If he will list the moneys held by local authorities from the sale of council houses. [82779]

My Department collects figures for housing receipts, primarily from the sale of council houses, annually; but, it is not possible to distinguish separately amounts held by an authority at a given date in terms of accumulated housing and other receipts. I shall place in the Library of the House the relevant figures for each local authority for the last financial year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the Government initiative to release some of those capital receipts. How is the money that has been released being used, and what impact has that had on existing housing stock throughout the country?

Hon. Members will remember that, in the comprehensive spending review, the Government announced that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, an extra £4.7 billion would be provided through the capital receipts initiative to improve council houses. Nearly £1.4 billion has already been allocated and used to carry out practical and important work, such as improving bathrooms and heating systems and supplying new windows. In that way, we can ensure that all people, no matter what sort of house they live in, have a decent house that they can make into a home.

The Minister carefully speaks about improving council houses and so on, but she should remember that 250,000 new social housing units were built under the previous Conservative Government, whereas 23,000 have been built in the first year of the Labour Government; I understand that 130,000 are planned during the lifetime of this Parliament. Does she agree that that is a disgraceful record on providing new social housing? If capital receipts are to be used, cannot they be used to build new houses?

The programme for new build of social housing continues where it is needed, but the Conservative Government left a shameful record of deterioration of perfectly good houses because they did not like the people who lived in those houses. That was a disgrace and we are going to put it right.

Does my right hon. Friend know how many jobs are created when moneys of the order that she describes are released? Does she agree that a warm, draught-proof and dry house that has been modernised is a priority for every one of our citizens? My councillors are glad of the moneys that have been released, but they urge me to ask the Government for a little more such money.

We are doing what we can to increase and improve the housing programme. In addition to the capital receipts initiative, we have recently initiated new pathfinder programmes for private finance in council housing. I know that several hon. Members are grateful for those initiatives, which have resulted in more people being employed in the building industry. Crucially, more of those people are being trained, so we shall once again have a building industry that is able to employ the unemployed and increase the skills of many people who live in council houses.

What assessment he has made of the role for the car in the integrated transport strategy; and if he will make a statement. [82781]

The integrated transport White Paper sets out our assessment of the role of the car in our integrated transport strategy and the ways in which the Government will tackle the legacy of congestion, deteriorating road infrastructure and pollution left by the previous Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that motoring remains the most popular form of transport; and that, for many in both rural and suburban areas, a car is essential to daily life? How best can he ensure that the car is taken into consideration within the wider transport system, so as not to deny the freedom and personal mobility it brings? Will he ensure that car access is not restricted in any way until a meaningful alternative in the form of a public transport system is in place?

We accept fully that the car remains a necessity for many people. It would be entirely unrealistic to envisage that the car will not remain the dominant method of private transport in rural and urban areas over the next three decades. However, unlike the previous Government, we want to present real transport choices that people want. We aim to develop public forms of transportation. That is why we have allocated an extra £150 million for buses in rural areas, why we spend nearly £300 million a year on the bus fuel duty rebate, and why we increased the rural challenge in the last Budget. In transport, as in so many other fields, the Government are the champion of rural areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we recognise the value of the car for journeys appropriate to that mode of transport, it is important to discourage the use of private cars for inappropriate journeys? Does he agree also that we should welcome the European motor manufacturers' voluntary agreement to reduce CO₂ emissions by 25 per cent? They should be encouraged in that endeavour and asked to do more.

As my hon. Friend says, the car has brought to generations of people increased mobility, social experience and convenience. That is beyond doubt. It is also beyond doubt that, if we do nothing, future generations will not reap the benefits of car ownership that were extended to previous generations. That is why, while protecting the right to car ownership, we are attempting to persuade people to use their cars differently. We realise that we can do that effectively only if we give people a real choice. That is why the Government strongly support public forms of transportation.

The Minister will agree that the Government must sort out their catastrophic inheritance as a result of the Conservatives' privatisation of the railways. Do we not require legislation for the Strategic Rail Authority? Will the Minister confirm that it is realistically too late to hope to see such legislation in this parliamentary Session? Can he confirm further that the Government do not intend to legislate for the Strategic Rail Authority until the next parliamentary year?

No, I will not confirm that. We obviously want to introduce transport legislation as soon as possible, including legislation for the Strategic Rail Authority. If the hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition Benches can encourage those in the other place to accept the working time directive that we are extending to them, in order to give them a rest after 600 years of making decisions while being elected by no one, we shall be able to introduce legislation for the Strategic Rail Authority in this session.

Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage the privatised rail companies to provide good access not only to car parking, but to a regulated taxi service? When the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), visits my constituency—which she will do in the next few weeks—will he ensure that she takes the time to observe the problems that passengers experience when arriving at Cambridge railway station, which does not have good access to a regulated taxi service?

I certainly hope that the points my hon. Friend makes will be noted not only by the new head of the Strategic Rail Authority, but by the companies themselves. Access to safe and secure car parking at railway stations is part of an integrated transport policy. That is why I am glad that, following the last Budget, we were able to announce considerable investment in closed circuit television for car parks, including those at railway stations. As to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will understand if I refrain from dictating her hour-to-hour programme on any visit. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard my hon. Friend's comments.

Hon. Members will have listened with some incredulity to the right hon. Gentleman's claims for his integrated transport policy. It is true that he has come fairly late to his post, but will he not admit that all his Government have to show for two years of talking about an integrated transport policy are cuts in road improvements, cuts in investment in public transport, a failure to legislate and 100 glossy publications about transport? The Government's actual transport policy has taxed off the road working people—particularly the elderly and those in rural areas—and all those not fortunate enough to have access to helicopters and two Jaguars.

I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how much we regret the fact that the right hon. Lady's friendly face will not be seen on the Opposition Front Bench for much longer. Considering the companions with whom she has to share breakfast round the kitchen table, it is understandable that she wishes to join the real world outside.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the misery that is caused to thousands of car owners by the activities of cowboy wheel-clampers. He is also aware of the welcome given by motoring organisations to the Home Office's promise to do something about regulating the industry. Is he aware that there is concern that the current proposals may not be strong enough? Will he agree to convene discussions with the Home Office, the police, motoring organisations and the respectable arm of the wheel-clamping industry so that we can take tough measures to put an end to the preying on unsuspecting motorists by those modern day highway robbers?

There will be considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's points. My colleagues in the Home Office are already taking action on the issue. I do not want to usurp their prerogative by convening a meeting, but I shall discuss the issue with them.

What steps he has taken to end fuel poverty among pensioners. [82782]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, although Britain does not have one of the coldest climates in Europe, it suffers the highest rate of deaths caused by the effects of cold and hypothermia. There were 30,000 last year. That is unacceptable. That is why we cut the VAT on fuel that the previous Government imposed. We have increased the winter fuel payment by 500 per cent. from £20 a year to £100. Today, we have published our consultation proposals for the new home energy efficiency scheme, which will provide warmer homes for pensioners on low incomes. We believe that that will make a real difference.

We welcome the increase in the home energy efficiency scheme, for which we have been pressing for a long time, but should not the Government consider two further measures? First, they should reduce VAT on energy insulation materials to 5 per cent. across the board. Secondly, to integrate properly across Departments, they should accept the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, which is coming back to the House on Friday and which they have previously opposed. It will ensure that the health services are involved in the issue and made to play their part in avoiding pensioner fuel poverty.

The hon. Gentleman makes two sound points. We are involved in consultation with the Department of Health on how we can help in the production of the Bill and improve it. We have made a considerable contribution to reducing fuel bills. Under the old scheme, they would have been reduced by approximately £45 a year. Our measures will lead to a reduction of £1,000 a year, which is a considerable advance.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are hundreds of thousands of pensioners whose homes are still very poorly insulated? Their heating raises the temperature of their neighbourhood far more than it raises the temperature of their homes. Will he confirm that the regulations relating to this morning's announcement will ensure that all such people will be eligible for proper grants for complete home insulation, even if they have had a partial grant in the past? It has been a ridiculous anomaly for a long time that people who have had small draught-proofing schemes are not eligible for cavity wall insulation and proper loft insulation.

My hon. Friend's point is sound. Those who were receiving partial grants were about only 2 per cent. of the total, and we are wiping the slate clean and making the grants available to all. We estimate that about 3.6 million households will be eligible for them, and our proposals for the first two years will directly affect about 500,000 of them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition welcome his announcement this morning? However, given the overall scale of fuel poverty in this country, why will not he support the all-party warm homes campaign, which he and his hon. Friends fully supported in opposition?

