What action the Government are taking to reduce the amount of gravel and sand dredged from river beds in environmentally sensitive areas. [35440]

The Environment Act 1995 requires all mineral permissions to be reviewed and conditions to be approved by the mineral planning authority. It is for the mineral planning authority—in my hon. Friend's case, North Yorkshire—to determine what new conditions are appropriate in the circumstances of any particular case.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern in York and North Yorkshire about mineral planning authorities' inability, because of the high cost of compensation, to revoke permissions given way back in the 1950s to dredge in a way that would these days be regarded as environmentally unsatisfactory? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer still considering, as he said he was in his May Budget, a review of the fiscal terms applicable to mineral extraction? Will my hon. Friend examine the law in Germany which, with regard to peat extraction, when a planning permission is revoked, limits compensation to the cost of the investment that the landowner has made in the site and does not relate it to the loss of extraction—unlike a revocation of planning permission in this country?

It is true that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is reviewing aggregate taxes, as he made clear in his statement on the Budget. In addition, North Yorkshire still has under review the appraisal of the mineral extraction in the case to which my hon. Friend refers.

I am sure that the Minister realises the importance of the question asked by the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), especially in relation to the fiscal regime. If the Chancellor decides to tax digging aggregates out of holes, that will surely put greater pressure on river bed and sea bed extraction and make it cheaper to import aggregates. Will the Minister please make vigorous representations to the Chancellor to examine carefully what could be a disastrous policy for the United Kingdom aggregates industry?

As I said, further research is being undertaken into mineral taxes. I have no doubt that the point made by the hon. Gentleman will be factored into my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's thinking before he makes a decision.

When he expects to publish a White Paper on the future government of London. [35441]

I announced last week the publication of a White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", which sets out our proposals for a new Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I was quite impressed that, no sooner had I tabled my question, the White Paper was published. That highlights the speed and determination with which the Government are bringing democracy back to the governance of London. Does not my right hon. Friend consider it fitting that we should be discussing the matter today, the 12th anniversary of the abolition of the Greater London council when the previous Tory Government handed over vital London services to unelected quangos? How do the Government intend to encourage the people of London to vote on 7 May, when I am sure there will be a resounding yes vote?

The House will have noticed that, although my hon. Friend is a new Member, she has considerable influence on the Department's production of White Papers. She gives me the opportunity to recognise the anniversary of the abolition of the GLC and compare the Government's approach to the voice of London with that of the previous Administration, who abolished the GLC without any consultation. It is vital that as many people as possible vote on 7 May. We must all do our part, even if I have to stand in front of a goalpost.

As the White Paper acknowledges that Londoners want a new non-confrontational style of politics in London, and as the Government have been persuaded of the case for proportional representation in electing the assembly, are they equally open-minded on the policy of extending non-confrontational politics to the rest of local government by introducing fair votes for elections to town and county halls?

I do not know whether I am the best person to advocate a non-confrontational approach to politics—each to his own—but we have made a judgment that the supplementary vote and the additional member system are appropriate and will encourage more Londoners to vote on 7 May and elect the mayor and assembly for which they are waiting.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that when the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill was considered on Report, the Minister for London and Construction gave an undertaking that full information about the Government's proposals would be available before Londoners voted in the referendum? Does he agree that all sources of revenue to the Greater London authority are of paramount interest to voters? Is he aware that the White Paper leaves open whether a so-called congestion tax and a parking levy would be a source of revenue for the new authority? We know that the Liberal Democrats want it, but will he come clean before the referendum and honour the Minister's pledge? Will there be a tax on motorists—yes or no?

I made it absolutely clear last week that matters of congestion and parking levies are being considered. The hon. Gentleman will have his answer when the White Paper is published.

When he last met representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss the distribution of local government finance in 1998–99. [35442]

The Local Government Association had the opportunity to discuss the distribution of the 1998–99 settlement at our meeting on Wednesday 14 January.

The hon. Lady will be aware that the recent distribution of grant to local authorities has resulted in discrimination against shire counties. Looking to the future, will the Government bear it in mind that notwithstanding the apparent high level of the area cost adjustment for London and the south-east, if we detach the south-east and look only at the shire counties, it is clear that they receive far less than other counties and well below the national average—£792 per head compared with £869?

Several questions on the amounts given to shire authorities have been tabled. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no discrimination; we have moved to a fairer settlement this year. He knows that no changes were made to the area cost adjustment under the Conservatives. It is under consideration this year. We have commissioned additional research on the specific cost element of the area cost adjustment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there was an £8 million shortfall this year in the cash allocated for the business rate in Redcar and Cleveland? After yesterday's announcements, will she ensure that my constituents do not lose out next time on the business rate?

The Government published further consultation papers yesterday on the reform of local government. On the business tax, we aim to balance the need for redistribution and stability with local authorities' ability to develop strong relationships with business. The ability to vary the national business rate at local level will meet those objectives. We look forward to the responses of all interested parties.

