What plans he has to revise right-to-buy legislation. [58604]

On 28 July I announced proposals to improve value for money by replacing the current £50,000 maximum discount limit with nine regional limits. This change would result in a maximum cash limit ranging from £22,000 to £38,000. Tenants would continue to be eligible for up to 60 per cent. off the value of a house and 70 per cent. off the value of a flat. We are considering the responses to consultation and we shall announce our decisions as soon as possible.

I welcome what the Minister said, but may I ask her to be much braver and to look at other matters, especially things that adversely affect leaseholders in the borough where she lives when she is in London, of which I am a Member of Parliament—Southwark? Will she consider the fact that many boroughs, including Southwark, wait to do capital works on estates until the protected period for new purchasers is over, when they do not have to make much of a contribution, so that the leaseholders suddenly have to make a whacking contribution to the cost of what is otherwise a council development?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to another aspect on which the Government are about to consult—the future of leaseholding. We expect in the next few weeks to issue a consultation document on leaseholding, and the hon. Gentleman will then have every opportunity to make representations.

Do the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to help people who, having been encouraged to do so, buy properties—such as high-rise flats—and then discover that those properties are worthless?

Earlier this year, we announced proposals to offer councils a financial incentive to buy back ex-council flats and houses from owners in difficulty. We aim to enable people to enter home ownership and to sustain that wherever possible. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is impossible to re-sell some properties because they are in a block on which lenders are unwilling to consider granting mortgages. Councils have the right—which they were given by the previous Administration—to buy back such properties. Under our proposals, 25 per cent. of councils' costs would be covered.

May I ask the Minister, lest she be tempted to do anything foolish, to think carefully before acting on proposals that will discourage home ownership and make it more difficult for tenants, especially in London and the south, to buy their own homes? Does she accept that the changes that are proposed will adversely affect approximately one in 10 families in England and one in four families in London, and that their discounts could be reduced by between £12,000 in London and £28,000 in the north-east? What possible justification is there for that type of attack on home ownership?

I find it amusing that the hon. Gentleman cautions me about being foolish, but there you go, Madam Speaker. As I said in my previous answer, we are interested in sustainable home ownership, but we are also interested in ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money. Both those interests must be upheld in pursuing this policy. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated somewhat.

No. It is in the Minister's answer.

Order. I will not have comments from sedentary positions, whether they are from Front Benchers or Back Benchers.

It is not one in four families in London who will be affected but one in four of those who buy at the top end of the market and who are already council tenants. The present figure for council tenancy in London is far from one in four families, so the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. He clearly has not listened to what I have said—but that is not untypical.

What proposals he has for environmental improvements in the Lake district. [58605]

In order to enhance the environment and preserve the special character of the national park, the Government are working with local partners in developing a sustainable Lake district transport strategy. The Government will also provide the Association of National Park Authorities with an additional £2 million next year to improve national parks generally. I can inform my hon. Friend that the Cumbria area has so far received almost £1 million for its rural bus initiatives.

My hon. Friend is well aware that there are major problems with road and rail systems and the environment in Cumbria—particularly in the Lake district. Can we be assured that the important review that is now going on—which we all called for—will change the environment and have a real impact on Cumbria, which has gone without for many generations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in this area for many years since his election as a Member of Parliament. He knows that the Secretary of State and I are interested in trying to implement a real strategy for the Cumbria area in order to sort out some of its problems. The Deputy Prime Minister and I visited the area on 10 October this year, and I visited again on 17 October. We have already put together a grant in aid for the Cumbria county council of £150,000 for work on the development of multi-modal interchange facilities for the area. The core partnerships in the Lake district are about to start work on that. We hope to produce a report shortly, which we shall bring before the House.

Will the Minister accept that his interest, and that of his colleagues, in the affairs of Cumbria is very welcome? However, it would be helpful if he could give some idea of the time scale for reaching some firm conclusions. Will he reassure my constituents that he will bear in mind the unique nature of the area and its dependence on tourism? In particular, does he now recognise that Kendal is not in West Cumbria? Will he confirm that he now has more of an understanding of the geography of Cumbria than of Cyprus?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know where Cumbria is, as I visited the area many times when I was much younger. The Government acknowledge that tourism is very important to Cumbria. Any changes made will benefit the area so that more people can visit and have a better time when they are there.

