline for responses. I and other Ministers at the Department also met the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government, delegations from 95 local authorities, and one special interest group during the consultation period.

Is the Minister aware that, after the correction of an arithmetical error in the announcement of the revenue support grant for Wiltshire, this year's settlement represents a real cut of 7.2 per cent. which has meant for Chippenham an increase of £75.49 in band D council tax? Are the Government to blame for that increase, or is it the fault of the county council, in which case, will the Minister join me in calling on the four Labour councillors who keep the incompetent Liberal authority in place to withdraw their support?

The hon. Gentleman clearly still has the blame mentality. He will know that the previous Government wanted to shift the balance between central and local funding. We have continued that, but it is up to local government to make decisions about the balance between central funding and local taxation.

Has my hon. Friend received representations from Wakefield—my local authority—about the way in which the formula has reacted against it? Has she also received representations from the West Yorkshire police, who are now saying that there is a deficit in their income from the formula that has been set by council tax funding? As band D properties in West Yorkshire have received a 75p reduction in council tax, there will be a knock-on effect in all other bands and therefore a substantial reduction in revenue for the West Yorkshire police. Will she address that point and investigate the problems?

I am always interested in hearing from colleagues about how the settlement is working in their area. My hon. Friend will know that consultation on this year's settlement has finished, and the House has made a decision. The authorities that he mentioned will have an opportunity to make representations on how we decide on the standard spending assessments for next year. We intend to achieve a more just settlement.

May I ask about the position in London? Will the Minister acknowledge that, even after all the changes to distribution that the Government have made, Wandsworth's band D charge next year will be £319 and Westminster's will be £325, while Camden's will be £879 and Greenwich's will be £883? Why, even under this Government's system, do Labour councils come out so expensive?

I am sure that the House will note the difference between that contribution and what the right hon. Gentleman said during the debate on the settlement. We have begun the fairness exercise, but we have not yet completed it.

To ensure fairness, will my hon. Friend take particular note of the fact that, during the 18 years when the Tories were in power, many Tory Members from Derbyshire used to tell Ministers in the House to cut the grant for Derbyshire? They did that for 12 consecutive years. The net result is that we now need a little extra help to achieve fairness. I am being consistent. I called for extra money when the Tories were in power. I do the same now. Will my hon. Friend ensure that help is received?

My hon. Friend reminds us of the comments of the Conservatives during debates on settlements. We have not yet received representations from Derbyshire. When we do, we shall consider them fairly.

If he will introduce measures to allow independent public monitoring organisations to gain automatic entry to water treatment works. [30623]

rose—

I see no reason to provide for additional organisations to monitor water treatment works. Standards of water treatment are extremely high. Water companies must, by law, check that drinking water meets 55 separate standards. It is the job of the drinking water inspectorate to check that companies carry out their quality checks properly.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but it does not answer the question. Private companies are able to stop public bodies, such as the drinking water inspectorate and the Environment Agency, from gaining access to water works. There were problems with the cryptosporidium bug in my constituency in 1995 and more recently in London. Will the Minister look closely at the rights and duties of the public bodies that exist to protect the public's drinking water so as to enable them to inspect water works without prior appointment?

We are looking carefully at the fallout from the outbreak of cryptosporidium and the health problems caused in Torbay in 1995, particularly in the light of the subsequent attempt to prosecute the water authority, which failed because the court did not allow as evidence the report of the outbreak control team. We hope to be able to make a statement about that shortly.

When he expects to publish his consultation document on best value in local government; and if he will make a statement. [30624]

At last; I was so keen to get in.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and welcome the publication of the consultation document. Will he confirm that the purpose of best value is that councils should provide services at the level that residents have the right to expect, and at a price that residents can afford? Does he agree that Reading's Labour council, with its partnership-focused approach, is very well placed to meet the challenge posed by best value?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Our approach is about better value and fairer employment.

The majority of councils are run by the Labour party. The Government, in their White Paper, are rightly wary of councils with large single-party majorities. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way in which to achieve best value and truly accountable local government is by a fair system of local elections?

Although I am not surprised that the hon. Lady equates everything with a fairer voting system, I think that our proposals for best value are the best way of dealing with the issue.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that all councils benefit from the experience of best value councils and that good practice is promoted by the Audit Commission and other bodies? Will he particularly consider Newark and Sherwood district council's excellent record of energy efficiency and conservation?

