When he plans to publish his proposals to establish the beacon council scheme. [68263]

When he will publish his proposals to establish the beacon council scheme. [68275]

Today, we have published a prospectus on the beacon council scheme. The scheme will recognise the best councils as centres of excellence, from which we can all learn. We want the best public services for people in this country, and the scheme will help all those councils to give the best value and a better deal to local people.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the superb timing of that publication. I had no idea that my question would produce such instant results. I welcome the scheme and the opportunity that it gives for local government to develop excellent services for local people. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that beacon councils spread best practice to other local authorities?

My hon. Friend is right—her timing is perfect. The Government intend that beacon councils will be selected by Government on the advice of an independent advisory panel. We are also working in partnership with the Local Government Association to co-ordinate a national programme to spread best practice. The beacon councils will have to be willing to do the job of spreading best practice, because we intend not only that there should be excellence, but that others should learn from it. We are therefore insisting on this approach and encouraging councils to adopt it.

My right hon. Friend knows that Blyth Valley council in my constituency hopes to take up the flag as a beacon council after the May elections. Although I am not entirely convinced, I wish the programme every success. I have my doubts, but we shall have to wait and see. What difference will the scheme make to the taxpayers of Blyth Valley—in other words, will there be any more money?

The House will recognise my hon. Friend's comments as an enthusiastic endorsement. He asks an important question about the costs involved in the scheme. We are concerned about the local taxpayer. We are making available up to £700,000 in various grants for the seminars and visits, so there is no charge as such on local authorities who have the benefit of a centre of excellence. Moreover, if councils enjoy beacon status, they will already have demonstrated very good practice, from which local council taxpayers will already benefit.

Mr. Crispin Blunt.

rose—

I thought I was more articulate than that.

What chance is there of Reigate and Banstead becoming a beacon council, when its resources from central Government are undergoing a real cut? The Deputy Prime Minister told me in the House last Thursday:

"The hon. Gentleman's authority, like all the others, will receive more than it did last year. That is a basic fact."—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1140.]

I shall deal with one beacon at a time.

In principle, we welcome any scheme that makes local authorities centres of excellence that enhance the quality of service and the cost-effectiveness of services provided to local communities. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that we question how effective the initiative will be, given that over the past 12 months there has been a cancer of corruption in Labour local authorities such as Walsall, Rotherham and Doncaster?

The House is concerned about excellence in local authorities and will condemn corruption wherever it takes place. The Government have done so wherever corruption has taken place, in Labour or Tory authorities. When the charter mark was given out under the previous Administration, there was mass corruption in Westminster but not a word of condemnation from the previous Administration.

What representations he has received on Railtrack investment in the upgrading of the lines from Ramsgate and Dover to Ashford. [68264]

Ministers have received no representations about Railtrack investment on the upgrading of the lines from Ramsgate and Dover to Ashford, although I understand that the franchising director has recently written to my hon. Friend about the quality of service on those lines.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her answer. I wonder whether she has any masochistic tendencies: would she like to try making a train journey from London to either Ramsgate or Dover? She would find herself in an antediluvian carriage, knee-deep in filth, and would probably conclude that the journey would be quicker on the back of a lame tortoise.

Open-minded though I am, masochism has never had any appeal for me, but the picture that my hon. Friend paints is a clear indication of the failure of the previous Administration to ensure that sufficient investment was made in our national railway system. However, any upgrading of the lines would be a matter for Railtrack. Its 1998 network management statement contained so few firm commitments that it caused the regulator to seek improvements to track quality, capacity constraints and dialogue with industry, which were agreed with Railtrack in July 1998.

I am sure that commuters from my constituency will be slightly disappointed that the Minister prefers strategies and meetings to action on that point. May I put to her a practical point, which she may like to take? In the long run, the commuting services from east Kent into London would be improved by competition. Will she give an indication that she will allow domestic services to run on the channel tunnel rail link, when it is introduced? That would provide extra capacity and competition, which would improve services for commuters. Will she make that positive commitment now?

The hon. Gentleman clearly paid no attention whatever to what the previous Administration did—regardless of the fact that he is a member of their party—in respect of the strictures that they set in place on rail privatisation.