What representations he has received from the Local Government Association regarding the local government finance settlement for 1999–2000. [58606]

The Local Government Association and special interest groups within it have made a number of representations during discussions on next year's financial settlement for local government.

I am sure that those groups were grateful to the Minister for her valuable time. Will she now find time to meet a delegation from Wiltshire county council, which will explain to her the consequences of last year's settlement and the £100 million that her Government robbed from shire counties? Sparsity and rural poverty in Wiltshire make it one of the eight worst-funded counties in England. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's constituency, which did conspicuously well in last year's settlement. Will the Minister explain why that was so?

The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Prime Minister represents a rural constituency, too. At the request of the LGA, I have met each of the groupings in the LGA, including the county councils network. The hon. Gentleman knows from his previous position, before he became a Member of Parliament, that the period for representations on individual budgets comes once the settlement has been announced. If Wiltshire wants to make representations, we will consider them. Following the actions on which I suspect the hon. Gentleman had some influence under the previous Government, we want to make the settlement much fairer than it was when we took office. The hon. Gentleman may be able to give us lessons on how to make sure that some councils get more money than others.

I accept that the Government's objective is to make the distribution far fairer, but alterations to area cost adjustments and standard spending assessments while the overall limit remains fixed will only please some people and upset others. Will my hon. Friend recognise the plight of councils such as Burnley, which have had their capping level frozen for a number of years? Those are a small group of authorities with a particular problem, which I hope the Government will try to correct.

My hon. Friend is honest when he admits that, when one redistributes money, some gain and some lose, and that one can never please everybody all the time. The position of the authorities that he represents has been put to me. I have met that grouping. My hon. Friend will also know that the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear, following the comprehensive spending review, that there will be no pre-announced capping limits this year.

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the vindictive attack on some of the shire counties, is the Minister aware that there is a sub-group of local authorities that have both rural and urban characteristics—the town and country issues group? This is the third time that I have raised their plight with her in the House. Could it be third time lucky? If she has not already done so, will she agree to meet that group?

The House is no doubt becoming aware that, if I saw every delegation before the settlement was announced, we would not have time to do the work necessary to deliver the settlement. We saw every delegation that asked to see us after the last settlement. Since then, I have met the LGA in partnership meetings and I have met the groupings recommended to us by the LGA. I have read and listened to the arguments of the town and country issues group on many occasions. I utterly reject any suggestion of vindictive treatment of shire counties last year. Far from it—we are delivering a much fairer settlement than the right hon. Lady's Government ever managed to do.

The majority of local government appreciates the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend and discuss matters before the SSA is settled. Will she ensure that the planned 15 per cent. increase in SSAs over the next three years provides an opportunity to distribute resources more fairly in local government, without any authority losing money? Will she assure the House and the country that she will live up to the promise to make the settlement fairer, so that authorities such as mine receive a fairer deal over the next three years?

We have made it clear that we are seeking to move to a much fairer settlement. There are difficult issues on the table this year. I hope that, when the statement is made to the House in two or three weeks' time, the House will recognise that the Government have listened to the representations made to them and have taken steps towards establishing fairness. The Government are putting substantial new money into local government over the next three years as a result of the comprehensive spending review. That is a demonstration of our commitment to local government and our support for the public services that it delivers.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that for many years local authorities, such as Somerset county council, have prioritised spending on education and social services at the expense both of other vital services and of non-statutory services. When can local government expect the Government to allow it the financial freedom to meet the needs and priorities of its local citizens?

The hon. Lady seems to be asking for every service to have priority, but the very nature of priority is that one prioritises. The Government have a manifesto commitment to prioritise health and education. We have made it clear through the comprehensive spending review that we will lift crude and universal capping, but we have also made it clear that we regard local government as an important part of the public sector and, therefore, of the overall public purse.