Does the hon. Lady accept that, this year, council tax rises have been significantly greater in shire areas than elsewhere? That suggests that the distribution of the money has been unhappy for country areas. Will she look closely at why council taxes have risen more steeply in many rural areas? If it turns out that those areas have received less than they should have done, will she undertake to come forward with new proposals for next year?

It is not for me to reconsider the settlement once the House has agreed it. We regularly examine the distribution to ensure that it is as fair as possible. I have examined the Conservative allegations, which the right hon. Gentleman has repeated. There is an element that he has forgotten—metropolitan areas are facing elections this year; shire counties are not.

However we juggle around with the figures to make them fairer—which we clearly have done—if there is a financial ceiling, we are bound to please some authorities and upset others. Should not we reconsider how much of the burden should be borne by council tax payers? We need a larger allocation from the Government to meet local government expenditure.

The issue is the balance between central and local funding. After the debacle of the poll tax, too much was taken to the centre. Central Government controlled not just how much money local authorities received, but what they spent it on. That has led to an unhealthy relationship between central and local government. We want a better balance, ensuring that areas of need have their needs properly addressed and that there is a fair distribution of Government grant.

In spite of the Government's changes to the distribution of grant, which have undoubtedly favoured Labour councils, do not the latest figures show that of the 25 councils with the highest band D council tax, 23 are under Labour control, one is Liberal Democrat and the other is a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition? Why does the Minister think Labour councils tax more? She has mentioned the elections. Should not the public take that fact into account when they vote?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we never believed that band D properly reflected what was happening, and for this reason: the majority of properties in the majority of Labour authorities fall into bands A and B. The amount charged at band D therefore has to be higher because authorities have to raise the necessary amount from bands A and B. Indeed, from averages that we published last week, Labour councils charge an average of £590 and Tory councils an average of £626. I invite the electorate to take that into account.

Before anybody runs away with the idea that marginal changes to revenue support grant distribution this financial year disbenefited the few shires still under Tory control, should we not remember that the lowest grant made to any shire county was that to Derbyshire, which has nine Labour Members? I therefore hope that my hon. Friend and others on the Treasury Bench will look at the matter very carefully with a view to ensuring that Derbyshire is not badly affected in this outcome and the one next year.

Representations are being made to the Government about Derbyshire, and it would therefore not be proper for me to comment on the matter today. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the Government are determined to see a fair distribution of Government grant throughout local government.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the local authority funding formula for 1998–99 on the provision of services by shire authorities. [35443]

The impact of any change in the formula will depend on local authorities' decisions on the size and allocation of their budgets. Shire counties have gained significantly as a result of the additional £835 million that we have provided for schools this year. For the first time in four years, we have provided an increase for the services delivered by shire districts.

Taking West Sussex as a good example of a shire county, we see that spending on social services has been cut in real terms. Spending on other services, other than the Government's allocation to education, has stayed approximately equal. When allocations were made, did the Government consider how shire spending would work out? Why are allocations biased against shire counties? West Sussex has had quite enough attacks on extra housing, let alone on social services spending.

I dispute that there was discrimination against shire counties. When dealing with a pot of money, one must distribute it fairly and properly, matching decisions with where need is and how money should follow need. We took particular decisions on standard spending assessments this year, which were calculated to deliver fairness. We recognised the particular need of shire districts and gave them an increase for the first time in four years. Due to particular pressure on education, we ensured that shire counties, along with other local education authorities, received a fair and additional allocation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to assess whether the grant system is fair we need to take account of the settlements of the previous 18 years, which were fiddled by the previous Government to such an extent that Westminster receives a better grant than Liverpool? Does she agree that she is trying to restore some of the fairness in the system after 18 years of the previous Administration's fiddling?

We said before the election and in the manifesto that we wanted a fairer system of grant allocation. We have told the House about the manner in which we have changed the calculation of the indexes for examining economic and social need. That was done according to a formula agreed with the Local Government Association as a whole and with all its parts. That fairer allocation was worked out against a set of indicators that everybody agreed should exist. That was the main change. It meant that some authorities did better than others. Certainly there was a real change in the way need was assessed. We believe that the previous Administration did not address need in anything other than a partisan way.

Will the Minister confirm to the House what has become clear during the past 10 minutes—first, that the Government have fiddled the formula so that Labour councils, however incompetent, extravagant, or corrupt, receive more money than before and, secondly, that council tax payers, whether their homes are in band A, B, C, D, E, F or G, pay more if they live under a Labour council than if they live under a Conservative council?

Addressing fairness is not fiddling.

