If he will assess the Chantrey Vellacott report into the financing costs of the public-private partnership for London Underground, a copy of which has been sent to him. [85779]

We have assessed the note published by Chantrey Vellacott, but consider the analysis within it to be flawed.

I thank the Secretary of State for his response, even though, having given him advance notice of my question, I had hoped for a more considered reply. I repeat the question that I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time: is the extra cost of the Government's public-private partnership proposals for London Underground going to be £8 billion—yes or no?

The extra investment will be approximately £7 billion, but it will not be raised entirely through borrowing or through fares, so the analysis is flawed.

Given the very high commitment of public funds to private finance initiative schemes, has my right hon. Friend considered the risk that, by appraising schemes using the Treasury's discount rate of 6 per cent., a spurious impression of value for money will be created?

In all those projects, we are required to demonstrate value for money; the House of Commons Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee have all made that absolutely clear. Our proposals, whether on Treasury assessment, bond financing or anything else, all have to be subject to that judgment. In my judgment, the proposals that we shall announce later will meet that requirement.

If the first mayor of London is elected on a pledge to reject the Secretary of State's public-private partnership, what happens?

We have made it absolutely clear that we shall sign the deal. I am sure that the mayor of London wants a London Underground in which there is good investment, and our proposals will provide that. I cannot think of a Labour Member of Parliament who would not want a good underground system.

If he will make a statement on trends in the number of people using trains. [85780]

The Government welcome the marked upward trend in the number of people using trains.

We all welcome the increase in the number of people using trains, but will my right hon. Friend do all she can to support the increased use of local trains? In particular, will she support the work of Nottinghamshire county council and Nottingham city council on the Greater Nottingham area rail development strategy, which is designed to get more local people to use local trains, rather than clogging up the city's roads as they go in and out of town?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I applaud him for raising the issue. In his area, the Robin Hood line has been greatly welcomed, but we must see that line as the beginning of the story, not the end. The use of local rail links fits in well with the Government's integrated transport strategy, so I commend the Greater Nottingham rail development strategy and look forward to its implementation.

I draw the Minister's attention to the figures published today by the rail franchising director on the punctuality and reliability of services. It is one thing to have increasing numbers of passengers, but those figures show that reliability and punctuality are declining among many rail providers. Is that the future of public transport and of trains under the Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister during the rail summit: as the number of people travelling by train increases, it is important that overcrowding does not become a factor that inhibits the quality of service to passengers. When the rail franchising director considers the renegotiation of franchises that my right hon. Friend announced at the summit, such factors must be taken into account. Ultimately, it is the performance and efficiency of the rail network and the quality of the experience for passengers that are important and must be taken into account.

May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position? I am sure that she will do extraordinarily well. Does she agree that the increases in train patronage, constraints on road building and the escalator in taxation of polluting fuels provide a virtuous environment for private sector investment in rail infrastructure, rolling stock and track? Will she use her position to put pressure on the industry to put greater investment into capacity, so that people can make greater use of trains in an environmentally sustainable way?

Given such a gracious welcome to my position, it would be churlish of me not to agree with my hon. Friend. However, I do agree with him that it is important to improve the quality of the experience of those using public transport, so that public transport becomes a viable alternative that is both attractive and efficient. Road users and users of public transport want services to be improved, because if we ease congestion and improve public transport, everyone gains.

I join in congratulating the right hon. Lady on her appointment—although some of her colleagues could be forgiven for thinking, "No Labour Transport Ministers for 18 years and then three come along at once."

May I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities at the Dispatch Box? It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition has split the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that two shadow Secretaries of State are required to match up to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman talked about three Transport Ministers arriving at once. The Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), and I attended the same school, so that is perhaps a measure of the effectiveness of our education.

