What steps he is taking to improve the quality of bus services in Yorkshire and Humberside area. [103251]

The Yorkshire and Humberside area will benefit from the measures in the Transport Bill. The Bill provides for a statutory form of bus quality partnership schemes and quality contracts in certain circumstances. That is in the interests of promoting high-quality public transport and a better environment.

I welcome the Bill, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that people in rural areas can feel physically isolated and socially excluded without access to good-quality bus services. The 1,800 new rural services have provided a lifeline to many of those people, but how many of those services are in the Yorkshire and Humberside area? What further action might be taken to improve rural bus services?

The rural bus scheme is highly successful. Of the 1,800 services, about 134 are in the Yorkshire and Humberside area. Some authorities have not done so well, though. North Yorkshire, for example, has spent only about 25 per cent. of the money that was available, but I am pleased to announce 50 new projects in the rural bus challenge fund scheme, five of which will be in Yorkshire and Humberside. Many more people will have the choice of public transport in rural areas.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government raise more from the fuel duty on community bus services than they pay every year in lottery grants. Will he therefore improve bus services in Humberside, Yorkshire and elsewhere by offering a fuel duty rebate to community bus services as well?

We will take no lectures from Opposition Members on fuel duty. We are providing a rural bus service that is welcomed in rural areas, despite Opposition Members' protests. This morning, I received a letter from a pensioner in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). It says:

"I am writing to tell you the Government's rural bus service initiative has produced two new bus services in my area. Not only that, they actually connect with the trains."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when, next year, as a result of legislation that is going through the House, pensioners in Selby, Yorkshire become entitled for the first time to half-fare bus passes, it would be advantageous if a reciprocal agreement could be reached between West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, the Selby district and all the other districts in Yorkshire, so that pensioners could use their half-fare bus passes throughout the county—as they can already be used between West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester?

We seek to achieve that. Indeed, the legislation that is before the House will achieve it: a statutory minimum half-fare system for pensioners. Two million pensioners will benefit. It is another example of a good transport system.

If he will make a statement on the latest proposals from Central Railway plc. [103252]

I am aware that Central Railway plc has been consulting about its proposal for a freight and passenger railway between Liverpool and Lille. I have received copies of the company's consultation documents, but have not taken a view on the scheme.

I well recall that, before he was elevated to his current position, the Minister was concerned about the Central Railway scheme and its effect on his constituency. My constituents remain deeply concerned about several routes that are blighting houses not only in Leicestershire but throughout the rest of the country, from Kent all the way to Liverpool. Will he state categorically whether any public money will be devoted to that grandiose scheme, which, although superficially attractive, seems unviable to most people? Are the Government minded to give it their support, which will be critical in bringing the scheme to the House? The company wishes to have parliamentary approval by the end of the year.

I recognise the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses on behalf of his constituents. He is right to observe that I have a certain hinterland on the issue. I understand that the company intends to submit a new application for an order before the summer, after which it will be obliged to consult on any applications and affected parties will have the right to put forward their views. No public money will be entailed in the scheme. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the Secretary of State will have a quasi-judicial role in considering the application.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply—he will know of my interest in and support for the scheme. Does he agree that such a scheme could fit in very well with the Government's transport policy, by transferring large amounts of road freight to rail; that it would save public money by reducing roads expenditure; and that it could contribute significantly to the financial viability of the channel tunnel?

I am certainly aware of the outspoken support that my hon. Friend has offered to the scheme, and recognise the passenger and freight implications of the proposal. I should, however, remind him that the Government are already taking effective action to secure the transfer of freight from road to rail.

If the Minister is not to support large projects for transferring freight from road to rail, as the Central project would do, which projects will he support? Does he agree that that project is one of many to increase capacity on the rail network but demanding billions of pounds—more than the £27 billion that Railtrack has identified, and possibly even more than the £40 billion said in one survey to be necessary? Where will the money come from? Will the Minister confirm that the much vaunted so-called relaunch of the Government's 10-year plan and £80 billion investment programme is nothing more than the repackaging of money that has already been committed by the private sector and the Government?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Railtrack itself has committed to a massive programme of new investment—amounting to £27 billion—in rail infrastructure across the country. Extra rail services are in place, 44 new rail freight terminals have been established since the Government came to power, and, in this period, rail freight movements are up by 15 per cent.

