What further representations Her Majesty's Government are making to the US Administration on the ratification of the Kyoto treaty. [157180]

What discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary regarding President Bush's recent statement on the Kyoto protocol. [157184]

If he will make a statement on the future of the Kyoto protocol. [157190]

As the Prime Minister has said, we continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol provides the best framework to deal with climate change. The President of the United States has said that he accepts the need for global action to combat climate change, but he has declared that he opposes the Kyoto protocol. He has ordered a review of US policy on climate change and the next round of talks has been deferred from May to July to allow the US more time to prepare its position.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Kyoto protest rally that will take place on 5 May at the American embassy and of the campaign to get Coca-Cola, which funded the toxic Texan, to persuade him to change his mind on Kyoto? Will he confirm that it is vital that everyone who cares about the future of the planet does everything possible to get US policy back on track?

I am aware that a number of protests have taken place since the President declared that he was against the Kyoto protocol. Protests and discussions have taken place not only internationally—I have referred to the meeting that took place in New York last week—but in America itself. Debates, discussions and protests will no doubt take place, as will the one on 5 May to which my hon. Friend referred. They will undoubtedly be taken into account in the presidential review.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in being much encouraged by the talks that took place at the weekend and by the united front that has been presented by all countries except the United States? Will he also join me in hoping that the fool on Capitol Hill changes his ways before it is too late?

I am well aware of the extent of the protests against the President's statement on the Kyoto protocol and a number of measured statements have come out of the United States Administration since then. As the Americans have asked to delay the meeting of COP 6—the sixth conference of the parties—until July, we should wait to hear what they have got to say. The President has called a cabinet discussion and review on the matter, so I hope that we will know more in July.

Given that the Climate Change Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), would do no more than put on a statutory footing the targets for CO₂, emissions that were set out in the previous Labour party manifesto, will the Secretary of State ensure that no Labour Member will oppose the Bill's Second Reading on Friday?

The Government have made it absolutely clear that, in playing an active part in the Kyoto negotiations and in bringing to the House policies that would observe those objectives, we will fulfil our policy commitments. That does not mean piddling on the side as Liberals tend to do on such matters.

On the position of the United States on climate change, President Bush has suggested that there may be an enhanced role for nuclear power to help in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. What efforts are the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department making to enthuse others in the British Government about the contribution that nuclear power can make in the United Kingdom further to help to meet our Kyoto targets?

It is clear that, in the discussions at COP 6 and since Kyoto, the question of nuclear energy has been highly controversial in European nations and in developing countries. The overwhelming opinion is against the involvement of nuclear energy. As it forms part of the energy requirements of several countries, it is best to leave it out of such judgments. Decisions have not yet been taken.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that President Bush's decision has nothing to do with the American economy—America is ideally poised to take advantage of renewable technologies—and everything to do with the money that was used to fund the Republican party's presidential election victory? Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me and the House that this Government will never bow to such financial pressure? Will he also join me in saying that he will boycott all American products from companies that support the rejection of the Kyoto protocol?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman makes that point to the Welsh Development Agency, which is constantly over there asking for American investment in Wales. However, I take his point. We have set out our programme and, as I understand it, the climate change levy was somewhat controversial in certain business sectors. We have shown courage in getting on with our policy and in meeting the commitments that we have given. I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck with his policy.

On the environment, my right hon. Friend will be aware that former Tory MP Tony Marlow and his long-term partner Jill Chambers are about to trial genetically modified crops at Mathry in my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that that is causing locally and will he agree to meet a delegation from my constituency to discuss those matters?

I note what my hon. Friend says.

We share the Deputy Prime Minister's support for the Kyoto protocol, but does he recall the comments of his spokeswoman before his trip to the United States? She said:

"this is a crucial chance…the first meeting on climate change since the talks at The Hague."

The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that he believes too much that is put in the press. As I understand it, the same papers went on to say that discussions on the Kyoto agreement would not take place at the United Nations conference when, in fact, they took place on every day—on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The hon. Gentleman is reacting to those press reports and took the chance to make a statement, but he is wrong. We got on with the Kyoto negotiations.

I note what the Deputy Prime Minister says about the press and it might be useful if I quote from it. It reported:

"'There will be a chance for bilateral talks' said a spokeswoman for Mr Prescott."

"Mr Prescott has issued a warning that American firms would see their European exports suffer if they persisted in rejecting Kyoto."

The hon. Gentleman continues to prove my point: he puts too much faith in press reports. I did not have a meeting with the Administration, nor did I seek one when I visited Washington. The meeting that I had was set up to talk to the Secretary of Transportation about the aviation deal. That is precisely what I said I would be doing. I did not have a meeting with the Administration because they had made it clear that they did not know what their policy was. Why should I have a meeting to find that out? Would it not be better to wait until July, which is precisely what I am doing? As to whether I have been inept, in my four years in government I am proud of playing a major part in bringing about the Kyoto agreement. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find things to be proud of in his political life, but he certainly has not yet.

What action he plans to take to make cycling safer. [157181]

The Government's road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", sets out our strategy to make cycling safer. It embraces measures that cyclists can take to protect themselves, including wearing cycle helmets, training and making it safer to cycle on the road through engineering measures. Further measures to educate drivers will also be of benefit.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he commend Cambridge university for its innovative park and cycle scheme that is due to open on Thursday? It offers not only secure cycle parking, but a safe and easy route to cycle into the centre of Cambridge. Does he agree that that is a commendable scheme that should be copied by others?