Is the Minister aware of the findings of the recent independent report produced for the county councils network that school transport costs more per pupil in rural areas than in urban areas?

As I have said, I have received representations from the county councils network. I have met its representatives and we shall take their representations into account when reaching decisions on the settlement.

If the hon. Lady agrees with those findings, does she accept that the Government's decision—it was her Government's decision—to switch £100 million away from rural areas in this year's settlement was wrong? Does she also accept that boasting, as she has often done, of making a £50 million rural transport grant to the very areas that she has already robbed of £100 million, is not only naive but ludicrous?

The right hon. Lady does not seem to learn from one Question Time to another. I made it absolutely clear at the previous Question Time that the her figures are wrong. If one takes the amount of money going into those rural areas along with that going to the shire districts and counties, one sees that there was nothing like a switch of £100 million. The right hon. Lady knows that, but she chooses to ignore it. That is politics, and I accept that. But the right hon. Lady also chooses to denigrate the £150 million that will go into rural bus services during the next three years. I do not wonder that she tries to do that, because the Conservative Government, of which she was a member, ensured that some rural areas simply had no buses. I hope that she is proud of her actions.

What monitoring is undertaken by his Department on the siting of proposed (a) animal incinerators and (b) household waste incinerators. [58607]

Details on the siting of waste incinerators which are subject to planning permission are kept on the planning registers of local planning authorities. My Department keeps details of planning permissions granted and refused for incineration development both with energy recovery and without energy recovery, which can be used for monitoring. These records do not differentiate between animal and household waste incinerators.

The village of Burscough in my constituency has been under siege for some time now by developers who wish to site three animal incinerators there. Alongside that, neighbouring local authorities plan to increase the number of household waste incinerators. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we desperately need a strategic overview of the location of incinerators and, with that in mind, will he review the document issued by the Department in August 1997, which says that incinerators can be installed without planning permission where there is a building or land already designated for general industrial use? Would that not mean that, wherever there was an industrial site in Britain, incinerators could sprout up, without local people or local authorities being able to object to them?

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. A planning application for the development of an incinerator—whether it is made in an industrial area or not—has to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations dictate otherwise, and in the light of planning guidance from the Department.

What discussions he has had with local authorities about the effect of travellers on local communities. [58608]

We have had a number of discussions with local authorities, and with hon. Members, about gipsies and travellers. These have helped us to develop our policy on unauthorised camping, set out in "Managing Unauthorised Camping: A Good Practice Guide", which we published on 29 October, jointly with the Home Office. The good practice guidance stresses the need for local authorities and the police to develop joint protocols to deal more effectively with this issue. The good practice guidance, and the associated research report, are in the Library.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the substantial costs that may be incurred by landowners and local businesses in obtaining court orders, and that local authorities have powers to obtain similar court orders more cheaply and quickly than those private applicants? Will he issue further guidance to local authorities to assist local businesses to obtain court orders so that we may be able to achieve a cheaper and more efficient way of removing some travellers, who are causing difficulties and expense for local communities and businesses?

I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. I draw her attention to paragraph 4.5 of the good practice guidance, which specifically identifies the extent to which local authorities may assist private owners in action where there is unauthorised occupation as one of the issues that should be developed as part of local plans. I therefore urge her to talk to her local authority and the local police to develop an effective local protocol.

Does the Minister recognise that we have a serious problem in Bedfordshire? One receives repeated representations from the farming community about the cost to farmers and other landowners of the removal of unauthorised travellers. Will he make the most urgent inquiries to find out whether the system be improved and made cheaper?

The evidence from the research undertaken by the university of Birmingham, on which we based the good practice guidance, was that there were wide variations in the performance of different local authorities and, indeed, different police authorities, in their response to the problem of unauthorised camping. The purpose of the good practice guidance, therefore, is to show what can be achieved, efficiently and cost-effectively, by the areas where there is the best co-operation. We want that to spread throughout the country, which is precisely why we issued the guidance, less than a month ago. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will commend it to his local authority and police.