If he will make a statement on the improvements proposed by Connex South Eastern to its train service to Kent. [68265]

Connex is taking part in discussions with other industry parties to identify potential solutions to the capacity problems experienced on a number of their routes. I sincerely hope that any solutions to these capacity problems will also help to improve reliability and punctuality.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said, much of the rolling stock is filthy and dilapidated, and it is not uncommon for basics, such as water in the toilet, to be lacking. When he has his summit, will he take on board the fact that there are only two direct trains to the Medway towns? They provide a service for the 250,000 people who live there, so 25,000 commuters every day are served by only two direct trains. Could capacity be increased by at least one train to improve the rail services to the people in the Medway towns?

I shall take account of my hon. Friend's comments. The tragedy is that, almost every day, we hear of another horror story about one of our railway services. Only this morning, a colleague of mine stood on a platform at Elmstead Wood and three Connex trains in 25 minutes were cancelled.

The rail service between London Victoria and Herne Bay and Margate has been frightful throughout the winter. I welcome the assurances that have been given and the work that the right hon. Gentleman is doing to improve matters. I also welcome the fact that Connex has introduced some new trains, and more are to be delivered in the spring.

As the hon. Gentleman said, in his area, as in many others, there is a desperate need for investment in the railways infrastructure. Hon. Members on both sides will have noticed the recent comments of the acting Rail Regulator about the need to divert more of the surplus profits made by Railtrack into investment in our railways, rather than distributing them.

Like a number of colleagues who have spoken, I travel to London every day, unfortunately on the dreaded Victoria to Sittingbourne line. I caught it last night at five past 11, and I got home at a quarter past one. It is usually an hour's journey.

It will be not so much an away day as an "at home" for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 25 February. Of course my hon. Friend's constituency may well be mentioned. However, the comments that are made daily by hon. Members on both sides of the House should send a message to the train operators and to Railtrack that Parliament, on behalf of the people whom we represent, finds the present performance of the railway system intolerable. There must be year-on-year improvements if the railway companies are to carry the public with them.

What representations he has received regarding a bypass for Wing in Buckinghamshire. [68266]

The A418 is a local authority road and any proposals for a bypass for Wing are a matter for Buckinghamshire county council. The council's transport policy and programme bid for 1999–2000 did not include a proposal for a bypass at Wing.

I am grateful to the Minister, who I hope will be aware that, only last month, I presented a petition on behalf of 1,800 constituents calling for a bypass for Wing on the outer northern route. Given the four fatal and two serious accidents within 2 km either side of the A418 at Wing in the past two years, the prospective rise in pupil numbers at the Cottesloe school from 600 to 1,100, and the fact that residents of 14 old people's cottages in the village cannot cross the road without fear of death from heavy goods vehicles, does the Minister agree that the case for a bypass should be developed, a protected route agreed and, as soon as possible, a construction date announced for a suitable bypass?

I understand that Buckinghamshire county council is currently preparing a private finance initiative bid for another road scheme—the Stoke Hammond bypass. That is its first priority. The reasons for the previous Administration withdrawing the programme in 1995 and the environmental reasons for abandoning the original concept remain—namely, a presumption against building new roads across open countryside. The Government's new integrated transport policy looks to road building as a last resort to be used when all other options have been exhausted.

What progress he has made towards establishing the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. [68268]

We are making good progress towards establishing the Strategic Rail Authority. I hope that there will be time in the current Session to introduce a Bill to create the Strategic Rail Authority. In the meantime, we are establishing a shadow SRA which will be operational by the spring. I will announce its chairman soon.

Many in the House know of my interest in railways, but my main interest concerns my constituents who want to travel by rail. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether progress will be made towards formulating the Strategic Rail Authority so that it can play a full part in the rail summit on 25 February?

Yes. I hope that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be established on 1 April with the new chairman of the British Railways Board and the new franchising director in place. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority will take early action to ensure that the train operators deliver a better performance. It will also provide a strategic plan for the railway industry which will put the passenger to the fore.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the new Strategic Rail Authority will not include any plans to renationalise parts of Railtrack or any other parts of the railway?

The Strategic Rail Authority will have its functions spelled out in the relevant Bill. It will have powers to enforce a better railway system than we have at present. Of course, even under the previous Administration, such authorities retained the right for those bodies—or the Government—to take over a failing railway system. There had to be somebody to step in if the private sector decided that it had had enough, that it was not making enough profits and wanted to pull out. That is the nature of private business, so under any Administration there always has to be an operator of last resort.

I know that my right hon. Friend will be aware that safety is one of the most urgent problems in rail. I hope that he can assure us that the new Strategic Rail Authority—before even the legislation establishing it is on board—will begin asking awkward questions, particularly about the signalling system. If it is true that companies such as Railtrack are letting contractors handle equipment that is likely to be dangerous—even after the companies know, from the report of the Clapham inquiry, that use of such equipment can lead to death and injury—there are very clear indications that urgent action has to be taken to restrain their profit-driven views.