What assessment he has made of the impact of landfill proposals announced in the Budget on his environmental objectives. [35444]

The recent review of the landfill tax indicated that it is already having some impact on behaviour but that the rate needs to be higher to ensure a significant increase in waste recycling, recovery, and minimisation. I therefore welcome the Chancellor's decision to increase the standard rate of the tax.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole point of a tax on landfill should be not so much fiscal as environmental? There is some concern that the tax is falling heavily on local authorities, as the major waste disposal agents. What is he doing to ensure that the revenues generated from the tax are planned in a co-ordinated way, so as to bring genuine benefit to environmental projects that create jobs in the regions? When is he likely to undertake an overall review of landfill practice to ensure that it is meeting our environmental objectives?

I agree that the purpose of the tax is primarily environmental rather than revenue raising. The environmental bodies scheme achieves that purpose to a degree, and about £68 million has been passed to enrolled environmental schemes under ENTRUST for use in environmentally sensitive projects, especially recycling. Customs and Excise is undertaking a review of the scheme and the Government want more of the money to go towards helping local authorities to increase recycling facilities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall meeting representatives of British Salt, from Middlewich in my constituency, and of ICI, who came to lobby him about their case concerning the payment of landfill tax? Does he agree that the pumping of brine, the extraction of salt and the returning of the material to underground cavities has no adverse environmental impact whatever? Will he ensure that in future those who carry out such activities will not have to pay the tax?

The hon. Lady came with a delegation to see me about the matter. It is a difficult issue because we must be exactly sure of the definition of environmental impact, which is disputed between the Environment Agency and the businesses concerned. I am anxious that there should be a fair conclusion to that long-standing dispute and I undertake to write to the hon. Lady.

I welcome the Minister's answer on landfill tax. The twin and equally ugly sister of landfill is opencast. Does he agree that that should be brought within the scope of environmental taxes so that the real costs incurred by nearby communities are brought into the public domain?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that major environmental impacts are caused by opencast, which is being examined under the energy review.

What representations he has received on the accountability of RDAs. [35446]

We have received a number of representations about the accountability of RDAs. They will be non-departmental public bodies. As such, they will be accountable to Ministers, but they will also be required to consult the designated regional chamber and account for their activities to that chamber.

Is the Minister aware of the genuine concern felt by many rural interest organisations throughout the country that rural interests are not properly protected by the Regional Development Agencies Bill? Will he address that concern by ensuring that the RDAs produce an annual report, showing the effects of their activities on rural interests in their region? Will he further ensure that that report is laid before and debated by Parliament?

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make some of those points during tomorrow's debates on the remaining stages of the Bill. Rural areas will be represented on the boards. The RDAs' annual reports will contain an element dealing with rural areas, and those reports will be deposited in the Library.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that organisations from rural areas are fully engaged in the RDAs? Does he further agree that Lancaster—being at the centre of the north-west region, which stretches from Cheshire to the Scottish border—is ideally placed to represent those rural interests in a north-west regional development agency?

As I have just said, rural areas will be represented on the boards. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will approach the problems of rural areas more effectively than has previously been the case. We will ensure that issues such as deprivation and underemployment in rural areas are addressed positively.

When he next plans to meet representatives of local government in shire areas to discuss the conduct of local government. [35447]

Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister chaired a meeting of the central-local partnership, the forum where senior Ministers and leading Local Government Association members discuss major issues affecting local government. Two further meetings of the partnership are planned for later this year.

Those who attended that meeting were left with the impression that the Government favour the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, which was introduced in another place and proposes a fundamental change to the way in which local authorities are conducted. The Bill is so important that it will receive its Second Reading in this Chamber, but the only way in which it can proceed is if the Government provide additional time. County councillors have formed the impression that the Government are favourable to that view. When can we expect an announcement?

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not had a chance to read last week's Adjournment debate, when this matter was discussed. We are always keen to support proposals from local government to ensure that it is more responsive to local people. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's county council is interested in proposing ideas for experimentation. The Bill addresses experimentation in local government; it is not the Government saying, "This is what you ought to do." We need to be sure that local government has the opportunity to experiment. That is in the hands of the House, including Opposition Members.

I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts to try to improve the conduct of local government. In the experiments to which she referred, her attention will be drawn to the need to bring the standard spending assessment nearer the actual expenditure of local government. Will she try to narrow the gap between the SSA and expenditure to help the conduct of local government?

Yesterday, we published three consultation papers governing local authority finance in which we addressed the future of grant distribution and the SSA, and offered ideas. We are also encouraging ideas from local government.

Let me returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). Is it not a fact that the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill is a controversial measure drafted entirely by the Government but introduced in another place by a private Member? Is it not also a fact that the Government want it to go on to the statute book without a Second Reading debate in this place on its principle? Surely that is unacceptable. Is it not another example of the Government attempting to bypass the House and the normal checks of parliamentary democracy?