A great deal of good work on cycling has been done in Cambridge because it has a far higher proportion of cyclists than elsewhere in the country. Much of the town's work over the years is to be commended. Many of its initiatives have improved cycling safety in the city and set good examples for others to follow.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the splendid example set by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and the bicycling baronet, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), both of whom have done much to promote cycling.

I congratulate anybody who tries to encourage more people to cycle. I am not sure how the 10-minute journey cycled by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) contributes to that cause, but I am sure that it is having an effect. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) chose not to mention his bowler-hatted cyclist colleague on the Back Benches.

All Tory cyclists are well known flashers, as the Minister knows. Is it not safest to cycle in a dedicated cycle lane, instead of using the little yellow lines that simply attract motorists to try to knock down cyclists such as me as I come to Parliament? Will the Minister talk to Westminster city council about having dedicated cycle lanes in the centre of London? We are the worst city in the world for cycling and it is a disgrace that that Tory council will not give London cyclists lanes to ensure that they can travel round the centre in safety.

As part of local transport plans we now expect local authorities to produce and update, a cycling strategy, which will include measures to make cycling safer. My hon. Friend knows that we have provided £8.4 billion in the local transport settlement, so there is no excuse for local authorities such as Westminster to continue to neglect that matter.

What recent discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the introduction of congestion taxes. [157183]

Through the charging development partnership, my Department is engaged in continuing discussions with a number of English local authorities about the role that congestion charges may have in relieving local traffic problems and promoting wider travel choice through improved public transport services and facilities. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, his county council of Hampshire, which I was pleased recently to designate a centre of excellence for integrated transport planning, is a member of the charging development partnership, and last year was allocated £300,000 to carry out several studies into the implications of road pricing and workplace parking charges, to assist its decision making on those matters.

The Minister will be aware that not all local authorities can match the standards achieved by Hampshire county council. Will he assure the House that he will refuse any application to implement such a charge unless the local authority can demonstrate a clear and appreciable improvement in public transport prior to the application?

I am happy, if slightly surprised, on this occasion to agree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. Any proposal for a charging regime is subject to the final approval of the Secretary of State, and one of the criteria that he will examine is whether there are already clear commitments to, and achievements in, improving local transport.

As chairman of the all-party motorcycling group, I am delighted that the Government, through the motor cycle advisory committee, have acknowledged the significant contribution that motor bikes and powered two-wheelers can make to reducing congestion and pollution. I appreciate that this is a matter for local authorities, but will the Minister encourage local authorities to consider exempting motor bikes and powered two-wheelers from congestion charges?

I am grateful for that characteristic intervention from my hon. Friend, Blears the bike. The Government appreciate warmly the contribution that motor bikes and powered two-wheelers can and do make to the reduction of congestion and pollution on our roads. I am sure that local authorities contemplating charging regimes will want to bear in mind those important considerations.

Is this not another example of the Government's vendetta against the motorist? Not only do we have the highest petrol price in Europe as a result of the Government's policies but, in the London scheme, a motorist who has to travel in every day could end up paying £1,250 a year. Residents, including many who are council tenants, could end up paying a charge of £130 for owning a car, whether or not they use it. Is not the Minister ashamed that, yet again, Labour has broken its pledge of no new taxes?

The hon. Gentleman does his best to make his point. In all seriousness, not only is congestion a cause of immense frustration to the travelling public, but it costs the economy billions of pounds every year. Every study has concluded that congestion charging is the most effective way to cut congestion, but essentially it will be for local authorities to make their own decisions. As I have indicated, the Secretary of State will have the final say and will look for evidence of local consensus and robust plans for local transport improvements. We have stipulated that, at least for the first 10 years, all proceeds of congestion charging must be ploughed back into local transport improvements.

If he will make a statement on the future of the London underground. [157185]

The Government are fully committed to the public-private partnership, which will produce £13 billion over the next 15 years to refurbish and modernise the London underground—more long-term investment than ever before. The PPP will mean better safety and better value for money; it will guarantee that London Underground stays in the public sector.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and my constituents, who are increasingly frustrated by delays, which have continued for many years, in getting an adequate level of investment for our public transport in London? Is it not time that we just got on with the job of investing the resources that are needed in London instead of engaging in petty posturing, which is happening in some quarters?

The essential issue for the underground, as everyone who has looked at the problem knows, is long-term investment. Previous Governments, both Labour and Tory, have all been involved in giving inadequate resources to the London underground; those resources were even cut every two or three years. One cannot plan long-term investment in the underground by having an uncertain safety and investment programme. Our Government are addressing themselves to long-term investment which will bring in that £13 billion and will not be subjected to the cuts that Governments tend to impose on capital programmes once they are in office and face economic difficulties.

After four years, what do Londoners have to do to achieve genuine activity and improvement on the London underground?