If he will make a statement about the progress being made by local authorities in developing best value. [103253]

Good progress is being made to meet the target date of 1 April 2000. The statutory framework for best value, including guidance and the new national performance indicators, is almost complete, and we are working closely with the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association to ensure that all authorities are up to date in their preparations.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, will she join me in congratulating many of the smaller local authorities—such as Tamworth borough council—which have for years delivered excellent and improving services while increasing council tax by less than the rate of inflation? Tamworth has been able to do that by stripping out layers of management. Will my hon. Friend not only give a guarantee that small authorities will not be encumbered by any more bureaucracy, but consider using a light touch in administering the policy? May I also have an assurance that small authorities—which, unlike large authorities, are not able to take advantage of economies of scale—will not be faced with a financial burden that they will have to pass on to local council tax payers?

My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the work that he did as leader of Tamworth council, to ensure that that council was efficient and worked effectively for local people—which, he will appreciate, is the main task of local authorities. Local authorities have not only to work effectively, but to meet local people's aspirations and demands, and the reality is that best value gives local authorities much more flexibility. As the pilots have demonstrated, the best value regime brings palpable improvements.

The Minister will know that last March the Prime Minister indicated that too many Labour councils were failing to deliver good value services to their citizens. Why is it that, under the Government's proposals for the best value programme, councils do not have a general requirement to consider tendering?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps been asleep during our discussions in the House. The legislation made it absolutely clear that the Government—and now the House—do not take an ideological approach. We say that councils have to find the best way forward, whether that involves using an in-house service, a partnership, the voluntary sector or a private sector company. We are looking for the best for the citizen and no single organisation necessarily produces that. So far from Whitehall saying, "We know best," we are saying, "You have a duty locally to deliver the best."

Why is best value better than compulsory competitive tendering?

It is better precisely because, as has been demonstrated already by the pilot studies, it responds effectively to the aims and aspirations of local people and seeks to get the best quality at the most efficient price. It does not represent an ideological approach, which was all that CCT was about.

What assessment the Government have made of possible health risks arising from waste incineration. [103254]

Emissions from incinerators are strictly regulated under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We are fully alert to health worries relating to incinerators and are confident that the high environmental protection standards set for them mean they do not pose unacceptable risks to health or the environment.

The Minister will be aware that the waste disposal authority in Greater Manchester has the worst record in the country for re-use and recycling, yet it has made proposals for five waste incinerators. Will the Minister tell that authority to put recycling and re-use ahead of incineration in its strategy, and will he enable that to happen by changing the basis of charging to tonnages in Greater Manchester?

The Government will publish their waste management strategy in the next few months. We shall make it very clear that our priority is to shift away from landfill to the maximum feasible increase in recycling. There may be occasions when the best practicable environmental option is incineration rather than recycling, but we look to a role for incineration only where recycling is not appropriate.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the target for recycling in Greater Manchester must increase dramatically? If the authority is looking for an incinerator, it must be combined heat and power, not simply a way of disposing of waste.

I entirely support my hon. Friend on both counts. If we are looking to any increase in incineration, or energy from waste, as it is now more politely called, we certainly expect it to be related to good quality combined heat and power. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the level of recycling—not just in Manchester or indeed my constituency of Oldham, but throughout the country—is pathetically low. Let me make that clear: it is 8 per cent. Our target is to reach 30 per cent. by 2010—that is a fourfold increase. There need to be dramatic increases right across the country and our waste management strategy is intended to provide the drivers to achieve that aim.

Is the Minister aware that in Marchwood in my constituency a large incineration plant was closed down some months ago because of the unacceptably high emissions? Is he further aware that a state of the art, modern incineration plant is planned to replace the old one; and can he guarantee to me and my constituents that the emissions from the new plant will give no reason for concern?