Yes, the Audit Commission has looked at the matters and reported very favourably on local authorities. I endorse a great deal of what it says. We have made it clear in our approach to best value that we want better value and fairer employment. The pilot schemes, of which there are about 40, are under way. The reports from them will make a major contribution to improving standards of service and gaining better value in our local authorities.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that competitive tendering achieved hundreds of millions of pounds of savings to the benefit of the council tax payer? Is not the danger with the new system that has been set out today that it is too bureaucratic, will allow reluctant councils to continue to resist change, and will therefore work directly against the interests of the council tax payer?

It has been acknowledged by all parties that have studied the matter that competitive tendering cost the taxpayer considerably more, as the system was reduced to least cost, least value. The cost to the taxpayer, either through family income supplements or as a result of the resources that were needed, was considerable. Even the private sector, in partnership with local authorities and trade unions, came to the conclusion that the previous system was over-bureaucratic and, in some cases, denied equality of employment in the contracts. That was the result of compulsory competitive tendering. We are seeking to change it.

What representations he has received from local authorities over the accountability of regional development agencies. [30625]

We received a number of representations from local government about the accountability of regional development agencies. RDAs will be non-departmental public bodies; as such, they will be accountable to Ministers. They will also be required to consult the designated regional chamber, and account for their activities to the chamber.

Will the Minister assure the House that the new regional development agencies will not remove powers from local government, especially the planning powers envisaged in clauses that were withdrawn in consideration in Committee of the Regional Development Agencies Bill?

The hon. Lady knows that, in Committee, we said that we should look at certain clauses and come back to the House on Report.

Will not people judge the accountability of a regional development agency by how successful it is in tackling a region's problems? For example, in Lowestoft in my constituency, where unemployment is 9.2 per cent., against a regional average of 3.6 per cent., people are looking forward to the RDA tackling the disparity, which was left unattended for 18 years by the Conservative party. Will my hon. Friend confirm that addressing such disparities will be one of the priorities of RDAs?

My hon. Friend is right. Apart from the Opposition, everybody accepts that there is a need to address the serious structural weaknesses in our eight English regions. To that extent, all the major stakeholders involved in the RDAs will address the issues and will try to bring more employment back to those regions than ever before.

As the Minister will appoint every single member of the RDA boards and will also choose the organisations that are to be designated as the regional chamber, is there not clearly a serious lack of accountability in the structure proposed? Against that background, is it not absolutely extraordinary that every one of the Opposition amendments, which would have required the Minister to consult local authorities about the activities of RDAs, were voted down by the Government?

The Opposition should be the last people to start lecturing the Government about quangos and accountability. We well know that the Conservatives took more powers from local authorities than any other Government in history. We want no lectures from the Opposition on this issue.

Mr. Boswell.

Number seven, Madam Speaker.

I think that it is number eight. At least I am right on this one.

What plans he has to introduce measures to improve air quality. [30628]

The Government are taking action to improve air quality through the implementation of the national air quality strategy. On 12 February, we announced our plans to take forward an immediate review of the strategy, during which we shall look at all options for delivering improved air quality more quickly.

While that is welcome, will the Deputy Prime Minister take a particularly close look at the Environmental Agency's recent proposals in connection with sulphur dioxide emissions from power stations, which do not seem to be well founded in the facts and go well beyond our current international obligations? Incidentally, the proposals would have the serious effect of virtually wiping out the economics and the potential of the British coal mining industry overnight.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this strategy was begun by the previous Administration and that that is one of the gases under consideration in the review. We shall take into account the points that he has made.

I understand that the planting of trees can have beneficial effects on air quality. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not encourage the planting of leylandii trees and hedges in residential areas? On the contrary, will he consider introducing measures to curb the activities of those who insist on growing those hedges to monstrous proportions, thus inflicting considerable misery on their neighbours?

The hon. Lady's question is vaguely related.

It will be vaguely replied to, Madam Speaker.

What representations he has received about legislation governing the use of rendering in newly built housing; and if he will make a statement. [30629]

Apart from the hon. Gentleman's letter of 24 February to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on this subject, the Government have received no representations regarding legislation concerning the use of rendering to newly built houses.