When he expects to bring forward legislation on concessionary travel for the elderly and the retired. [85781]

Legislation to fulfil our commitment to minimum half-fare travel on buses for pensioners will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits. Individual local authorities are free to adopt the proposed minimum standard in advance of legislation.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate that, while Back Benchers and our constituents understand that the Labour Government cannot achieve everything at once—it is a question of priorities and dealing with legislative bottlenecks—there is a growing impatience among some, particularly in the conurbations where boroughs such as mine interface with London boroughs, who believe that the measure should be implemented as quickly as possible? I urge my right hon. Friend to persuade business managers to provide early legislative time so that we may have the scheme up and running long before the next general election.

I understand my hon. Friend's comments about the impatience in this area. We are committed to introducing the half-fare system for pensioners, which we think is right. However, there is nothing to stop any authority introducing that scheme now. I understand that the authority of Thurrock has introduced a half-rate scheme that it subjects to means testing. The difference with our scheme is that 17,000, rather than 7,000, pensioners in Thurrock would qualify for it. Some 3 million pensioners overall will benefit from the scheme.

Given that approximately half of local authorities are currently unable to provide the concessionary fare schemes of which the Government are in favour—partly because of the substantial costs that they would entail—can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the statutory scheme that he proposes to introduce will involve no additional cost whatsoever for any local authority in this country and that, therefore, no local authority will be required to increase council tax to pay for the right hon. Gentleman's pledge?

It is just not true to say that a substantial number of local authorities do not pay for some form of concessionary fares—in fact, only 10 do not and they are all Conservative or Independent councils. The total scheme will cost an extra £25 million nationally, which the Government are quite prepared to meet.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that national concessionary travel is extremely good news for pensioners. Is there similar good news for those pensioners who are former employees of the National Bus Company and whose pension fund was raided by the previous Tory Government to the tune of millions of pounds?

The House is well aware of the ability that my hon. Friend has demonstrated in pursuing the injustice that arose out of the privatisation of the National Bus Company, whereby many thousands of pensioners were denied hundreds of millions of pounds in pension rights. We have now concluded an agreement, and I can confirm that we have reached a settlement with the pension fund trustees which is worth £356 million to 50,000 pensioners, and the trustees will be recommending that offer to the court. That corrects an injustice that arose from the privatisation.

If he will make a statement on the future of regional airports. [85782]

We shall encourage the growth of regional airports to maximise the contribution that they make to local and regional economies, always consistent with sustainable development principles.

Would the Minister welcome and encourage the involvement of Birmingham airport, the National Exhibition Centre, Virgin and Railtrack in the development of an efficient transit system between the airport, the railway station and the exhibition centre, with the private sector in the lead? Will she pay a visit to Birmingham airport to find out what transport needs it has?

I should be delighted to make another visit to Birmingham. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we strongly support the development of a public transport interchange, including a new people mover system. We have forwarded an application to the European Commission for trans-European network funding for phase 1 of the interchange scheme, and we expect to receive a reply in the next few months.

Will my hon. Friend hold urgent talks with the companies that are increasingly using the slots of south-east airports which enable the regional airports to use their services? They are losing their slots because they are being handed over to transatlantic flights. Will she look hard at what is happening to regional airports, because if they lose their access to the south-east, they will be badly damaged, and passengers will be very upset?

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have been concentrating on that issue for some considerable time. We have been at the forefront in urging the European Commission, when it eventually submits its proposals for slot allocation, to make its main consideration our arguments about protecting the regions.

I hope that the Minister will not mind if I mention Manchester international airport, which is also a regional airport. Does she accept that it is essential not only to have integrated public transport to ensure that the second runway at Manchester is fully used—as I believe it will be—but that the road network feeding Manchester airport, particularly from the east, north-east and south-east, is completed if the area around the airport is not to be submerged under an unacceptable volume of commercial and domestic traffic?

I am of course delighted to highlight the success of Manchester airport, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to congratulate the Government on their policy for our regional airports. We have ensured the relaxation of borrowing limits for those airports that have demonstrated that they are eminently capable of balancing their books, and of course Manchester is one of those airports. We have consistently made it clear that surface access to all airports is central to their being able to operate within our requirements for sustainable development.