I understand the concern about the local siting of incinerators, which relates mostly to the old generation of incinerators that were phased out as a result of a EU directive in November 1996. We now have much tighter standards. Most concern is caused by dioxins; the current standard is no more than 1 nanogram per cubic metre, which means no more than 1 part in 1 billion. We know from studies by the Environment Agency that incinerators now give rise to no more than 4 per cent. of total dioxins, whereas 10 years ago that figure was 63 per cent. We also support tightening those standards even further and we shall support an EU directive on waste incineration that will raise the dioxin standard tenfold.

As landfill opportunities diminish throughout the United Kingdom and in spite of best efforts to recycle as much waste as possible, there will always be a need for incineration. What steps will the Minister take to reassure the public and avoid campaigns of opposition to the modern, highly technical and scientifically developed incineration plants?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that incineration will continue to have a place. The simple reason for that is that in this country we currently landfill between 80 to 85 per cent. of municipal waste. Under the landfill directive passed last year, that has to be reduced to no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2016. We have to make a massive shift away from landfill. I support the maximum feasible increase in recycling, and that is Government policy, but incineration is bound to have a role.

The Minister may be aware that Carlisle city council recently gave permission for a large plant that will burn waste wood. My constituents in the north of the city are deeply concerned about the pollution that will be created by the plant and by the hundreds of heavy goods vehicles that will bring the waste wood to the plant every day. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Environment Agency will examine the proposals thoroughly before any operating licence is issued to the plant?

There is no question but that the Environment Agency, in which I have confidence, undertakes rigorous inquiries before it grants consents. I have no reason to doubt that that is what will happen in my hon. Friend's case, and I shall support that. If there are objections, an open planning inquiry must be held before an inspector and his report must be made public. All objectors have a chance to make their points and they are taken into account. I assure my hon. Friend that that procedure will be thoroughly followed in his case.

What recent appraisal he has made of ways of limiting the harm done to fish stocks by acid rain. [103255]

Following the UK signature of the recent UN/ECE protocol, I expect UK emissions of sulphur dioxide, the main cause of acid rain, to fall by 83 per cent. between 1990 and 2010, and the area of ecosystem above the critical load for acidification to decrease by 79 per cent. This action should lead to significant improvements in the condition and numbers of fish stocks.

I thank the Minister for that reply, which is not very satisfactory. I should declare an interest: I am a fisherman, albeit not a very good one.

A great deal of work is being done, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that some progress has been made. One problem is that, although the chemical components involved have shown some recovery, the biological ones have not done so yet. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Environment Agency, the Welsh Executive and the Countryside Commission for Wales initiated an investigation into acid water in Wales. An initial report was published in November. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to see it, but those bodies tell me that they would be happy to make it available to him, even though it was not written for publication. They would also be happy to discuss the matter with him.

Has my hon. Friend been made aware of any connection between acid rain and climatic changes in general? In particular, has any connection been established with the increase in rainfall? There is considerable concern in Wales about the amount of flooding in the past 18 months, which has been greater than at any time in the previous 50 years. My constituents experienced flooding on Christmas Eve, in an area where they would not normally expect it.

Order. That is a long way from the original question.

I thank you for bearing with me, Madam Speaker.

I think that I have done very well by the hon. Gentleman. I have extended the good will associated with the time of year, but I am going to move on to another question.

I am sure that the Minister knows that one of the leading fish farms in the country is situated in the Wey valley in my constituency. The farm suffers greatly from the pollution coming from the Dorchester road, where traffic jams occur all year round. Will he have words with his colleagues to ensure—

Order. Come on, we must move on. I am being taken advantage of this afternoon.

By how much he estimates road traffic growth will fall as a result of the Government's decision to reduce expenditure on improving the roads network. [103257]

This year, the Government are spending £765 million on road maintenance—40 per cent. more than in the last year of Tory rule. Meanwhile, provisional figures show a growth in total road traffic of 3 per cent. between the third quarter of 1997 and 1999. That is a far slower rate of growth than in previous periods of sustained economic expansion: in the mid and late 1980s, annual traffic growth peaked at 5 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively.