It is a bit much for the hon. Gentleman to be concerned about the campaign for warmer homes when the Conservatives doubled VAT on fuel. I am pleased that he welcomes the 500 per cent. increase in cold weather payments, from £20 to £100, which was made by this Government, not the previous Administration. The changes that we now propose will immediately benefit 500,000 people and will be targeted to help individuals in private homes rather than people in social housing, who will be helped by the £3.6 billion of capital receipts.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his comments about the Government's action to end fuel poverty for many people throughout the country.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a couple of pilot schemes that are dealing with those particular problems and seeking solutions. However, when I hear Opposition Members talking about the sale of council houses, I am bound to say that the greatest indictment of the Conservatives is that they accumulated between £4 billion and £5 billion in housing receipts and did not allow local authorities to use them to deal with the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.

What recent representations he has received about the road building programme in Essex. [82783]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received various representations about aspects of road building and associated transport issues in Essex.

The delays in completing the M11 link road are an absolute disgrace—for which I blame the Government—and Labour's partners, the Liberal Democrats, suffered huge reverses in Southend, West on Thursday as a result of their road-building policy. How does the Minister expect us to maintain any roads in my constituency when we have suffered a 12 per cent. cut in road maintenance as a result of the Government's policy? What exactly have the Government done since 1 May 1997 to ease traffic congestion in Southend, West?

One road into Southend certainly seems to have been effective the road from Basildon.

Southend, and Essex generally, will benefit from the new A13; but will the Minister ask his Department to examine the impact of the new road as it crosses from Thurrock into the London boroughs, where there is considerable congestion, partly as a consequence of the improved road structure? Additional road traffic management schemes could provide greater mobility not only for commuters, but in the important corridor to the Thames gateway and the industrial areas on the river frontage. There is a problem on the London borough boundary, and I hope that the Minister will get his Department to look at it—at minimal cost.

Everything that we do is done at minimal cost, to the benefit of the taxpayer.

Is the Minister aware that it is a nightmare trying to persuade firms to establish themselves in Southend-on-Sea, where unemployment is relatively high? The problem is particularly bad in Shoeburyness. It takes about half an hour to get outside the town, because of traffic congestion. I realise that many areas suffer from congestion, but will the Minister persuade his Department to look at the congestion in Southend to see whether it is worse than the average, and whether there might be a case for a ring road? That would greatly ease all our problems.

I speak from memory, but I believe that some years ago, there was a plan for a Rochford bypass in the hon. Gentleman's area. I think—again, I speak from memory—that the scheme was withdrawn because the last Conservative Government refused to make funds available, or at least were extremely unlikely to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that since then Southend, and Essex as a whole, have been promoting more sustainable transport measures as part of the south-east Essex transport package. I am glad to say that my Department has supported that for the last four years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments.

What the response has been to the new guidance on opencast mining from groups who submitted comments during the consultation phase. [82784]

The Council for the Protection of Rural England has written welcoming the new guidance. We have not as yet received any other responses since the guidance was published on 31 March.

As my right hon. Friend will know, there are cynical people out there who tend to have doubts about consultation exercises. When he announced the consultation on mineral planning guidance note 3, a number of my constituents expressed doubts about whether that was genuinely meant. May I pass on the congratulations of many constituents? They were pleasantly surprised by the open-mindedness and creativeness of the Department in responding to their comments and in producing guidelines that are seen as balanced, fair and a good basis for the future.

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It was an extremely good exercise, and I welcome the constructive comments on the guidance from Opposition Members who have problems with opencasting in their constituencies. I thank the House generally for the constructive approach to the consultation, which produced a welcome solution to the problem of opencasting. The fact that we arrived at a solution with the support of some Opposition Members is a credit to the House.

If he will make a statement on the single regeneration budget for Yorkshire and Humberside. [82785]

The single regeneration budget—SRB—provides resources to support regeneration initiatives carried out by local partnerships. The SRB in Yorkshire and Humberside is now managed by the Yorkshire and the Humber regional development agency. It is considering 22 final bids for round 5, and will make recommendations to Ministers, who will take final decisions around the end of June this year.

With respect to the competitiveness of businesses in the Yorkshire and Humber region, does my hon. Friend agree that the emphasis in SRB programmes needs to be placed on measures to improve learning in the work force, and on better links between businesses and the further and higher education sector?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government are committed to giving everyone the opportunity to have a stake in society through better education and training. We must all develop and sustain a regard for learning at any age.

