What progress is being made on leasehold reform legislation. [89476]

We are analysing the many responses to our consultation paper. We are proceeding as swiftly as possible, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot make any commitment on when we will be able to legislate.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the seven-year battle which has been fought by the Redditch Leasehold Action Committee on behalf of several thousand householders in my constituency. Their freeholds were sold from underneath them in bulk to private firms, which then profiteered by offering them back for sale at increased prices—in many cases, at more than 10 times the price. Does she accept that that situation could have been avoided by extending the right of first refusal to householders? Will she assure me that the proposal will be in Government legislation—and that such legislation will be introduced soon?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to her constituents in Redditch, who have fought a long and determined battle, and who, I am pleased to say, have recently had some success in leasehold valuation tribunals. I am conscious of the points that she makes. In our consultation paper, we proposed that the right of first refusal should be extended to houses. We are conscious of the difficulties that some leaseholders have faced because of the lack of such a right. We will consult further on the details of the provisions that would be required, but my hon. Friend has my assurance that, in accordance with the consultation, we intend to move on the issue.

The Minister will know that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 first gave leaseholders a right of first refusal when a landlord decided to dispose of his interest in a property. There is evidence that that was widely ignored by landlords. That led to considerable strengthening of the provision in the Housing Act 1996. Is she satisfied that the new measures in that Act are working well?

As I have said, leasehold valuation tribunal rulings have strengthened that part of the Act— the rights of people who live in houses, not simply of those who live in flats. We consulted on the whole subject, and that consultation has now finished. We have had a remarkably high number of responses, and we will reflect on them to see what strengthening is necessary in legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when there is a response from the Department to the consultation period and when it is preparing the way forward, it will also examine shared ownership schemes and sheltered schemes, where many of the problems about leasehold tenure that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) mentioned also arise?

We know that there are particular problems in those areas. As my hon. Friend knows, there are problems all around. Again, he is someone who has consistently made strong representations on behalf of leaseholders. I congratulate him on that and I assure him that we will examine those issues. As I say, we have had a considerable number of responses to the consultation document and we will respond to them as soon as we are able.

What representations he has received from road hauliers on his freight policy; and if he will make a statement. [89477]

What recent representations he has received from the road haulage industry regarding the Government' s transport policies; and if he will make a statement. [89489]

I have received a number of representations from the Freight Transport Association, from the Road Haulage Association and from individual hauliers, both through the road haulage forum and directly. Prospects for the industry are very good provided that it stays at the leading edge of efficiency, good practice and business professionalism.

Given that it takes an hour for Southend hauliers to get out of the town as a result of the Government's incompetence over the M 11 link road, which has not opened—it is an absolute shambles—why have three months passed before the second meeting of the road haulage forum? What will the agenda be at that meeting? Who has been invited? Who wanted to be invited and has been refused? Will hauliers be afforded the opportunity of regular meetings?

The next meeting of the road haulage forum will take place on 19 July. I had hoped to have the meeting in June, but it proved impossible to find a date as the directors general of both the FTA and the RHA took leave, or were out of the country, and I was keen that they should be able to attend the meeting. The forum's membership is well known. Officials have been meeting in the intervening period to agree a number of position papers—their next meeting will be on Friday—to inform the discussions on Monday next week. Both professional associations have welcomed the forum and made it clear that they view it as the way forward for the industry, working in partnership with Government. It is about coherent pragmatic approaches, not pointless soundbites.

Is the Minister aware of predictions that the road haulage industry could lose 50,000 jobs because of the Government's policies? When will the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions stand up to the Treasury—which is pummelling the industry into the ground? Is it not time for a fair deal for motorists and a fair deal for the road haulage industry?

A fair deal for motorists would involve reducing congestion, and the Government have a congestion policy—unlike the Conservative party, which launched its proposals yesterday. The road haulage industry and any other industries that are considering their economic viability have to take into account all sorts of factors, not the least of which is the costs of running a business. Those costs are now lower in the United Kingdom than in other parts of Europe. Road haulage wages, for example, are lower in the United Kingdom than they are in Europe. The costs of establishing a business are lower in the United Kingdom than in Europe. As a direct consequence of the Government's policies, the United Kingdom has the lowest corporation tax levels in Europe.