It is nice to hear my hon. Friend's warm words about Manchester airport because it has just purchased an 82 per cent. share in Humberside airport. Will she congratulate Manchester airport, particularly on its announcement of a £6 million investment in Humberside? Also, will she guarantee that regional airports will have the necessary commercial freedom to develop their capacity?

I have already sent my congratulations to Manchester airport, and I am delighted to send them also to Humberside. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my delight in the practical application of the Government's foresight in making possible a relaxation of borrowing controls for our airports. It is another indication of the Government's long-term aim of ensuring that regional airports work together in the interests not only of their own regions, but of the entire United Kingdom.

What progress has been made in investigating whether a public service obligation can be imposed for the provision of regional air services, particularly those between London Heathrow and Inverness?

It is my understanding that there were fruitful discussions with representatives from Inverness. The hon. Gentleman raises an issue on which I have already touched—the importance that we attach to access from the regions to important airports in the south-east, which is why we have consistently argued to the Commission that when it eventually presents its revised proposals for slot allocation, regional factors should be at the forefront of its consideration.

What plans he has for research on the disposal of radioactive waste. [85783]

The Department's plans for environmental research are contained in the environmental protection group research newsletter 1999–2000, a copy of which is available in the Library. These include two projects specifically on the disposal of radioactive waste—an assessment of the long-term safety concerns that determine confidence in waste management options, and the continuation of the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal research strategy project.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with the recent national consensus conference on radioactive waste management that was held in London, which reached the conclusion that there should be no further development of the nuclear industry until we learn how to deal adequately with the waste problem?

We certainly agree that the disposal of radioactive waste—an issue that has defeated previous Governments on a number of well-known occasions—is a matter that needs to be resolved. For that reason, we will publish our response soon to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. We agree that there should be wide-ranging consultations before final conclusions are reached as to whether radioactive waste should be stored above ground or in deep underground repositories. Until that matter is resolved, there will continue to be serious problems for the industry.

If he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the beacon council scheme. [85784]

We invited councils to apply for beacon status with the publication last month of the beacon council scheme application brochure. The deadline for applications is 31 July, and we anticipate announcing the first beacon councils in November.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware of the enthusiasm of many forward-looking councils for the beacon council scheme?

Not Reading!

Well done! Indeed, Reading council is applying for beacon council status in two service areas. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is high time that forward-looking councils such as Reading, which are virtually Tory-free zones, had an opportunity to share their best practice with the rest of local government, and their electoral tactics with other parts of the Labour party?

I am delighted to hear of the enthusiasm in Reading. In response to the consultation document, only two councils—Liberal Ribble Valley and Conservative Wandsworth—opposed the beacon council scheme. The remaining 144 respondents fully supported it. Today I am arranging for the full responses to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

"irrationally tied in to the Government's modernisation and Best Value initiatives".

"a mechanism by which councils can improve the services they provide and learn new ideas on how to tackle problems their communities face."

Does the Minister agree that, given Labour's appalling record in local government of waste, mismanagement, incompetence and downright corruption, the Government are in no position to lecture any local authority on standards of quality in local government? Does not she have to agree that the reason the electorate up and down the country so decisively rejected Labour in the local elections recently, as they did in the European elections this week, is absolutely clear? Labour is going down to rejection by the electorate at the next general election.

I think that the hon. Gentleman has some way to go and a bit to learn yet. I see that he is up for sale; perhaps he can get a price that will mean that the Conservative party has a future. In the meantime, local government recognises its responsibility and, although the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, Labour local government is considered by independent bodies such as the Audit Commission to be improving year on year. That is our target and that is what we will achieve. We will make sure that local councils are able to face the real challenges of the 21st century, and it is a pity that he is not with us on that.

What discussions he has had on the prospects for the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston rail route; and if he will make a statement. [85785]

The Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising Director has had regular discussions about improving direct services on the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston route with Railtrack, Virgin West Coast, which is the current service provider, and First North Western, which has made a commitment to provide services from 2000 in addition to the services currently being provided by Virgin.