The Minister will know from my letter that I have laid before the Department the concerns of my constituents living in the Helme View estate, built by Barratt Homes, in Kendal. Will he consider legislation to require the minimum specified standards of rendering set out by the manufacturers of those materials, to be used by private sector builders? Will he also consider replacing the National House-Building Council with something that is rather less of a toothless watchdog?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with some detailed background information about the case of Helme View. On the strength of his representations, I have seen that there is some evidence that the rendering may have been put on in a way that did not comply with the specification contained in the British Board of Agrément recommendations. If that is the case, there would certainly be grounds for the home owners concerned to seek redress through the NHBC, which has provided the insurance back warranty on the scheme. We have had general discussions with the NHBC about the performance of its obligations, and I have twice met its chief executive. I am expecting a report on the progress that it is making in the review of its service to ensure that it provides effective warranties to the public.

What plans he has to reduce local authorities' reliance on central Government funding. [30630]

We shall shortly be consulting on possible changes to the system of local government finance.

Does the Minister recall that the Government have signed the European charter of local self-government? Is she willing to tell the vast majority of councils—of all parties—which are well run, what time scale the Government now envisage to allow councils to raise their own revenue to meet local needs free of central Government capping and other centralised controls?

We have said that we shall consult shortly. The consultation document will be going out in the next two to three weeks. Councils will then be able to respond. We shall be able to deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised in that process. We then hope to bring a White Paper to the House. He will then see precisely how the Government intend to proceed.

When the Minister is looking into how to reduce local government reliance on central Government funding, will she also look into those ways in which local government is bailing out central Government? I am thinking of the burden of housing benefit payments on district councils. When the Conservative party passed the responsibility for such payments to local government, it promised that not a penny of that expenditure would fall on the council tax payer. In my district of Thanet, £3 million out of £15 million goes on covering the cost of housing benefit payments. Will my hon. Friend take that into consideration when considering how local government finance is to be reorganised?

That is part of the present review of housing finance. I met the Local Government Association to discuss issues associated with that last week. It is one of the areas that we are reviewing and I look forward to reporting back on the results at some stage in the future.

If he will reduce central Government intervention in local government. [30631]

We are committed to making local decision making less constrained by central Government and more accountable to local people. However, there will remain a need for reserve powers for Government to act if and when councils fall seriously short of what people are entitled to expect.

While I acknowledge the Minister's response, does she agree that, after 18 years of relentless attacks on local government by the former Government, Britain now has the most centralised local government system anywhere in the democratic world—even more centralised than the system that Stalin achieved in the former Soviet Union? Is it not time that the Government started to roll back central Government control and get rid of the quangos? In short, is it not time that central Government got off local government's back?

I certainly accept and agree that we have ended up with the most centralised system in Europe. Indeed, the number of Acts that the previous Government passed to try to neuter and devalue local government was almost more than the number of Conservative representatives on the Opposition Benches at the moment. We are determined to change the situation, but we want to do so in partnership with local government. That means that we are working with local government to plan the way forward and to do that in partnership. We shall not take decisions on our own without recognising the valuable contribution that local government has to make to the way forward.

All of us would want to see an end to crude and universal capping as soon as possible, but does the Minister agree that political consistency is necessary on those issues? While in the House the Liberals argue for extra powers, extra expenditure and extra taxation at a local level by local councils, in my constituency and, I imagine, in others they criticise the fact that council taxes are increasing to fund reasonable increases in expenditure. Do we not need some consistency on those matters and does not that problem undermine the credibility that the Liberals might otherwise have on such issues?

I think that both Opposition parties have some difficulties in consistency in their local government policy. Of course we need consistency, but, more than anything else, if we are to get a proper democratic balance in this country, we need a rejuvenated local government. We need that rejuvenation and diversity properly to express the will of local people and to ensure that they really are in the driving seat and we get a democracy worthy of its name.

One of the principal worries of local councils about Government intervention concerns the planning powers of the regional development agencies. There is confusion on that. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions was told that there were no plans to take away powers from local authorities. The Regional Development Agencies Bill originally proposed to give the agencies such planning powers, but those proposals were then withdrawn. I accept that there may have been drafting problems, but my question is wholly reasonable—what powers does the Minister believe that the RDAs should have on planning?

I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman. Year after year, he supported measures that gave central Government greater powers of intervention in local government. He knows that the issue will be dealt with properly on the Floor of the House on Report.

If he will extend the powers of the local government ombudsman to cover parish councils.[30632]

We have no plans to extend the powers of the local government ombudsman to cover parish councils. Individual electors can raise complaints directly at meetings of the parish council.

Why not?

Quite simply because, even though there are some 17,000 parish councillors and some 8,000 parish councils in England, the Department has received fewer than 10 representations suggesting such an extension.

