What plans he has to take action against incompetent and dishonest builders; and if he will make a statement. [78815]

The Government are determined to combat the scourge of cowboy builders, who cause immense misery and serious problems for thousands of consumers and damage the image of the whole construction industry. Our work has taken another major step forward in the last week with the cowboy working group's interim report, which sets out detailed proposals for a practical quality mark and approved-list scheme which was issued for consultation on Friday.

I thank my hon. Friend for confirmation of the plans for the quality mark scheme, which was well received by reputable builders to whom I spoke in my constituency over the weekend, and which promises a way to deal with the cowboys who rip people off with overpriced, shoddy and sometimes unsafe work. Will my hon. Friend give a little more detail of how the scheme will encourage the best and root out the worst? If this voluntary scheme fails, will he undertake to legislate?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The scheme has been widely welcomed by reputable builders who recognise the damage being done to their reputation by the unscrupulous. The quality mark scheme is based on simple principles: builders who subscribe to it must meet guaranteed standards of quality performance and be subject to proper procedures for complaint handling and to disciplinary procedures, and their work must be underpinned by performance and insurance-backed warranties. That assures customers that when they select a builder with the quality mark, they will get a reputable builder, with proper channels of redress if things go wrong and that they will not fall into the hands of unscrupulous cowboys.

One of the companies in my constituency of which I am particularly proud is Exor Management Services, which has set up the Sinclair vetting directory, which is similar to what the Government are seeking to do. The firm points out that vetting is good only on the day of publication of the list. It suggests that one way to improve the Government scheme would be to introduce continuous vetting, so that someone does not get through the net by being good at just one particular point. Will the Minister agree to his officials meeting my constituent company, as its proposal might avoid duplication and might even save the Government some money?

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. There is a need for continuous monitoring of builders' performance to ensure the integrity of the quality mark scheme. He is right to say that the views of the industry should be taken into account, which is why the report has been published for consultation. We shall welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman's constituent firm and others during the consultation period, with the aim of getting the scheme as good as it possibly can be when we come to launch it, we hope in the autumn.

May I bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the activities of a company operating in my constituency? Formerly known as Midland Coating, it went into liquidation and subsequently reinvented itself as Raincheck. That company also went into liquidation and recently reinvented itself as Sealpoint. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will discuss the activities of this and similar phoenix companies with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry who are well aware of the problem, with a view to taking action so that companies cannot simply reinvent themselves with a different name and continue their unscrupulous activities?

We are in close contact with colleagues at the DTI on broader consumer protection issues, including effective measures to be taken against rogue traders. I certainly hope that they will be able to come up with proposals to make it easier to deal with the kind of problems created by the firms to which my hon. Friend refers. The important point about the quality mark scheme is that it will give customers knowledge of reputable firms which meet approved standards; and firms such as those to which my hon. Friend refers will not qualify for the quality mark, so any customers who use them will do so at their own risk.

The Minister's announcement is certainly welcome, although some eyebrows have been raised over the membership of the cowboy working party. Does he accept that many of the problems are created by door-to-door building salesmen, especially those in the double glazing industry? Will he assure us that such people will be brought within the scope of the working party's examination? Does he accept that if he were to extend the Energy Saving Trust's scheme, which provides help for poor and low-income families to install energy-saving and energy-efficient equipment in their homes, that would cut off that part of the industry, thus providing good value for the Government and reducing CO₂ emissions?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have impugned the integrity of the members of the cowboy working party, which is led in a distinguished way by Tony Merricks and which has produced a report that has received widespread support and encouragement from the construction industry. The hon. Gentleman's proposals are slightly odd, given that we have increased the sums available for the home energy efficiency and home agency schemes the HEES and HIA schemes. However, that does not obviate the need for a proper scheme to ensure that any member of the public who is approached by a door-to-door salesman, or by any other builder or person masquerading as a builder, should be able to gauge whether that person is reputable. The quality mark scheme that we propose to introduce will provide exactly that guarantee.

