What deregulation he proposes for local government services. [28435]

The Government set out their radical and new vision for local government in the recently published White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". It contains a wide range of deregulatory proposals to eliminate unnecessary red tape and to give local councils greater freedom to innovate and to respond to the needs and aspirations of their communities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. To be a high-performing council and to benefit from this deregulation, what level of importance is placed on consulting and involving residents and tenants in developing and planning services? What expectations does my right hon. Friend have of comprehensive and meaningful consultation with tenants on housing stock transfer?

The Government want to see all local authorities striving for excellence both in service delivery and in effective civic leadership. That means engaging their local communities in effective partnerships and in talking through issues of concern to individual groups in the community.

I admire the Minister's ability to keep a straight face when he gives such an answer. It is astonishing gall to hear about this sort of deregulation from a Minister and a Government who have loaded local government with volume after volume of regulations. Is it not correct that the Audit Commission has doubled in size because of the inspections that it has to carry out? Some of the deregulation that the right hon. Gentleman talks about will require more regulations so that there can be regulation or deregulation, and the cost will land on the taxpayer, who is already facing a £600 million bill for inspection on best value alone.

As is too often the case, the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. We are introducing a series of deregulatory measures, many of which will sweep away some of the pernicious consequences of the Conservative Government's period in power. In particular, there were the extraordinary centralist controls over borrowing by local government, which were imposed by the Government of whom he was a member. We shall give local authorities freedom to borrow within prudent limits so that they can take responsibility for their decisions. That is all part of a process of allowing decision making to go back to where it should be, which is at local level.

Is it not the case that for local authorities to benefit from the proposed deregulation, they will need a decent grant settlement? Has my right hon. Friend received representations from especially county district authorities about the extremely disappointing finance which was announced recently? Will he see me in relation to that in my capacity as co-chair of the town and country group of MPs in this place?

It is a slightly curious perception that there is a disappointing settlement when it involves a 7.5 per cent. increase in grant to local authorities. By comparison with the period when there was a Conservative Government, when local authorities often saw no increases and in some instances cuts in grant entitlement, we have given real-terms increases year on year to local government, culminating in a 7.5 per cent. increase, which is three times the rate of inflation. By any standards, that is a good settlement for local government. We hope that local government will respond appropriately.

This Labour Government have piled more and more regulations and burdens on to local authorities without providing proper funding. Does the Minister agree with what his colleague, the secretary of the county councils' Labour group, recently wrote about this year's council tax rises? He said that

"9.9 per cent feels like safe ground, with 8.9 per cent. looking attractive"?

No, I do not, and it is not necessary for me to do so. As I have made clear, the settlement put in place by the Government amounts to a 7.5 per cent. increase. Substantial increases will go to county councils, which will receive a minimum of 4 per cent. That is well above the rate of inflation, and is guaranteed by the floors that we have put in place. It compares very markedly with the cuts in grant and in standard spending assessments introduced by the previous Government. It is not surprising that the Opposition are nervous about council tax increases. The Government are giving a decent settlement to local authorities, and we expect them to respond accordingly.

What recent decisions he has made in respect of the future of London Underground. [28436]

London Transport is responsible for the implementation of the plans for the modernisation of London Underground. Given the importance of ensuring that the contracts provide value for money, I decided in October last year to obtain independent advice from Ernst and Young on this issue. I intend to publish this report next Thursday, 7 February, which is the day we expect London Transport to make its in-principle decision on whether the contracts achieve value for money.

Are not the final bid contracts shaping up to be a potential disaster, for London Underground, for London's fare and council tax payers, and for public control over the system? Will not the private contractors be completely in the driving seat? They will be able to perform worse than they do now and still get big bonuses, to tap the public purse for cost overruns and 30 years of profits, and to renegotiate after seven and a half years from a monopoly position. They will also be able to set their own priorities, not the public's. If my right hon. Friend is so confident about the contracts, will he put all the relevant data in the public domain, and have a debate in the House before he signs on the dotted line?

The modernisation of the tube will bring in some £13 billion of investment over 15 years. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that what London Underground desperately needs is that level of investment. There has been chronic underinvestment in the London underground for generations, and we are going to change that. However, we must ensure that we get value for money. We are talking about billions of pounds of investment, and we must get a return for every pound that we spend on the underground.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in opposition, the Labour party was critical about the level of investment in London Underground under the previous Conservative Government? Will he confirm that investment since 1997 has been far below that achieved in the equivalent period before 1997?