I seem to remember that the previous Administration pursued the same route with a Bill to open up committees in local government. I am not in charge of, nor can I control, the amount of time that Opposition Members want to take debating Bills on Second Reading. If Opposition Members were prepared to curtail discussion on other Bills, we would welcome a Second Reading debate in private Members' time. We are talking about a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. When the Government have to take forward such measures, we shall ensure that they receive proper attention in Government time.

If he will make a statement on the operation of the rail rolling stock market. [35470]

On 21 January I asked the Rail Regulator to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the rolling stock leasing market and report his findings to me by mid-April. We will decide whether further action is required in the light of the regulator's recommendations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Audit Office has reported that the value of the rail rolling stock companies' cash flow was £2.9 billion, but that, because the sale was rushed through by the Tories on the basis of inadequate valuations, the nation's trains—our trains—were sold off for only £1.8 billion? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the rail rolling stock companies was the Tories' great train robbery?

There is absolutely no doubt, especially after the National Audit Office's report, that there was a scandalous sale of the leasing companies and much of the privatised railways: it was identified that assets had been undersold and that a massive profit had been made. The Department will appear before the audit committee, and I hope that the Rail Regulator will make some recommendations in respect of the changes that need to be made.

What steps he proposes to encourage freight on to the railways. [35471]

Our proposals to create a new rail authority will help to ensure that freight interests are properly considered in the strategic planning of Britain's railway network. We will continue to improve the operation of the freight grants scheme, building on the success of last year. Our White Paper on integrated transport will include other proposals for encouraging rail freight.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he agrees with me that it is necessary to put more freight on to rail so that we can reduce the pollution and congestion on our roads. I am sure also that he welcomes the decision by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways to put a new rail head into Grangemouth, the largest port in Scotland, which will help with the task of reducing pollution and congestion on our roads. Will my right hon. Friend give us some specific information about the grants that he is making available and what he has done to untangle the red tape that the previous Government put in the way of those who wished to use the grants for rail freight?

We certainly welcome the investment by EWS and other rail freight companies and we want to see the maximum progress made. We have simplified the grants arrangement and eliminated all the red tape. Whereas the money available for rail freight grants in the previous financial year was £15 million, we have increased it to £30 million in the current year, virtually all of which will be spent. Next year we are allocating £40 million for rail freight grants. On freight, the Government are putting their money where their mouth is.

Is it not a fact that EWS Railways has, without subsidy, increased the amount of freight that it carries by introducing new services, and is to invest from its own resources some £650 million on 280 new locomotives and up to 5,000 new wagons? Is that not a significant success in transferring freight from road to rail? Is it not also a significant success for the policy of rail privatisation?

The right hon. Gentleman should check his facts. The idea that EWS Railways receives no subsidy for rail freight totally ignores the concession in relation to the channel tunnel; it totally ignores the money that EWS got from the taxpayer to take over the state assets; and it totally fails to take into account the fact that the Government are putting £1.8 billion into the railway network this year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main competitor—[Interruption.]I will continue when the bickering stops. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main competitor to long-distance rail freight is the heavy goods vehicle? If we are talking about subsidy, is it not a fact that, all over the country, bridges are being strengthened to take 44-tonne vehicles in accordance with the wishes of the European Community—

rose—

I have not finished yet; my right hon. Friend must forgive me. Would it not be sensible to maintain the Government's restrictions on the use of 44-tonne vehicles to ensure that as much long-distance freight as possible goes by rail?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Under European law, we will be required to accept 40-tonne, five-axle lorries on our roads from 1 January 1999. We have to take a decision—it certainly makes sense to do so—on whether we will allow 44-tonne lorries with six axles, which means less impact on the roads in future. We will have to take a decision on that in the next few months.

What assessment he has made of the role of the private car in meeting the transport requirements of people in rural areas. [35472]

The Government are aware that people in rural areas have to rely more on the private car for access to jobs and services than do people in towns or cities. The Chancellor has announced an additional £50 million a year to improve the public transport alternative in rural areas.

Given that the Government acknowledge that the car is a necessity for those living in the countryside, do they wish to insult people with their offer of £50 million, which amounts to virtually nothing per citizen? Why has policy yet again been aimed against the interests of those living in the countryside?

The hon. Gentleman had better think again. If he thinks that £50 million a year is not a significant benefit to rural bus services, he should look at the current level of subsidy. He is right that, for many people, the private motor car is indispensable. That is why he should welcome the fact that the Chancellor has announced a new vehicle excise duty rate of £100 for the least polluting, most efficient vehicles.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a private car is of assistance only to those who have one, and that many of my constituents in rural areas do not have access to private vehicles? Will he comment on the fact that, in Wales alone, 33 million bus journeys a year were lost through deregulation? That £50 million would certainly begin to rebuild bus services and give many of my constituents real access to real services in towns outside the rural areas.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. No less than a fifth of households in rural areas have no access to a motor car. That is why we have not only put another £50 million into rural transport but, by increasing the fuel duty rebate for buses to ensure that they are not subject to the higher duty on fuel, we have given them the benefit of £40 million. Moreover, we are looking at how we can more effectively regulate buses.