On behalf of Labour Members, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the freight transport policy being pursued by the Government. That policy is identified with increasingly moving freight transport from road to rail, and with extending rail facilities. Euroports—such as the one in my constituency—could be developed, and could assist in taking United Kingdom freight, on rail, to Europe; they show the best way forward for United Kingdom freight policy. Does my right hon. Friend accept that Labour Members firmly believe that we should continue with the Government's policy of encouraging freight transport to move from road to rail, as that would benefit all our communities and industries?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point—which is the crux of moving goods in the United Kingdom. We have doubled our spending on freight grants—in the past two years, we have spent £60 million—to support the shift of freight from road to rail or water. We are also committed to making still more funds available for the grant, if there is sufficient demand, in the next three years. Railtrack figures for 1998–99 show an 18 per cent. increase in railway freight volume.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that—apparently unlike Conservative Members, as demonstrated in their recent publication—Labour Members believe that a continued free-for-all in road transport could have disastrous long-term consequences for the British distribution system and for freight haulage, particularly for the viability of the just-in-time system which is vital to Britain's distributive economy? What discussions has she had on ensuring the future viability of the British just-in-time system?

My hon. Friend has raised that issue with me before, and I have been discussing it with officials. The issue is important, particularly in the context of congestion. We must ensure that congestion on our roads does not lead to a reduction in the economic performance of our businesses. We must, therefore, adopt a commonsense and focused attitude in dealing with congestion issues—unlike Conservative Members, who yesterday published a document containing proposals that would lead to increased congestion, cost lives, and adversely affect the United Kingdom's economic performance.

Is it not interesting that Labour Members want to ask questions about anything but the state of the United Kingdom road haulage industry—for which the right hon. Lady is responsible? I welcome the fact that—at last, and about time, too—there will be another meeting of the road haulage forum. Will she give an assurance that that meeting will not be simply a delaying tactic, to string out the matter until the next Budget, when hauliers may be clobbered again?

I deplore the slurs on the directors general of the RHA and the FTA, and I am sure that their reasons for being out of the country were perfectly valid. I was anxious to ensure that my Department was able to take fully into account their representations on the road haulage industry. On expenditure on transport by this Government, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the remarks of the AA yesterday, which pointed out that the previous Government had taken thousands of millions of pounds out of transport, and that this Government were doing something to put those resources back.

What progress he has made towards meeting his target for housing construction on recycled land in the east midlands. [89478]

The latest available regional information from 1994 shows that 37 per cent. of new dwellings in the east midlands were constructed on previously developed land. The urban task force, under Lord Rogers, estimated that 65 per cent. of new dwellings could be accommodated on recycled land over the next 20 years.

What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give the House, the local chamber of commerce and the Loughborough town centre steering group that those targets can be met, in view of the fact that many brown-field sites for housing and employment are under-used and lack investment? Following the Rogers report, what measures is my right hon. Friend likely to take to ensure that public-private partnerships bring some of that land back into use as soon as possible?

We will be responding to Lord Rogers's report, which has 105 recommendations and will form the basis of the forthcoming urban White Paper. The developments in Loughborough town centre are in line with Government policy. It is good that the town centre management scheme is working; the firm partnerships that are developing will start to overcome some of the adversity that the town has suffered. The development of the single regeneration budget schemes there will be of assistance.

Does the Minister accept that his answer was very disappointing? Does he accept that the target of 60 per cent. of land is insufficiently high? From statements made over the past few days, we know that the Government understand very little about the countryside. They pretend to the country that they are green, but they must think that we are green if they believe that they can build an enormous number of new houses on green-field sites while pretending that they wish to preserve England's green and pleasant land.

Here is a little bit of maths for the hon. Gentleman—65 per cent. is greater than 60 per cent. I just said that the urban task force has said that it can achieve 65 per cent, which is above the Government's target of 60 per cent. When the Government came to power, there was no land use databank. Despite all the allegations and the targets set by Conservative Members, they did not even know how much brown-field land there was to build on. It took this Administration to find out how much brown-field land there was. Based on that information, Lord Rogers has made some reasonable projections, which are much sounder than anything that came from the previous Administration.

If he will make a statement on the widening of the A46 between Newark and Lincoln. [89479]

The A46 Newark to Lincoln improvement scheme is included in the targeted programme of improvements announced in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which was published last July. As announced in December last year, the next stage for this scheme would be the making of the necessary compulsory purchase orders. Start of works would commence in 2001–02.

Is that a commitment?

Yes.

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the Tories did nothing to attempt to cut the carnage on the A46 which links my constituents with the A1? Thanks to this Government, and to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), we are at last seeing action to cut the high death tolls on that stretch of road. Does that not show that we are fairer to motorists?