What is his most recent estimate of the amount of goods transported by rail in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [78816]

The Department's figures for the financial year 1997–98—the last full year for which we have figures—show a 12 per cent. growth in freight carried by rail. That growth continues. In the first half of the financial year 1998–99—April 1998 to September 1998–8.9 billion tonne km of freight went by rail compared with 8.3 billion tonne km over the same period in the financial year 1997–98. That shows an extraordinary increase in the growth of rail freight.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but what steps is the Department taking to encourage, where possible, companies to use rail instead of road to transport goods? Does he agree that a reduction in the use of roads will help to improve air quality as well as the environment generally?

It is our intention, as we pointed out in the White Paper on integrated transport, to achieve a sustainable freight system for air, sea, ship, rail and road. We have outlined some of the policies for that. One of the first things that we did was almost to double the amount of freight grants that were available. We have increased that amount again, and it is being fully used. We have also made grants available to freight integration centres and are improving port facilities. All that has led to the increase, and we look to a further one.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the welcome increases in rail freight can continue only if there is continuing public support for such increases? In constituencies such as mine, densely populated residential areas are being badly affected by vibration and noise from particular flows of freight. That is undermining public support for greater use of rail freight, which is very bad. In October, I raised this subject with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). Will he undertake to have another look at rail freight going to the Brunner Mond plant in Cheshire?

I always talk to my colleagues about these matters. Any transport matter has environmental consequences, whether it be noise or exhaust emissions. Those are a matter of concern in our comprehensive approach. I am pleased at the growth in rail traffic, which has also occurred through the channel tunnel—much of it due to the changes that we have made in policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is due to privatisation."] As for those who shout about privatisation, it was an absolute scandal to give away rail companies and pay £250 million, not for those companies but for their bonus of free travel through the channel tunnel.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's excellent work to encourage the transport of freight by rail will be undermined if Railtrack is not prepared to put money into the pinch-points in the railway system that are holding up the movement of goods? Will he take it on himself to have a short, straightforward, Anglo Saxon conversation with the chief executive of Railtrack about the difference between wish-lists, supported by even more Government money, and investment programmes that could be funded by Railtrack's very large profits?

Investment is indeed the key. There is not sufficient rail capacity to meet the increasing demands of freight. That is why we have ordered a look at the new rail route to take international carriages, and why we have renegotiated arrangements, which collapsed under the previous Administration, for the channel tunnel rail link. I very much agree with my hon. Friend about wish-lists for investment. As she knows, I have appointed a pretty tough Strategic Rail Authority chairman and a new regulator, who I believe will begin to make a difference in Railtrack's approach to delivering its promises.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we should be doing everything possible to help Railtrack deliver its £27 billion investment programme, which would be the biggest ever investment programme in the railways and the biggest ever investment by a United Kingdom private company? To that end, would not it be sensible to drop the proposal to divert the subsidy from the train operating companies to Railtrack, which exists only to give the Deputy Prime Minister political leverage that he does not require? Precisely who supports his proposal for changing the subsidy arrangements? Does his new rail supremo, Sir Alastair Morton, whose appointment we very much welcome, support the proposal or, like the rest of the industry, does he think that it is absolutely crazy and will endanger the investment that Railtrack is offering?

It is very difficult to keep up with the Opposition. I read a statement attributed to the hon. Gentleman that he was claiming the idea himself. I was the one who asked the regulator to review the subsidies being given to the franchise operators and to consider whether those subsidies should be given to Railtrack because of the failure to invest in the infrastructure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned. I made the reference to the regulator and I believe that his report will be out in the next few days.

Who supports it?

I believe that there is considerable support. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Booz Allen report, commissioned by the regulator, which has been published, he will see that we are the ones who are making common sense about the railway system.