The Minister's waffling and inaccurate answer clearly demonstrates—[Interruption.] The previous Conservative Government spent a great deal more money on roads than this Government would ever dream of spending. However, the Minister's answer shows that yet another Labour promise has been broken. The Government said that they would reduce the rate of traffic growth simply by not building any more roads. I am pleased that the Minister is telling us that the Government are now prepared to build more roads and bypasses in those parts of the country where they are needed to improve the quality of life and safety of local people. Will he therefore say when the Bordesley bypass in my constituency will be built?

I think that the hon. Lady is taking advantage of me. I believe that I heard her accuse the Government of cutting road spending. She has some nerve: in their final four years of power, the previous Conservative Government cut road maintenance by 9 per cent. That left Britain's motorway and trunk road network in the worst condition since records began.

Has my hon. Friend noted the repeated comments made in the letter from the Government office of the south-east to my local authority, Brighton and Hove council, about that council's success in holding car traffic growth in central Brighton? The letter states that this has no doubt contributed to

"an improved environment for business, shoppers and visitors to Brighton".

I am delighted to congratulate Brighton and Hove on its outstanding record in terms of new bus schemes, which have led to a significant increase in bus patronage in recent years—roughly 20 per cent. in the past 12 months alone. Brighton, like many Labour authorities, is leading the way in terms of the development of bus quality partnerships. I had the great pleasure and privilege yesterday of turning the first sod at the excellent new bus quality partnership in the town of South Shields. I congratulate South Shields, Brighton and many other Labour authorities.

Not only has the long-suffering motorist suffered from the cuts in the Government's roads programme—we now have bad news on the local transport settlement. Last year, 74.5 per cent. of the settlement was in supplementary credit approval and 25.5 per cent. was in transport supplementary grant. This year, we have had the announcement of a higher figure, and we have of course had the hype. However, when we look at the figures in detail, we see that 98.2 per cent. is in supplementary credit approval and only 1.8 per cent. is in transport supplementary grant. That is called moving the burden from Whitehall to the town hall, and it is bad news for local authorities and motorists. Will the Minister explain why we have had the worst transport supplementary grant settlement in history?

Well, it is the season of goodwill, and the hon. Gentleman is something of a novice on the Front Bench. Nevertheless, I find his observations on local transport settlements outrageous. In December, we announced the Government's decisions on local transport, which represented an increase across the board of 27 per cent. in terms of road maintenance provision and an increase in terms of public transport provision of 24 per cent. That was an outstanding settlement, and it was the beginning of an additional £700 million that will go to local authorities and local transport plans over the next three years.

Is it not just excellent that Labour-controlled Lancashire council embarked yesterday on another phase of the reconstruction of the rural moss roads network in my constituency? Is it not just marvellous that local communities and councils coming together will be able to use their new designation of objective 2—hopefully, some will use their designation under single regeneration budget 6 and 7—to reconstruct entirely that network, which was so grievously neglected by the previous Conservative Government? Will my hon. Friend join me in the hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement at 3.30 pm will give some funding to the excellent Garstang super-8 minibus project to revitalise public transport in that rural area?

I find myself in considerable agreement with my hon. Friend.

What immediate plans he has to reduce congestion levels on roads. [103258]

If he will make a statement on the level of traffic congestion in (a) 1997 and (b) 1999. [103263]

As I have already said in a previous answer, provisional traffic data suggest that total road traffic in Great Britain grew by nearly 3 per cent. between the third quarters of 1997 and 1999—a slower rate of growth than in previous peaks of the economic cycle.

Is it Government policy to achieve a decrease in the number of cars using the roads, or have they now accepted that there will be an increase, and is their policy to try and slow it down?

The real issue is tackling congestion. Various studies have shown that there is no necessary or direct correlation between congestion and road traffic growth, and also that a more targeted approach may be more effective in dealing with congestion and its effects in specific locations.

Will the Minister now do me the courtesy of answering my Question 12, which he grouped with Question 8, because he does not want to answer it? I remind him that it asks:

"If he will make a statement on the level of traffic congestion in (a) 1997 and (b) 1999."