Which parts of the country will be involved in the children's parliament. [58609]

The children's parliament on the environment is open to all schools in England with year 6 pupils, building on the interest that young people have in their environment and giving them the opportunity to develop an understanding of the democratic process. I am pleased to announced that more than 2,000 schools have so far registered to participate.

Given that climate change is likely to be one of the topics discussed at the children's parliament, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he is satisfied with the outcome of the Buenos Aires conference?

I was pleased with the Buenos Aires conference, which followed a successful Kyoto conference at which legal targets for gas emissions were agreed. The Buenos Aires conference maintained that momentum and agreed a two-year action programme to ensure that climate change policy can be put into practice, and it sends the signal that Governments are serious about the urgent need to tackle the threat of global warming.

As I chair a steering group that hopes to establish a UK youth parliament in 2000, may I ask what is the budget for the children's parliament?

It is estimated at approximately £300,000.

What action his Department is proposing to take to curb the activities of freeholders who demand retrospective payment from leaseholders for alterations made to their homes. [58610]

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the large payments that are sometimes demanded from leaseholders who alter their homes. That is just one example of how leaseholders can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords. We hope to issue shortly a consultation paper on leasehold reform.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the activities of companies such as Ladybrook Securities, Simarc Property Management, Chancery Lane Estates, Leafenvoy Ltd, Grace Favour Ltd, Compton Developments and Urban Point Property Management? They all have a track record throughout Greater Manchester, including my constituency of Bury, North, of issuing extortionate demands to leaseholders for minor administrative procedures such as retrospective consent for planning permission or notification of change of ownership. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the scandalous exploitation of leaseholders will be tackled head on in the forthcoming consultation document?

I am well aware of the extensive concern, expressed by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members from his region and other parts of the country, about the activities of some unscrupulous landlords who use loopholes in legislation to extract unreasonable sums from leaseholders. We are very concerned about it and are determined to tackle the abuse. I ask my hon. Friend to bear with us and wait for the forthcoming consultation paper to see precisely how we propose to end the abuse.

Does the Minister accept that opportunities for leaseholders were considerably extended by the Housing Act 1996, introduced by the previous Government? Will he consider giving leaseholders an opportunity to apply directly to leasehold valuation tribunals in cases that commenced before that Act came into force, rather than simply allowing the courts to transfer such cases, as he is now considering?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the option of transferring cases from a court to a leasehold valuation tribunal. That will apply only in cases that are currently before the courts, and it would be wrong to deny the courts an opportunity to reach a view on such cases. However, we have acted in response to concerns expressed by leaseholders to make it possible, where the courts consider it appropriate, for the more informal£and sometimes better informed£leasehold valuation tribunals to deal with those complex and technical issues. That is the basis on which we have acted.

The Minister referred to the consultation paper, which, in 1997, was promised for the following spring. It now appears that the consultation paper will be issued in spring 1999, which is more than a year late. May I urge the Minister to speed up the process on behalf of thousands of leaseholders throughout the country who suffer from malpractice by unscrupulous landlords or who have great difficulty in enfranchising themselves—something that they expected to be able to do under the previous Government's legislation?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a history of frequent, ill-considered change in leasehold legislation. The previous Government's motives were often good, but the legislation was not properly thought through and, as a consequence, proved unworkable. That is why we are determined to get the package right this time and have given it careful and serious thought. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), we intend to publish a consultation paper shortly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait until next spring to see it.

If he will make a statement about his policy on green-belt land. [58611]

The Government's policy was stated in our response to the 10th report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. We said:

"the Government favours robust Green Belt boundaries and a continuing presumption against inappropriate development within them."

However many houses our nation will need between now and 2016, and however great the proportion that can be built on brown-field sites or recycled land and land earmarked for industrial development, given that some will have to be built on green-field sites, why cannot the Government give a continuing commitment to protect established green-belt land, especially as it represents less than an eighth of England's countryside? Why cannot the Minister give that simple commitment?