For a generation, that service has been substandard, and quite intolerably so. What new investment, rolling stock and timetables will there be, to the benefit of north Wales users who look to the service to help to attract new industry to the area? Today, my constituency celebrates an £800 million defence contract, which will bring new, high-quality work to the area, and my Raytheon aerospace workers are grateful, but does my right hon. Friend accept that we could attract many more such projects if we had a first-class rail service?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his imminent elevation to the Privy Council, which is fair recognition of his service to the House and to his constituents. The point that he raised about the Holyhead to Euston route is valid. There has been fragmentation on the route over the past 18 years, but, because of the development of the west coast main line and the services that are to be provided by Virgin West Coast and the other developers, there will be through services which will benefit the economic development of the area.

Will the Minister redouble her efforts? I ask that because a group of Japanese potential investors who recently came to north Wales by train arrived two hours late and decided, "That's enough; we are not going to invest in north Wales." Travelling on an early train from north Wales is like playing Russian roulette—the service is appalling.

The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. If we are to improve our economic performance, we must make sure that our transport infrastructure is second to none. The developments on the west coast main line and the spur developments coming off it are critical and, because of that, I have invited Railtrack and the Association of Train Operating Companies to see me in the next few weeks. I want to talk about issues such as that which he has raised; it is vital to all of us and to the economic performance of our country.

If it is the policy of the Government to plan for directly elected regional assemblies in England. [85786]

We remain committed to directly elected regional government in England where there is demand for it. Meanwhile, the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom continue to be properly covered by the present organisation of the United Kingdom Government.

Is it not plain that once the people of regions such as the north-east, Yorkshire, the north-west and the south-west see assemblies in Wales, Scotland and, in due course, London discussing their needs and budgets with central Government, the demand for directly elected assemblies in their own regions will be very strong? It is a time for leadership; there must be leadership, and the Government must indicate clearly what plans and what sort of timetable they are considering, so that we can ask our people to support the proposals in a referendum.

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the Government's position. We have set up regional development agencies, which are there to address the economic deficit that, unfortunately, exists in our English regions. We are now establishing regional chambers, which, in the main, will be in the public sector. The legislation governing regional development agencies will mean that they must cross-check with the regional chambers, and that proper consultation must take place.

How far has the Government's enthusiasm for regional assemblies been diluted by the disastrous turnout in the European elections?

Not at all.

Not only is this positively my last appearance, but it must be clear to the House that this afternoon I am on borrowed time.

We have no reason to go back on the decisions that were made, which the British electorate supported at the 1997 general election. We will come through. We are not a "here today, gone tomorrow" party, moving around the political spectrum as some Opposition Members do. We do not know what their policies are, because they alter them from day to day, let alone from week to week. We will manage the change—a change that we believe to be in the country's interests, because it addresses both the economic and the democratic deficits.

What steps he is taking to ensure environmental considerations identified by his Department are recognised within the ministerial group on bio-technology and genetic modification. [85787]

Environmental considerations are at the forefront of all our decisions on genetically modified organisms. They are fully taken into account by the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification.

I hear what the Minister says, but is he aware of the fear that the new committee is being used not to strengthen the protection of the environment, but to shut down opposition from his Department in the face of the fanatically pro-GM lobby? Perhaps the isolation distance that has been eradicated has led to some cross-contamination from some of his rather less environmentally friendly colleagues.

We have made it very clear that we wish to be wholly transparent in the manner in which we deal with the issue. We realise that public opinion is seriously concerned about it—very seriously concerned— and, indeed, highly polarised. The Government are trying to advance the prospects of the technology, which is certainly important and has potential consumer benefits, in a manner that secures that any risk with regard to the human food chain or the environment is fully taken into account.

Further to that reply, my right hon. Friend will be aware of reports of the indirect effects of genetically modified crops on organisms such as lacewings and the larvae of monarch butterflies. Has the committee received, or will it receive, such reports? Have the Government commissioned their own laboratory research into such indirect effects?