I think that the issue is whether—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question in my own terms, as the House would expect. The choice is between a future made up of all our yesterdays, with people blaming each other, and £13 billion of investment going into London Underground. As Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, I want the latter, and ensuring that it happens is my obligation and responsibility. My duty is not to try and rewrite history, but to look forward and deliver the investment that London and Londoners so badly need.

Does not the future of the underground depend on good industrial relations? Are the Government committed to the view, which is attributed to the Prime Minister's press secretary, that they should in future support compulsory and binding arbitration in public transport disputes?

The Prime Minister's official spokesman—indeed, the Prime Minister himself, which is probably more important—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister has said very clearly at the Dispatch Box that we believe that arbitration is the best way forward in these continuing disputes. For that simple reason, it is in no one's interest, whether we are talking about London Underground, South West Trains or any other company, to have strike action. Passengers will look for alternative modes of transport, which would be bad for the railways and for the underground. Arbitration is about the justice of a case; strike action is just about strength. It is about time that both parties put the interests of the travelling party first. That is what the Prime Minister has said, and it is what I say.

May I take it that the answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) is that the Government have underspent, underestimated and underperformed by some 30 per cent. in relation to the underground? The right hon. Gentleman talks about what will be produced next Thursday. Will he produce plan B? He will recall that he said to the Select Committee that he was working on a plan B to use if the public-private partnership did not work. He said that they were working on it, they had time available to them and referred to the middle of January or thereabouts. Will he, in his statement, tell us what the alternative is to PPP? Will he confirm that the B in plan B stands for Lord Birt?

This is a serious issue, about how we can secure the £13 billion of investment in London Underground. I will meet the obligation that I gave the Select Committee about ensuring that there will be a plan B ready in case we need to use it. Unlike the Conservative party, we are approaching this not from a position of dogma, but with regard to what is in the public interest. That is why we have said clearly that these contracts will need to satisfy the value-for-money test because the public interest must come first. I want to see a good deal for Londoners. That means getting the £13 billion of investment going in over the next 15 years. It means seeing a level of improvement that the tube has been crying out for years.

What action he is taking to improve the performance of the Metropolitan line. [28437]

The performance of the Metropolitan line is an operational matter for London Underground, but I recognise that it has been declining in recent years. The significant improvements in performance, which we all want for the tube network, can be secured only through stable, long-term investment. That is what the Government's plans for a publicly run, privately built tube will deliver.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the importance of the Metropolitan line to those living in the west Harrow, north Harrow, Pinner and Rayners Lane parts of my constituency? Although I welcome the news of the announcement which may be made next week, will he ensure that the Met line is targeted for early investment, not least because its rolling stock is the oldest in the network?

I could hardly fail to be aware of the importance of the proposals to my hon. Friend's constituents precisely because he is so assiduous in presenting their case. We recognise that the age of the stock means that newer rolling stock will be required, as is also the case for many of the other lines on the network. That is why we have been exploring these proposals and look forward to the announcement next week.

I am sure that my long-suffering Metropolitan line travellers will be very reassured by the Minister's answer. Will he confirm that even within the current time scale for his botched PPP—whatever that time scale might be—it will take between 10 and 15 years before new signalling and the infrastructure on the Metropolitan line will be modernised?

The programme on all the lines will take effect over a period of time and will include the replacement of signalling where required and, of course, the replacement of rolling stock. There will also be improvements to stations. Detailed proposals will be set out when the announcement about the London Transport decision is made next week. Like the hon. Gentleman, we look forward to the discussion and debate that will follow, but it would be premature to go into detail about the various lines until that announcement has been made.

What plans he has to provide assistance to local authorities to increase the stock of council housing. [28438]

Finance for the provision of new social housing is mainly made to housing associations through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. Local authorities can also fund provision through their housing capital programme, although we expect that to be done through housing associations as they offer better value for money.