If he will make a statement concerning progress in implementing the policy of making available half-fare bus passes for all pensioners. [78817]

We intend to legislate to make half-fare bus passes available to all pensioners as soon as parliamentary time permits. It is of course open to individual local authorities to adopt the proposed minimum standard in advance of legislation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise the urgency of the matter and the priority with which many in rural Britain treat this issue, especially in my constituency, where, for example, in market towns such as Tadcaster and villages such as Sherburn-in-Elmet, pensioners have to make do with only £8 a year of bus tokens—enough for three or four journeys a year—in the knowledge that their neighbours in West Yorkshire, in towns such as Weatherby, have access to concessionary travel at 20p per journey off peak? Is not that fundamentally unfair?

I agree with my hon. Friend that any Government committed, as the Government are, to a fairer, more inclusive society would want to ensure that bus travel remains within reach of those with very limited means. That is precisely why we are proposing a guaranteed half-fare scheme for pensioners in England and Wales, with a maximum £5 annual bus pass. I am sure that that, with many other measures that we are taking to increase activity and access and promote growth in the bus passenger market, will be widely welcomed by pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country.

Will the Minister accept that half-fare bus travel is not really enoug—that our pensioners should be entitled to travel at half fare by coach, bus, rail, ferry or any mode of transport, and that our pensioners deserve such a comprehensive scheme?

That is another penny on the tax, I suppose. Of course, in an ideal world, we would like to make half-fare travel even more extensive, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would be churlish if he did not at least accept that the Government's proposals to extend half-fare bus travel to all pensioners throughout England and Wales represent a major advance on anything that has gone before and will be widely welcomed by pensioners in his constituency and throughout the country.

If he will make a statement about his plans to introduce new legislation affecting the status of the New forest. [78819]

We are still looking very carefully at all the issues connected with a possible change in status for the New forest. We hope to announce some conclusions soon.

Over the last 30 years, on every issue of conservation against development, one or other of the local authorities has backed the developers only to be thwarted by the verderers, exercising their existing powers under the New Forest Acts. Can the Minister assure me, therefore, that he will not produce proposals setting up a new park authority with statutory powers that could restrain in any way the freedom of action of the verderers court?

I assure the hon. Gentleman—as I did in the recent debate in the House, which he initiated—that full consideration will be given to the verderers' views and that we envisage no likely change in the role that they undertake at present.

Does the Minister accept that it is quite possible to establish national park status for the New forest, which would be very much welcomed by many people living in the area, without necessarily removing the powers of the verderers under certain circumstances or many of the planning powers of the local authority, and that many people would welcome that way forward for the New forest?

I am aware that there is a wide variety of views. Indeed, we have received many hundreds of letters on this subject. There are those who are strongly in favour of national park status and those who are against it in the area concerned.

Does the Minister agree that in areas such as the New forest and the south downs, it is far better to build on existing structures that have been proved successful rather than listen to noisy minorities that want national park status? When will the hon. Gentleman announce his final decision on these issues?

I repeat that that will be soon. We are determined to get the decision-making process right rather than to accommodate one side or the other. The hon. Gentleman might consider the views of the Leader of the Opposition who, when recently interviewed by the Southampton Daily Echo, expressed the view that he had no difficulties with national park status in the two relevant areas which adjoin his constituency.

If he will make a statement on the level of freight costs in (a) the UK and (b) other EU member states. [78820]

If he will make a statement on road freight costs in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU member states. [78828]

For a typical haulage operator with 50 articulated trucks, if we include social costs, national insurance, corporation tax, labour costs, fuel and excise duty, the additional cost in France. as compared with the UK, is about £425,000 a year; in the Netherlands about £600,000; and in Belgium about £800,000. These issues will be discussed in more detail by the road haulage forum.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he agree, bearing in mind yesterday's truckers' protest, that the general public are presented with only one part of the picture? Will he go in considerable detail through the various factors with the road haulage forum and perhaps prepare and present an agreed report eventually so that there is transparency and so that the general public can understand that road haulage costs in Britain are about a third less than those in France, Germany and Italy?