First, voting Labour is a good proposal, as Londoners will shortly do in increasing numbers. In the past four years, we have averaged £500 million of investment in the underground each year, while the record of the previous Administration was £360 million. We shall point out that comparison to Londoners when talking about our major and substantial contribution to long-term investment in London Underground.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he is engaged in a public relations war with the Mayor of London, and that he is losing the war? To what does he attribute that failure, and what does he expect to have to do to win the PR battle?

I hope that the battle will be fought on the substance and the facts, rather than on public relations, although I agree that taking advertisements at £15,000 a time in the Evening Standard is one way of going about it. If I suggested doing that on Parliament's budget, the Mayor and his team would be the first to say that it was wrong. I have no intention whatever of doing that, but I have published a statement of the facts and made it available to the Evening Standard, which refused to print it. That is one of the difficulties, but I shall continue to make my case.

When will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the PPP represents four wasted years of failure? What does he have to say to Peter Bishop of the London chamber of commerce, who yesterday said:

"London's transport system is failing on every front";

"continued political interference and lack of leadership"

To be fair, I would have to include the investments started by the previous Administration. It takes a considerable time for the effects of those to be felt. That is an answer to those who say that we are not getting an improvement in London transport: it is a long-term process. The extension of the docklands light railway—[interruption.] I am not saying that that did not take place, but the fact that such investments have been made belies the statement that nothing is being done for transport in London—

What have you done?

What we are proposing—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Minister answer the question.

The charge is made that nothing is being done for London transport. An awful lot of money has been poured into London transport for such projects as the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line, which we had to continue to finance. We must now make sure that London Underground gets guaranteed long-term investment—not the sort of policy promoted by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), which would mean that the subsidy for the underground would have been reduced to £161 million, and by this year to zero. That is the priority that the Conservatives give to London Underground. We are looking to a £13 billion investment. As to the Tories' position on the underground, one moment they want to privatise it, then they want to nationalise it, and once it is nationalised, perhaps they might put it back into private ownership. That is typical of the Tories: they never take a long-term decision.

What recent representations he has received on the criteria for granting planning permission for the erecting of mobile telephone masts. [157186]

Our Department has received a range of representations on planning arrangements for telecommunications over the past year. On 16 March, I announced a series of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts which significantly strengthen public consultation requirements.

Why have the Liberal-supported Labour Government not yet acted positively on the recommendations of the Stewart report? Will the Minister explain to my constituents how, in a heavily populated, tiny urban area, these monstrosities are being erected all the time? Local residents protest, the council tries to intervene, the matter goes to appeal, yet the masts stay up. Can we have some action from this rotten Liberal-supported Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman is carried away by the flights of his own fantasies. I can assure him that the Government have acted on the Stewart recommendations. We have acted by strengthening the public consultation arrangements, and by ensuring that all base stations meet the international exposure guidelines; we have set in train an audit of base stations, starting with schools; we have set up a national database with details of base stations; and we are launching a new £7 million joint industry-Government research programme. Those are all actions undertaken by the Government to ensure that the public interest is safeguarded while we facilitate the continued roll-out of a mobile phone network on which 40 million people in this country depend.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the changes that he mentioned with regard to strengthening public consultation will remove the anomaly whereby a proposal for a mast of 15 m in height only requires prior approval from a local authority, whereas a proposal for a 20 m mast is subject to full planning permission?

Under the new arrangements that we have announced, all applications for ground-based masts will be subject to a consultation period of 56 days, which is the period for all normal full planning applications. For masts under 15 m in height, there will be continuation of the prior approval procedure. Under that procedure, if the local authority does not reject the proposal within the 56 days, consent is deemed. In every other respect, the procedure will be the same as that for full planning approval.

Does the Minister accept that, although the improvement of consultation measures is welcome, it does not bring radio masts into the normal planning permission regime? People throughout the country are asking why their local councils are incapable of enforcing the views of local people and communities because of the planning regime. That may have been good enough for the get-rich-quick 90s, but it is not good enough now. When will the masts be brought under proper planning control?

Our procedures ensure that the public have as full an opportunity to comment on any new mobile phone mast application as that which they have under the full planning procedures, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. The only difference is that if the local authority fails to reach a decision by the end of the 56-day period, consent is deemed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would want all local authorities to deal with planning applications expeditiously, as we do. Provided that they do so, there is no difference.

I welcome the announcements that my right hon. Friend made in March, as, I am sure, do others. However, when he lays the final regulations that relate to those announcements, will he take into account the experience of my constituents in Mitre House, a block of flats in my constituency? My constituents found that they and the local council were powerless to prevent the erection of a mast on the roof of the building. Nothing less than full planning permission would satisfy the need for proper consultation.

I assure my hon. Friend that under the arrangements that we have announced, roof-based masts will also be subject to the 56-day procedure. Currently, a separate 28-day procedure applies in respect of such masts, so there is a significant improvement. The doubling of the consultation period should ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns in respect of his constituents' views about such proposals are dealt with satisfactorily.

I cannot believe that the Minister is convincing even himself with this flannel. Clearly, he is not convincing any of his colleagues. On 31 July last year, he said that he was

"minded to introduce a requirement for full planning permission."

"entrench the unpopular and confusing prior approval regime"

"entrench existing perverse incentives to operators to put up masts below an arbitrarily chosen height limit".

