What has been the average change in council tax levels for 1998–99. [39503]

The increase in council tax for the average household is 96p per week.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information, which is meaningless to my constituents. Thanks to the Government's first local government finance award, £14 million has been taken out of the budget for Norfolk and the council tax has gone up by 16 per cent. For the people of Norfolk, that means new Labour, new taxes. What hope do the people of Norfolk have that things will get better next year?

The increases in council tax this year reflect the changes that the previous Administration intended to introduce as part of the rebalancing of central and local taxation. Hon. Members will remember that, to get themselves out of the poll tax, the previous Administration put 2.5p on VAT and centralised local government spending enormously. They recognised that that was a mistake and began to amend it just before the election. We have continued that process and shall continue to set fair and meaningful taxes in our local government settlement next year.

My hon. Friend is right when she draws attention to the problems that she and her colleagues inherited from the previous Government. Does she agree that one of the problems inherited from the Tories was the width of the gap between local authority spending and the standard spending assessment allowed by the Government, which increased throughout the 18 years of Tory government? I hope that my hon. Friend will work to correct that error and to narrow—and eventually close—the gap between local government spending and assistance from Government.

My hon. Friend will know that we are currently consulting on changes to local government finance and trying to make it fairer and better balanced. Local people need to know that they are getting the quality of services that they expect, at the price they are prepared to pay. Our settlement this year has begun to move us in that direction, but we must go further.

Does the hon. Lady remember that, in the previous London elections, the electors of Croydon were promised that Labour would not raise the council tax? I have a copy of the pledge in my hand. Can she therefore explain why, this year, council tax in Croydon under Labour is going up by 11 per cent., and why, over the past four years, it has increased by 30 per cent?

The right hon. Gentleman will also want to reflect on why his party, with the support of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), is telling the electorate that education is not a priority this year. The Conservatives are prepared to see the equivalent of two schools close in Croydon rather than allow relative rises in council tax to ensure the very best service provision. The council tax increase in Croydon this year reflects the decision that the Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member made last year.

I think that the phrase the hon. Lady is searching for is, "No, I can't explain it". That being so, can she at least explain why the 20 highest charging councils in England, from Liverpool to Greenwich, are under Labour control? Why does it cost an average of £300 a year more at band D to live under a Labour council in London than under a Conservative council?

The right hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he has neither ears to hear nor nous to understand. I have explained the changes in Croydon. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman has looked, but he will find that the top six increases in council tax have occurred in Tory areas.

If he will end the system of paying housing benefit for council tenants out of housing revenue accounts. [39504]

Removing the cost of rent rebates for council tenants from housing revenue accounts would cost the taxpayer an extra £1.3 billion this year. We are considering housing finance as part of our comprehensive spending review and we expect to announce conclusions from the review in the summer.

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the system of paying the housing benefit of council tenants from housing revenue accounts is inherently and monstrously unfair. It means that the poor are subsidising the poorest, it costs every working council house tenant £1,000 a year and it prevents a reduction in rents, which are higher than they otherwise would, or should, be. I am sure that my hon. Friend—who is a fair man—agrees with me, so why will he not give a date for abolishing that monstrosity?

I have answered my hon. Friend's question by saying that we are considering these matters in the context of the comprehensive spending review. I put it to him that a consequence of simply ending the current arrangement would be windfall gains to areas of relatively low need and no help for areas of high need. That is why his proposal is not on. Abolishing the current arrangement would provide a benefit of more than £1,000 per dwelling per year in Guildford, but no benefit whatsoever in Manchester. That cannot be right.

I support the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and stress that this is not a party political matter. Council tenants are furious that the system penalises them and that they must subsidise an unrelated issue: housing benefit. It is not a matter of whether the subsidies differ between authorities; it is whether individuals pay for the services they receive or pay for others to receive services that are unrelated to them.

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue because the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—which the hon. Gentleman supports—would not benefit his tenants in Southwark, but there would be an immediate benefit in Wokingham of £970 a year. That cannot be right or equitable.