Yes, I certainly will. The general public are coming to recognise that when all costs are considered, the UK haulage industry is more competitive than the majority of its European competitors. There is overcapacity in the industry, and I take that seriously. That is why I am involved in discussions with the road haulage and freight associations on that and other matters.

I certainly thank the Minister for the last part of his reply. I share his view entirely, as I think would my constituents. However, may I ask him three questions on this issue—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall do so very quickly. First, my right hon. Friend referred to a 50-truck company. I would be interested—I am sure that the road haulage forum would find it helpful—to explore the position of a smaller company, including its cash flow, as a result of the change in tax status. Secondly, what is the impact on market share over the period in which the increased taxes will be introduced? Thirdly, are there means of measuring the impact on the environment of these taxes so that we can ensure that the outcomes are those that we are seeking?

Yes. At great risk of going on at tremendous length, I think that it would be helpful if we considered some of these issues. I can tell my hon. Friend, for instance, that labour costs are higher for our continental neighbours by more than 55 per cent. in France, 95 per cent. in Belgium and 75 per cent. in the Netherlands. Corporation tax for individual firms—my hon. Friend asked specifically about smaller firms—is higher for our continental neighbours. It is 50.65 per cent. higher in France, 40.17 per cent. higher in Belgium and 35 per cent. higher in the Netherlands. I could go on indefinitely, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friend in answer to those three questions as well as any others he wishes to ask.

If what the Minister says is correct, hauliers would be flagging out from France, Germany and the Netherlands and joining the United Kingdom truck industry, but quite the opposite is happening. UK hauliers are flagging out and registering elsewhere because, in the marketplace, the costs are cheaper. He cannot be unaware that independent research, supported by organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, has shown that about 50,000 jobs will be at risk if the Government maintain these policies. The extra costs will be felt not only in the haulage industry, but throughout the whole of UK plc. Will he work out why UK hauliers are moving away rather than companies from elsewhere in Europe coming to this country?

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The independent research to which he refers was commissioned by the Road Haulage Association; although it may be an honourable organisation, it is hardly independent in the present context. He and his party must be experts on flagging out—they cut their eye teeth on flagging out almost the whole of the British merchant shipping industry. He will be aware, as I am, that the leading exponent of flagging out—to Belize, I think—is the current treasurer of the Tory party.

The House and the country will no doubt be very interested in the figures given by the Minister, but will he go further and publish in the Official Report all the figures for all the European states, so that we can see what the facts are? Will he understand that those of us from Northern Ireland are particularly interested in the costs vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and the Republic, not least the cost of fuel?

I shall continue to publish as many facts as I can on this matter, because the one way to put the case in perspective is to put as many facts as possible before the public. I have to say that the way to solve problems such as this is through dialogue—not through disruption. We are concerned about the overcapacity in the industry and we want to help the hauliers, which is why I am having discussions with the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, but we will not be held to ransom. I only wish that we had some of the courage shown by Conservative Members in standing up for the general public.

Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials, or Treasury officials, to dig out the figures that really matter in this whole argument—the transport cost per tonne per kilometre, by road and by rail, in each European country, including the United Kingdom? I believe that those statistics will reveal the truth. Can we have those statistics published? If we cannot, can we have published some indicators that we all understand and which we can use in explanations to the road haulage industry?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows, there are any number of potential indicators and statistics can be used, on either side of an argument, to illustrate the case. I will certainly look at that particular method or at any other simplified way of putting the truth of this matter across to the public.

If the right hon. Gentleman would agree this afternoon to commission a new report on the facts and figures surrounding the haulage industry, the Opposition would welcome that. But what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon will have been listened to with incredulity by the industry. If the British road haulage industry is in such a favourable and competitive position, why are his policies driving large British haulage companies out of the country and small British haulage companies out of business?