As I recall it, the Trade and Industry Committee described our proposals in its most recent report on the subject as a carefully crafted compromise. That is exactly what they are. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen. They are a compromise because there are two conflicting pressures. There is concern among a very large number of our citizens who want to use mobile phones and want good reception. There are 40 million users. Equally, there is concern about the adverse environmental and amenity impact, and about health matters. We have considered those concerns carefully and sought an appropriate compromise. I should like to quote the views of a particular person on this subject. He said:

"people need reassuring and the planning guidelines do need changing. I don't think we need to smother the thing in bureaucracy and red tape, and mobile phone companies have to have the ability to put up the masts."

What plans he has to encourage travel by bus. [157187]

We are encouraging bus travel by a combination of policy and fiscal measures. They include: strengthened powers for local authorities under the Transport Act 2000 to improve the quality of bus services; statutory requirements to ensure that buses are fully accessible; guaranteed half-fare reductions for elderly and disabled people; a major boost to capital investment through local transport plans; and enhanced funding for rural and urban buses. That accounts for some £230 million over the next 3 years—a 35 per cent. increase on the subsidy paid by local authorities in 1997.

Will the Minister congratulate all those in Selby district who are involved in implementing the half-fare bus pass scheme, which comes into force there, as in the rest of the country, on 1 June? More than 6,000 pensioners have applied for it already. The pass is valid not only in Selby but for destinations throughout North Yorkshire and parts of West Yorkshire. Given the huge success and popularity of the scheme in rural areas, is there not a case for considering whether such bus passes should be valid not only in pensioners' home areas but throughout the country?

I am delighted to hear of the welcome for the concessionary fares scheme in Selby; it is reflected throughout the country. Indeed, 7 million elderly and disabled people stand to benefit from the introduction of the guaranteed statutory half-fare travel concessions.

Does the Minister agree that if we are to encourage bus travel, it must be reliable, and decent travel information should be provided? Will he therefore explain why, since November 1999, when the Secretary of State set a target for reducing bus cancellations, they have rocketed to four times the target figure? Why has the Department published only a summary of the report that it commissioned about its plans for improving travel information? Is it because the full report points out that many of the proposals are unrealistic? Will the Government publish the full report, with realistic proposals to reduce bus cancellations and improve transport information?

Obviously, the report is available to the hon. Gentleman; he has his own arcane means of acquiring such documents. I do not dispute that some cancellation figures have worsened, hut they need to be set in the context of overall growth in the use of buses, especially in south-east England. All the signs are that the long decline in bus use which resulted from privatisation and deregulation under the previous Administration is coming to an end. We are confident of achieving our 10-year transport plan target of 10 per cent. growth and more passenger journeys.

Does my hon. Friend know that later this year, pensioners in Medway will be able to travel for a 20p flat rate fare? Will he join me in welcoming that? It is not surprising that, while Liberal Democrat councillors were able to support Labour councillors in Medway, the Tories voted against the proposal.

I am not in the least surprised to hear of that Conservative opposition to an extremely positive measure. One of the great satisfactions of the half-fare concessionary scheme is that, for the first time, senior citizens and disabled people in Conservative-run local authorities will be able to benefit from half-fare concessionary schemes. Because of the rural bus grant, some rural bus services—2,000 nationwide—are running for the first time in Conservative-controlled areas. That is a commitment to the countryside that the Opposition never contemplated in their 18 years of misrule.

However attractive concessionary fares are—and I support concessionary fares for the disabled and the elderly—does the Minister accept that, whatever resources the Government put in to bus services, they will be inadequate to provide an acceptable quality of service in the more remote rural areas, and that the people who live in those areas will have to rely on their own cars? Does he accept that in many areas of the country, sufficient buses are not available to provide people with the quality of life that we all expect?

I certainly accept that bus services are not extant in many areas of the country. That is why recently, in Cornwall, I was delighted to announce the parish transport fund initiative, which will provide £15 million for parishes to originate their own transport schemes. Those could take the form of shared car schemes, of hiring in bus services for villages that have heretofore not been served by them, or of new taxi schemes in those localities. The announcement has been widely welcomed by the parishes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the message about this opportunity back to his own locality.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that many companies are considering ways of persuading their employees to make more use of public transport, especially buses, for getting to and from work. Will he support those companies, and will he discuss with Treasury Ministers whether financial incentives could be made available—for example, to enable companies to make season ticket loans to their employees?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The Government are, of course, open to any proposal that serves to enhance the provision of public transport services. I know that many companies run their own coach services, which play an important role in a public transport context, although they are run specifically for the companies' own employees. The Commission for Integrated Transport has considered the issue of fuel duty rebates in connection with coach services, and I know that it will certainly take such matters into its future remit.

If he will make a statement on the council tax benefit subsidy payable to Worcestershire county council. [157188]

Council tax benefit subsidy is paid by the Department of Social Security to billing authorities. Therefore, as a major precepting authority, Worcestershire county council does not receive council tax benefit subsidy.

That disingenuous answer from the Minister covers up the truth, as she well knows. She knows that her Government have monstrously cut the subsidy payable to Worcestershire, and that the roots of the huge increase in council tax—[Laughter.] I am sorry that Labour Members find a 45 per cent. increase in council tax in Worcestershire over the past four years a laughing matter. It is not a laughing matter at all. The roots of that increase lie in the incompetence of the Lib-Lab pact that runs Worcestershire, and in the Government's rigged funding for all shire counties. Is not the cut that the Minister knows her Government have made in council tax benefit subsidy a stealth tax on a stealth tax, which the very poorest can least afford?