My Department's committee, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, certainly watches very carefully international research on the issue, particularly with regard to lacewings and the monarch butterfly. Recently, the chairman of ACRE made it clear that it is looking at the full implications, particularly for the latter. However, it was a laboratory study and we need to take account of UK environmental conditions. In addition, the BT—bacillus thuringiensis—maize, the plant concerned in the experiment, is not released in the UK either commercially or experimentally; but we are looking at what are serious scientific results which may have a major effect for the future.

What measures has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that the resulting products of farm-scale trials of GM foods do not contaminate the environment?

That is the purpose of the farm-scale evaluations. Over several years, there have been several hundred—I think 600 to 700—small trial plantings of GM crops in this country, but to examine the impact on the environment generally, it is necessary to advance those to farm scale. That is why, this year, we have seven to nine fields which will be planted with oilseed rape and maize and, next year, 20 to 25. We want to get a nationally representative sample, precisely so that we will be able to see the impact that GM crops, as compared with non-GM crops, have on the environment, on invertebrates, on field margins, on insects and on bird populations. Again, we will do that completely openly with independent research contractors and an independent scientific review committee. We will make clear the evidence wholly and transparently before we reach a conclusion.

How many representations he has received during the last 12 months (a) in favour of and (b) against the development of genetically modified crops. [85788]

During the past 12 months, about 4,000 letters have been received. Almost all expressed concerns on various aspects of genetically modified crops.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his sober and rational response to the article by Prince Charles on 2 June containing his 10 questions. Those are the very questions that the general public want answered. Why are GM foods necessary? In view of the enormous public concern and hostility to these technologies, do we really need GM foods?

The honest answer is that we do not need GM foods, but the technology has some potential benefits. It enables products to have a longer shelf life and to be able to withstand saline or dry conditions in developing countries. There may well be additional benefits that are not yet known. However, we need to be extremely careful in developing the technology to ensure that there is no damage to the food chain or the environment. That is why I have made it clear that we will not allow commercial planting of GM crops until the Government have completed the farm-scale evaluations and have sufficient evidence to reach an authoritative judgment about the impact on the environment.

Given the level of alarm that the Minister has expressed, given the fact that people are starving in the world not because of a shortage of food but because of distribution problems, and given the environmental risks that we must inevitably be taking, does the Minister agree that there is no rush to develop these foods?

Indeed, I have made it clear that we will not be rushed into an early decision. I repeat that it would be wrong in my view and that of the Government to turn our back on this technology. It has mainly producer benefits at present but it could have some significant consumer benefits in the long run. However, we should not be stampeded by industrial or commercial interests to take a decision in favour of this technology until we know—and can produce the evidence for everyone to look at—that it is wholly safe.

My right hon. Friend will have received representations from Monmouthshire about applications to grow genetically modified crops in the area. One of the major concerns has been expressed by organic farmers. What assurance can the Minister give me that there will be no cross-contamination for organic producers?

That is an important issue to which the Government are giving great attention. There have been discussions with organic farmer representatives at official level in my Department and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are, quite rightly, concerned that their organic products should not be cross-contaminated. The Government wish to protect their interests and to see an increase in organic products in this country because consumer demand is considerably in excess of domestic supply, with consequential balance of payments problems.

What representations he has received regarding his proposed regulations on the use of lead shot. [85789]

As of 27 May 1999 my Department has received a total of approximately 400 representations on the proposed regulations on the use of lead shot. My officials are currently analysing the responses.

The Minister will be aware of the diminution of liberty that has arisen over recent years as a consequence of the raft of officials who now have access to our homes. Will he play his part in turning that tide by amending the regulations so that they are enforceable only by properly authorised police officers? Will he also consider removing from the species list the common snipe and the golden plover, and consider whether there are sites of special scientific interest that are not entirely appropriate for the regulations and remove them from the sites list?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that, for a long time, the Prime Minister has led a better regulation committee. I can confirm that it is the Government's intention that the main enforcing authority for such regulations would be the police. Along with the outcome of the consultations, all the hon. Gentleman's representations, which have been made not only today but previously in writing, will be considered in due course.