Although the Government have put £50 million into rural areas, did not the previous Conservative Government's introduction of the fuel price tax escalator take £4.5 billion from motorists, and will not the changes now introduced by the Labour Government take £9 billion from motorists during the lifetime of the Parliament? Would that not be more than enough to reduce vehicle excise duty for all motorists driving small vehicles up to 1600 cc, not to £100 but to just £10? Would that not help rural motorists to stay on the road while encouraging them to use less polluting vehicles?

But £100 for the cleanest vehicles is a good start. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to talk to private bus operators in his constituency, he will find that, when they take into account the £50 million and the fact that the increase in the fuel duty rebate is worth £40 million, they will tell him, as they are telling me, that this is the best Budget that the bus industry has ever had.

Unlike the Conservative party, I welcome the investment in rural transport announced by the Chancellor. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that, in parallel with urban transport management, it is essential that we have rural transport management to encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport, resulting in greater integration? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in planning rural transport, the Government will consider the integration of services, which will meet the needs of education, work and leisure in rural communities in Britain?

My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Of course, some families in rural areas have no alternative to the motor car because there is no bus service anywhere near them. But, as has already been pointed out, many households in rural areas do not have access to a car, and that is why public transport is so important to them, and why my hon. Friend will be looking forward to the new White Paper which will announce further initiatives in that area.

The Government pay lip service to rural public transport but, in reality, they are raising £1.7 billion extra in taxes next year from motorists; investing less than 10 per cent. of that in public transport and less than 1 per cent. of it in rural public transport; and the sum of £50 million is even less than the £60 million which is being raised by the new secret £25 tax on every new car that is registered. Are not the Government totally out of touch with the realities of rural life where, for most people, the car is a necessity rather than a luxury?

The Conservative party's green manifesto of 1997 states:

"We need to consider new ways to break the link between desirable economic growth and undesirable traffic growth. We will continue to encourage the manufacture of more fuel efficient vehicles through annual increases in fuel duty."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that quality bus initiatives—joint partnerships between private bus companies and local authorities—will benefit from the £50 million, and that that £50 million could be translated throughout the country into a series of schemes that will benefit a vast number of people throughout rural areas? Does he further agree—I am sure that he has already done so this afternoon—that, in reality, many people in rural villages, particularly in my constituency of Loughborough, do not have access to their car during the day once it has been parked in the town centre? An integrated transport system will ensure that such cars stay at home and that buses go to some of those rural villages that have been so badly damaged during the past 18 years.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of that £50 million, £45 million will go to the bus industry, but £5 million will be available for community transport and for other types of transport in rural areas. Some Labour Members, including my hon. Friend, are considering innovative methods of rural transport in their constituencies.

What proposals he has to reduce traffic congestion on the A380 between Newton Abbot and Torbay. [35473]

The A380 is a local road for which Devon county council is the highway authority. It therefore falls to the council to develop and implement any measures to reduce traffic congestion on the route.

That was not a particularly helpful answer, given the traffic congestion on that route. At the moment, we are waiting for approval of a private finance initiative scheme to build a bypass, but it looks as though it will not be forthcoming. What specific advice would the Minister give the responsible authority to reduce traffic congestion now and in the future?

As part of our roads review, we are developing a new appraisal framework to enable us to prioritise road schemes. Although it will be applied to the trunk road programme, it will be available for application to local authority schemes, particularly public-private partnership schemes, which is how the hon. Gentleman's county council has decided to go ahead with that scheme. He may be aware that the county council will require at least another two years' work before it is in a position to sign a contract for such a scheme, so there is no question of the Government delaying the scheme.

What measures he proposes against illegal heavy goods vehicle operators. [35474]

In my recent speech to the annual conference of the Freight Transport Association, I announced consultation on proposals for the detention of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles. We are determined to take tough action against cowboy operators who undermine the great law-abiding majority of road hauliers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the former Transport Minister, Steve Norris, who I understand is now chief trucker for the Road Haulage Association, agreed when he was a Transport Minister with the measures now being taken by my right hon. Friend, even though he did not receive backing from the Government of the day? Is not that another case of the previous Government parking good ideas in the layby while the new Labour Government move us into the fast lane? My right hon. Friend has my assurance that the many law-abiding road hauliers in my constituency will raise their Yorkie bars in salute to his action.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is another example of a policy which this Government are implementing but which past Ministers make excuses for not implementing during the 18 years of Conservative rule because they were not allowed to. I welcome the support of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association for those proposals.