My hon. Friend raises a very important matter to do with safety—for which, of course, the Health and Safety Executive has primary responsibility. However, the Strategic Rail Authority will be able to take into account wider issues, such as those that she raised on maintenance, signalling and Railtrack. All too often, we hear one party blaming another. The Strategic Rail Authority will be able actively to intervene and to give its opinion and judgment on safety in matters such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned.

While we await the arrival of the Strategic Rail Authority, may I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's comments that passengers should come first? However, I do not know quite where the SRA would be without the £20 billion of private capital made available by the policies of the previous Government. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman did not catch that, I said that £20 billion of private capital was brought in by our policies.

We can understand why the shadow Cabinet is considering changing the shadow Transport Front-Bench team. Although the Tories may think that Mr. Vroom-Vroom from "Top Gear" will improve their thinking on transport, such questions show the inadequacy of their thought on transport. The hon. Gentleman mentioned £20 billion in assets—which, I presume, takes into account Railtrack's three or fourfold asset-value increase, which was made possible simply because of the cheap price at which the previous Administration sold it. It was, in fact, a giveaway price. The hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government closed down the Mall just shows his total ignorance. It was closed by something called The Royal Parks, which is nothing to do with the Government.

May I tell my right hon. Friend how important is, and how long we have been waiting for, the Strategic Rail Authority to knock together the heads of Connex and Railtrack? In my own constituency, we have a single line from Hastings to Ashford which is unelectrified and which offers no hope of access to the channel tunnel. Connex says that it will do nothing about the line until its franchise is extended, and Railtrack says that it will do nothing without Connex's input. I hope that the Strategic Rail Authority will be able to sort them out.

It is quite clear from my hon. Friend's comments that we do not have rail integration because of the previous Government's obsessive—almost ideological—belief that integration was an alternative to competition, and that competition would solve the problems. Frankly, it will not. We have to integrate services—not only railway lines, but the other forms of transport, such as buses—and our White Paper was dedicated to dealing with that task. Our Strategic Rail Authority will place the emphasis on integration and putting passengers' interests first—not considerations of asset value and money, which have always been the obsession of Conservative Members.

What plans he has to ensure that road users have access to high-quality public transport alternatives. [68269]

Delivery of high-quality public transport, to give real choice to the travelling public, is the key to our integrated transport agenda. We shall deliver it through the £1.1 billion that we are providing over the next three years for local and public transport, through additional funds and through the Strategic Rail Authority and local transport plans.

I thank the Minister for that reply and for the small sums of money being made available for rural public transport in general and the Lake district in particular, but he will know that those sums are chickenfeed compared with the amount being taken out of the pockets of rural motorists by ever-increasing petrol prices. May I urge him to urge his colleagues in the Government to stop penalising rural motorists in south lakeland and elsewhere for travelling in the only way they can?

I do not think that the sums can fairly be described as chickenfeed—but, if they are, I wonder how the hon. Gentleman would describe the £1.9 billion less that was to be provided by the Conservative Government. We are developing local transport plans with the help of an additional £700 million and giving £150 million extra for rural buses in areas such as his. In addition, we have brought in quality partnerships on buses, and centres of excellence such as Manchester, with real integrated transport. There has been an increase in freight on rail for the first time in decades: there was a 12 per cent. increase last year and another 16 per cent. increase in the first six months of this year. We are making advances in all those areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the alternatives to road travel need to be attractive and comfortable? Current operating standards for rail operators allow excess loading of 30 per cent. That means that for 30 per cent. of the passengers in my constituency who travel from Harlow to London, paying more than £2,500 a year for the service, the trains are not an attractive alternative. That was the system bequeathed to us by the previous Government. It beggars belief to hear Conservative Members criticising current rail standards, which have been caused by that system. Meanwhile, the Strategic Rail Authority needs to tackle excess loading.

Yes, indeed. The worst and most profoundly anti-car policy would be to do nothing. That would increase congestion on our roads, increase pollution and increase discomfort, as has happened over the past two decades. I had hoped that, in view of the massive public disquiet about the railways, the Opposition would agree to put punctuality and reliability on trains above party politics.