What action he plans to take to encourage Londoners to vote in the referendum on 7 May. [39505]

If he will make a statement on his Department's role in publicising the arrangements for the London referendum. [39506]

My Department has mounted an extensive public information campaign to ensure that the people of London are fully informed about our proposals for a mayor and assembly for London and to encourage them to vote yes or no on 7 May. This has included posters, radio and newspaper advertisements, a neutral leaflet through every letter box in the capital, an internet site and a telephone helpline, which to date has answered well over 10,000 calls.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that as many people as possible vote on Thursday and that they vote yes for a London government committed to looking after London Transport, economic regeneration and the police and fire services in London? Does he also agree that the Conservatives' late support for the plan is a welcome, but tardy conversion to democracy throughout London?

I agree, and hope that the people will vote yes in the referendum. I welcome the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for the proposal. We want as many people as possible to vote. I shall not be churlish and criticise yet another U-turn by Conservative Members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many black and ethnic minority Londoners feel that their situation has worsened considerably in the 12 years since the previous Londonwide authority was abolished? Will he congratulate Operation Black Vote on its work to encourage black Londoners to participate in the referendum on Thursday and send a message to black and ethnic minority Londoners that a mayor and an assembly would strengthen their representation citywide?

It is important to congratulate those who have encouraged people, especially the ethnic minorities, to vote. We have produced a leaflet that summarises the proposals. Copies had been distributed to 3 million homes across the capital at the end of March. It has played its part, along with advertisements in newspapers and on radio stations. I hope that everyone will vote and that the referendum proposals are endorsed.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that in my extensive canvassing for the forthcoming London borough elections, few of my constituents have remarked on the referendum? The few who have greatly resent not being asked separate questions on whether they want a Greater London authority and separately elected mayor and the lumping together of those issues in one question, in spite of the warning given by Conservative Members. On reflection, does he think that he is listening to the people of London by putting the omnibus question?

In my canvassing in London, I have found that Londoners welcome the opportunity to participate in the vote. They are being given a chance, by a Labour Government, at least to have a say in whether they should have local government, which was denied them when the previous Government abolished the Greater London council.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need a high turnout and a strong yes vote in the referendum on Thursday to give the new authority the clout to do its job? Will he accept that, by refusing a two-question referendum, the Labour party has stifled debate that would have guaranteed a high turnout? Labour will reap its reward, which will be a feeble result and an enfeebled authority.

I do not accept that proposition. I hope that as many people as possible will vote in the referendum. In Wales, the turnout in the referendum for a Welsh assembly was 50 per cent., and in Scotland the turnout was 60 per cent. It behoves all of us to get across to as many people as possible, their democratic obligation to participate in the vote.

A crucial issue in the referendum is the way in which the parties select their mayoral candidates. We know that the Conservatives are committed to one member, one vote. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is no truth in the rumour that the Government are trying to exclude the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is running as a candidate, and that paid-up members of the Labour party in London will have a free vote on who goes on the shortlist—yes or no?

I do not know whether that question warrants a yes or no answer. When the people of London have decided on 7 May for the election of a mayor and an assembly, as I hope they will, we shall make the appropriate procedures, which is the proper way to select and elect candidates. The Tory choice of Lord Archer, the Tory answer to Dick Whittington, is not the one they are likely to turn to.

If he will make it his policy to adopt a target of building two thirds of new housing development in brown-field sites. [39508]

I consider our 60 per cent. target both challenging and achievable. To help achieve it, I have established a task force led by Lord Rogers to look at how best to use previously developed land. We shall launch shortly a national land use database to review how many recycled sites exist, or are likely to become available in the near future, and we will expect regional planning conferences, for the first time, to set their own regional targets.

Can the Secretary of State advise the House of one green-field site anywhere in Britain that has been saved since he announced his change of policy on green-field sites?

I am pleased to announce that, under the new system, the review carried out by the west midlands regional planning conference shows that, of the 330,000 houses proposed by 2011, 61 per cent. will be on green-field sites—

Green-field sites?

I apologise; 61 per cent. will be on recycled land. That shows that the Government's proposal will save many green-field sites. There is considerably more green belt land now than when the Government took office last year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain still has the problem that far too many people want their houses to be on green-field sites but want others live on brown-field sites? Will he ensure that we regenerate our cities so that people feel that they are free of crime, have high-quality schools and are places in which they want to live? We shall then have gone a long way towards solving the problem.

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the Government's policy. We need to make our cities more attractive so that more and more people want to live in them. That is what our plans are about.