I take it that one of the companies to which the right hon. Lady refers is Eddie Stobart, a great British success story. Eddie Stobart operates a quarter of his lorries on the continent and he is registering them there. However, the right hon. Lady may not know that Eddie Stobart benefits from the DETR rail freight grants. I shall write to her about how many millions of pounds are involved.

What plans he has to review the arrangements for concessionary travel in Greater London. [78821]

Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, provision will be made to continue arrangements, including a reserve free travel scheme which ensures that London's pensioners and eligible disabled persons continue to enjoy the benefits of concessionary travel.

Does the Minister understand that, if just one of London's 33 boroughs refuses to support the concessionary fares scheme, it falls, and, as a consequence, a reserve scheme comes in which costs more, starts later in the day and excludes the use of the railways? Will the Minister, therefore, legislate to ensure that the freedom pass is safeguarded so that, if the worst happens and London's boroughs do not agree among themselves, we can guarantee to Londoners that they will not be the ones to lose out?

The whole point of the reserve scheme is that it guarantees a concessionary fares scheme for pensioners and disabled persons. We will, of course, listen to anyone who wishes to improve the present scheme and will react accordingly.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the present reserve scheme is out of date—I think that it goes back to 1985—and depends on the powers that were put in place on the abolition of the GLC? Will my hon. Friend consider bringing that scheme more up to date so that, if we fail to obtain agreement, we at least have a reserve scheme that matches today's conditions, not those of 1985?

The date to which my hon. Friend refers is 1984. As I have already said, we shall listen to anyone who comes forward with improvements to the existing scheme to ensure that pensioners and disabled persons in London can rest assured that their concessionary travel is secure.

When he expects to bring forward measures to implement proposals in the Government's consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest—Better Protection and Management". [78822]

Following the recent conclusion to the consultation exercise, to which we received nearly 600 responses, I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very soon outlining how we intend to proceed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public support for legislation for the greater protection of our wildlife which will be shown this afternoon by 250,000 pledges collected by the Countryside and Wildlife Link which will be presented to hon. Members? Will my right hon. Friend also note that 334 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 11 in my name in support of such legislation, and agree that a commitment to introduce legislation more securely to protect our wildlife would be welcome? Can my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the early introduction of that legislation?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his persistent campaigning in support of wildlife protection. I recognise the widespread support in the country for the strengthening of wildlife protection laws. As the House knows, 335 signatories to an early-day motion is a large number and shows strong support from hon. Members. As soon as parliamentary time permits, I intend to introduce legislation to strengthen the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is now outdated in significant ways.

I assure the Minister that we shall look forward to his announcement with great interest, because we believe that the 1981 Act needs to be tightened up and improved. Does he accept that the crown jewels of our wildlife heritage, the SSSIs, are in a desperate state? There have been more than 2,000 cases of damage in the past six years, 46 sites have lost their SSSI status and hundreds more have had part of their designated area depleted. Do the Government accept that there is an urgent need to take quick action to prevent further erosion and damage to these important sites? Can the Minister give the House any reassurance that, before further legislation is introduced and enacted, more will be done under existing rules and regulations to tighten the protection of these important areas?

I agree that, over the years, SSSIs have been significantly damaged. The reasons for that are road building programmes, over-abstraction of water and intensification of agriculture, all of which were significantly increased under the previous Government. We are taking action on all three fronts. Last year, we carried out a review of the roads programme. We are also reviewing existing consents for water abstraction and seeking the time-limiting of all consents. At the negotiations on the common agricultural policy in Brussels and Berlin, we have recently made significant progress on the countryside through the inclusion of the rural development regulation and cross-compliance on environmental conditions for agricultural grants. Those measures will reduce the damage that was done in the Tory years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that new legislation in this area is not only desirable in principle, but urgent in practice because of the steady deterioration referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and other hon. Members? Does he accept that this subject has excited great public concern beyond the usual groups that routinely write to us?