In 1991, under a Conservative Government with no particular love of the public sector, local authorities were still able to build a grand total of 16,550 council houses. In the last complete year for which figures are available, we have allowed councils to build only 361 council houses. Just to complicate matters, 600,000 families found themselves involved in stock transfers because the rules of the housing game have been so stacked as to force local authorities to sell off one set of council tenants to fund the housing improvements of another. Will the Minister and her team look again at the rules in the housing system to ensure that we once again have a Labour Government who are unashamed to be a direct provider and supporter of the delivery of council houses?

We have a Labour Government who have as their absolute priority the combating of homelessness and the provision of decent homes for people. Our target is to provide 100,000 new or improved homes. We have a commitment to bring all social housing up to a decent standard. We have a commitment to provide a homelessness directorate—that will come on stream in April. We also have a commitment to provide people with a choice of housing, either from local authority or housing association stock or in various forms of shared ownership.

What message of hope can the Minister give my constituents? There are 1,400 families on the waiting list, but last year the local authority and the housing association were able to allocate only 200 homes.

If the hon. Gentleman looks back over the records of applications and acceptances by local authorities for the past decade, he will find that figures for homelessness are now lower than they were a decade ago. He will also find that, because some of those figures are indeed increasing again, we have taken steps to deal with the problems and the figures will improve.

I welcome the extra investment in council housing that the Government have overseen. I welcome, too, the distinct improvements that I have seen in the condition of council housing in my constituency. However, there is some concern in my constituency about the steep increases in council rents that the Liberal Democrat-controlled city council is busy blaming on the Government.

If my hon. Friend is talking about rent restructuring, I assure her that the Government have recognised the need to limit rent increases in areas of high value, and we have taken steps to ensure that those rent increases are kept to a minimum, although of course local authorities always have discretion and I appreciate the problems produced by the decisions of the Liberal Democrat council in her area.

The Minister makes great play of plans, aspirations and her aims for the future, but does she not understand the basic arithmetic that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) laid out so well? In the last three years of the Conservative Government, we built 150,600 new dwellings, but altogether in their first Parliament, the Labour Government have built 95,500—a decline of 40 per cent. in the amount of social housing provided by the Government. How can she possibly stand at the Dispatch Box and claim to be the friend of homeless people when the fact is that the Government are building far fewer houses?

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) mentioned figures starting in 1991. In 1991–92, 139,630 homeless families were accepted by local authorities. Last year, when we were supposed to have a record increase in homelessness, that figure stood at 114,350, so the figure is now very much better than it was 10 years ago. In addition, we are now tackling a backlog of poor-standard housing that was a legacy of the Conservative Government's underinvestment.

I call Sally Keeble—my apology, Karen Buck.

I am honoured by the mistake.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about an apology from the Conservative party, and I pay tribute to those Labour councillors in Westminster who pursued Dame Shirley Porter for many years. My hon. Friend has a particular interest in homelessness in London, so may I take the opportunity to point out that there were 38,220 homeless families in London in 1991, and that that figure is now down to 29,630?

If he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of local government. [28439]

Last December's White Paper sets out the Government's agenda for delivering better quality public services and strengthening local leadership. It contains a wide range of proposals to give councils greater freedom to respond to the local needs and aspirations of their communities. It marks a new stage in relations between local and central Government, recognising that we both have a shared interest in delivering high-quality public services.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Labour's manifesto stated that the Government would review two-tier authorities in the light of any introduction of regional assemblies? In other words, will Cheshire county council have to be abolished if an unwanted north-west regional assembly is introduced?

The Labour manifesto was very clear where we spoke about the need for local people in the regions to decide whether or not they wanted elected regional assemblies. We said that they would be able to do that only if there was a predominantly unitary system because we do not want to have an additional tier of local government, but there is no agenda for the abolition of Cheshire county council, or any county council. I should not pre-empt the White Paper, but nothing will be imposed; it will be for local people in a region to make their own decision. That is what the devolution of power is all about. I know that it is difficult for Conservative Members to understand that, but we on the Labour Benches understand it, and it is what we intend to do.

When considering the reforms in conjunction with the welcome proposals to deal with the hundreds of thousands of abandoned cars that litter our streets, will my right hon. Friend consider arguing in his discussions with the Treasury that councils that operate blitz schemes, such as that in Medway, where 700 cars were cleared away in seven weeks, should be allowed to claw back some of the revenue—

Order. The question is about the reform of local

Would the Secretary of State be surprised to hear of a council that had undertaken two separate referendums on the new form of executive government in its area and then decided to reject the results of both referendums? Would he find that a little unacceptable in those circumstances?