The hon. Gentleman is clearly very disappointed that more people in Worcestershire are now working, and are therefore not eligible for council tax benefit. The amount going to all districts in Worcestershire is £12.8 million. That is not a reduction. There is a slight decline in the percentage, because there is a decline in the number of people out of work and benefiting from the subsidy. The hon. Gentleman rails about council tax, and he is right: in Tory counties, council tax is higher than in any Labour county.

If he will make a statement on the impact of his planning criteria in the Chelmsford local authority area. [157189]

The Government's policies are designed to promote more sustainable patterns of development, reconciling the need for new development with the need to conserve the countryside and the character of our cities, towns and villages. It is for Essex county council, in its replacement structure plan, and Chelmsford borough council, through its borough local plan, to ensure that policies in national and regional planning guidance are taken into account in their areas.

Is the Minister aware that people living in the village of Boreham, in the Chelmsford local authority area, are appalled at the thought of having 2,000 houses imposed on them by Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council—part of the overall amount of housing that the Government are inflicting on Essex and the south-east? Is the Minister also aware that there is bitter resentment of the fact that 2,500 of the 12,500 houses that Chelmsford must take are intended not to meet Chelmsford's housing needs but to relieve pressures in the south of the county? People in Boreham—in my area—are asking why the Thames gateway cannot take the 2,500 houses which, although they are being inflicted on them, are needed because of the increased employment and industrial building in the Thames gateway that the Government require.

The hon. Gentleman will know my responses to those questions, because he asked them during an Adjournment debate not long ago. He will also know that the question of the land allocated for housing in his constituency is still open to consultation—and that in the regional planning guidance just published by the Government, the annual housing figures for Essex as a whole during the first five years of the relevant period are lower than they were in the 1994 regional planning guidance. Furthermore, he will know that the previous Government directed three councils in Essex to increase their housing numbers, and imposed 20-year figures through their regional planning guidance procedure. Ours, by contrast, is a bottom-up process, involving redistribution of housing on a regional basis.

"We all live in the real world. I've been involved in development myself and I recognise that unfortunately it is inevitable we will lose some countryside…We're not in any sense anti-housebuilding, we're the friend of housebuilders".

What progress he has made in transferring freight from road to rail. [157191]

Our policy is to help to establish an integrated, sustainable freight distribution system to support economic growth and bring social and environmental benefits. Our 10-year transport plan sets out our long-term plans for rail freight. We have already provided over £100 million in grants to move freight from road to rail or inland waterways; we have issued guidance to local authorities to facilitate more use of rail for freight; and we have established a Strategic Rail Authority with a duty to promote rail freight.

Does the Minister accept that there is an imbalance in a process that allocates the equivalent of about £7 billion in Government funds to the road haulage industry over 10 years, and £3.4 billion to rail freight? That makes it difficult for rail freight to compete. The Treasury should consider creating a level playing field; that would help the funding process, and would also help the Government to achieve their environmental and economic targets. It would enable much more freight to be transferred from road to rail.

I recognise my hon. Friend's powerful commitment to the expansion of rail freight. The Government fully support that objective where it provides value for money.

The Minister will be aware of my personal interest in Railtrack and FirstGroup, and will probably have received representations from the Potter Group of Melmerby in Vale of York, which is particularly anxious for its businesses at Selby and Ely to benefit from rail freight grants. Would the Government see fit to extend such grants to smaller operators such as the Potter Group, rather than to big players such as English Welsh and Scottish?

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to the opportunities. The Government are eager to take up any opportunity for the extension of rail freight facilities. The grants vary in scale. They range from £60 million recently allocated to a major port rail freight development in Bristol, to less then £1 million. I will take the hon. Lady's words away and look at the opportunities that they represent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of a north-west direct freight line to Europe is crucial to the well-being of the north-west? Will he assure me that he will do all he can to promote that development, and that he will help with parliamentary time to ensure that a Bill gets through the House to make the scheme viable? [Interruption.]

"Before the election," my hon. Friends mutter. If my hon. Friend is talking about the re-use of the Woodhead tunnel, the Government are enthusiastic to see that development. In much of my transport life over the past quarter of a century, I spent the whole of my time campaigning for that reopening. I am aware that it is part of the Northern Spirit franchise bid, which is now before the Strategic Rail Authority.

Does the Minister accept that the wrong way to drive freight on to rail is by having the highest fuel prices in Europe? Is he aware that freight companies in the west midlands are filling their lorries up in Belgium, Holland and France? Does he know that diesel in Britain is twice the price of diesel in Croatia, for God's sake?

I cannot imagine what the hon. Gentleman has against poor little Croatia, but the costs of motoring and road haulage need to be taken in the round. Innumerable costs are imposed on our continental counterparts, including social costs and toll road costs, which are not imposed on British road hauliers. Taken in the round, there is a level playing field in that regard.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the proposed development for a new container port in my constituency, which has the potential to create up to 10,000 new jobs? Although that has been welcomed by many people, there is still some concern about the amount of extra traffic, particularly freight traffic, that it will generate. Given that there is already a direct rail link from the site to the main rail network, will my hon. Friend consider meeting the company concerned, and Railtrack, as proposals progress, to ensure that as much freight as possible travels by rail?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Britain's shipping Minister, as well as a junior transport Minister, I am well aware of the proposals for major new port installations. Of course I will be happy to meet the promoter of the scheme. I will have the opportunity to look at those matters more thoroughly tomorrow morning when I visit Thurrock district council.