I accept what my hon. Friend has said. The Government published a consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest—Better Protection and Management", last September. The radical policies that it contains were broadly accepted during the consultation process. I repeat that we are seeking the earliest opportunity to introduce a new Bill to give greater protection to SSSIs, which are essential for wildlife.

If he will make a statement about the Government's policy on (a) investment in and (b) fares on London underground. [78823]

Our policy on investment in London underground is to secure high and stable investment in modernising and maintaining the system. Fares are currently the responsibility of London Transport, but following the establishment of the Greater London Authority, they will become the responsibility of the mayor.

How can the Minister be confident that private investment in the infrastructure of the London underground will be forthcoming, given that the assets created will remain in or return to the public sector? The Transport Sub-Committee has referred to the public-private partnership as a convoluted compromise. Is not the truth of the matter that the PPP will lead to a lack of adequate investment and a continuation of fares rising above the rate of inflation, in contradistinction to the privatised railways whose fares have gone down in real terms since privatisation?

No. Private sector interest in our proposals for PPP is very strong. As for fare rises, according to the modelling, fares will rise at a rate conforming to the retail prices index plus 1 in 2000-01, and at RPI plus 0 after 2001. That is in marked contrast to the last decade of the last Administration, during which, despite promises to freeze London Transport fares, they rose by 38 per cent. in real terms.

Is not the real picture very different? Does the Minister agree that the last Government were investing £700 million a year in the underground, while the present Government are investing £500 million? Does she agree that, while this Government's PPP will raise £7 billion over 15 years, the last Government spent that in 10 years? Does she agree that, while the private railways are experiencing rising investment and falling fares, the underground is experiencing falling investment and rising fares, and that, after decades of expansion, no new lines are planned? What on earth has happened to the Labour party's manifesto pledge to improve the London underground?

The last Administration reduced core investment in the London underground year on year. Their only solution to the problems was to wash their hands of the underground by promoting a privatisation that would have reduced the existing network by at least a third, and which received the big thumbs-down from Londoners. Our proposal for public-private investment has been welcomed, and will provide enough investment to ensure that our underground is of a quality fit not only for the people of London, but for the 21st century.

If he will make a statement on rural bus services. [78824]

Rural areas throughout Great Britain now have new or improved bus services as a result of the new money for rural transport announced in each of the last two Budgets. A total of £150 million over three years was provided for rural transport in last year's Budget, and that was increased by over £20 million in this year's Budget.

That announcement is particularly welcome in the light of the Conservative party's mismanagement of rural transport.

I agree that consultation is essential. Indeed, local authorities, especially those that are taking the integration of transport and the provision of transport services for those in their areas seriously—the vast majority of which are Labour authorities—are an essential part of an integrated transport policy.

Many villages in my rural constituency will suffer further strain because of the lack of provision of places in schools. In Clitheroe, for instance, many youngsters will have to be bussed miles out of their area to attend neighbouring schools. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that there is better planning in regard to school places, so that youngsters need not travel on buses for many hours and many miles in the morning just to receive a decent education?

We are, of course, grappling with our inheritance from the hon. Gentleman's party. However, we have not only discussed the matter with the Department for Education and Employment, but formed the school travel advisory group, which is examining it closely.

When the regional chamber in the north-east will be officially established. [78825]

We are considering proposals from the north-east regional chamber for designation as the regional chamber for the north-east under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, but is he aware that business people and some council leaders in the north-east see themselves at a distinct disadvantage compared with their Scottish counterparts, who will possibly have the advantage of a Scottish Parliament to champion their cause in terms of job creation and economic prosperity? How will the establishment of a regional chamber in the north-ea0st alleviate those concerns?

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that, only 10 days ago, we set up the regional development agencies; they are now in operation. As I have said, the regional chambers will be designated. As part of our total devolution package, we are managing that change very carefully and with the consent of the people. I have no doubt that, some time in the future, the north-east, like every other region, will have the opportunity to decide whether it wants a directly elected regional assembly. That will be done with the consent of the people in the various regions. Indeed, we have managed the devolution package for the United Kingdom in that way.