If the hon. Gentleman draws my attention to the specific local council, I shall certainly look into the details. The Government take the view that we want modernisation and changes to take place in the governance of local authorities, but we do not want to impose them. We want to give local people a genuine choice. If local authorities ignore the wish and the will of local people, the Government will take action, but only if there is a clear demonstration that local people want to embrace change.

What measures he is taking to improve the management of social housing. [28440]

Under best value, all social landlords are expected to seek continuous improvements in standards of housing management with their performance subject to inspection. Our new financial framework for local authority housing encourages robust and innovative management. In parallel, the Housing Corporation is introducing a new regulatory code and inspection regime for registered social landlords.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In accordance with Government guidelines, local tenants in my local authority were consulted by postal ballot on the future management that they wanted. Some 82 per cent. said that they wanted to stay with the council, but the Tory-Liberal alliance then decided ideologically to go for stock transfer. Since then, it has spent £750,000 putting one side of the case. That amounts to political electioneering. Does my right hon. Friend not think that both sides of the argument on each of the options should be put to tenants so that they can make an informed decision?

My hon. Friend makes the absolutely valid point that tenants should decide in a ballot on the future management arrangements for their homes. It is right that information should be made available and we encourage it to be provided impartially and objectively. Ultimately, it is for the tenants to decide.

Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister's speech on the 30th anniversary of Shelter? He vowed:

"Our approach will be founded on the basic aim of ensuring that everyone has the chance to a decent home".

On the contrary, it is an indication of the hon. Gentleman's ability to find details that he is very happy to quote without looking at the bigger picture. If he looks at the wood rather than the trees, he will see that there has been a two and half fold increase in investment in tackling the problem of underinvestment in social housing. The investment has predominantly gone in to tackling the appalling backlog of sub-standard housing that was left behind by the previous Conservative Government and that totalled £l9 billion of overdue repairs. That problem is now being put right. Equally, substantial increased investment is coming in through registered social landlords to increase the output of new social housing.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the problems that negative subsidies have caused my authority in the management of its social housing? They mean that rents will have to be increased to meet the extra costs that the Government charge. Will he consider the representations received from Wakefield district council on the very question of negative subsidies and on the help that is required to repair and to improve the condition of council houses?

My hon. Friend will be aware that as a result of the new major repairs allowance introduced by the Government less than a year ago, there is a substantial increase in the direct funding for the maintenance of housing stock. The overall subsidy system seeks to achieve a fair distribution of subsidies between authorities throughout the country so that those that are able to meet their costs help those that are still in need of substantial additional funding. That is the natural corollary of a fair national system to tackle need wherever it arises. However, we shall certainly pay attention to representations from my hon. Friend's authority and others.

Is the Minister aware that I spent part of yesterday visiting constituents in Terrington, St. Clement who complained about the dumping of rubbish on the edge of a housing association estate, opened a few years ago by one of his predecessors? In one location, I saw beds and chairs. About the only thing I did not see were fridges, and no doubt they will arrive next week. The residents said that it is difficult to find out whom to contact about the problem because many housing associations, although doing an excellent job, can be remote. What advice will he give my constituents?

I was not aware of where the hon. Gentleman was on his constituency visit yesterday. My guess is that his constituents would not particularly welcome his remarks, which might act as an incentive to the dumping of fridges in that area. They should be looking for effective action to deal with the problem of antisocial behaviour. That is exactly why the Government introduced antisocial behaviour orders and have been encouraging all local authorities to deal effectively with antisocial behaviour by council tenants and others who are making their neighbours' lives a misery.

What measures he intends to take to monitor the number of evictions by social housing landlords. [28441]

My Department is currently discussing with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service ways of achieving a better breakdown of the data that they are currently collecting on possession orders by social landlords. That will make it possible to monitor the trends much better and to improve our understanding of the causes of homelessness.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the proposals to reinstate the collection of statistics from registered social landlords on the number of tenants evicted and the reasons for their eviction. I am sure she is aware that on Friday the Lord Chancellor's Department issued figures that show a 12.2 per cent. increase in the number of tenants evicted. Does she agree that, for some social landlords, eviction and subsequent homelessness is the first rather than the last resort? Will she also consider ways in which we can introduce new projects, especially mediation, to prevent eviction and homelessness so that we retain families in their own homes?