Will the right hon. Gentleman understand and accept that in West Sussex—particularly in Mid-Sussex, where people have been outraged by his arbitrary decision to add 12,800 houses to the figure decided upon by his inspector—his policy is considered untenable? Where does he think West Sussex will find brown-field sites to accommodate more than 12,800 houses in addition to the 38,000 that he has already said we have to build there?

We have made it clear that our new approach is to consider these matters in the regional context, and the West Sussex structure plan will be so considered. That will be helpful. We have yet to start discussions on that. The county council has been granted leave for judicial review of my direction to increase housing provision in line with the regional planning guidance, so I do not wish to comment on the matter at present.

Pursuant to chapter 3 of the White Paper on "A Mayor and Assembly for London", if he will make a statement on arrangements for ensuring public accountability of the mayor and assembly. [39509]

The mayor and assembly will be accountable to Londoners through the ballot box. To strengthen public accountability, the mayor will hold a monthly assembly question time, twice-yearly people's question times and an annual state of London debate. The assembly will hold the mayor to account, hold its meetings in public and publish its papers and reports.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the current situation in London is unacceptable; that too many individuals and quangos are spending public money for which there is no accountability? Does he further accept that the new arrangements for a mayor and an assembly will make such expenditure publicly accountable and make those people directly accountable to the people of London through the democratic process?

My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government abolished democratic citywide government in London and replaced it with a raft of unaccountable quangos. We are restoring to the people of London the democratic right to elect their own citywide mayor and authority and ensuring that decisions are taken in an accountable framework and that quangos are brought back within democratic control exactly in line with the principle of accountability my hon. Friend espouses.

If, as seems likely, a large number of Londoners register on Thursday their lack of confidence in the accountability of the new mayor by not bothering to vote—by a large electoral yawn—will not it be because they do not believe that there will be any sufficient mechanism either to bring the mayor to account or even to replace him or fire him if he is not up to the job? By what means will a corrupt or ineffectual mayor be replaced?

The hon. Gentleman gives little credit to the electorate if he believes that the principle of democratic accountability is ultimately flawed. We do not believe that; we believe that the people should decide and that if they are dissatisfied with the mayor they should get rid of the mayor—[HoN. MEMBERS: "How?"] By the ballot box, which is the best and most effective way to achieve accountability. I hope that on Thursday the people of London will give a resounding endorsement to the Government's plans for a mayor and an assembly for London.

What recent representations he has received about the allocation of revenue support grant between local authorities. [39511]

My Department receives representations almost continually from Members of Parliament, local authorities and their associations and other sources, including the general public. Such representations arise from the local government finance settlement for 1998–99, which was announced to the House on 5 February. In addition, we receive views on what changes might be made for the next financial year and responses to our current review of local government finance.

Now that the Government have, admittedly under some pressure, made the welcome decision to reinstate the practice of their Conservative predecessors in publishing a rural White Paper, will the Minister undertake to tell the House, either in that document or, even better, now, what their rationale is for taking nearly £100 million a year out of the revenue support grant for shire counties? In addition, why has such a small allocation—only about 1.5 per cent. of the total—been made for shire districts on account of sparsity factors?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Administration considered sparsity factors but found no means of changing the formula fairly. I have invited authorities to submit further ideas this year on how the formula might better reflect sparsity factors. That will be a matter for discussion and deliberation. It is simply untrue to say that there has been a deliberate attempt to take money from the shires. The hon. Gentleman knows that additional money went to shire districts this year after we had looked at the formula for other areas. If he adds up the amounts for shire counties and for shire districts, he will find a different sum.

So it has been changed.

Yes, we have changed it. We are making sure that we end the ludicrous practice of doling out money for visitors as if they were residents. That happened in a place not far from here, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that was a fiddle. We have stopped the fiddle.

In determining areas of need, will the Minister consider improving revenue support grant allocations by taking into account Treasury figures that show the number of people in high income tax brackets? In Derbyshire, for example, only 5 per cent. of the population are in those brackets; in Surrey, the figure is 17.2 per cent. Derbyshire is 41st of the 45 counties according to published prosperity figures, which is a clear indication that there is need in particular areas. I hope that that will be reflected in the review that is taking place.