What recent assessment he has made of the operation of the council tax system with respect to second homes. [157192]

In the rural White Paper, which was published in November 2000, the Government proposed, subject to consultation, to give local authorities discretion to charge the full council tax on second homes. We are currently preparing a consultation paper, which we intend to issue later this year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is she satisfied that, after four years of this Government, my constituency still contains communities where homeless people live cheek by jowl with those who are the owners of second homes? Does the Minister agree that it is no longer acceptable that £200 million of taxpayer's money should be spent on subsidising the second homes of wealthy people when many thousands of rural folk do not even have their first homes? If so, why do the Government not get on with the task and introduce legislation now, instead of issuing consultation papers? Four years on, let us see some action.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have a statutory duty to consult. There are many reasons why some homes will remain empty. We want to make sure that we give people incentives to bring back into use homes that have been empty for a long time. We also want to look at the problem of homes that are empty because of this year's flooding. We want to be sure that the exemption scheme can be administered by local authorities, so that issues of local importance can be dealt with. For that reason, the consultation process must go further than the issue of second homes. At present, the exemption regime extends beyond second homes. We must get that matter right, so that all local authorities have the exemptions that meet the needs of people in their areas.

Surely the Minister knows that such a scheme has operated successfully in Wales for many years. Can she not get on and do something about this matter? We all know that the consultation that she announced to change the council tax funding formula has been delayed again and again. Is it not time that she either took action or left office and let us do so?

I am always grateful for advice from the hon. Gentleman, who was so successful in persuading the previous Conservative Government to act that his party judges his seat to be one of the most vulnerable in the country. The Government will get on with doing things, and we will make sure that we take people along with us. That is why we will consult—to ensure that we produce legislation appropriate for the introduction of the necessary changes.

Does the Minister accept that the council tax system that operates in Wales remains a fairly blunt instrument when it comes to controlling the over-development of holiday and second homes in some communities? Given the Minister's commitment to give local authorities the maximum freedom in such matters, will she consider creating a new planning category for such homes? That would give local authorities control over granting or withholding planning permission if there is to be a change of use.

The right hon. Gentleman goes way beyond the question. As he knows, Welsh local authorities can exercise discretion over council tax in their areas, but the planning regime is a different matter. The rural White Paper contained announcements on council tax, but not on planning. We are concerned that all local authorities should be able to act in the interests of the residents for whom they have responsibility. That is why the Government have been moving forward the agenda for local authorities in England. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will push the Welsh Assembly to do the same in Wales. As he knows, I have no responsibility for that.

What plans he has for widening the M6 motorway. [157193]

I should point out that after years of confusion and delay under the previous Administration, work has now started on the Birmingham northern relief road. That road will relieve congestion on the M6 motorway through Birmingham between junctions 4 and 11.

The Minister gives no comfort whatever to my constituents, either about the M6 or about other schemes such as the Manchester airport eastern link road and the Poynton bypass, all of which the Government have put away into multimodal transport study schemes. People in the area want action. Congestion is solved by building the roads that have public support. Will the Minister please get them built?

If the hon. Gentleman and his constituents feel so passionately about these matters, I am rather surprised that they were not carried further forward under the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were."] I am aware that there have been—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Minister answer. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) should know better.

I am aware that there have been proposals at various stages of development for the widening of the M6 between junctions 11A and 19, and for the A556(M)/M6/M56 link, which have been remitted to the multimodal study. Work on phase 2 of the study is well under way, with a number of options under consideration including road schemes, metrolink, railbus, use of road space, and freight and transport charges. The steering group is engaged in consultations with local authority members to inform them of the initial results and to seek views and guidance on the development of the preferred strategy, which, as I have indicated, will be reported to the Government in due course.

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 1, line 18, leave out "0.4582" and insert "£0.4392".

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in page 1, line 20, leave out "£0.4582" and insert "£0.4392".

I take great pleasure in moving amendment No. 27 and in speaking to amendment No. 28, both of them proposals tabled by my hon. Friends and me. This matter, too, may be relevant on Friday 8 June, unless the Government choose to accept the amendments and to change course on a very important issue that affects large areas of the country, but especially Scotland—the fifth largest oil producer in the world—which suffers from the highest petrol prices in Europe.

"The oil price is likely to stay at about $10 to $12 a barrel at least in the foreseeable future. Therefore we are worlds removed from the oil prices and production levels of the mid-1980s."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 1 February 1999; c. 8.]

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but in the name of transparency, does he not agree that it would be helpful if the proportion of the purchase price of petrol that is represented by tax and excise duty were displayed at the pump or on the bills that customers receive?

I very much agree with that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, three quarters of the price of every gallon of petrol or diesel is made up of the various levies imposed. They include the specific fuel taxes and VAT. One important factor is that, as the price of fuel increases, the VAT obtained from every gallon of petrol also increases. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such information should be displayed on every petrol pump—that would be excellent for the transparency of fiscal policy—I suspect that the Treasury team would be not too keen on the idea.