There are two points about the figures. First, we need to understand why people are being evicted, and there is some discussion of whether that is because of rent arrears or antisocial behaviour. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right: we need to know better how to deal with some of the problems that lead up to eviction.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that no one is evicted from social housing as a result of a failure by authorities to process housing benefit that is due to a tenant? If she cannot, will she issue an instruction, or take whatever other action is required, to ensure that from now on no one, whether in council or housing association property, is ever evicted because of such a failure?

We are getting the figures broken down to see which evictions are due to rent arrears and which are due to antisocial behaviour or to other types of action. Obviously we do not know how many of those might be due to unprocessed housing benefit claims. Action is being taken to deal with the problems of processing housing benefit, and we hope that that will not remain a reason for people to be evicted.

May I raise a problem found in my constituency, in villages such as Grange Villa, where private landlords are buying property—in some cases, entire streets—to house people who have been evicted by the council and social landlords? The majority of those people are on housing benefit, and landlords pay no regard to the problems and chaos that they cause in small communities such as those villages in North Durham. Can steps be taken to enforce a code on such landlords?

My hon. Friend has identified an extremely important problem. First, we are considering licensing private sector landlords, which will hopefully ensure that they take some responsibility for housing management and do not indulge in benefit grazing, as I think it is called. Secondly, we have set up a research project into ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour, particularly in private sector housing. We recognise that there is a problem of antisocial people being dumped in private sector housing where landlords take no steps to try to manage their behaviour.

If he will make a statement on which road-building proposals are being considered by his Department. [28442]

A number of road-building proposals are being appraised within multimodal and road-based studies set up as a consequence of the 1998 roads review. Decisions on those studies will be announced as they are made. In addition, local authorities recently submitted road proposals for funding by central Government as part of their local transport plans. The latest local transport settlement was announced on 13 December.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the outstanding decisions that are awaited on the south-east Manchester multimodal study and tell him that my constituents are desperately keen to hear the Government's decision? Can he give me a date or a timetable for that decision, so that I can put my constituents' minds at rest about the fact that the Government are serious about investing in multimodal studies?

I cannot give an exact date, but I am aware of the concern that the outcomes of the multimodal studies should be implemented as soon as possible, not least because although there has, quite properly, been an in-depth evaluation, the problems exist now. However, I anticipate that a local Liberal Democrat councillor will put out a focus leaflet opposing the road, and then we will be told that local Liberal groups make decisions based on local circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman assures me that that will not be the case, I will look on the matter even more favourably.

Will my right hon. Friend look thoroughly at proposals currently affecting the A595 trunk road, the only trunk road serving Copeland and many hundreds of square miles of west and south-west Cumbria? Will he ask the Highways Agency to expedite the announcement, made by his predecessor last year, that the Parton to Lilly Hall improvement would go ahead? Will he also ask the agency to desist from proposing to de-trunk the rest of that sole trunk road in west and south-west Cumbria, particularly as to do so would be to negate the many excellent initiatives taken in his Department and others, including those on market towns, on the diversification of rural economies and on the development of tourism? Is not it nonsensical and unacceptable that an executive agency should be taking decisions that negate ministerial decisions and Government objectives?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware that local authorities in the area hold differing opinions, not on extra investment, but on de-trunking and on the right route down which to proceed. That matter needs to be resolved by discussion, perhaps in the first instance with the Highways Agency. However, I am certainly prepared to receive representations from my right hon. Friend and his constituents to enable us to make the right decision in this case.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the appalling state of the A21 arterial route to Hastings, a relatively deprived area? I remind him that this Government cancelled the Weald and Downlands design, build, finance and operate project in 1997, and since then we have had review after review—I think that this Government have review disease when it comes to road building—but no action. The record of fatalities and the increasing congestion on the road are simply appalling.

The hon. Gentleman made great play of this Government's behaviour; I do not recall his lot doing much on the A21 in the previous 18 years. However, he is right to draw attention to that road; I acknowledge that he was gracious enough to say that when we looked at the area, although we did not go ahead with the Hastings bypass, we agreed to undertake further studies of the A21 because there are fairly strong opinions on the subject, as he is aware. On the one hand, there is a considerable environmental lobby, which is concerned about areas of natural beauty and the landscape; on the other, there is a real need, which I appreciate and understand, to improve access to Hastings and the surrounding area, as well as the safety of that road. That is why we ordered further studies; I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the exact timetable.