We are seeking to reflect need more accurately, but we also seek to make the formula simpler. We want council tax payers to know exactly what they are paying. At the moment, the system is so complex that that is extremely difficult. I do not promise that we will be able to do it in one year; it took the previous Administration 18 years to make the mess and it will take us some time to undo what they did.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's changes to standard spending assessment methodology this year have cost London nearly £50 million, which is the equivalent of £17 per household, or more than 2 per cent. on council tax? Will the Minister assure Londoners that the Government's plans for further SSA changes will not mean further cuts in SSA for London next year, after the London elections?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I am not sure whether his appearance means that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has disappeared. I shall miss him greatly; I used to enjoy his over-the-topness and the opportunities that that gave us for scoring yet more goals.

Does the Minister agree that some of us are astonished that the Tories should be so brazen as to come to the Chamber and talk about revenue support grant, because those of us who were in the previous two Parliaments saw how RSG was gerrymandered to pour money into Tory Westminster and Tory Wandsworth? Whether they live in the inner city or in the countryside, where we have unprecedented representation, people are glad to see fairness and common sense return to the allocation of RSG.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that Conservative Members dare complain about any settlement for London demonstrates just how brazen they are. That does not win support, but being straight with people does. We are being straight. This has been a difficult settlement, but it has been fairer. People in London know that the distribution in London is much fairer this year because we have stopped the incredible fiddle over how visitors were treated.

What assessment he has made of the extent of Government control to regulate the intrusion into the environment of GMOs. [39512]

The Government have in place a strict regulatory framework to control the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Deliberate release may take place only with the explicit consent of the Secretary of State or if marketing approval has been granted in the European Union. Deliberate release consent will not be given without a rigorous safety assessment on a case-by-case basis.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is she aware that an article in the New Scientist on 2 May referred to the fact that there is evidence that beneficial insects can be killed by transgenic crops and, in particular, by maize being marketed by Novartis? Does she accept that genetically modified crops can, in some circumstances, pose a major threat to the environment? Will she call on the European Commission immediately to suspend market consent for genetically modified maize?

As part of the rigorous risk assessment that my Department undertakes before any genetically modified organism can be released into the environment, it examines the effects on insect populations, including beneficial insect populations, of any of the modifications. I assure the hon. Gentleman that where there is an effect, permission to release will not be granted.

If he will visit Sunderland to examine the effect of green-field development on the inner city; and if he will make a statement. [39513]

Since my hon. Friend tabled this question, I have had the privilege of visiting Sunderland. On 30 April, I saw the scale of inner-city regeneration, and I understand that the city of Sunderland has allocated some 50 per cent. of proposed development for brown-field sites in its emerging unitary development plan, which is due to be adopted shortly.

We were very glad to see the Minister in Sunderland the other day, but there were one or two parts that he did not reach. Is he aware that in and near the centre of Sunderland we have acres of listed period property that are sliding towards dereliction, while all around us massive planning permissions are still being granted for housing on green-field sites? If we are serious about reversing this trend—I assume we are—Sunderland would be a good place to start. If the Minister would care to make another visit, I should be glad to give him on-the-spot guidance to the key areas.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the policies we are pursuing in drawing up the unitary development plan were put in place by the previous Administration. My hon. Friend's local authority has now made some modifications and two green-field sites have been taken out, which would have been in line with the previous Government's policy had they still been in power. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government's policy is to make our cities and towns places where people like to work and play, unlike the previous Administration, who put everything on green-belt land.

What measures he proposes to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient, less polluting cars. [39534]

We have already announced several fiscal measures to encourage the purchase of cleaner cars, including the fuel duty strategy and the proposed lower rate of vehicle excise duty for the least polluting, most fuel efficient cars. We have also established the cleaner vehicles task force to advise on further action.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, as people will want to use their cars as part of an integrated transport strategy, it is important that those vehicles are less polluting and more fuel efficient than they are now? Does he further agree that the development of alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas and liquified petroleum gas, will have an important role to play in achieving that end?

Yes, the motor car will continue to have an important role in transport, not least because it is flexible and convenient. My hon. Friend is right that we want an increased take-up of alternative fuels, particularly in congested areas, to help those people, especially asthmatics, who suffer because of poor air quality caused by fuel emissions.

If it made sense to raise the tax on fuel for motor vehicles to have the effect on pollution that the Minister claims, why did it also make sense to reduce the tax on domestic fuel for heating, which causes even greater pollution?

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative Government started the automatic increase in fuel duty by more than the rate of inflation. Surely he should welcome the fact that the Chancellor has announced our intention to introduce a new reduced rate—a £100 rate—of vehicle excise duty for the least polluting, most efficient cars.