What progress he is making in his consultation on the reform of local government. [30633]

On 9 February, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched a wide-ranging consultation paper, "Local Democracy and Community Leadership", on modernising local government. A second paper, "Local Services Under Best Value", was published today. Further papers on the new ethical framework and on aspects of local government finance will be published shortly. Following consultation, the Government will set out their firm proposals in a White Paper this summer.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the apparent conversion of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to the value of local government is far too little, far too late? No one will be convinced by Mickey Mouse conversions by the Opposition on that, the countryside or any other issue.

We are determined to rejuvenate local government. The Conservative Government left local government demoralised and in a mess. They believed that they knew best about everything, but they had their answer on 1 May and they will receive similar answers in the future.

Does the Minister accept that there was no countryside rally or countryside march against the last Government? The reason why more than 100,000 people rallied in Hyde park last year and more than 250,000 people marched through London at the weekend is the Government's meddling attitude to rural affairs.

The hon. Gentleman needs to learn a little history. People in the countryside are not obsessed by one issue; they want a Government who listen to them on the whole range of issues. That is precisely why I am consulting them on the future of housing opportunities in the countryside, and why we are ensuring that brown-field sites in the countryside are properly used for social housing. Moreover, we are considering transport opportunities to ensure that there is decent public transport in areas where few people have had access to it. People in the countryside are anxious—and angry—about those issues because, for the past 18 years, they have been absolutely neglected.

Has my hon. Friend seen Hammersmith and Fulham council's proposals for improving the representation of councillors and reinforcing their role, while subjecting them to closer scrutiny? In anticipation of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, may I ask whether that is not the way in which the Conservative party, and all parties, should encourage local authorities to develop the local democracy that will strengthen the bond between elected councillors and the electorate? Is not that where the real argument lies?

Of course it is where the real argument lies. We want to ensure that local councils take responsibility for thinking about how they can be as responsive and as open as possible to local people. Those ideas are expressed in the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, which has recently been considered in the House of Lords. That private Member's Bill arose from a House of Lords Select Committee; it had all-party support in the House of Lords, as well as the strong support of local government. I hope that the House of Commons will treat it seriously.

It needs debate.

It certainly needs debate and, if Opposition Members are co-operative, it will get debate. We are determined to ensure that it is debated properly. If Opposition Members agree with that, they will ensure that the Bill gets into Committee, so that we can give local government the chance to develop its own way of working.

When he will make a decision on the financing of the Dorchester relief road in Weymouth; and if he will make a statement. [30649]

The Government's priorities for investment in local road schemes, including the Dorchester relief road, will be decided in the context of the new appraisal framework that we are developing in the trunk roads review.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his non-answer. I approached the Government about the scheme, which was waiting for them on 1 May. They decided that they wanted an integrated transport solution to be proposed by Dorset county council. The council rewrote its bid and submitted it to the Government on a tight deadline, spending probably tens of thousands of pounds, but the Minister's Department did not even send it to the Treasury task force for private finance initiative bids, further delaying the scheme. What is the reason for that prevarication; for the extra money being spent by local government; and for the lack of a decision from the Government?

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government are implementing the manifesto commitment to conduct a fundamental review of our roads programme; to decide what role roads play in an integrated transport policy; and to determine what criteria should be taken into account in choosing which roads to give priority to. In the business plan for its proposed PFI scheme, Dorset county council envisages signing the contract in 1999–2000.

If he will make a statement on the progress being made in moving the driving test centre in Beeches road, Chelmsford, to another site in the Chelmsford area. [30650]

A planning application for the Chelmer business park, which includes plans for a purpose-built driving test centre, is due to be considered by Chelmsford borough council planning committee on 6 April. Assuming that the application is successful, building work should start this summer and driver testing operations could move there from Beeches road by the end of the year.

Many of my constituents in the Waterhouse Farm area of Chelmsford will be extremely heartened and gladdened to hear what the Minister says, and I am grateful to her. Will she keep a watching brief to ensure that there is no slippage? As she will be aware, the problem has been rolling along for at least eight years and has been the subject of an adverse report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. There was a problem earlier this year when the ownership of the land on which the centre is to be built changed hands. My constituents would appreciate it if the Minister could ensure that the deadline that she has given today is honoured.