It was the previous Government who invented road congestion. They started out with 70 cars per mile, spent £70 billion on new roads, and ended up with 100 cars per mile. The Tories are the last people from whom this Government need lessons on tackling road congestion. We have set out clear plans in our integrated transport White Paper for dealing with congestion and we are pursuing them with vigour and determination. In the mean time, we are putting an extra £1.8 billion into improving local and public transport over the next three years and are increasing expenditure on road maintenance by 10 per cent. this year. Instead of the Tory wish list of road schemes, we have a targeted programme of 37 trunk road improvements, 19 of them bypasses which will relieve the pressure on local communities. In addition, we are spending an extra £170 million on rural bus services. That has resulted in an extra 1,800 new and enhanced bus services so far—a commitment to rural transport that the hon. Gentleman's Government never contemplated making.

Will the Minister tell me what efforts he is making in bringing forward the construction of the new Tyne crossing in Jarrow? It will have a significant impact on traffic congestion as well as enhancing employment prospects.

I understand the problems to which my hon. Friend alludes—indeed, I was in his constituency only yesterday. We are considering the matter with the utmost urgency and seriousness.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he and his colleagues are making to reduce traffic congestion, in sharp contrast to the legacy of 100 cars per mile that we inherited from the previous Tory Government? Will he look further at ways of reducing traffic congestion, particularly on our residential roads, by, for example, increasing funding to schemes such as home zones? We in Luton believe that we have the first one in the United Kingdom. Will my hon. Friend consider increasing funding so that we may reduce congestion in residential areas and increase safety?

I am delighted to learn that Luton is in the vanguard of the home zone strategy. The Government are very committed to proposals for home zones; we have already provided for eight pilot schemes, one of which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. We have great confidence that they are an important development in the creation of a safe environment for pedestrians in urban areas. We anticipate the success of the current pilot projects, and hope to see the development of many more in due course.

What lessons have the Government learned on tackling congestion from the ban on cars to the dome and the ban on cars in central London on new year's eve? Is not it a great Labour lie that their public transport can handle all the travellers that such bans and Labour's general anti-car policies produce? Does the Minister realise that more stations need to be open, more train services need to be running and more ticket offices need to be open so that travellers are able to buy tickets—as Mrs. Blair found out? Does he agree that difficulty in getting to the dome is one of the main reasons that the big top is being written off as the big flop?

More, more.

rose—

More. More.

Perhaps the Minister would like to explain to all those people who spent three, four or five hours stumbling home in the dark, trying to avoid the crush, how one could possibly say that that was a triumph. If that is new Labour's idea of a triumph, they will not be in government for long. The Deputy Prime Minister himself said that if the Government could not run a successful millennium show at the dome, they deserved to be cast into darkness. That is exactly what they deserve. People had a dreadful time trying to get home on new year's eve and on new year's night. I hope that Ministers will hold a proper inquiry, and that they will apologise to all those people whose trains broke down, who were thrust against crush barriers at closed stations and who had to walk miles to try to find an open station, while Ministers were nowhere to be seen to explain to them how they could get home.

Frankly, that is the height of opportunism and irresponsibility. The truth is that an enormous number of people were in the centre of London—nearly half the population of the city. Simply for safety reasons, some tube station closures were necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman is advocating that those stations should have stayed open, he would have endangered the lives of many people who were there to enjoy themselves. I repeat that, if the right hon. Gentleman had attended the events and had spoken seriously to many of the people who were there, he would have known that they all had a fabulous night out. London can be proud of itself for the wonderful, world-class show that it mounted on millennium eve.

What measures his Department proposes to take to help those local authorities with large numbers of empty houses in the (a) private and (b) public sector. [103260]

My Department is supporting the work of the Empty Homes Agency. We are also considering the recommendations of the report of the unpopular housing policy action team into the causes and consequences of low demand for housing in some areas.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that he will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to me last week suggesting his willingness to come to Burnley to examine the problem of empty houses. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend was taken into hospital on Friday, but I am glad to hear that he is now at home. I am sure that we all want to extend our good wishes for his speedy recovery.