Does not experience show that when we widened the price differential, people were encouraged to use unleaded fuel? Should we not do the same for compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas to allow those fuels to be used in an environmentally sensitive way?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. In two Budgets, the Government froze the rate of duty on liquefied petroleum gas and on compressed natural gas. We believe that those fuels have an enhanced role to play, particularly in congested areas where emissions effect people's health, especially those with asthma and cardiac conditions.

What plans he has in respect of the future role of the private car. [39535]

We shall shortly publish a White Paper delivering our manifesto commitment to introduce an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution. Our aim will be to extend the transport choices available to the British people. The private car will continue to have an essential role to play, along with a much more effective public transport system, which will encourage people to use their cars less and public transport more. That will protect the environment, strengthen our economy and provide access for all sectors of society.

I take it from the Secretary of State's response—and from the response of the Minister of Transport to an earlier question—that the Government are at last coming to terms with the reality that a car is a necessity and not a luxury for many millions of drivers and their families, and not only for the affluent or those resident in rural areas. In the light of that reality, will the Secretary of State and his colleagues return to the Chancellor and make representations to him about the implications of a total tax increase of £9 billion on motorists which will extend over the life of this Parliament and have to be paid out of the pockets of ordinary drivers and ordinary families?

The petrol duty escalator was started by the previous Administration, and has required motorists to pay billions of pounds in tax. This Government have always realised that the car has an important part to play—and I have spoken on transport issues for a long time. The United Kingdom has fewer cars per head than other European countries, but we use our cars an awful lot more?—because those other countries have a better public transport system. We wish to encourage people in the United Kingdom to use their cars less and to use public transport more. We will achieve that goal by making public transport much more effective—by making it a priority, rather than by deregulating it and encouraging competition, which, under the previous Administration, led to a reduction in public transport.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether it is the Prime Minister's policy unit or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that is defining the Government's policy on private cars? Will he also consider his position if, at the end of this Parliament, he has not been able to reduce traffic in terms of his commitment?

The transport White Paper will be a Government policy document formulated by my Department and influenced by the Prime Minister—who is the Government's main Minister. Those factors will determine the policy, which I believe will be a successful one. Hon. Members will have to wait until I introduce the White Paper to make a judgment on the policy. There will also be a public debate on the policy. I believe that the White Paper will lead not only to a better ordered public transport policy and to less private car use, but—most important—to improvement in our environment and in the health of our people.

If the Prime Minister's own policy unit is concerned about the transport White Paper's anti-motorist stance, should not that be a warning to millions of motorists in the United Kingdom and to thousands of other people who work in the motor industry? Is that stance not the real reason why the transport White Paper has been deliberately delayed until a week or two after the local government elections have been held?

First—as a matter of history—I am not even aware of the paper mentioned in the press, and I have not seen it. Secondly, we will produce a transport policy that meets the needs of the United Kingdom. As for our policy being hostile to those needs, I tell the right hon. Gentleman—who seems to have been talking an awful lot about private car use—that the previous Administration realised that car use was growing so much that, in 25 years, another 10 million cars will be on the road, requiring us to build 110-lane motorways between London and Leeds. The previous Administration therefore cut the road programme.

"a presumption in the favour of introducing legislation. in due course, to enable congestion charging and area licensing to be implemented".

If he will make a statement on the distribution of the rural bus partnership fund in England. [39536]

On 28 April, I announced proposals for distribution to English local authorities of an additional £37.5 million for local bus services. That followed the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget, of another £150 million over the next three years to improve rural public transport.

Given that one in five people in rural areas do not have a car and that a quarter of parishes in England were denied bus services under Conservative Governments, what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give for safeguarding that new investment, so that it goes towards new and additional bus services rather than existing ones?

I am grateful for that question. We certainly shall issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that we get value for money. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we want new bus services to be established. As a result of the previous Administration's policies, no fewer than a quarter of rural parishes in England have no bus services, not even on one day of the week, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In the remaining 75 per cent. of parishes, we want better services, such as the introduction of a seven-day service where there is only a five-day service. We want new services to be established with that huge amount of additional money.