I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's constituents' concern. The issue has indeed dragged on since 1989. I am pleased to note that, since the Labour Government came to power on 1 May, there seems to have been a move in the right direction. We want the centre to be retained at Chelmsford, but the decision rests with the local authority, and we are hopeful that planning permission will be granted.

What guidance has been issued to local authorities under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. [30652]

Guidance to local authorities on meeting their obligations under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 was issued in draft on 15 January in order to allow local authorities and other interested parties to comment on its contents.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern about ill health caused by pollution from road traffic? Does he agree that the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 will provide an important framework for local authorities to tackle the problem of traffic congestion? I welcome the guidance that has been issued under the Act and I congratulate the Government on their support for the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill.

My hon. Friend has established a reputation for campaigning hard on this matter. Air pollution from traffic is a serious problem and we hope to tackle it through our national air quality strategy and the integrated transport White Paper that we will publish shortly. The Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 provides an important framework for local authorities to take action, and the Government are committed to tackling the harmful effects of the growth in road traffic. It is estimated that up to 24,000 people die prematurely each year because of exposure to such air pollution.

Will the Secretary of State add up the reductions contained in all the local authority plans so that we can assess the contribution that local authorities will make to reducing road traffic? Will he also introduce a national target for the Government so that local authorities do not have to take sole responsibility for reducing traffic?

Those matters are very much in our mind and are being considered for the White Paper, which will be published in May.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever their good intentions, local authorities can do little in practice to reduce traffic levels, and that the way forward is to encourage people on to public transport? With that in mind, will he give a warm welcome to Virgin's announcement today of a £1.8 million order for rolling stock for the west coast main line, which demonstrates the long-term benefits of rail privatisation?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the need to give public transport priority over private transport. Whether the privatised rail system will contribute to that, we wait to see, although the signs are not good. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the past 20 years, the costs of car transport have increased by 8 per cent. while the costs of public transport have increased by 30 per cent., and that that happened because the previous Government pursued a different policy.

How many miles of new road he has (a) approved and (b) declined to approve since he took office; and if he will make a statement. [30653]

Last July, I approved three schemes, which included 36 miles of road on new alignments. At the same time, I declined to approve 22 schemes, which would have included 85 miles of road on new alignments.

I welcome that reply. Is the Department still under the control of the road lobby or has word reached the civil servants that the days of bigger and better roads are over and that the future lies with better public transport? I know that Ministers have grasped that point, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that word has reached all concerned?

I assure my hon. Friend that, under this Government, the days of predict and provide are over. We recognise that we cannot build our way out of our transport problems and that is why we will publish a White Paper on an integrated transport policy in a few months' time.

Is not the Government's record, albeit short, deplorable? In 18 years, the Conservatives built or upgraded 1,300 miles of motorway and trunk road. That investment is a vital ingredient in the nation's prosperity and in regional competitiveness. Does the Minister agree that further extra taxes on motorists in the Budget before the publication of the White Paper would be unacceptable?

The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that the Government no longer regard building a new road as the first option for tackling a transport problem. We have to consider a range of options, although we will, of course, always have to build some new roads. One of the biggest problems that we inherited was the previous Government's complete failure adequately to maintain the existing roads network. That is why we have provided for such a large increase in expenditure on maintenance of our trunk roads and motorways in the next financial year.

If he will make a statement on his Department's plans to limit noise pollution on major trunk roads.[30654]

Noise pollution is being addressed in the review of the role of trunk roads in England and is being considered with other matters in the preparation of the White Paper on integrated transport.

I thank the Minister for his reply. What assurances can he give my constituents, particularly those living in Ickenham close to the A40, about measures to alleviate the misery of noise pollution there?

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus attention on that. I know how important the issue is for many of his constituents. Under the policy of previous Governments, there has been no specific provision for tackling the problem once a road has been constructed. We are considering the matter, and we will announce our decision when we publish our White Paper on integrated transport.

I am glad that the matter will be covered in the White Paper. Is there any prospect that the paper will include proposals to protect people who live near existing roads, such as the A40 and M4, that have had increasing traffic in recent years and become very noisy for people nearby? If there were to be some alleviation, it would be for the first time for many years, which would be welcome to those of us who have campaigned on the matter for a long time.

My hon. Friend is right to point up the problem. As she knows, there is an excellent chapter on the subject in the report on transport of the royal commission on environmental protection. It is an issue of growing importance for many people and we intend to address it.

What plans he has to dual the A5 north of Shrewsbury. [30655]

We are considering that proposal as part of our review of the roads programme.