I have great respect for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but I cannot recall taking part before in a debate initiated by the Scottish National party. I have no objection to doing so now. I congratulate him on tabling an amendment on an important subject. However, I am not totally persuaded by its literal terms, so I am not sure that I will join him in the Division Lobby.

"In November 1999 the Chancellor announced that the appropriate level of fuel duties would be decided on a Budget by Budget basis, taking into account the Government's economic, social and environmental commitments."

I do not want to discourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman from speaking in Scottish National party debates in future but, if I have followed him correctly, he said that the Chancellor made two mistakes; first, public expenditure in the first two years was too low—which, of course, was inherited from the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and, secondly, the fuel price escalator, which was also inherited from him. Could he not have left a note in the Treasury telling the Chancellor to get off the escalator, or other helpful advice?

The Chancellor is fond of taking my slogans and claiming that he is taking my policies. In previous Budget and Finance Bill debates, I have tried to make it clear that he is getting them slightly wrong. I have been highly critical and have often regretted the fact that he has used my slogans and taken my name in vain to characterise the rather peculiar policies that he has followed. I will not go through everything, but I invented the slogan,

"No return to boom and bust".

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am sure that the House listened with interest to his analysis. If anything, he was unduly modest when he dealt with the history of the matter, and particularly the inheritance that the Government took over from his stewardship of the economy.

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak about the impact of petrol tax on hard-working families. However, will he also bear in mind the interests of an appreciable number of people, not least in rural areas, among whom I number Mrs. Elizabeth Zettl, an 83-year-old woman in Buckingham High street in my constituency? Mrs. Zettl travels around by car to undertake charitable work on behalf of deserving causes. She has been consistently punished by this Administration and she is very angry about it.

My hon. Friend rightly illustrates some of the personal circumstances that lie behind the problems associated with motoring in rural areas. His example concerned somebody who undertakes very commendable activities. The problems that are faced by poorer members of rural communities, who may rely on their cars to make their way from village to village, or from village to supermarket, often seem to be overlooked by the Government, under whom motorists in town and country alike—I shall deal with the special problems of the countryside in a moment—have taken a clobbering.

This has been an interesting discussion, not least for the cameo it has provided of the continuing debate about boom and bust and a possible return to the cycle over the coming months.

I agree with the tenor of most of the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, a problem remains in rural areas, where a double jeopardy, or double whammy, is imposed on rural dwellers. The figures quoted for the price of petrol per litre by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman would not be recognisable to the people in my constituency, who have to buy petrol at 2p, 3p or 4p a litre more than that. Does the hon. Gentleman have any suggestions as to how, on the social justice side of sustainability, we can ensure that people in rural areas who need some form of private transport for access to jobs and services are not penalised by the differential between urban and rural petrol costs?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I acknowledge his credentials in these matters. He raises the issue of the environment with great regularity. This is a difficult issue for all of us. Our view is that the funds that will be made available through congestion charging must allow us to create alternative public transport systems. That will apply not only in urban areas but in rural areas, where people will be able to use those facilities to get into the towns and cities where many of them have to work. I suspect that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is in nobody's mind just yet. However, we must ensure that, when we put forward these arguments, we do not lose sight of the environmental aspects as we rightly and properly focus attention on the problems in rural areas.

My hon. Friend referred to urban congestion charging. Is it not the case that, in urban areas where public transport could be made available, if properly funded through urban congestion charging, there would not only be a renaissance of public transport, but higher costs for those who chose to use their cars needlessly? That would mean that those in rural areas would pay far less, because there would not be the same availability of public transport or the same need to get people out of their cars.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

What is breathtaking is the position taken by the Liberal Democrats over a number of years. It is based on the politics of the Kincardine and Deeside by-election: the Liberal candidate was busy attacking the price of petrol under the Conservative party, only for it to be revealed that Liberal policy would make it even higher. Indeed, Liberal policy over most of the last few years would make it even higher than it is under the present Government.

As usual, what the hon. Gentleman says half-answers the point that we have been debating.

I want to talk briefly about the effect that the amendment would have on rural areas such as the one that I represent. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, in rural areas, we are talking about a cut in the retail price, which is already much higher than in many urban areas.

The amendment is an irresponsible attempt to reduce fuel duty below the levels proposed by the Government. Clause 1 already cuts the duty rates on the main road fuels used in the UK. The duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol will be cut by 2p a litre and that on ultra-low sulphur diesel by 3p, to equalise the duty on the two products. Those reductions form part of a package of measures that will protect and enhance the environment, and are also equivalent to an overall cut of 4p a litre for motorists and 7p a litre for hauliers.

I spoke at some length about the increase of £5 billion in Government revenues that has resulted from the fact that the price of oil is much higher than the Government expected two years ago. Will the Minister say what, in 1999, the Treasury expected the price of petrol to be now? If we are to believe the Treasury forecast, the expectation must have been that the price would be below current levels. If that level was considered sustainable for the environment in 1999, why is it not so in 2001?