What plans he has to hold regular rail summits with the rail operators. [78826]

The February rail summit was a major step towards driving up the quality of rail services throughout the country. We want and deserve year-on-year improvements in rail performance. We will hold a second summit next spring to review progress and to maintain the momentum.

Does not the publication today of the independent report to the Rail Regulator give credence to the view of the fare-paying public that Railtrack and the franchise operators are both the same and both to blame for under-investment at a time when they are maximising profits? At a future rail summit, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to both Railtrack and the franchise operators that the profits of Railtrack cannot be shifted to the franchisees when there is a review of access charges? There needs to be discipline in investing in Railtrack—the infrastructure—and a proper service needs to be provided by the rail franchise operators. If not, the Government will need to act.

We are scrutinising today's report carefully. We have made it clear that we support the then regulator's view that not sufficient of the surplus that was generated by Railtrack was going into investment. My hon. Friend can be assured that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will, in future, as we have in the past, insist that the public get the sort of investment from Railtrack that they should be getting to improve railway services.

Will the Minister confirm that, in 1997–98, Railtrack invested an extra £1.25 billion—an increase of 69 per cent. over the last year before flotation—and that, in the current financial year, a further 16 per cent. increase is planned? While he is on his feet confirming those facts—and the fact that the only thing that has saved the railways is a channel tunnel that was built by the private sector under a Conservative Government and with the involvement of private sector investment—will he have a word with the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning? Can he explain why, although his ministerial colleague promised at the previous DETR Question Time to write to me, despite three chasing calls from my office to his private office, I have yet to have a response on an urgent matter involving my constituents? Is that not disgraceful?

I would rather not comment on the hon. Gentleman's private telephone calls. On investment, I can confirm that the previous regulator took the view that the figures that were being invested by Railtrack were insufficient. He is an independent regulator. I can confirm the figure—which the hon. Gentleman gave—of £1.25 billion for the year before last. I can also confirm that only slightly less than that figure was lost to the public by the Conservatives, who sold off Railtrack cheaply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem in my constituency, where Connex South Eastern has been locking out disabled passengers from access to the level platforms by closing side gates, for security reasons? Does he accept that far too many rail companies are disabling their potential passengers by such actions? Will he ensure that a future rail summit will raise that issue, and have on its agenda compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?

Yes.

If he will make a statement on road links to Manchester International airport. [78829]

We propose to begin a multi-modal study in spring, assessing the transport problems around Manchester airport and the area to the south-east of Manchester.

Will the Minister tell us whether she is aware that support for the second runway at Manchester airport was given because it was indicated by Government that the appropriate infrastructure to serve the airport, not least the road infrastructure, which includes the Macclesfield to Poynton road improvement, the MAELR road—the Manchester airport eastern link road—and the Poynton bypass, would proceed in a priority programme? Will the Minister come to my constituency to see the increasing devastation arising from increased traffic anticipating the second runway at Manchester airport, so that my constituents are aware that this Government are prepared to take responsibility for a decision that a Government of this country took, and will not allow the environment of the villages of Poynton, Mottram St. Andrew and Prestbury to be eroded, as is happening now?

I should dearly love to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but think that it is highly unlikely that I shall have the time to do so in the immediate future. He spoke of the "appropriate infrastructure", which is precisely what the Government are committed to discovering. We must get away from the idea—the previous Administration were beginning to move away from it—that the only appropriate form of infrastructure is exclusively that which is solely dependent on roads. That is not sustainable, either economically or environmentally.

Does my hon. Friend accept that far too many people still have to approach Manchester airport—particularly those who work there—by private car, and that it would be far better if the Government could give priority to getting the tramway system, which is doing so well in Greater Manchester, extended to the airport?