I want to put on record the fact that, since the Government came to power in May 1997, the amount of green belt has considerably increased. Each case will be judged on its merits. We have a specific commitment to PPG2 on the green belt. As for household growth, we are ensuring that this becomes a regional issue, we have made a commitment that 60 per cent. of building will be on brown-field sites, and we have commissioned the inquiry under Lord Rogers of Riverside. We have done more to protect the green belt in the past 18 months than the previous Administration did in 18 years.

If he will make a statement on the impact of the level of fuel duties on pollution. [58634]

It is estimated that, over the period 1996–2002, the road fuel duty escalator—if continued at its current level of an increase of 6 per cent. per annum in real terms—will save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon in 2010, compared with the carbon emissions that would occur in 2010 under the alternative of no real duty increases over the relevant period.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. What estimate has he made of the impact that this enormous increase in duties will have on inflation, our business competitiveness and the automobile and related trades? Does he agree that, even if he achieves the figures that he has given, there is a distinct risk that the price in jobs, businesses and prosperity could be very high indeed?

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his Government introduced the policy of a real increase in fuel duty. As it happens, we agree with that policy, but he obviously does not, which is probably why he is no longer a Front-Bench spokesman. The Government have made their commitment clear. We are committed to environmental considerations to achieve an improvement in the environment, and to working with motor manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient engines with fewer emissions, so that motorists can not only save money, but contribute to an improvement in air quality and in the general environment. I am sure that that commitment is supported by motorists and non-motorists alike. It was advanced by the previous Government and has been continued by this Government. It seems that on this, as on many other questions, the right hon. Gentleman is isolated.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, and the change in policy and momentum that the new Government have achieved. Will he examine more carefully the excellent example of the landfill tax? It is a hypothecated tax linked to landfill, and is doing much for the environment up and down the country. Could we have more hypothecated taxes that the public can see are linked to environmental improvement?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend will be well aware that, in a landmark decision, the Deputy Prime Minister, with the Chancellor's agreement, proposed that we should have hypothecated taxation or charging to enable local authorities to take action on congested roads. That is a major step forward for the environment and for the reduction of congestion. It allows greater transparency, and will enable people to see that the charges they pay are being put towards the real alternative of a reliable, safe and modern public transport system. Once again, the Government are contributing towards the improvement of the environment and the creation of choice for motorists and non-motorists alike.

Given that the last Conservative Government imposed some £25 billion in extra fuel duties on motorists and that the new Government's policies would impose another £9 billion, is it not time—if we are to sell the principle of environmental taxation—to give something back to the taxpayer? That should be done not by making a small cut in vehicle excise duty, a proposal on which the Government are consulting, but by abolishing the duty—which is a tax on ownership rather than use of vehicles—for all but the most gas-guzzling cars.

The Government have given a great deal back to the taxpayer, in both environmental and transport terms. An example mentioned earlier is the £150 million for rural transport services, part of the £1.7 billion extra for transport. The hon. Gentleman may not know about the fuel duty rebates with which we are encouraging local authorities to make buses the centrepiece of local transport plans. We are taking a number of other measures. For instance, we are considering introducing a variable car tax. Under proposals announced by the Chancellor, there would be a lower car tax for smaller, more efficient vehicles.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's announced intention to engage in yet more consultation—this time on variable rates of vehicle excise duty—has been memorably described by Friends of the Earth as "Carry on Consulting"? When will he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stop walking and talking, as his right hon. Friend keeps putting it, and start making some decisions—or are they waiting for the Treasury to tell them what to do again?

"Carry on Consulting" is slightly preferable to "Carry on Matron", which is what we see every time the right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box. I am surprised that she, as a leading member of what we are now told were a caring, sharing, sensitive, listening Government, should be so opposed in principle to consulting people. Perhaps, if that Government had consulted slightly more, she would not now be sitting on the Opposition Benches.

It is absolutely true that those who pollute most should pay most. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the longer-term prospects are for leaner-burn and more efficient, effective and economic combustion systems that will reduce all pollutants from engines, and will enable us over time to deal with the matter in a quite different way—not simply through price mechanisms?