My hon. Friend is entirely right and I pay tribute to the work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) have done to ensure, as she so aptly put it, that the carnage on our roads is reduced. The Conservatives did nothing in that area when they were in power, and their newly published document makes it abundantly clear that they would be at the forefront of reintroducing carnage on our streets.

If he will make a statement on progress with the development of regional planning in the east midlands. [89480]

Good progress is being made. I expect to receive the draft regional planning guidance for the east midlands from the east midlands region of the Local Government Association towards the end of this year. That draft will then be subject to wide consultations before selected matters are considered at a public examination in front of an independent panel next year. I hope to be able to issue the final guidance early in 2001.

I welcome the positive progress that has already been made through partnership working. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he will ensure that all factors are fully taken into account in the planning guidance, including economic, environmental and social factors, so that my constituents in Lincoln can look forward to the benefits of greater integration with the rest of the east midlands?

The way in which we are approaching regional guidance is by involving the local government associations, which are taking control of it. They are consulting with the partners and stakeholders in the various regions. In the east midlands, the Local Government Association is consulting the regional development agency, the CBI, the east midlands chambers of commerce, the House-Builders Federation, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth and a number of other user groups.

When he last met representatives from the Automobile Association to discuss his proposals to tackle traffic congestion. [89481]

I met representatives of the AA on Wednesday 7 July.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that she will not agree with me that it is very sad that she is willing to talk in soundbites about congestion, but not willing to put any investment into road improvements.

The hon. Lady's party yesterday published its new deal for motorists, promising investment in vital, undefined road improvements, funded by new innovative schemes—which were also undefined, but likely to cost a minimum of £10 billion. It also proposed that freight should be encouraged on to the railways in some unknown manner. It is not this Government who will do nothing about congestion: it is the Conservatives, whose proposals will lead to congestion. The hon. Lady asked about the RAC, which has been supportive of the Government in the development of the White Paper strategy for integrated transport. I remind her that, if a policy is to be developed by an Opposition, it should be costed. Otherwise, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Conservatives would be prepared to increase taxation, cut public expenditure—or both. If not, perhaps they do not know how to do their sums.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the vital role that public transport plays in tackling road congestion? My journey today to Westminster involved catching a train at 8.20 at Eltham station. Connex South Eastern could not get me to Charing Cross until 9.55. Such performance will inevitably have a damaging impact on how much traffic uses the roads in south-east London. The document that is about to be published by the Opposition, with the overt intention of placing them closer to the motorist, will merely lead to jams on our roads—and jam for inefficient, privatised rail services.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The mess on the railways inherited by this Government was very considerable, as a result of the fragmentation of the rail network and the absence of proper accountability for that network. The establishment of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will provide an opportunity to put a proper rail network back in place, with targets for the rail operators and penalties for poor performance. Adequate public transport is vital if we are to reduce congestion on our roads, and it must be safe, efficient and pleasant to use. There was no chance of that under the previous Government.

Under the previous Conservative Government, £25 billion in extra taxes was levied on motorists. The present Chancellor has increased that amount. Given her responsibility for transport, will the Minister press the Chancellor, before the next Budget, to agree to return some of that money to motorists by abolishing the annual car tax on family cars?

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats, who purport to be supporters of the environment, are taking that line. However, one of the proposals in yesterday's statement from the Conservative party was to reduce vehicle excise duty on vehicles more than 25 years old, which are the vehicles that pollute the most. That is a charter for the old banger. We want motorists to travel on well-maintained roads, in cost-effective vehicles that make travelling a pleasant experience again. As for fiscal policy, I suggest that people who want a reduction in the tax take should say where the money is to come from to fund public expenditure on health and education.

If he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the 60 per cent. target for housing on recycled land in the south-east. [89482]

During the period 1990–94, an average of 51 per cent. of new dwellings in the south-east were built on previously developed land. Serplan has proposed in the draft regional planning guidance for the south-east to achieve a target of 60 per cent. of new development on previously used urban land, over the period of the plan, which is 1996–2016. The public examinations panel will provide advice to the Secretary of State on this matter in its report, which is due in September this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important element in the solution to meeting the target is to bring empty and under-utilised homes back into use? For example, there are about 13,000 empty homes in Luton, of which only 150 belong to the public sector. Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues look at financial mechanisms—such as the VAT regime and loans to owner-occupiers—to enable owners to refurbish those empty homes and bring them fully back into use?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problem of empty properties. At present, there are about 753,000 vacant dwellings, across all tenures, in the country. That represents 3.6 per cent. of the housing stock. We aim to reduce that figure to 3 per cent. by 2005, which will then be one of the lowest levels in Europe.