Will the Minister have regard to the importance of making sure that the various funding flows—national and European—that contribute to regeneration are properly co-ordinated, integrated and prioritised? To that end, does he recognise the importance of the difficult circumstances in the rural uplands, particularly in North Yorkshire, and will he make sure that, when objective 2 designation for the rural strand is agreed, it will include all the areas currently under 5b? The situation in the hills is desperate, with a whole society in crisis.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. In rounds 1 to 4, Yorkshire and Humberside got co-ordinated investment income of £242 million and an SRB direct contribution of £52 million. The new regional development agencies must pay due regard to the needs of rural areas.

What measures he is taking to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to housing associations. [82786]

Our guidance on local authority housing strategies makes it clear that housing transfer is one of the options that an authority should consider when developing its strategy. However, we would not seek to encourage authorities to pursue transfer where it appears inappropriate or where a majority of tenants oppose it.

As a result of the changes that the Government introduced to the scheme last year, New Forest council will have to pay out £7 million for disposing of its stock£7 million that would otherwise have been available to improve the life of tenants in the New Forest area. Can the Minister justify that? Will he undertake to review the 8 per cent. charged by his Department, as that is no longer consistent with market rates?

This year, we have the largest programme ever of authorities seeking transfer, so the financial circumstances are not such as to put them off. The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. Is he not aware that we have already announced that we are reducing the 8 per cent. discount rate to 7 per cent?

Is it not right to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister that all housing stock transfers must receive the approval of the tenants concerned? Is it not important to remember that, in some cases, it will enable local authorities to tackle both their private sector and their public sector problems better if such approval is given? In councils such as Burnley, with low-value properties, there will be a residual debt problem, through no fault of the authority. Has that yet been overcome?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point about the importance of keeping tenants closely involved and securing their support for any proposal for transfer. What a contrast with the previous Government, who introduced a botched and rigged voting system for their infamous tenants' choice scheme. It was designed to imply that anyone who did not vote was in. favour. That sort of gerrymandering has no place in this Government's approach.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government have recently approved the transfer of no fewer than 130,000 homes? Given his acceptance in an earlier answer that that is a record for large-scale voluntary transfers, will he also confirm that, as long as the Government are still casting around for their own distinctive housing policy, they will continue to apply proven Conservative housing policies such as LSVT?

I will do no such thing, but I will confirm that the Government are pursuing housing policies that are designed to respond to the needs of the country and to the aspirations of tenants. I have referred to the very real difference between our attitude and that of the hon. Gentleman's party, which took tenants for granted and tried to impose voting systems that were an absolute caricature of tenant consultation. We are determined to ensure that housing needs are met through the release of additional resources, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has already referred, through the comprehensive spending review.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the previous Administration, stock transfers from councils to housing associations were not always in the best long-term interests of the tenants? They drove rents even higher than they drove up council rents; they did not foster tenant involvement in the housing association sector, which they did in the council sector; and they paid no attention to management costs, from the chief executive's salary downwards. Will he assure the House that this Government will take heed of those matters?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely fair point and highlights the extent to which the previous Government drove rents upwards in a way that led to extreme poverty for many tenants and increased the poverty trap. That is why this Government are pursuing a policy to ensure that there is moderation in rent increases for social housing and are seeking to ensure that tenants have genuine choice when they choose their appropriate future home. That is a principle on which the Government will continue to operate.

What plans he has for the funding for rural bypasses in 2000–01. [82787]

Construction is due to begin on five rural bypass schemes in our targeted programme of improvements in 2000–01.

The Minister can no longer take decisions on bypasses in Scotland, although he represents a Scottish constituency, but he remains the prime authority for decisions on funding for bypasses in England and in Worcestershire. May I seek an assurance from him that there will be large and adequate sums of money available to fund the construction of the urgently needed bypasses in the English shire counties, such as the Wyre Piddle bypass? The need for an improved environment and increased road safety was tragically demonstrated by the serious accident there only last week.

I am delighted that I was able to announce 15 bypasses within two days of having the honour of becoming a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—three times more than the Conservative Government announced in the previous three or four years. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Wyre Piddle bypass. I am aware of the tragic accident of 28 April, which the police are investigating, and, as he will know, his own county council may submit an application under its local transport plan, which is due in July.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, where there was no alternative, the Government would support the building of bypasses for small rural market towns? One such case is Bungay in my constituency, where, every day, many trucks from Bernard Matthewsa major East Anglian employer—simply have to squeeze their way through the ancient and narrow streets of Bungay because there is no alternative route to the processing factory 10 miles to the south. Would it not be a major improvement for the environment of Bungay if a bypass were built?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his clever question. He will understand if I agree only with the general proposition; that, where there is no alternative, we will look at the creation of bypasses. That is why we have created more than the previous Government. I am pleased to say that five of the seven schemes in our targeted programme of improvements to start in 2000-01 are rural bypasses. I shall restrain myself from commenting on the specific merits of Bungay and associated roads in the area.