Although I do not condone cowboy operators, will the Minister bear in mind two specific points? First, he must ensure at least reasonable equality of treatment on overloading as between the various magistrates courts across the country, to encourage them towards consistency of treatment. Secondly, as the Minister is contemplating higher lorry weights with more axles, will he remember the importance of ensuring that those weights are evenly distributed and that any axles are adequately compensated?

That is a fair point. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not condone cowboy operations. He must understand that it is not just a question of fairness to law-abiding operators, but that cowboy operators tend to be those who are involved in accidents, who are a threat on the roads to the vast majority of people who try to travel about safely, and who offend in relation to our environmental objectives. I therefore hope that 1 have the whole House's support in clamping down on cowboy operators.

If he will make a statement on the costs of private motoring. [35475]

Information on retail prices is released by the Office for National Statistics. Over the period 1974 to 1997, motoring costs have stayed about the same in real terms. In the year ending December 1997, the cost of private motoring increased by slightly less than the all-items retail prices index.

Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor's Budget changes in motoring taxation will impact particularly hard on the low-paid and those on fixed incomes? Is she further aware that a typical unskilled manual worker will pay £66 more a year, and that a retired couple on state pensions will pay another £18 a year? Does she share my concern that the tax will hit those who are least able to pay?

I wonder at the hon. Gentleman's somewhat late concern for those who are unable to pay. He may be interested to know that in the last decade of the previous Administration, the cost of motoring in real terms increased by about 5 per cent., compared with increases of about 21 per cent. for rail fares and 16 per cent. for bus and coach fares. There is no distance between those figures and the fact that at that time the previous Administration were forcing through legislation on two particularly unpopular privatizations—those of the buses and of the railways.

Will my hon. Friend join me in advising hon. Members that, from tomorrow, they will be able to avoid the costs of private motoring by getting on their bikes and claiming the 6.2p a mile cycle allowance?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work in producing this marked change in funding for transport as it applies to hon. Members, which is a giant step forward in improving the environment for everyone.

The new Labour Government are supposedly promoting fairness. I wish to speak for my constituents in the county of Cheshire. My constituency contains a lot of rural areas and remote rural villages. Does she believe it fair that my council tax payers should not only meet a council tax increase of nearly 16 per cent., but face such a huge increase in motoring costs—especially the heavy increase in the price of petrol—when they live in areas where there never has been any public transport, and never will be, despite the limited inducements provided by the Government in the Budget? Is that an example of Labour Government fairness?

The Government do not share the hon. Gentleman's philosophy of despair. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has pointed out, the Chancellor has found £50 million, every year for three years, which will be specifically targeted to create rural bus services. He has also increased the fuel duty rebate to the tune of £40 million. We are as much concerned with reducing and reversing the seemingly inevitable tide of environmental pollution as we are with creating a properly integrated public transport system.

Does the Minister recognise that in parts of the country where there are no public transport arrangements and bus services to be assisted by the £50 million—remote, rural, sparsely populated areas such as the highlands and islands of Scotland—the price of petrol is rising at a substantially higher rate than in other parts of the country? Will she undertake to examine with other Ministers what is being done in other parts of the European Union to deal with such inequity? Will she consider lowering value added tax on petrol in such areas to increase the possibility of people being removed from their communities by their own cars, and not by the impossibility of living there?

Ministers have already pointed out that the Chancellor made his Budget changes because he was cognisant of the fact that people in many rural areas depend exclusively on private cars because of the failures of the previous Administration. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the particular difficulties in his area. I have touched on the amounts of money that the Chancellor found for the creation of public transport systems in remote areas, and we have also touched on reduced vehicle excise duty for environmentally friendly cars.

What steps he proposes to improve transport provision in London. [35476]

We have recently announced a number of proposals that will improve transport in London, including a public-private partnership to address London Underground's investment needs; an extra £365 million for London Transport over the next two years; the establishment of new passenger transport services on the Thames; the introduction of revised traffic management and parking guidance; and, through the new Greater London authority, better planning and integration of transport services under Transport for London.

Those announcements are much welcomed by the people of London. For all their hot air and blather, all that the Tories left Londoners was a £1.2 million backlog in tube investment. Does the Minister agree that the present Government have done more in the last two weeks than the other lot did in the last 18 years?

My hon. Friend would not expect me to disagree with that factually accurate statement.

The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced the privatisation of London Underground infrastructure. Bearing in mind the fact that the operation is to remain in the public sector, how can the Minister be sure to attract the necessary additional private capital? Will London Underground borrowing remain within the Treasury rules on the public sector borrowing requirement?

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not announce a privatisation. He announced a third and middle way: it is neither overt nationalisation nor overt privatisation. I understand that many people who are very interested in being part of a public-private partnership are already queueing up outside his door.

I beg to move amendment No. 495, in page 68, leave out lines 33 and 34.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 496, in page 68, line 36, after 'crossings),', insert 'and'.