Given that every time a motorist fills his tank, according to the Automobile Association, of the £20 that he may spend £16 goes to the Government in tax revenue, surely the motorist will not get a fair deal by being recompensed in the bus services that will be paid for by a mere £50 million spread throughout the kingdom over five years. How much more money can we expect?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises what a quantum change this is in the level of subsidy available for rural bus services. Is he aware that many authorities will receive £1 million extra this year, next year and the year after that? Is he aware that that extra money more than doubles the amount that some local authorities currently have? Of course the car is vital in rural areas, but we want to restore some of the bus services that were lost under the Tories.

On Friday night, I attended a meeting of the parish council at Longton to discuss rural transport. One of the issues raised was the difficulty experienced by local residents in attending the hospital in Chorley and the administrative centre in Leyland, where there is a jobcentre and so on. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in giving guidance to local authorities, consideration is given not only to the network of public transport, but to access to public facilities such as hospitals and administrative centres, which should be a priority in creating any new bus services?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about precisely the sort of issue that we will be concerned about in setting out guidance. It is important also that there should be bus services to hospitals and other important centres seven days a week in as many areas as possible. I also think it important, particularly for young people, to re-establish Saturday bus services into small towns.

What is his estimate of the number of Railtrack communication masts that are also being used for commercial telecommunications. [39537]

I understand from Railtrack that 300 masts, out of a total of 1,000, are used for commercial telecommunications as well as for Railtrack's own needs.

Is the Minister aware that, nine months ago, Railtrack was able to override the objections of people in Reigate and the local authority by putting up a mast and taking no notice of the requested amelioration of the mast's environmental impact? Is she further aware that, less than nine months later, the local authority has been presented with an application for an Orange mast on the site where the Railtrack mast has been erected? Does her answer indicate that Railtrack is systematically abusing its statutory authority to override the local planning process? Is it time for Railtrack to lose that statutory power to override the objections of local people?

There is no statutory requirement under which Railtrack must obtain planning permission, but any commercial company involved in the use of any Railtrack mast is most certainly required to obtain the necessary planning permission.

Will my hon. Friend have a short and fairly firm word with Railtrack to point out that, if it intends to develop, including signalling in ways in which it has not done so in the past, it must ensure that those who work for it, whether contractors or direct employees, not only have the relevant qualifications but understand the whole world of safety? There is clear evidence that Railtrack is not insisting on contractors providing proper care, either for its own work force or for those using the railway system.

My understanding is that there are no safety implications—nor any reduction in safety—when there is shared use of a mast. As my hon. Friend will know, there was a very critical Health and Safety Executive report on Railtrack's control of contractors. I understand that Railtrack has introduced new systems for the management of its contractors and for assuring that technical standards are met. The Health and Safety Executive is monitoring those improvements and will not hesitate to take further action to ensure that risks are properly controlled.

If he will introduce measures to accelerate the purchase of new rolling stock. [39538]

On 21 January, I asked the rail regulator to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the rolling stock leasing market. One of the issues that I asked him to look at was investment in new rolling stock. The regulator has submitted his report and I am discussing with him whether further action is required in the light of his recommendations.

I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend's news. I hope that he will encourage passenger operators to follow the example of the freight operator in buying new rolling stock to boost the British rolling stock and engine industry, which has been disastrously hard hit by privatisation. Will he do so by pushing the rolling stock companies into buying new rolling stock rather than siphoning off their ill-gotten gains, as if they were lottery profits, as they have been doing? That would be a better way of acquiring new rolling stock than, as Great North Eastern Railway Ltd. wants, extending the franchise.

I think that the House is aware of how the assets under the three ROSCOs were quite shamelessly undersold, costing the taxpayer about £750 million. It is our concern to get investment in the railway system. I was concerned that a number of operators had found it difficult to make leasing arrangements with the ROSCOs, which was one of the reasons why I asked the regulator to conduct his inquiry. As soon as I have considered his recommendations, I shall report to the House.

When will the new rolling stock that was promised last year finally appear on the London underground Northern line? What has been the reason for the considerable delay? As the project was financed under the private finance initiative, have financial penalties been imposed on the contractors?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London advises me that much of the new rolling stock is being tested. We hope to see that new investment on the line as quickly as possible. For the long term, the question is how much essential investment we can secure to modernise most of the rolling stock on the London underground. If the hon. Gentleman wants, I will find out the exact position and write to him about it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Government's failure to write rolling stock replacement programmes into franchise agreements has meant that many of our constituents have to travel on ancient, unsafe and inadequate trains, with no prospect of the franchisees replacing the trains throughout the entire life of the franchise? Will he do something about that to ensure that my constituents do not have to travel on such unsafe and dangerous trains?