Is the Minister aware of the enormous damage that is being done to the environment—particularly the ancient trees of Epping Forest—as a result of the amount of traffic that is passing through the forest because of the cancellation of the planned north-facing slip roads at junction 5 of the M11, which would have created, effectively, the Epping bypass? Given the new evidence of the vast environmental damage being done to those protected trees, which have been there for more than 150 years, will the Minister reconsider his decision not to build the north-facing slip roads, and build them?

I am always grateful for all information given to me by the hon. Lady on arboriculture. She would not expect me—however convincing her one-minute question might have been—suddenly to announce a change to the complete roads programme of Britain.

When he last discussed the problems facing the road haulage industry with representatives of the industry. [82788]

I frequently meet the road haulage industry associations. For instance, on 27 April, I met a number of individual hauliers and held informal talks with the director-general and president of the Freight Transport Association. On the same day, I met the director-general of the Road Haulage Association. I very much look forward to meeting the industry tonight as the guest of honour at the Road Haulage Association dinner.

May I express support for my right hon. Friend's policy of promoting dialogue with the industry, rather than the confrontation pursued by certain groups within the industry, not to mention by the Conservative party? However, does he accept that the significant increases in fuel duty have imposed burdens, particularly on smaller road hauliers in more remote areas; including the successful company in my constituency, L. E. Jones International? Does he take those concerns to heart, and will he redress that problem?

One of the reasons why we have established the road haulage forum is to address issues such as those raised by my hon. Friend. We will be looking at all issues, particularly competitiveness and matters affecting it. As far as his support for dialogue rather than disruption is concerned, I fully support that, and I hope very much that that is shared by everyone attending tonight's dinner.

If the Minister met representatives of the road haulage industry in my constituency—I have some big road haulage companies which operate not only nationally, but internationally—one of the road projects that they would like to see included in a roads programme would be the Poynton bypass—[Interruption.]

Order. We are dealing with road haulage matters. I know that the hon. Gentleman tried to get in on an earlier question, and was not successful.

The question refers to

"the problems facing the road haulage industry"

Order. The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Procedure Committee, so I think that he knows better than that. Would the Minister like to answer about the road in that area, and not get on to Manchester airport?

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for preparing me with that information for the Road Haulage Association dinner that I shall attend later tonight, for any future aviation dinners and for any Conservative association dinners in his constituency.

Will my right hon. Friend also take into consideration hauliers in Kent, particularly in north and east Kent, who are suffering from the cheap costs of fuel in France? Will he give some thought to the fact that Customs and Excise has the right to charge fuel duty as drivers come into this country? Where is he with the current discussions with road hauliers?

The first meeting of the road haulage forum took place on Thursday 8 April. The Freight Transport Association said that it was

"very impressed and encouraged by the will, intent and urgency of the Forum to get to grips with our industry's problems without delay."

It has been a privilege to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—may I get that in first? May I also point out how welcome it is that the right hon. Gentleman has given up misusing the KPMG report on these occasions?

May I say in reciprocation that it is a great honour and privilege to serve under my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister? With all due respect to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), I think that I have gained more from that experience than the hon. Gentleman has from his.

What representations he has received about the crossrail project. [82789]

We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and hon. Friends, mostly on behalf of individual constituents and local authorities.

I am grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a fast rail link from east to west London, including Stratford to Paddington, would not only take a great deal of pressure off the underground system—the District, Circle, Metropolitan and Central lines—but greatly benefit those who live in one side of London, but work in the other, and the many millions of visitors to our capital city?

My hon. Friend makes a fair case for crossrail. However, we have not cancelled the project—although the previous Administration said that it should not proceed any further. The crossrail route has been protected, and we have taken all measures necessary to ensure that it is available when a decision is taken on the project. I should say that that decision is more likely to be made by the London mayor and assembly.

Does not the prospect of road-user and workplace car-parking charges make it more important than ever that effective public transport links—from the west into London, and to the east—such as crossrail, be instituted? Is not the real problem that the Administration have been unable to build public-private partnerships in selling London Underground leases, so that its capital budget is so constrained that money is just not available?