The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, and I shall respond to it in detail later. However, there has been no reference in the debate so far to the Red Book. It was noted earlier that there have been considerable fluctuations in the spot price of Brent crude oil. The graph at box 6.3 in chapter 6 shows that that price rose from a low of $10 a barrel in January 1999 to a high of between $33 and $34. I am sure that I do not have to remind the hon. Gentleman that that threefold increase makes a considerable difference to the price of petrol at the pump.

The Minister makes my point for me. I have demonstrated already that in 1999 the Government expected oil to cost between $10 and $12 a barrel for the foreseeable future. What was the Government's expectation in 1999 of what the price of petrol at the pumps would be in 2001? It must have been lower than the current price, so why is that forecast level not sustainable in environmental terms now? It is a reasonably simple question, and I hope that the Minister will address it now.

As I said, I shall come to that point in the course of my response. I want to be as logical as possible, to prevent the debate from jumping around from point to point.

I give the Minister the credit of assuming that she has read my party's taxation document, which explains that we propose to increase the rate of taxation for people earning more than £100,000 a year by 5p. Whether the Government think that that is right or wrong, the Minister's statement that we have not explained how we would raise the revenue to finance the proposal in the amendment is totally invalid. In passing, may I point out that our proposal would still leave the highest marginal rate of tax considerably below what the Chancellor considered to be the appropriate rate just a few years ago?

I am well aware of what the Scottish National party's manifesto contains, but when he moved the amendment, the hon. Gentleman did not explain to the House how his party's proposals on spending and taxation would be squared. It is good to hear him confirm the party's commitment.

The hon. Lady has become slightly confused in giving the usual Labour account of the Government's awful inheritance. She will recall that the Government came into power after three years of growth, low inflation and consistently falling unemployment. The public finances were on course for balance. At the last election we debated the black hole in Labour's finances, but when the Government came to power it did not appear. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is because they failed to mention that they would increase the tax burden so heavily, as they did over the next three years, and freeze public spending so severely for their first two or three years in office? They are only just beginning to emerge from the consequences of that, so under this Government the increased spending on health and education for example, is still below the levels achieved under the Major Government.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is again rewriting history. We inherited a 44 per cent. debt-to-GDP ratio, and have reduced it to 31 or 32 per cent.

That is too low.

The hon. Gentleman says that that is too low. He wants to borrow more and enter the cycle of boom and bust that characterised all previous Conservative Governments.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Order. This macro-economic debate is going wide of the amendment, and I do not want it to spread.

Does the Minister believe that the long-term gilt yields underlying annuity costs, and the poor deal that pensioners buying annuities get, is a desirable part of Government policy, or would she like pensioners buying annuities to get better value?

Our position on annuities has been made clear many times to the hon. Gentleman, and was set out in the Red Book and the Budget statement. I shall not be drawn further on that, Sir Alan, as I realise that I am testing your patience.

In the time-honoured phrase, may I refer all hon. Members to the comments that I made a few moments ago?

We shall abide by them most faithfully, Sir Alan.

Will the Minister give way?

No I should like to move on.

The Minister cannot continue the debate using the totally bogus £16 billion figure that the Government keep contributing to an election campaign that is totally brain-free on many subjects, particularly economic policy. Would it not have been logical, having started the escalator when we had the cheapest fuel in western Europe, at least to stop its automatic increase once our fuel had become the most expensive in Europe? Did the Government pursue any logical policy, rather than staying on an escalator towards the stratosphere until civil disobedience on our streets sent them into a U-turn?

We had already announced the end of the escalator before then. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously uncomfortable about the fact that he introduced the escalator and we ended it, but that is the fact of the matter.

Will the Minister address the recent report on fuel duty by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit? That report made it clear that the Government's thinking has been muddled and that not enough environmental modelling has been done on the effect of fuel duty and its relationships with traffic congestion and reductions in greenhouse gases. Does she accept that the Government need to make a far clearer environmental case if they intend to pursue the current rates of fuel tax in future? If they do not, the problems that arose in September will come back.

I do not accept that our position is in any way muddled. However, the Committee is fully entitled to its view. We have looked at the triangle of difficult issues and achieved the right balance between them—between the environment and environmental needs, the costs of motoring, and the revenues from fuel duty. We need to balance those issues and we have made those difficult decisions, leading to the 4p equivalent cut for motorists and the 7p equivalent cut for hauliers.

When one is talking about a proportion, the figure of which it is a proportion is important. Will the hon. Lady remind us of the price of petrol in May 1997?

I do not have that figure to hand. The point being made by the hon. Gentleman and by other Opposition Members is that the proportion is dramatically different. It is not dramatically different; it is almost the same—if anything, it is slightly lower—so the point is not relevant.

I assure the Economic Secretary that 75 per cent. of almost £4 a gallon amounts to more in monetary terms than 77 per cent. of less than £3 a gallon. She must take my word for that, but it is absolutely true. She may want to ask the mighty expertise at her disposal in the Treasury to work out that sum, but I can give her an absolute assurance that the sum that the Government are taking in petrol duty has vastly increased during the new Labour party's term in office.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman wandered into the Committee a few minutes ago, and I will not give him the opportunity to do what he should have done earlier—make his own speech. Neither he nor his colleagues wanted to speak in the debate because when people go to the polls, they will know that the new Labour party means high petrol prices in Scotland.