Has the Minister met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the matter? If so, what was the outcome?

I am currently not at liberty to inform my hon. Friend of the outcome, but I give a commitment to reply to him in writing.

If he will list the number of vacant dwellings in (a) the public and (b) the private sector. [85790]

Latest estimates, at 1 April 1998, are that there were 100,700 vacant dwellings in the public sector, and 652,500 in the private sector.

Why cannot more be done to use existing housing stock, rather than building excessively on green-field land?

The hon. Gentleman has for some time sought to keep a close eye on the matter. As he will have heard, the majority of vacant properties are in the private sector. Most of those properties are vacant for only a short time, while people are seeking to move. However, we are very carefully examining the matter of void properties, as we realise that it is a problem.

My right hon. Friend will know that Burnley has one the highest percentages of unoccupied private sector properties in the whole of England, and that that is one of the reasons why it has a residual debt problem in housing stock transfers. Is it not crucial that that problem be solved, so that a ballot can be held, and Burnley borough council will be able to tackle the private sector housing problem—which is largely the result of the previous Government's actions?

My hon. Friend tells a story that the previous Administration always refused even to consider, just as they refused to admit the consequences of their actions. The Government are determined that, in every area, we shall be able to ensure a proper housing supply to meet local people's demands and needs. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are actively examining the problem of overhanging debt in transfers, and that we are determined to find a way forward. I only wish that that work could have started much earlier.

I thank the Minister for giving those figures, which she was woefully unable to give recently in Committee. Does she agree with the recent Shelter report, entitled "No excuse not to build", which says that there are very large regional imbalances in housing vacancy rates and concludes that

"current housing and planning policies are failing to provide sufficient good quality affordable homes to meet need"?

The hon. Gentleman needs to consult the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who was making a very different argument. There is—although it was never admitted before the general election—a highly variable pattern of housing across the United Kingdom. In several parts of the country, there was no attempt to increase economic activity; consequently, there were simply too many houses. The Government are taking action not only on increasing regional economic activity, but on examining the real problem of low housing demand in some parts of the country.

What progress has been made to date in the implementation of the new deal for communities. [85791]

Our new deal for communities has given 17 pathfinder partnerships in some of our most deprived neighbourhoods the opportunity to tackle the deep-rooted problems of social exclusion that were left us by the previous Administration. We shall continue to support those community-based partnerships as they develop plans to deliver lasting and sustainable change.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I can confirm the good progress of the pathfinder scheme in the Woodlands estate in West Ham, having discussed the matter with constituents such as Liz Ayres. The London borough of Newham, which is a key partner, is very pleased with the initiative so far. When is the programme likely to be rolled out to other communities?

Of the 17 partnerships, 10 went straight to the first phase of the new deal for communities. They are developing long-term strategies. The other seven were asked to go back and do further work. I hope that we shall be able to make some announcements early next week. From what I have seen, they are all making positive progress. We are considering rolling out a further programme, possibly later this year.

Has the Minister looked at councils such as Weymouth, which was Labour-controlled until the party lost control at the local elections? The Government have consistently denied funds to areas such as Weymouth, although we have social problems as well, whereas the inner cities get additional central Government funds even though they do not spend up to their standard spending assessment. Surely that is unfair and very stupid, particularly as Labour is losing seats in all the local councils in the south-west and would have lost every seat in the south-west if there had been a general election last Thursday.

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman distracted attention from the main point of his question about Weymouth, to which he did not do justice. We are dealing with sustainable regeneration by looking at all the pots of money that are available, including the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget, which was 20 per cent. top-sliced to ensure that it could be targeted on areas outside the inner cities such as the coalfield communities, rural communities and some coastal towns which are suffering genuine deprivation.