Yes, that is a matter of major concern. Some operators have asked for an extension of their franchise, tied to an intention to introduce new investment, but I thought that the intention was to introduce new investment without the extension of franchises. That was exactly the case for Great North Eastern Railway. It complained that the ROSCOs would not give it sufficient finances during its short franchise. I do not believe that to be so, and have not found it not to be so. Sometimes, pressure is being exerted to extend franchises instead of getting on with introducing new investment. I am addressing myself to that problem.

What representations he has received on the impact on small businesses of taxes on company car parking space. [39539] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Taxing company parking provision was one of the range of options raised in the Government's consultation exercise on developing an integrated transport policy. A number of respondents commented on it, some specifically from the perspective of small businesses.

Does the Minister agree that the last thing that our small businesses want is more taxes? Will she take this opportunity to rule out once and for all the leaked proposals for taxation to fall on small businesses, factories, offices and shops? Does she realise that, if she does not rule that out now, the Government will prove themselves to be bad for business?

No final decisions have been taken on legislation to introduce a non-residential parking levy or on the shape that such a levy would take. We have been considering the social and economic implications nationally and individually of, among other things, the coverage of a levy and exemptions for types and sizes of business—those issues need careful consideration. I am told by small businesses that one of their gravest concerns is the seemingly endless congestion on city streets, which not only precludes and delays delivery, but deters people from shopping—pavements are choked with fumes and people take their lives in their hands if they have to cross the road. The Government are committed to ensuring that that is not only curtailed, but improved.

Before my hon. Friend is deterred from going down that path, will she examine the phenomenal success of the initiative taken by Boots in Nottingham, which pre-empted any Government decision and, of its own volition, shifted its priorities in favour of subsidies to public transport use and to car sharing? Given the initiative's popularity with the public and with the employees, does not it represent a better model to commend to large and small firms alike in any local economy?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are commending Boots's model to businesses and industries, both large and small. Boots is by no means the only company that has adopted a green transport plan, which brings enormous benefits not only to the company but to their employees.

Is the Minister on the side of the teeny-boppers in this argument? Does she accept that a tax on car parking spaces will lead to more red tape, increase the cost of food and give rise to more anti-social on-street parking? Is not it better for cars to be in car parks than to be on the road?

I think that the choice of the word "teeny-bopper" was somewhat unfortunate, given the age of the new leader of the Conservative party—although he has shown few signs of being able to bop anywhere. On additional levies for non-residential parking, an interesting finding by the British Retail Consortium is that its customers are less concerned about car parking costs than about ease of access. The charges levied by the business rates are based on the whole curtilage of the building, whereas it has been assessed that the average cost per annum of a parking space for large retail outlets is about £50. Given the turnover of such businesses, that is a small charge.

What measures he proposes to ensure the safety of minicab passengers in London. [39541]

The Government intend to introduce legislation for the regulation of London minicabs as soon as parliamentary time permits.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is she aware that there were more than 60 sex attacks on women using minicabs in London last year? Can she confirm that the regulation of minicabs in London, which was promised in Labour's London manifesto, is supported not only by the private hire trade but by the black cab trade—many of whose drivers live in my constituency—the police and the people of London? Will she ensure that legislation will cover checks on a driver's criminal record, health and topographical knowledge, matters that were included in a private Member's Bill that was wrecked by one Conservative Member?

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend uttered. As she knows, it was part of our manifesto commitment to London to introduce such regulation. It is important that both cars and drivers should be subject to checks. It is greatly to be regretted that a Bill originally introduced by a former Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), has fallen because of the actions of one Conservative Member.

What representations he has received on the upgrading and maintenance of trunk roads. [39542]

About 14,000 representations have been received during the roads review. Overall, they showed an acceptance of the need for a new approach that includes proper maintenance, best use of existing roads and investment in specific improvements.

In the departmental review, will Ministers give special priority to major strategic trunk roads? Will the A14 be a priority, given that it is one of the major trunk routes between here and continental Europe?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about maintenance. He will be aware of the neglect of road maintenance by the previous Administration. We have increased the allocation from £200 million last year to £300 million this year. We must get better use out of the existing road network and maintain it properly.