If, when the examination is complete, the figures show that there is sufficient brown-field land, will the Minister see what he can do to reduce the obligation placed on West Sussex county council by the Deputy Prime Minister? That obligation is to build an extra 15,000 homes over and above the already excessive number that the council is required to build. If some of the extra load is reduced, not only will rural West Sussex be protected, but the awful overstrain on our infrastructure will, to some extent, be mitigated.

The hon. Gentleman will know that West Sussex has several times challenged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the courts. He will also know that it lost. The Government have set out new targets to increase the proportion of development on brown-field sites. We await the report on the public examination of the Serplan figures, and I cannot comment further until we receive it. Our keen objective is to maximise development on brown-field sites because that is in everyone's interest.

Did not Lord Rogers's task force conclude that there was no prospect of the Government hitting their national target of 60 per cent. under existing policies? Is the position not even worse in the south-east? Is it not likely that many thousands of new developments will occur on green-field and green-belt sites in the south-east? Why have the Government so far accepted only one of the 105 recommendations made by their own task force, and that only as a pilot?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have read Lord Rogers's report very carefully as it concludes that, under existing policies, the best estimate is that 55 per cent. of development would be achieved on brown-field sites, but that with changes in policy, including many of the new policies that the Government are introducing, it would be possible to achieve a higher percentage, as we intend. Only two weeks after the report's publication, we have already accepted one recommendation. The report contains 105, and we shall give them the consideration that they deserve before we make a judgment on them.

What guidance his Department gives to local authorities on the location of park-and-ride schemes. [89483]

Our guidance emphasises that schemes must be carefully designed and located to reduce traffic flows. They should be considered on their merits, case by case, and assessments should include consideration of alternative sites and the impact on local amenity.

What advice can the Minister offer local authorities such as Bournemouth, which face a choice between creating a park-and-ride terminus and protecting what is left of the green belt? Which should be their priority?

Existing guidance is clear. The use of green belt for a park-and-ride site should be examined exceedingly closely. Park and ride is not an appropriate use for green-belt land unless the benefits that would accrue are overwhelming.

Is my hon. Friend disappointed by the fact that there are too few park-and-ride schemes, which do a tremendous amount to reduce traffic congestion in our town centres? What steps can the Government take to encourage more local authorities to develop schemes to reduce congestion and improve public transport in town centres?

If there is a shortage of park-and-ride sites, it is yet another result of 18 wasted years of Conservative Government. They did nothing to create a properly integrated public transport system but, since coming into office, this Government have asked local authorities to prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Authorities will submit local integrated transport plans this month, and we shall look out for schemes of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, if they are appropriate to the local area.

The Minister has a great deal of enthusiasm for park-and-ride schemes, but park-and-ride transport strategies across the country are bringing cities such as Oxford to a standstill. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has criticised the damage done to green-field sites by park and ride. Transport 2000 has criticised the Government for cooking the books by misusing figures relating to park and ride. A new report from the university of London severely criticises park-and-ride schemes, arguing that traffic in urban areas increases—[Interruption.]

Order. The House is quite right to become restless as we have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman.

With all that criticism of park and ride, will the Minister now review the policy and apologise to the people of Oxford for the considerable inconvenience that she has caused?

What I am aware of, as indeed the entire House and the whole country will be, is that the hon. Gentleman is simply not up to his brief. It is not the case that the park-and-ride scheme in Oxford has been anything other than a success. Not only is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the success of such schemes, but he is equally unaware of the Conservative party's newly announced policy in which it claims that such schemes should be provided free.

What recent representations he has received concerning the siting of telecommunications masts; and if he will make a statement. [89484]

My Department received 269 responses to the consultation paper, "Telecommunications Development Control" published in July 1998 and 147 responses to the draft circular, "Land Use Planning and Electromagnetic Fields" published in December 1998. Since then, we have answered 10 parliamentary questions and responded centrally to some 140 letters regarding telecommunications masts.

My right hon. Friend recently made a welcome statement to point out the tightening up of the provisions within those areas. I am concerned about existing telecommunications masts, which may have been placed in areas where they are unacceptable. Many are in school playing fields, right next to schools and to residents. There is one in my constituency on top of a bakery, right next to a residential area, which seems a dangerous position. Are any moves being made to ensure an exclusion zone around telecommunications masts and will it operate for those already in existence?