I am sure that the Minister is sincere in wanting more people to use public transport instead of private cars. What representations has he made to his colleagues at the Treasury, who currently give tax breaks to those who drive gas-guzzling company cars but tax penalties to those who use public transport provided by the employer? Is he aware that the latest Treasury wheeze is to tax employees who are provided with company buses for the full subsidy that the company offers them, even if the public are also invited to use the buses for public transport?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Treasury never has wheezes; it has rational thought patterns and discussions. Without going into detail, I can confirm that the tax breaks that encourage people to drive more business miles, and the disincentive of taxation of benefits in kind for employers or employees who benefit from buses laid on to bring them to work, have been the subject of discussions between Departments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a coherent, local and integrated transport policy, including good-quality public transport, is needed in Sussex and Kent if those parts of the south-east are to benefit properly from the economic potential made possible by the channel tunnel? Will he join me in welcoming the initiative taken by Brighton and Hove council, East Sussex county council, West Sussex county council, BAA Gatwick, Sussex Enterprise and—I have to say—Connex South Central in producing the document "Transport: A New Horizon", which sets out the ways in which such an integrated transport policy could help to release the economic potential of the south coast?

Yes. Local transport plans must be the vehicle for the implementation of any strategic framework that we set at the centre. That is why local councils, local planning authorities and local transport executives are so important. There is no doubt that part of the integration is the physical integration of the various modes of transport, but that another part is the partnership between central and local government. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and those on the long list of those who have contributed to his local plan. We want to develop centres of excellence in this country, so that we can show—as we are in Manchester, and as we are beginning to do in South Yorkshire and Edinburgh—that, at long last, we can create a real and practical integrated transport system locally.

Will the Minister confirm that road users hoping to use London Underground in the last few days will have been disappointed by recent developments? Will he concede that, with his partial privatisation, Railtrack is no longer interested in the deep tubes and the trade unions are not interested in the partial privatisation? Is the Minister not falling between two stools? All that he wants from the private sector is its money, while he gives nothing in exchange. All that the trade unions want from him is his money, for which he is getting nothing in exchange. The loser is London. Why will he not reconsider the whole project?

If, in the course of his busy week, the hon. Gentleman has a chance to base his transport analysis on something other than hearsay evidence reported in newspapers, he will fare much better. No public-private partnership proposal has been received from Railtrack at any stage, although discussions have taken place. There has been no abandonment of Railtrack's commitment to the deep-line tubes, since it never expressed a particular interest in those in any case.

If he will make a statement on the current progress towards the elimination of radioactive discharges from nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in (a) Britain and (b) France. [68270]

The Government are fully committed to the agreement reached at the OSPAR ministerial meeting in Sintra, Portugal last year on the reduction of radioactive discharges from all sources, including reprocessing plants. The French Government have made a similar commitment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the independent monitoring data on the French plant at Cap le Hague and inform us about the current level of discharge from Sellafield? Does he agree that the only truly safe level for radioactive discharge is zero, and is he satisfied that 2020 is a safe target, in public health terms, for achieving that?

At the OSPAR meeting, it was agreed that there should be progressive and substantial reductions in radioactive discharges to the sea to a point that would add close to zero to historic concentrations of radioactive substances in the marine environment. We have asked the nuclear operators, including British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., to produce 20–year discharge strategies to meet the OSPAR objectives. That will certainly require that the level of discharges be close to zero by 2020. We have been assured by BNFL that it can fully meet that objective, and we certainly intend to hold it to that.

The right hon. Gentleman will surely know that the money that will have to go to BNFL to reduce already very safe levels could be put to much better use in promoting health. Radiation is given off when one burns coal and comes from granite and other sources in our natural environment. It is very foolish of the Government to sign up to such agreements, when, in fact, Sellafield and Cap le Hague are already extremely safe.

The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily complacent about the effect of radioactive discharges. Of course we are also concerned about the consequences of burning coal and emissions from granite, which are regulated by the Environment Agency and the other authorities, but it is perfectly clear that the level of radioactive discharge—which the previous Government agreed should continue to be reduced—is too high. A reduction is necessary for health reasons and a regular schedule for that continuing reduction is certainly justified. That is our policy; we are right to have it; and we certainly intend to fulfil it.