I am glad to report to the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is now well on the way to recovery.

The whole House will wish to join in sending best wishes to the Minister for Housing and Planning.

It was of course a measure that the right hon. Gentleman's Government could have adopted at any time over the past few years. We are well aware of the recommendation made by the Rogers committee, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is being considered.

Will my hon. Friend consider another aspect of the problem of empty local authorities properties? In the London borough of Wandsworth, countless properties throughout the borough are empty and boarded up solely to be sold. An enormous number of people live and have roots in the borough, but they have no opportunity to obtain local authority housing because it is sold to people who have no links whatever with the borough.

The practice that my hon. Friend describes only exacerbates the serious problems of housing shortage in London and especially for those on low incomes. The quicker that such housing is brought back into use—and preferably for those on lower incomes who cannot afford the huge prices that are being paid for property in London—the better.

By how much he estimates transport-related emissions of greenhouse gases will fall as a result of the Government's policies towards motorists. [103261]

The growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector will be reduced as a result of the fiscal policies, technology and the measures that we announced in the transport White Paper. Our 1998 climate change consultation paper suggested that those measures could save about 6 million tonnes of carbon in 2010. We are currently updating those estimates and will publish revised figures in our draft climate change programme shortly.

Although I welcome any improvements in climate change problems, that answer demonstrates just how much the Government's policies for cars and the hard-pressed British motorist is informed by concern about vehicle emissions that lead to global warming. That source makes up only a fraction of the sources of global warming that emanate from this country. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps the Government are now taking to reduce emissions from dirty, coal fired power stations?

I do not think that the amount of greenhouse gases and CO₂ emitted by cars is insignificant; it is approximately 25 per cent. of all emissions, and it is the fastest-growing sector. That is why we have identified the package of measures to which I have referred, and we shall be discussing other areas of contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the climate change levy in our proposals, which we will bring to the House shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles is further to encourage the development of alternative fuels? He mentioned new technologies in an earlier reply, but what plans does his Department have to promote the infrastructure development for those alternative fuels which is so essential to developing more vehicles that use those fuels?

Such proposals are among the group of measures that we are considering at the moment, and we have been actively consulting on those. We shall produce those measures in our document shortly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless the Government set a national target for road traffic reduction, transport-related emissions of CO₂ will continue to rise? Does he agree that the Government need to lead by example and scrap free car parking spaces at the House of Commons for Members of Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman's last point is a typical Liberal point, and it can be left to the House to make a judgment on that at the appropriate time. We have made it clear that we do not accept the argument that we can set the national targets to reduce emissions from cars, as he mentioned, and the Commission for Integrated Transport has supported that view. We are concerned to deal with congestion and pollution, and the package of measures that we are putting forward will do that.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if people purchase a new vehicle that runs on alternative fuel, it will not be more expensive than other cars? Such cars ought to be cheaper. The complicated system in which people claim back money when they buy a vehicle that runs on alternative fuel ought to be made easier or disposed of.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and we are looking at procedures by which we can achieve that.

I seek the Deputy Prime Minister's advice and help. Does he not accept that transport-related emissions of greenhouse gases will increase in north-east Cheshire unless he grants money for the Poynton bypass and the Manchester airport eastern link road, because inevitably the second runway will, despite the increase in public transport, cause a huge increase in car transport requiring access to the airport?

I thought for a moment that we were going to have another Member crossing the Chamber. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] That was a joke, in case anybody thought I was trying to be serious.

I am afraid that, as ever, the Secretary of State is providing aspirations but no effective action to help the environment. I urge him to take a positive view not only of the suggestions from a couple of his hon. Friends but of our common-sense proposals to cut the tax on fuels that produce low or no emissions of greenhouse gases and to cut the duty on the cars that use them. Conservative Members want to use lower taxes to help motorists and the environment. Why does he persist in clobbering the motorist with high-tax policies that have done nothing to improve air quality in this country?