The Metrolink issue has been raised by the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority with both my right hon. Friends and me. We are perfectly willing to listen to the authority's arguments on the matter. The responsibility for the matter is the authority's, and dealing with it must be part and parcel of its local integrated transport plans.

Is the Minister aware—from her comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I take it that she is not—that a third of the Manchester airport eastern link road and the Poynton bypass already exists, but that it does not join the airport and does not go anywhere in the east? I hardly think that it is asking a lot of the Minister to consider coming to my hon. Friend's constituency and to Cheadle to see for herself that that road, which is very much a reality in the centre, should be connected to those parts of the infrastructure in the north-west that it was intended originally to serve.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to apologise for the previous Administration, who have clearly left a third of a road going absolutely nowhere. As I told the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), we shall start a multi-modal study in the spring.

If he will make a statement on the latest data on the number of people using buses. [78830]

The latest figures published by my Department show an overall increase of 1 per cent. in passenger journeys on buses in England in 1997-98. That marks the first reversal of a 50-year decline in bus use.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the thoughtless privatisation of bus services was a disaster? What plans does he have to encourage the greater use of bus services in preference to the private car?

Yes. We have been working actively with local authorities and bus operators through the quality partnerships, and we intend to legislate to introduce quality contracts if necessary. The extra money that we have provided for buses, to compensate for the fuel duty escalator, is a topic of some interest, especially in rural areas. Our efforts have resulted in the historic reversal in the trend that I have already mentioned. Given the long-term trend of decline, the latest patronage figures for 1997-98 are encouraging. We have halted that decline, and passenger journeys in London are up by no less than 4 per cent., and in the west midlands by 5 per cent., compared with the previous year. That is another area in which, after 20 years of the Conservative Government, we are bringing about historic shifts in transport patterns.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement of bus transport, will he tell the House how many times he has travelled to ministerial engagements by bus since he assumed his present post?

I have travelled by bus, and by tube, on several occasions. Unlike some previous Conservative Ministers, I do not find people who travel by public transport so despicable that I avoid it.

What steps he is taking to encourage the manufacture of compressed natural gas vehicles and the conversion of existing petrol and diesel vehicles to alternative fuels. [78831]

The Energy Saving Trust's powershift programme, funded by my Department, contributes towards the additional cost of purchasing gas and electric vehicles. In the recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reduced duty on compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas by 29 per cent.—a strong incentive to convert to those fuels.

That was a good answer; we must all celebrate the 29 per cent. cut in fuel duty for gas vehicles in the Budget. However, is it not true that we will never get people to convert their vehicles until there are pumps in filling stations to allow them to fill up their tanks with compressed natural gas? What are the Government doing actively to encourage filling stations to put compressed natural gas pumps on their forecourts?

My hon. Friend is right; there is certainly a need for further improvements in the refuelling infrastructure. However, there are signs that fuel suppliers now have the confidence to invest significantly in gas refuelling facilities, and the recent Budget announcements should provide further impetus for their plans.

What has been the average rate of increase in percentage terms in the allowable spending of local councils over the past five years; and what is the figure for Rochford. [78832]

The average allowable increase in the spending of local councils in England over the past five years was 2.7 per cent. For Rochford, it was 2.8 per cent. This year, the Government have not set spending limits for individual authorities.

As the Minister is aware, Rochford is an area with high unemployment and many social problems, and needs investment—but is she also aware that since the Government came to power, the council has been concerned about the financial nightmare that it has had to face? Is she willing to reconsider the situation in Rochford and tell us in what way grants for the area were increased this year? According to the information given to me, they have not been increased, but fell in real terms.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the sums that the Government have provided for local government this year are higher than for the past seven years. His local council, which covers Rochford, has not had a spending limit imposed this year. It has increased its budget by 2.8 per cent. Council tax rises are substantially higher in Tory authorities than in Labour authorities. I invite the hon. Gentleman to help us to get the best value from local government by ensuring that authorities use the increased money that they are getting from the Government this year effectively for local people.