What plans he has for the regulation of the trading of carbon credits. [68271]

Developed countries took an historic step by agreeing legally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions in Kyoto. The agreement provides for emissions trading to help countries to meet their commitments. We are working to ensure that the international rules for trading promote an effective system that combines real environmental benefits with the flexibility for business to reduce emissions at least cost. That is a good example of the virtuous circle resulting in a win-win outcome.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his contribution to that agreement, but I wonder whether he is aware that major polluters in the United States have already found a way of subverting the trading of carbon credits, so that the public subsidise a transfer of payments to the polluter with no reduction in overall pollution. When he considers the regulations, will he take into account specifically what is being done by the Tennessee Valley authority in getting carbon credit transfers with neighbouring Wisconsin? Two rules may be usefully introduced, one precluding internal trading between or within industrial nations, and one introducing conditionality to carbon credits, requiring the polluter to demonstrate a major programme of pollution reduction before getting any trading entitlements.

I think that the House would like to congratulate my hon. Friend, who recently received the Green Ribbon award after being voted the best environmental politician of the year—especially as both I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) have also received that award. That is a good example of how hon. Members on both Front and Back Benches are walking in step, to the benefit of the environment.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the underlying logic of carbon credits is to reduce the use of carbon-intensive fuels such as coal and to increase the use of less carbon-intensive fuels such as gas? Does not the Government's present energy policy do precisely the opposite?

We are certainly not pursuing the policy on coal adopted by the previous Administration. That policy completely obliterated many communities, and I announced the coalfield community programme to assist them with the difficulties that they face. The Government have made it clear that we are prepared to look at coal energy policy, and we have announced that our aim is to achieve a proper balance between coal and gas.

May I genuinely congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the way in which he has carried forward the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in this important area? Does he share my disappointment that certain organisations characterised the Buenos Aires conference as an agenda for inaction? In the context of the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), how can certain developed countries be prevented from escaping their obligations through some clever footwork? It is clearly important that the developed world provides a proper and sincere lead for the developing world to ensure that we can get to grips with environmental problems.

I am grateful for the kind remarks made by hon. Gentleman. Those are very real problems and, starting from the first day that I took on my ministerial responsibilities, I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that I am grateful for the work done by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. He led the way in some of those matters, although the targets were largely voluntary. At Kyoto, we were working to achieve legal targets, and the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the delegation that I took there. The agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House is very welcome.

I did not make that criticism.

I take the point, but that criticism has been made. We won a good victory at Kyoto in achieving the legal targets but, given all the flexibilities involved, it takes more than 12 months to reach agreement. Britain led the way yet again: it was our formula that suggested that a period longer than 12 months was needed to get right the flexibilities on the matter of carbon trading. The issues involved are extremely difficult, and we shall bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the responsibilities are borne fairly by the developed countries that signed up to the agreement. If we do not ensure that, eventually the developing countries will refuse to co-operate and there will be no global agreement. We are well aware of the difficulties, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.

What assessment he has made of the benefits of road user charging in London. [68272]

The costs and benefits of road user charging were assessed in the London congestion charging research programme, published by the Government office for London in 1995.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that all revenues from road charging in London will be hypothecated for road transport investment in London? Will she also confirm that the Government's commitment to the A23 Coulsdon relief road will not be linked to any particular pricing or charging system in London?

I can confirm that any revenue raised will be hypothecated and that every penny will be spent on improving public transport in London. The A23 was part of our targeted improvement plan, and we have always said that any additional revenue raised from either congestion charging or the private non-residential parking levy will be additional to any money that central Government find for transport.

Is not London the worst possible place to introduce taxes on road users? Is the Minister aware of a recent report that shows that motorists will have to be charged about £8 a trip if they are to be deterred from entering a town centre? If, as reported, the Government, or a Labour mayor, intend to levy a charge of only £2, does the Minister agree that that will deter no one; that it will not solve the congestion problem; and that the Government are simply using the motorist as a milch cow, replacing the subsidy to London Underground that she will withdraw next year? In short, charging is a tax by the back door, and the Conservative party will oppose it.

I am amazed by that diatribe against an idea originally introduced by the Conservative Administration as part of a paper examining the possibility of raising additional revenues from congestion charging. As in so many areas, the previous Government failed. They failed to introduce charges or to ensure that any money so raised would be hypothecated for the improvement of public transport. That was yet another example of how the previous Government failed the country and, specifically, the people of London. We are redressing their failure, and we shall continue to do so.

What plans he has to reform the uniform business rate. [68273]

In Touch with the People", we said that local authorities would be given the power to levy a local rate of up to 5 per cent. of the national rate, provided that the local authority had effective consultation arrangements with business, and subject to business agreement on the use of the money raised. We also said that we would consider reducing the rate burden on small businesses. We said that we would first consult on the details; a consultation paper will be issued shortly.