It is a bit much to hear that from someone on the Opposition Front Bench when we scrapped the fuel duty escalator that the Conservatives brought in. That is certainly one major change that has taken place. As for the proposals by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about making greener cars, I have to say that some of them are ideas that we have already implemented, some are clearly contradictory and some are not even consistent with the facts. We have a package of measures that are putting us on the road to achieving the Kyoto targets that we have set ourselves for 2010.

If he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the economic strategy document for the west midlands submitted by Advantage West Midlands. [103262]

We have been considering the west midlands regional economic strategy alongside those of the other seven English regional development authorities, and we will be writing to each of the RDAs later this week outlining our formal response. Ministers will also be meeting the RDA chairmen this week to discuss implementing the strategies.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree with me that regional development authorities have a tremendously important role to play both in combating social exclusion and in wealth creation? That is particularly the case in the west midlands, which has not always fitted easily into traditional conceptions of north-south divides but where there are significant areas of deprivation and the need for industrial transformation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if RDAs are to fulfil their role, they need sufficient resources and the maximum flexibility to employ resources according to locally determined needs and priorities?

The Government's responses to the RDAs this week will demonstrate that in each region there has been a serious attempt to consider the issues of wealth creation and of regeneration that are necessary to tackle both the imbalances within regions—that applies to every region—and between regions. We are determined that we will work with RDAs to enable them to develop strategies and to implement them, working with the range of partners that it is essential that they bring in to ensure that in each region there is a recognised real way forward that will make a significant difference.

What measures he is taking to increase safety on the roads. [103264]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work in promoting home zones and other general road safety measures. Of course we want to see significant reductions in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. We shall shortly be publishing a new road safety strategy, which will include new casualty reduction targets for 2010.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that reducing speed limits would considerably improve road safety, especially on rural roads? Is she aware of a recent MORI poll that showed that the majority of Great British motorists support the reduction of speed limits, especially on country lanes? Does she conclude with me that by reducing speed limits we shall improve safety not only for cyclists and pedestrians but for the British motorist?

We recognise that speed is a major road safety and environmental issue in rural areas. It is perhaps the most crucial determinant of overall levels of road safety. In addition to a range of road safety measures that we have instituted since the general election, at the end of 1998 we introduced a major 12 months' review of speed policy. A report will be published shortly, which will include specific proposals for speed limits in rural areas.

Does the Minister recognise that newer drivers are involved in a greater percentage of accidents than other motorists? Will she consider the use of green probation plates on cars and perhaps differential speed limits for newer drivers, to ascertain what impact that that could have in reducing road accidents?

Certainly. Issues relating to improving the safety performance of drivers will be included in the road safety review. They will arise also from the speed review. We have already introduced a number of measures, including improving the practical driving test, the theory part of that test, implementing the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 and revising the highway code. Those measures acknowledge that drivers have a role to play in improving road safety, and especially in reducing speed.

Unlike the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I do not want another inch of road to be built in my constituency at present. However, I want maximum priority to be given to investment in road safety improvements. That issue should be the top priority of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions when determining whether roads should be built. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that that will be the case and ensure that local authorities are given all possible support in promoting investment in road safety?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In addition to identifying new targets for reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries, the road safety strategy that we shall soon publish will address child safety, safety of other vulnerable road users and motorcycle safety—the whole range of road safety issues. As for his final point, we have already given local authorities considerable additional powers, including the ability to reduce speed limits to 20 mph without Government consent. We shall encourage local authorities to integrate safety policy in their local transport plans.

What assessment he has made of the effect of stamp duty on large-scale voluntary housing transfers. [103265]

Local authorities have to pay stamp duty when they transfer their housing stock to a non-charitable housing association. I am not aware that that has caused significant problems for those authorities on the transfer programme.

Will the Minister take a look at that issue? It seems nonsense that there is a tax take from a system that is supposed to put more money into repair and renovation. That is the whole purpose of transfer, yet there is a clawback to the Treasury in the form of stamp duty, and there have been mutterings from potential transfer authorities that it is a disincentive to their taking that action.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, transfer is bringing in large sums of money to local authorities for investment in housing, and it will do so in Torbay. If Torbay wants to avoid paying stamp duty, it has the option of transferring to a charitable housing association.