'and Part VI (speed limits)'.

'136(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (competent authority in relation to the railways financial status regulations).'.

'The functions of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to rail services wholly within Scotland.

The power to require Railtrack and the operators of franchised rail services within Scotland to report to the Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 495 relates to licensing public service vehicles, amendments Nos. 496 and 497 relate to speed limits and amendment No. 498 relates to passenger rail franchising.

Has the hon. Gentleman inquired into the costs of the break-up of the United Kingdom driving licence set-up? He will correct me if I am wrong, but I hear anecdotally that to remove responsibility from Swansea would be extremely costly.

The hon. Gentleman has not understood what I am getting at. If that is my fault, I apologise. I am dealing not with driver licensing but with the licensing of public service vehicles, such as buses, and the giving of safety certificates. As I said, that is already done by an official for Scotland, so no additional costs would be involved.

I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 480 and 481.

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The service to which he refers is between Ballycastle and Campbeltown. May I also point out that the Conservative Government refused to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to run that service, which could have damaged the new infant service beyond repair?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction. That is what I thought I had said—I must have stumbled or mumbled. I shall deal with his substantive point in a moment.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is arguing for devolution of the power to control that ferry service to the new Northern Ireland assembly or Parliament, or to the Scottish Parliament, or whether the sensible course is, as it passes between two areas, to leave it as a UK ferry service?

That service was set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the benefit of Scotland. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way again.

The hon. Gentleman should consider carefully the fact that amendment No. 481 places within the domain of the Scottish Parliament those issues about which he is concerned. As the Bill stands, those issues are beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament, which is most unsatisfactory.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, particularly on the provision of railway services. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 208 to 211.

I welcome amendment No. 495, which was moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). It would be bizarre if we could not trust the Scottish Parliament to administer matters such as public service vehicle operator licences and speed limits, which are of no interest to people outside Scotland.

As an unbeliever in the whole proposition for devolution, hon. Members may take it from me that, none the less, there was great sense in the convincing, powerful and welcome speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). How on earth can we expect Members of the Holyrood Parliament not to concern themselves with transport matters? Within seconds of his rising to speak, it was clear that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) would be completely dissatisfied with existing arrangements, and was truly and accurately reflecting the attitudes of every member of every party that will be represented in the Edinburgh Parliament.

I welcome the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to the new peripatetic Front-Bench service that the Conservatives are now operating—it has some merits.

Why is the Minister doing it all alone?

It is the responsibility of high office. I am doing the job for the fun of it, as you, Mr. Lord, can well imagine. How enjoyable it is to face another six and a half hours with such delightful company.

Amendment No. 537 deletes the words "marine works" and inserts the word "boatslips". How does my hon. Friend define a "boatslip"? Does it refer to boatyards as well as to slipways used by fishermen in the maintenance of their craft and by small boat builders and fishing boat repairers?

I shall deal with that matter shortly, if my hon. Friend can wait.

Does that mean that the Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for approving licensed aerodromes, but will have to seek permission, under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, from the United Kingdom Parliament's devolved authorities in respect of obstructions? The Scottish Parliament will not have complete control over those matters, and will have to refer to the United Kingdom Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct. The main issue is that airport planning, environmental matters, air byelaws and traffic matters will be devolved responsibilities. His interpretation is correct in respect of obstructions.

Would the Minister care to speculate on how many operators of public transport services in England and Scotland are likely to be confused by the amendment?

I am disinclined to speculate on that, because I do not have the information readily available. I hope that the consistency, coherence and common sense of our approach will be evident to all hon. Members.

I interrupted the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to ask him the cost of his proposals. Do the Government have any easily available figures on the cost of disruption to and break-up of those technical organizations?

No work has been done on that point, partly because we intend to reserve those matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that simple explanation.

Do the provisions of the Bill as they now stand mean that, if a pedestrian were knocked down at one end of the bridge over the Tweed at Coldstream, a differential payment may be made, but it would depend on the part of the bridge where he was knocked down? Will that be beneficial or confusing to the insurance industry?

That is the current position. Our proposals are reasonable, because they are consistent with devolved power.

The Minister should answer the question for once.

The right hon. Gentleman is always carping from a sedentary position about not receiving answers. The trouble is that if I give Conservative Members an answer that they do not like or that they think is wrong, they say that I do not know the answer. Their attitude is scurrilous. I am a measured person, and I hope that, rather than make remarks from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman will make his comments at the Dispatch Box so that everyone can hear them.

Will the Minister clarify the position relating to ScotRail services that pass through my constituency and terminate at Carlisle?

Those matters will be dealt with in due course. I shall be dealing with a fair amount of rail policy this afternoon.

Does my hon. Friend honestly think that, when in three years' time he stands at the Dispatch Box at Holyrood rather than Westminster—as he doubtless will—he will be able to persuade his newly elected Scottish colleagues to maintain that position?