I welcome the £0.5 million investment in Jaywick Sands, in my constituency. A major road reconstruction has just begun at Jaywick, which the Government introduced under the local transport plan. Will the Minister take a special interest in the future of Jaywick? Many other roads need to be reconstructed; some streets still have no street lighting, proper drainage or footpaths. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Opposition had had their way and been elected, they would have reversed the Government's policy on local transport—

Order. Mr. Spellar.

The previous environment spokesman indicated clearly that the Conservatives wanted to move away from local transport plans, the benefits of which my hon. Friend has rightly identified in many areas, not least his own. I shall certainly take account of his representations; I hope that he will follow them up with a letter to me on the details of the subsequent proposals so that we can give them further sympathetic consideration.

Don Foster.

rose— [Interruption.]

Order.

I should be grateful, whichever Minister is going to reply, for confirmation that there is a significant difference between the strategic plan of the Strategic Rail Authority and the 10-year plan. The strategic plan suggests that there is a—

Order. Perhaps I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I called him a bit too soon.

It is said in press reports that Ove Amp has now worked out what needs to be done to the M6 as part of the multimodal study of routes from the west midlands to the north-west. With all that information going to the Minister, can he tell me once and for all when the study will be produced so that those of us in the north-west who occasionally try to get through Birmingham on the M6 may do so with greater certainty that we will reach our destination?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that as a result of the Government's authorising the Birmingham north relief road—soon to be the M6 toll road—he will have an alternative route for getting round that blockage; I hope that he is suitably grateful when he uses it in future. He is right to draw attention to significant interest in the west midlands multimodal study and the midlands/Manchester study, which both look at road and rail access. As he knows, those studies have already reached initial publication; we then consulted the appropriate regional bodies. As I said in an earlier response, I accept that the public have been waiting a considerable time for the final reports. We need early decisions; then we must award contracts to deal with the considerable congestion experienced not only by the right hon. Gentleman, but by midlands and north-west industry. That is an important consideration, which is why we shall take action.

In 1996, after four years of protest and the blighting of many homes, a proposed outlying route to ease congestion on the Gateshead western bypass was abandoned. Is the Minister aware that residents whose homes had been purchased by the Highways Agency in preparation for the building of that road were offered the chance to repurchase? They were given a written assurance that they could do so safe in the knowledge that the road proposal would not be revived. Can my right hon. Friend explain why that proposal is back on the agenda and why those who accepted the Department's word back in 1996 are having their lives blighted all over again?

My hon. Friend has to accept that, given that those studies are independent and will put options to us, it would be slightly odd if we pre-determined all outcomes before the work had been undertaken. I am however fully aware of the controversy that arose in the Newcastle area when the western bypass was last proposed. I am aware of other proposals for work in that area to deal with what is widely recognised as a bottleneck on the A1 around Newcastle, and with considerable local traffic too. I undertake to give my hon. Friend's points consideration. I hope that he will also write to me on behalf of his constituents, outlining the concerns, so that that can be taken into account when we are evaluating the multimodal study with a view to taking action.

How much (a) private capital he expects to be needed and (b) public funding he expects to provide to fund his strategic rail plans. [28443]

We are planning for total rail expenditure over the next 10 years of £64.9 billion. That comprises private sector funding of just over £34.3 billion and Government support of just over £33.5 billion. The figure includes £3 billion of Government revenue support for private investment. I am also pleased to be able to inform the House that the total transport 10-year plan financial envelope has been increased by £2.2 billion, from £179.7 billion to £181.9 billion.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but where is the private sector investment going to come from? Is he aware of recent reports that the amount of money available for the private finance initiative has almost halved over the past 12 months, not least because of his mishandling of those who had invested in Railtrack? What would he say to pensioners and others in my constituency about that? Would he have been willing to invest his pension fund in Railtrack?

There are two issues. The first is in relation to private sector involvement in rail and the 10-year transport plan generally. We saw just 10 days ago, with the GNER extension, £100 million worth of private investment going into that two-year franchise. A number of new franchises are being negotiated at the moment, which will secure hundreds of millions of pounds of private sector investment in our railway system.