Most people will recall that, under the previous Administration, an assessment of various transport links—to the north, south, east and west, and crossrail—was made, and that a good case was made for building all the links. However, a choice had to be made. The previous Administration chose to build the Jubilee line extension; we are choosing to create a public-private partnership for London Underground, and that programme is on time. We are currently in the pre-qualifying period and inviting bidders. We shall, by autumn 1999, issue invitations to tender, and those tenders should be returned by spring 2000. Progress on the programme is continuing, as stated to the House.

If he will make a statement on the integration of road and canal transport. [82790]

A key message of the integrated transport White Paper is to ensure that all forms of transport, including waterways, work well together, and that each is able to make its maximum contribution.

In practice, that "key message" is a load of old tosh. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as planned, the Birmingham northern relief road would cut the Lichfield-Hatherton canal in half? Is he also aware that the Government inspector said that an overpass or underpass should be provided? Is he further aware that his boss—the two—Jag Secretary of State—overruled the inspector, so that work on the canal cannot go ahead, damaging prospects for canals in south Staffordshire? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that might have had something to do with the fact that both Lichfield district and city councils were won back by the Conservatives? Were not the Government's decisions a disaster, and what will they do in future to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again?

Speaking of a load of tosh, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he seems to be at variance with both his Front-Bench colleagues and some of his Back-Bench colleagues, who, only a few moments ago, were supporting not only the road haulage industry, but new roads across the length and breadth of England. I remind him of the 15-month public inquiry on the relief road, at the end of which the Government, in the national interest, took a decision on it.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a wholly unsatisfactory answer and I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

In that case, we must now move on to the next question.

If he will make a statement on the proposed changes to planning appeal procedures in Yorkshire and Humberside. [82791]

What is the current position regarding proposed changes to planning appeal procedures in London. [82795]

I announced the Government's conclusions on improvements to planning appeal procedures on 31 March. The improved procedures will apply throughout England and are not confined to any specific region.

Will my right hon. Friend further consider appeal procedures that cause problems in local authorities? As a classic example, a local authority Sheffield—refuses a development; the decision is overturned by the Tory Secretary of State; the developer continues; the banking falls down; half a road is demolished; those in housing at the top, which has nothing to do with the development, have to live with an eyesore for three years; local government has no power to deal with the problem; insurance companies play hide and seek; and the developer may go bankrupt. If the Secretary of State overrides a local authority, surely the responsibility resides with the Secretary of State, and not the local authority.

My hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State's reserve powers are used extremely sparingly: of about half a million planning applications that go through every year, about 120 to 150 are called in. The general principle that successive Administrations have followed is that planning decisions are better taken locally, within a strategic framework, which we are trying to develop at regional and local level.

Unlike my hon. Friend, I welcome the new appeal procedures, which are part of an overall modernisation of the planning system. Given that a new Greater London Authority is to be created, and the complexity of some of the issues in the capital, what does the Department intend to do to modernise the planning system in Greater London?

The exercise in which we have been engaged since we came to office, which was illustrated to the House in our first report on modernising planning, shows that we have taken a systematic approach to the whole question of land use planning. More importantly, we must start linking that with transport and economic planning, to give us a comprehensive planning system that will be applied not only in the regions but in London. The decisions for London will be the responsibility of the mayor and the new authority, but they must be taken in concert with our modernisation of the overall planning programme.

What is the point of giving the Greater London Authority the power to direct a local planning authority in London to refuse a significant planning application, when the applicant will have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State? Would it not be far better to be more radical and give the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to decide planning appeals, except in those significant planning applications that would affect areas outside Greater London?

The new mayor will have to consider the wider concerns of London, not only factoring in the land use planning but taking an overview. As the legislation clearly states, the final decision lies with the Secretary of State. We are trying to bring a more holistic approach to the whole question of planning, of which land use planning is but one aspect. The London development agency will discuss transport and economic planning with the mayor. We hope that more informed decisions will be reached, to address the overall needs of London and, indeed, of the English regions.

Many people throughout the regions warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's changes to planning procedures, but does he accept that much of what he has said about the role of the Greater London Authority applies equally to the regions, which want a strategic role in planning and much else, through the regional development agencies in the interim, but eventually through regional assemblies?

My hon. Friend knows that, through the regional planning guidance, we have instituted an examination in public so that all those issues can be addressed, including the economic impact that the RDAs have at regional level. That agenda will make progress, slowly but surely.