My hon. Friend has put his point as succinctly as anyone could have.

If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the A303. [58636]

We are committed to carrying out the improvement of the A303 alongside Stonehenge and to a bypass of Winterbourne Stoke. The strategic role of the A303 and its remaining single carriageway sections will be considered as part of the corridor study from London to the south-west and south Wales. We will consult the regional planning conferences on this.

Can the Minister distinguish between schemes that are simply intended to make the road bigger and faster and to take people to Cornwall more quickly, and those that will save lives and relieve communities of heavy traffic? Will she look again at the section from Sparkford to Ilchester, and the slip road to the A359 which will relieve the village of Queen Camel?

I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's rejection of an imaginative scheme that will protect what is surely one of the most important historic sites in the world, and is a clear demonstration of the close co-operation between Departments across Government.

Is the Minister aware that the delay of some five to seven years caused by the new study will give concern to my constituents, and to those using the A303 where it meets the A30 in my constituency? She will know that the A30 from Honiton to Exeter is being dualled and is a new road, which we welcome, but that the holiday build-up, particularly in July and August—which will be alleviated when the new road opens—will cause problems further back on that stretch of the A303 where it meets the A30. Is she content that, while another study is carried out, there will be mayhem for people trying to get into the west country in summer?

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Lady seems to have plucked out of the air the figure of seven years. We hope that, subject to the regional planning conference, the study will start next year. However, as many sections of the scheme returned with boring regularity between 1989 and 1996 under her Administration—part of that inevitable wish list that everyone knew would never be achieved—I find her remarks somewhat absurd.

When the new rolling stock will come fully into service on the London Underground Northern line; and what has caused the delays. [58637]

Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] Perhaps that passes in the House for the cry of, "Encore."

I am sure that, like mine, the hon. Lady's constituents will be deeply disappointed at the delays in bringing the new rolling stock on to the Northern line. As the private finance initiative negotiated contract contained a specific clause placing financial penalties on the manufacturers and suppliers of the rolling stock for late delivery, can she say what financial compensation will be paid either to the Government or to London Transport?

On the ground of commercial confidentiality, I regret that I cannot give the absolute figure, but there is little doubt that those companies are having to pay penalties for their failure to meet their side of the contract.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to cast some light into the black hole of London Underground's finances? We know that the London Underground subsidy ceases in 2000, that the costs of the Jubilee line extension are up by £100 million this year, and that further losses are to be announced due to the delay in finishing the extension. How does she intend to make up those losses? Will it be by grant, or will they be added to London Underground's balance sheet?

I would have thought that even the hon. Gentleman had been in post long enough to be able to drop his usual approach, which is not only ill-mannered, but ill-informed. As he well knows, the Government have found an additional £365 million for London Underground, which means that, over the next two years, it will be able to meet the full commitment of £550 million a year, a maintenance bill that was left because of the previous Administration's failure, year on year, adequately to core-fund London Underground.

What representations he has received on the publication of the strategic roads review. [58638]

We have received a number of representations on various aspects of the review following its publication at the end of July.

Will the Minister help me to explain, to those who tell me their objections and share some of my concerns, the apparent conflicts in the Government's policy on widening the M25? How does he square the proposal to widen the M25, substantially on its western side, with the Government's air quality strategy, bearing in mind the fact that, within two years, PM 10—particulate matter—levels, for example, will exceed levels stated in that strategy?

I shall, as ever, do what I can to assist my hon. Friend. He will be aware that there were proposals—which the Government examined very closely—to widen large sections of the M25. The Government considered and withdrew proposals to widen between junctions 15 and 16 and between junctions 16 and 19. The Government decided to go ahead with specific proposals on the area between junctions 12 and 15, because we have to start by dealing with the situation as it is. Those three junctions are acutely congested, largely because of negligence by the previous Government.

Nothing to do with terminal 5?