I am disappointed by the lack of action on the uniform business rate, which is innately unfair, particularly to small businesses. If the UBR is considered alongside other measures, such as the way in which the Food Standards Agency is to be funded, does it not appear that the Government's policies favour the superstore over the high street shop?

The hon. Gentleman must have been disappointed with my reply, although I made it quite clear that we recognise the problems of small businesses and that we have agreed to consult them. I have already met representatives, and we shall issue a formal consultation paper in the near future. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to respond to it.

Will the Minister consider ensuring that north-west business rates can be spent by the new regional development agencies?

The business rate is an important aspect of local government taxation and of the way in which local government is funded. We want to retain it for those reasons. It ensures that businesses and councils work effectively together, which is essential if local authority areas are to progress. Our White Paper proposals must be properly consulted on, so that we can, with business and councils, find an effective way forward.

Given the current state of farming, will the Minister reconfirm the important principle under which farming businesses are exempt from the uniform business rate? Would she go further by considering the plight of those who breed and manage heavy horses, as people do in my constituency? The horses are essential to organic farming, but breeding attracts the business rate. Will the Minister reconsider that disincentive to green farming?

I have said that we will consult on the proposals in our White Paper. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that it contained no proposal to extend business rates to agricultural land.

If he will take steps to require the payment of returnable deposits on soft drink bottles and cans; and if he will make a statement. [68274]

Returnable deposits may be helpful in particular circumstances, but a legal requirement would conflict with the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 that are already in place to promote recycling and recovery and, in some circumstances, could be contrary to the European Community directive on packaging and packaging waste.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the days when he and I were lads, long before the aluminium tin can, we could get thruppence back on a bottle of Corona?

Tizer.

And Tizer. As a result, hedgerows and roadsides were not littered with soft and hard drink cans. Will the Minister look for a way around the problem that he has outlined because, were a deposit on drink cans and bottles to return, the problem of litter would disappear?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He may be aware that the deposits on bottles were a bit more in my day than in his, but we are continually looking at ways in which to resolve that problem. For example, for the past four years, the Department has been trying to negotiate a way forward with business. We have now come up with new regulations that will go a long way towards solving the problem, but we continue to search for ways in which to improve on that. We are working with business to try to find a voluntary arrangement to meet the criteria. Deposit schemes are not always best because they can sometimes incorporate heavy use of transport, which adds to pollution and CO₂ emissions.

As the Minister will know, I run a retail business in Swansea. In my younger days, I often accepted a shilling deposit back on a Corona bottle and on many other fizzy drinks bottles. I know that the business community would want to get involved in any voluntary schemes that were available, but is not part of the answer to those problems making more litter bins generally available throughout the country to encourage particularly young people to use those bins, so that they do not discard their refuse in people's gardens and in the streets?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working continually with the Department for Education and Employment, and funding groups such as the Tidy Britain campaign, to find a solution. We are working to educate the masses to save and to stop polluting and contaminating our society.

What measures the Government plan to reduce the mileage driven by company car users. [68276]

The Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" contains a wide range of measures to encourage more sustainable car use, many of which should help to discourage unnecessary mileage by company car drivers. We especially want to promote green transport plans among large employers; our aim is to reduce car use for travel to work and on business. The Government continue to review the company car taxation regime, to see how it might be altered to send better environmental signals.

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he consider requiring company car drivers to display prominently on their cars the name of their company and a telephone number, so that they are discouraged from using their cars on illegal journeys and dangerous driving is discouraged?

The hon. Gentleman in many ways symbolises what is good and bad about the Liberal party: the sentiment is good and the ideas completely batty. That plan would intrude on the privacy of those individuals and raise questions of security. That shows that it is an ill-thought-out plan. Therefore, although I am prepared to give an accolade to his good sentiments, I suggest that he think a little more about the practical implications of his proposals.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that transport is critical for the economic development of the eastern region? Does he agree that a change in company car taxation so that a bigger subsidy could be given to public transport would be one way to solve the severe congestion that we face, especially in the region around my constituency?

Yes, I accept that the eastern region is important for the economic development of the country as a whole. We have introduced the idea of a new income stream for local authorities through congestion charging, which partially meets my hon. Friend's point. Both sides of the House recognise that the main problem with company car taxation is that, at a certain level, there is an incentive to drive more business miles to pay less tax. I know that the matter has been, and continues to be, reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been discussed between Departments and between the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.