Twenty-five people have been killed between Shrewsbury and Ruabon over the past five years. The project has the full support of all the neighbouring local authorities and the Government office of the west midlands. It is the last link in the trans-European network route between Felixstowe and Holyhead that has not been dualled. When will the Minister be able to give a clear idea of when a final decision will be made?

We will take decisions on such roads in the context of our roads review. The hon. Gentleman is right, and makes a strong case for the road. New roads can save lives, and safety is a factor in this case.

What action the Government are proposing to take to encourage councils to introduce further traffic-calming measures; and if he will make more financial resources available. [30656]

I recently announced the Government's intention to remove the requirement for local highway authorities to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to making 20 mph speed limits. That should encourage the creation of more 20 mph zones, particularly where children and vulnerable road users are most at risk. The Department will continue to provide local authorities with guidance on traffic-calming measures. We are currently considering what resources can be made available for 1999–2000.

I am grateful both to this Government for what they are doing on road safety—and, in fairness, to the previous Government, who pioneered traffic calming. I regard road safety as a non-party issue. However, more money is needed because road safety is in the national interest. I draw the Minister's attention to the high street scheme in my constituency, which has been funded by Government, past and present; the county council, past and present; and the borough council. It has led to a reduction of almost 50 per cent. in the number of accidents. Given that the Department's figures show that a fatal accident costs £1 million, a serious injury accident £110,000 and a slight injury accident about £10,000, the introduction of that traffic-calming system across the country would save hundreds of lives, prevent thousands of injuries and save the country money. Can we have more resources for more traffic-calming schemes?

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right to commend so strongly the Colchester transport package, which this Government, like the previous Government, support. It contains a number of positive elements such as the provision of bus priority measures at key points and the development of cycle networks. As he rightly said, it has a strong emphasis on safety, traffic-calming measures and 20 mph zones. It is because of the merits of those schemes that I recently announced that local highway authorities will no longer have to approach the Government to create new 20 mph zones.

Will my right hon. Friend work with local authorities and public and private sector partnerships that are working to create sustainable town centres that are safe, environmentally friendly and accessible to everyone in the local community? In particular, will he give consideration to the unfair competition from out-of-town shopping centres that provide free car parking?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Most hon. Members would accept that when the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), announced that he was changing the planning legislation in relation to the development of out-of-town centres, it was a case of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. Far too many out-of-town centres have developed. We must now cope with that situation. Clearly, the encouragement of greater use of public transport and the promotion of an integrated transport policy are made so much harder by the development of out-of-town schemes.

Do not reductions in the roads budget—which are reasonable enough for the purpose of discouraging unsustainable traffic growth—sometimes lead to cuts in the resources available for traffic-calming measures? That is an ironic outcome. What can the Government do to ensure that, while the roads budget may be reduced for good reasons, that other aspect of investment in roads is encouraged and enhanced?

I would be keen to examine any examples of that. We are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, very much in the business of encouraging more investment in traffic-calming measures and more emphasis on safety. However, he is right to point out that we cannot continue a policy of building more and more roads. It is important that transport packages are designed to put the emphasis on safety.

What is his estimate of the numbers of road fatalities that result from the use of medicinal drugs. [30657]

No such estimate is available. A survey that my Department is conducting found medicinal drugs present in 6 per cent. of road user fatalities—only 4 per cent. in the case of drivers—but their presence does not necessarily mean that they were a factor in causing the fatality.

The Government are to be congratulated on being the first Government to take practical steps to deal with the dangers of drug driving. As my hon. Friend knows, the trial can identify only a small number of problems involving medicinal drugs. As she is aware, 100 million prescriptions are issued every year for medicines which, if taken according to instructions, will leave drivers' reactions as impaired as if they had drunk an equivalent quantity of alcohol. Will my hon. Friend give more attention to the matter, as medicinal drugs are the major drugs that cause accidents?

I believe that my hon. Friend is confusing the incidence of drugs in road fatalities and the cause of such accidents. In our survey to date, 16 per cent. of the fatalities—drivers, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists—had evidence of an illicit drug in their bodies. The incidence for drivers was 18 per cent. Six per cent. had evidence of medicinal drugs. For drivers, the incidence was 4 per cent. Compared to a survey 10 years ago, that represents a fourfold increase in the incidence of illicit drugs, but very little change in the incidence of prescription drugs. However, road fatalities and serious casualties overall have fallen by more than a third during those 10 years, so it is extremely difficult to judge the road safety implications of drug use.