I appreciate that there is public concern about this issue and we take that seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I will be writing to all hon. Members and to local authorities shortly to set out the Government's position on the issue. As the House is aware, our Departments issued jointly for consultation in December the draft of a circular on land use planning and electromagnetic fields. We are considering the responses.

Could the Minister give an assurance that he will pay particular attention in his review to applications for sites within areas of outstanding natural beauty, including the Chiltern hills? Will he take careful account of the reports that pressure is being exerted to overturn the decision of the local planning authority on Chisleys wood in my constituency? That pressure is coming from Government Departments and the current tenant of Chequers. Will he ensure that he takes all steps within his Department to avoid any conflict of interest in determining the outcome?

It would be inappropriate for me to get involved in a site that was the subject of a particular planning application. There was wide consultation, to which the hon. Gentleman may or may not have responded. We got the support of local authorities, planning authorities and, indeed, the industry. I now believe that there is a sensible approach to the issue. Areas of outstanding natural beauty were taken into consideration in the consultation and the Government responded accordingly.

What progress he has made in setting up the Strategic Rail Authority. [89485]

We introduced the Railways Bill to establish a Strategic Rail Authority. It will provide a national vision for developing Britain's rail network and tougher regulation to put the passenger first.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the way in which he is dealing with transport issues across the board. Does he agree that the Opposition's privatisation, which has made many profits, has meant that my constituents are still travelling on rolling stock that is 30 years old, and has led to late trains and overcrowding? Does he understand the need for action now rather than merely the theory?

We certainly do. The Railways Bill is designed to achieve that. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is already working on those matters—monitoring the commitments that we received at the rail summit; identifying where and how the rail network needs to be developed; and beginning the process of franchise renegotiations. That will ensure higher priority for the passenger—rather than what we saw under the previous negotiations, which were more concerned with privatisation and a dash for cash.

Last year, I initiated an Adjournment debate on railway noise; since then, other debates have been held on that subject. What will the new authority do to prevent the disruption of the lives of so many people who live near railways and who are not taken into account by Railtrack and others when works are being carried out?

New and quieter trains will be introduced, instead of the old railway stock that we were left with and that was utilised by the privatised system. The purpose of the rail authority is to help with transport policy and to take into account the reduction of congestion. That is an important issue, especially in view of the fact that we have heard that the Opposition's new policy is supposed to help to reduce congestion. The description of that policy in The Times today as cheap populism is right. It will do little to reduce congestion; it will increase deaths on our roads and, frankly, will be neither cheap nor popular.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new integrated transport centre that has recently been opened at Whitby railway station? Is it not the case that, when the Strategic Rail Authority considers the development of integrated transport policy throughout the nation, our railways will need to be closely integrated? The public need more information and better access to public transport. That is what the SRA is about and that is what those policies are about.

The House is aware of my hon. Friend's expert knowledge of transport. We have seen the provision of many more services, and more people are travelling on trains, especially since we were elected two years ago. We can now see the whole integration of our system because of our requirement that trains and buses should connect. There is much more integration of the system than we have ever witnessed before.

Given the Deputy Prime Minister's strong anti-car policies, his trip in a helicopter to the British grand prix—that mecca of the finest gas-guzzlers in the world—was a thirsty way of travelling and was a mistake. Instead, should he not have gone to a cycle race by train to show us the new Labour way, and sent an apology to Bernie Ecclestone? Does he accept—[Interruption.]

Order. I will have order in this House—this is disgraceful behaviour.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that his Railways Bill was cancelled last year by No. 10, delayed this year by No. 10, and may arrive, late and battered, some time? Does he know that the railway industry is fed up with his indecision and the uncertainty that he generates? With him, it is jams today and jams tomorrow, bash the motorist and bash the train companies. When will he listen to the advice of the Prime Minister and change policy to avoid standstill Britain? When will he give railway companies the assurances and certainty that they need to get on with the job?

The question reflected what The Times said of the Opposition's policy—cheap and populist. It does not address the substance of the issue, nor does it show any responsibility for those matters. We shall continue to put the serious arguments as to transport; we look forward to the debates that we shall have with the right hon. Gentleman. The Railways Bill is before the House, but the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is already working on the problems; it is beginning the renegotiation of the franchises, and considering the network and improvements to our railway system. The rail summit showed us the positive benefits of the targets that we set.

If he will make a statement on the future status of the Sussex Downs conservation board. [89488]

We are still considering the former Countryside Commission's advice on the protection of our finest countryside, including the future status of the south downs and its conservation board. We intend to make an announcement soon.