Unfortunately, we inherited the world that was left to us by the previous Government, which was not an ideal one. We decided to go ahead with widening proposals on that section, having rejected proposals on the other two sections.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Labour Members used to tell us that widening the M25 was £100 million of motorway madness? It is comforting now to hear him using the same type of words that we used when trying to explain the situation to Labour Members when they were in opposition. Now that the transport White Paper has been launched—providing a photo-opportunity on the tube for the Secretary of State, before he skulked back to his Jaguar—and the roads review has been celebrated, this morning, with the opening of the Newbury bypass, at dead of night and in secret, what are we to expect? What exactly is the Government's transport policy?

In 18 months, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department over which he presides produced more common sense, strategic reasoning, detailed plans and money to assist the transport systems than the previous Government managed to do in 18 years. The reason that he was able to list documents and action across a whole range of sectors—including sustainable distribution, local authority plans, congestion charging, buses, shipping and aviation policy—is that the present Government have tackled all those strategic issues which lay in abeyance for so long under the previous Government. The people of Britain deserve a better transport system and we are going to give it to them.

Among the representations that the Minister has received, has he had any along the lines of that submitted by the Conservative council adjacent to my constituency, which welcomed the thrust of the strategic transport policy, the roads review and the cutbacks on road projects all over the country, except for the two in its immediate vicinity?

Yes, indeed. Many councils congratulated us on our approach to an integrated transport policy—even some Conservative councils, not all of which had benefited from a new bypass. I assure my hon. Friend that there are a number of fair-minded Conservative councils. Of course, there are also councils that take the view that it is fine for everyone else to contribute to an integrated transport policy and a better environment, but that they should somehow be excluded from consideration. By and large, however, the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that are in the White Paper have been widely welcomed, not only by local authorities, but by the transport industry and, most important, by the people of this country who have waited too long for a decent, reliable, safe transport system.

What incentives his Department is offering to transfer freight from road to rail; and if he will make a statement. [58639]

What steps he will take to encourage the increased use of the railways for freight transport. [58640]

What measures he is taking to encourage the transport of freight by rail. [58641]

The Government want to see more freight move by rail. Last year, we doubled spending on freight grants from £15 million to £30 million and we further increased grants to £40 million. In contrast to the previous Administration, we are spending every penny of it. Next spring, we will have a shadow strategic rail authority to ensure that freight is taken fully into account in planning and developing the rail network.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that the transfer of freight from road to rail in Wales would be far easier and much improved if there were a direct rail link between Holyhead and Cardiff? In that context, has he had the opportunity to look at the report by Friends of the Earth Cymru strongly advocating that?

We are studying several reports on improving the freight rail system. A number of years ago, I considered the issue of Holyhead in respect of the trans-Pennine link with Europe and the land bridge concept. There are great opportunities and we are providing support for them at the moment.

My right hon. Friend knows that, in my constituency, there have been many complaints from businesses and industries that are trying to export, but are unable to exploit the rail freight network. Will he tell us in more detail the precise effects that his announcement will have on rail freight tonnage and the longer-term plans to develop the Government's excellent policy?

We have taken a long-term view, particularly in regard to services to Europe. We renegotiated the channel tunnel link and we are now negotiating with the French authorities to see how we can improve the European services. We have asked Railtrack to look at all possible freight rail systems and the piggyback systems, and we are about to receive a report. We are pleased that a number of companies have increased the number of their wagons and engines, leading to a 12.5 per cent. growth in rail freight services in 1997–98—for the first time in many years.

My right hon. Friend's reply will be welcomed, not least by three groups in my constituency: those communities that live next to main roads; the quarrying industry, which has already announced its intention to increase the amount of freight going by rail; and those campaigning for the restoration of the Buxton to Matlock rail link. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the strategic rail authority will help to take forward the campaign to increase the amount of freight on the rails?

The strategic rail authority will consider a multi-modal approach to maximise the contribution of road and rail interchanges, including park-rail systems, by which cars can connect with main rail systems, or the rail interchange systems, which have increased considerably in the past 12 months. Those are ways in which we can improve the possibilities, alongside increasing grants and encouraging people to move more to rail. There are clear signs of that change, with 12.5 per cent. growth this year. To coin a phrase, we are getting there.