I welcome the Minister's statement. Does she share the concern of diabetic people who feel that they are discriminated against by the new regulations coming out of Europe?

I should be extremely sorry if there were a sense of discrimination with regard to insulin-treated diabetics. Since 1991, they have been prohibited from holding licences to drive large goods vehicles and buses, and, as a consequence of the United Kingdom's implementation of the second EC driving licence directive, the prohibition extends to licences to drive lorries between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes and minibuses with nine to 16 seats. Licences to drive cars, restricted to a maximum of three years at a time, continue to be granted to insulin-treated diabetics, subject to satisfactory health checks at each renewal. The road safety dangers associated with drivers treated with insulin have been recognised for many years—it can lead to hypoglycaemia, which in turn can result in loss of consciousness, in some cases without warning.

What assessment his Department has made of the impact of increasing fuel duties by 6 per cent. a year in real terms on road traffic levels. [30658]

The Department's national road traffic forecasts assume that fuel duties will increase by 6 per cent. per annum until 2002. Those forecasts predict that the level of road traffic will increase by 11 per cent. between 1996 and 2002.

Is the Minister aware of the disproportionately harsh effect that an increase in road fuel duties will have on rural motorists, many of whom rely exclusively on private motor cars to get about? Will she consult her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find ways of deterring the city driver—and particularly the company car driver—while safeguarding the interests of the rural motorist?

That question comes ill from a party which inflicted enormous damage on rural transport through its policies of rail privatisation and bus deregulation. In the past two decades, rail fares have risen by 75 per cent. and bus fares have risen by 60 per cent. above inflation, yet overall car costs are 6.5 per cent. below inflation. Central to this Government's policies for rural communities is the restoration of real integrated public transport in order to begin to make some sort of inroad into the isolation in many rural communities that is a direct result of the policies of the former Conservative Administration.

Given that the real cost of motoring has decreased by 6.5 per cent. since 1974, and that rail fares have increased by 75 per cent. or 78 per cent., are the Government prepared to consider in their transport White Paper not simply increasing costs for motorists but using funds to decrease costs for rail and bus users?

We are reviewing every possible lever of government to ensure that, when we produce our integrated transport policy, it will be clear to the whole country that we are taking a long-term view. This is our window of opportunity to create an integrated transport policy based on an integrated public transport system and to reduce the huge costs that this country has suffered through 18 years of neglect by the previous Administration.

But my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was asking about the position of motorists. Will the Minister acknowledge that the car is an absolute necessity for millions of people in rural areas and elsewhere? Will she acknowledge also that hundreds of thousands of people work in the motor industry in areas such as mine in the west midlands—which used to be a rather important consideration as regards industrial policy? Will the Minister recognise that there is no justification for introducing swingeing increases in motor taxation that will simply penalise many millions of ordinary people?

I repeat that the greatest damage was inflicted on the rural communities by the previous Government's policies of rail privatisation and bus deregulation. I repeat that the issue of rural communities is central to this Government's policies. The rural communities' need for a properly integrated transport policy, which is essential for regeneration in those areas that the former Conservative Government neglected for 20 years, will be central to the Government's policies.

What assessment has been made of the cost of enforcing proposals to limit the availability of workplace parking. [30659]

The Government are currently looking at the potential costs and benefits of a levy on non-residential parking places. Administration and enforcement arrangements are of course an important element in that.

I find that most regrettable. Does the hon. Lady agree that, given the Government's aspirations to reducing congestion, this is a daft idea that will increase congestion by 20 per cent. and load new costs on to small businesses, many of which will be rural?

No—and anything that causes the hon. Gentleman regret is music to my ears.

If he will make a statement on the publication of rail passenger satisfaction surveys. [30660]

The Government welcome the customer satisfaction surveys, which the franchising director has required to be published. They show that a significant proportion of privatised train companies are offering a worse service and an overall reduction in the standard and quality of service. That is unacceptable.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under the previous Government there was no obligation on many train operating companies to publish these surveys and, where they were obliged to do so under some of the contracts, they had a free choice as to what they could publish? Does he agree that such information is vital? I welcome what he has done in the past month or so to ensure that survey results are published.

That is correct. I increased the franchising director's powers to achieve those objectives. Indeed, I made it clear to him that his primary objective is not to secure maximised profit and privatisation but to put customer satisfaction first.