I think the answer is yes. I am about to give details of a fairly comprehensive policy in which the Scottish Executive will be involved, which will, I think, go some way towards not only reassuring hon. Members but dealing with my hon. Friend's point.

In preparation for the supplementary to my Question 33 to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions this afternoon—which dealt with investment in the west coast main line—I spoke to Mr. Lew Adams of ASLEF, who told me that a vast amount of investment was needed for, in particular, the Scottish section of the line. Under the new set-up, who will be responsible for that investment? Will it come from the Scottish Parliament's budget?

No. The reconstruction of the west coast main line will be a matter for my colleagues at Westminster, and for the new rail authority. Obviously, it will have significant implications for Scotland, and that will be one of the issues involved in dealing with ScotRail. It is mostly self-contained in Scotland, but we need to involve ourselves with other services that operate across the border.

Is the Minister going to deal with amendment No. 481? If so, may I ask him about it then?

No doubt the hon. Lady is becoming slightly impatient, but I am about to deal with the amendment.

Which shipping services that start or finish, or both, outside Scotland currently receive financial assistance? Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Parliament will have nothing to do with the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry service? After all, that service was set up jointly by the Scottish and the Northern Ireland Offices. The South Antrim Steam Packet Company has gone off with the Caledonian MacBrayne Claymore boat, and has to lease it back to Caledonian MacBrayne during the winter. Surely to goodness the Scottish Office or the Scottish Parliament will still have something to do with that service.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are concerned about the development that she has mentioned. We are looking at it closely. After the service was established, boats were taken out of commission in a pick-and-choose way to service other parts of the United Kingdom, which does not make for consistency or coherence. Unfortunately, a private initiative is involved, but the Government are watching the situation carefully. Our main concern is to represent the interests of the people of Scotland. I shall write to the hon. Lady about the up-to-date position. In terms of her first question, I do not think that she would expect me to know where all services start and finish. However, as a matter of courtesy, I shall be happy to provide information on that.

Is the fact that the Minister is looking closely at the matter not in itself an argument for devolving it to the Scottish Parliament?

No, it is more a case of ensuring that, when a service route is set up, it should be proceeded with. The service that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned was not a good one in that the operators were allowed to take out ferries when they wished. In a sense, that service was provided because of the lack of any other. It could have been a good idea at the time, but the Government must carefully watch what is being done. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are worried about that issue and I hope that we shall not see a repeat of the problem.

I seek clarification. There is a proposal, which is at an early stage, to operate a hovercraft service from Kirkcudbright to the Isle of Man. Is the Minister saying that the Scottish Parliament would have no locus in the setting up of that service?

I think that that is the case, but I am not aware of the details of the proposal. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would furnish those, as that would enable me to respond in the context of what I have said.

I support amendments Nos. 537 to 544, but I have a couple of observations and I should like to ask some questions. In his lively speech, which was his maiden speech from the exalted position of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke several times about Caledonian MacBrayne. I remind the Minister that he has promised to meet me, Mr. James McKnight, Mr. Steve Todd and Councillor Harry Mulholland, the leader of Inverclyde council, to discuss Caledonian MacBrayne in relation to the Deloitte and Touche report.

"Regulation of works which may obstruct or endanger navigation."

I have a couple of questions about sections 41 to 50 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I am glad that the Government have tabled amendment No. 541. which limits the number of clauses from that Act to be devolved. I am slightly concerned about the detail of how the Act will work in terms of devolving power. Section 41 of the 1982 Act will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, under that section, the Secretary of State has power to acquire and manage land for civil aviation purposes.

"nothing in this subsection shall be taken to affect the operation of section 5 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1916 (which confers on a person from whom land was acquired under that Act a right of pre-emption in the case of the subsequent sale of the land) as respects any land acquired under that Act."

I shall deal first with the questions about the Civil Aviation Act. Plainly, I am not able now to give details about that, but I promise to investigate the matter and to write to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on his detailed point. I give the same undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) in the context of protection for fishermen and fishing. I shall write to my hon. Friend about that, but on the Caledonian MacBrayne issue as it affects his area, I can confirm that we have agreed to have a meeting. I look forward to that being established at the earliest possible date. We are about to have the report on the ferries that we want to discuss and, obviously, such a meeting would be opportune.

In the light of the number of letters that the Minister proposes to send to hon. Members, could he assure the Committee that he will make those available in the Library for the rest of us?

We are nearing the end of the Committee stage but, out of courtesy, that will be done in all cases. Copies will be placed in the Library and sent to the leaders of the political parties.

My hon. Friends and I will have to look carefully at the Minister's written words. We still think that the distinction between those aspects of transport that will be regulated in Scotland and those that will be regulated in Westminster is not as clear as it should be. We reserve the right to raise them in a different way.