If he will take steps to encourage the provision of free car parking at railway stations. [85793]

Charges for car parking at railway stations are a matter for Railtrack and the train operating companies. However, we encourage Railtrack and the train operating companies to provide facilities at their stations to allow safe and easy access for all passengers.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that car parking charges imposed by train operating companies have an effect on the residents of adjoining streets? Those charges can generate considerable revenue, which the train operating companies should invest in facilities for travellers and those affected by their policies rather than simply treating travellers as a captive audience for generating money to go straight on to their bottom line.

Car parking standards and charges are not covered in current franchise agreements but we are clear that good interchange has a vital role to play in improving public transport. Our integrated transport White Paper made clear its importance for promoting integrated transport and minimising disruption and inconvenience to users. In preparing their transport plans, local authorities undertake an interchange audit to assess such facilities.

If he will make a statement on his policy for reducing noise from motorways and other trunk roads. [85794]

We have established a policy of using quieter surfaces where appropriate in resurfacing trunk roads. We have set up an annual budget of £5 million to deal with some of the most serious cases of noise from existing roads. Sift criteria to identify cases meriting further study were announced on 22 March.

Will the Minister confirm that when the M3 in the vicinity of Basingstoke requires resurfacing the most effective noise-reducing surface will be used, and that that stretch of road also qualifies for spending under the Government's £5 million a year ring-fenced budget for noise reduction?

The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on many occasions over a number of years, and I commend him for that. As he will know, a study is being undertaken into noise along the M3. I expect the results of that study probably before the end of July, which will allow me to make a decision on what further action may be necessary. The sift criteria have been eased so that it is more likely that more noise-limiting measures can be introduced, but it is really a matter for technical evaluation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the interest that she has taken in this matter, especially in relation to the area of Upton St. Leonards on the M5 in my constituency, where there is a particular problem. Will she consider publishing the sift analysis so that we know exactly what the problems are and can consider the pecking order in which they should be dealt with?

The announcement on Monday 22 March 1999 set out many of the criteria on noise levels immediately adjacent to the road. The 1998 level is an average 80 decibels. We need an idea of the scale of the problems throughout the country so that we can prioritise how to spend the ring-fenced money to ensure that people's lives are made easier by reducing the worst road noise and its effects on local communities.

Is the Minister aware that major road improvements lead to an increase in traffic which often spills over into other local roads? Last week I was at a well-attended meeting in the village of Compton in my constituency. People told me about the problems that had been caused by the vast increase in the volume of traffic resulting from the building of the connection with the M3 up the road. Is she aware that noise reduction measures in such villages can make a major improvement in people's lives? Given the extra £10 billion in taxation being extracted by the Government from the British motorist, cannot she increase the size of the fund for noise reduction measures?

Considering that the amount available for noise reduction measures is much more than was made available by the previous Government, and that the criteria have been changed to ensure that more roads are eligible for such assistance, that comment is rather rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. I do not underestimate the inconvenience caused by noise on roads. Local authority roads are not a matter for me directly, but the Government are aware of the difficulties that people can experience, and indeed of the measures that can be taken to mitigate noise. That is why we have ring-fenced the money and taken an especial interest in the matter.

If he will report on progress on the creation of a national land use database, with particular reference to Yorkshire and Humberside. [85795]

Provisional results from the first phase of the national land use database were published on 20 May. They show an estimated 33,000 hectares of previously developed vacant and derelict land in England in 1998, of which about 6,500 hectares was in Yorkshire and Humberside. More detailed results are available in a Government Statistical Service information bulletin, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. My Department will work with local authorities and others to develop a system to keep the information up to date and to expand the scope of the database to encompass all land uses.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should be advised about the need to ensure that the land bank is made available as rapidly as possible, rather than using green-field sites?

That is a decision for the local authorities, although there is nothing constraining them. At least when this Government came to power we got the basic statistics right and found out how much brown-field land was available for building—that is what the database is all about. Unfortunately, it was a somewhat fatuous debate when the Conservatives were in power, because they did not have that basic information to hand for the local authorities.