No.

If that is not the case, we look forward to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) saying so. We know that £1 billion from taxpayers would need to be made available to compensate Railtrack shareholders, and we will not make that money available because, as applies to all shareholders, their investments can go down as well as up.

Since my right hon. Friend will be aware of the extraordinary accounting that led Railtrack to come up with figures for things such as modernisation of the west coast main line that proved not only wholly inaccurate but very misleading, will he assure us that the money that will be pledged by Her Majesty's Government, which is so desperately needed, will be based on accurate figures and not those of the companies concerned?

Clearly, one of the real challenges for the administrator and the successor to Railtrack will be to ensure that their forecasts are accurate. That is one reason why we want the successor to concentrate on renewals, operation and maintenance, and not to be involved in major infrastructure projects, which to a large extent were the undoing of Railtrack, as it was unable to control its costs. So it is important that we learn the lessons of the failures of Railtrack and ensure that they are not repeated. That is what we intend to do when we come to consider the proposals made to us by the administrator.

As I gave the Secretary of State advance notice of my question, will he confirm that the Government are beginning to have cold feet about the likely investment in the railways from the private sector, that the strategic plan shows a £4.5 billion reduction in the anticipated money from the private sector compared with the 10-year plan figures, and that the Government intend to make up that £4.5 billion from public sector investment? Given his welcome announcement today of the additional £2.2 billion going into the 10-year plan, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that that still leaves the 10-year plan £2.3 billion short for non-railway matters, and will he therefore tell the House where that money will come from? Will it come from the road-building programme, at a time when we have the highest backlog of road repairs and maintenance, or will it come from the buses, the day we are told that our bus services are in crisis?

The hon. Gentleman had clearly prepared that question before he heard my reply. As I had had early warning of his question, I tried to make sure that in my reply I answered the points that he intended to make. As a result of the additional £2.2 billion that is being put into the 10-year transport plan, we are able to use some of the unallocated provision to support rail, and with the additional money that I announced today, we do not have to take money from the roads, buses or local transport budgets. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would applaud the fact that we have that extra investment to support the 10-year plan, and that as a result, we will be able to deliver the significant improvements that our transport system needs.

I welcome the additional investment, which I am sure will make a substantial contribution to clearing up at least some of the mess left by the Conservative party. Will my right hon. Friend consider the proportion of that investment devoted to transport—specifically, rail—in the west midlands? There is much disquiet in the region about that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless we get our rail infrastructure right in the west midlands, it will be a problem not just for the west midlands, but for the entire transport route from the south-east to the north-west and beyond?

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of Birmingham and the west midlands as a hub for travel, not just in England, but throughout the United Kingdom. He will no doubt welcome the commitments made by the cross-country services to increase both frequency and capacity, which will assist the west midlands significantly. Through the local transport schemes, we are looking closely at how we can provide additional help and resources through projects for the commuter lines into Birmingham. When my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to study the detail of the proposals, he will see that the west midlands will benefit significantly from the implementation of the strategic rail plan.

Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how £33.5 billion plus £34.5 billion add up to £65 billion?

It is £64.9 billion, actually. The reason is that £3 billion is netted off. If it were not, we could be accused of double counting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] And clearly, the hon. Lady has not seen table A2 in the original 10-year plan. If she had, and in particular if she had seen the footnote to table A2, she would see that £3 billion has been netted off to ensure that there is no double counting.

If the Secretary of State wants to avoid double counting, he should say that the public sector investment is £30 billion, not £33 billion. He admitted today that he lost £2 billion of funding for Railtrack, that his figures have included double counting, and that nearly £68 billion is less than £65 billion. I can only assume that he is going to Edexcel for advice on how to do his maths.

The figures are outlined in the strategic plan, and the details are in the proposals on the franchising system. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would applaud the fact that an extra £2.2 billion is going into the 10-year transport plan. That money will be made available to improve the transport system. The real issue that the people of this country face is whether the Conservatives would take that money away; under this Government it is going in. The hon. Lady cannot give a commitment to match our levels of spending on transport. Indeed, although the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said on the "GMTV" programme that he was able to match that money, he was then slapped down by a representative of Conservative central office, who said:

"Eric Pickles does not believe that his remarks amount to a spending commitment."