May I ask the Minister why it has taken so long to make a decision? It has now been 16 months since the lifespan of the Sussex Downs conservation board was extended. Will he or his successor remember, before arriving at a decision, that every local authority in Sussex and every Member of Parliament representing Sussex, with the exception of the Labour-controlled unitary authority of Brighton and Hove and the two Labour Members of Parliament, are in favour of retaining and strengthening the Sussex Downs conservation board, rather than giving away local democracy by opting for national park status?

We are aware of the deep feeling about the Sussex downs, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that there are different opinions on the issue. However, the reason for the Government's delay is that we believe in a working and living countryside, and we want to get the decision right.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is really important is not the future status of the Sussex Downs conservation board, which has not been the most proactive conservation body ever known to man, but the status of the south downs themselves? Popular opinion in Sussex, as opposed to Conservative-controlled local authorities, is overwhelmingly in favour of national park status for the south downs as the only sensible option to protect one of the most sensitive areas of our country.

My hon. Friend is quite right that opinion on the south downs is almost equally divided, and strong voices are being heard by the Government. As I said, we are committed to a living and working countryside, and the Government have already given an extra £2.5 million to areas of outstanding natural beauty. We intend to get our decisions right on the matter.

First, I commiserate with the Minister on the fact that, unlike the Minister for the Environment, and despite a lifetime's effort, he does not rate a CIA file on his activities. It must be a blow to him.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we treat the matter extremely seriously. We are aware of the end date for the present funding arrangements for the conservation board, which is 2001. There is no way that the Government will put at risk either the work of that body, or the right decision on the future of the south downs and other areas. I can also tell him that we are working feverishly to reach a position from which we can make a long-term decision, and we are determined to get that decision right.

What is his policy on imposing conditions on the sale of council houses; and if he will make a statement. [89489]

Local authorities can sell houses voluntarily and, in some cases, their tenants have the right to buy. In each case, it is up to councils to include such conditions in the sale as are appropriate and reasonable.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Is the Minister aware that Caradon district council in my constituency has recently failed in court to enforce a planning condition in respect of a former council home that is being used for letting, as that was not considered to be a business? Does she agree that that has widespread implications, in that a number of former council houses will be removed from housing stock and that, in future, more and more such properties may be used for businesses, rather than for housing?

I am sure that the House understands that, because the matter is subject to appeal and is likely to go before the courts again, I am not in a position to comment on it. However, the Housing Act 1985 gives councils and other social landlords freedom to include reasonable terms and conditions when selling a home under the right to buy. For example, in rural areas, councils can prevent buyers from reselling to people who have not lived or worked locally for the past three years. In small communities, that helps to keep a stock of affordable housing available for local people. However, it is a matter for the council to determine.

What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of the changed rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the level of interest repayments on local authority debt?

This is an issue not of the right to buy, but of how councils use and organise their debt sales. The whole debt portfolio is a matter for councils. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debt that he so complains about was sanctioned by the previous Government. [Interruption.]

Order. There was an exchange between the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the Minister for Local Government and Housing that I did not hear.

I sincerely hope that it is not the case, Madam Speaker, but it seems that the Minister accused me of lying.

The hon. Gentleman implied that I had said something in my reply that I had not. I said that I hoped that he was not accusing me of lying and implying that I had said that debt had risen, when I had not said that.

Too many remarks are made from sedentary positions. I have said before that hon. Members who have something to say should wait to be called before they say it. If they have asked a question, it is right that they should listen fully to the answer.

If he will provide additional funds to local authorities for road safety traffic-calming schemes. [89490]

Over the next three years, we are making an additional £700 million available for the implementation of local transport plans. The quality of local safety strategies will be a key consideration in the allocation of resources.

I thank the Minister for her reply and I acknowledge her personal endorsement of road safety schemes throughout the country. However, will she have a word with her colleagues in the Treasury and point out that money that is invested in road safety and, in particular, traffic calming will save money for the public purse, particularly the national health service? The cost of a fatal road accident is now £1 million, which could pay for 10 road safety or traffic calming schemes. Bearing in mind the fact that, in the past year, 1,000 pedestrians and cyclists were killed, does she agree that the money saved could be invested in saving lives and preventing injuries?

It is precisely because the Government are so aware of the benefit of traffic-calming schemes that we have not only found additional funding for local authorities, but changed the existing statutory procedures so that local authorities may introduce 20 mph zones or limits. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, traffic-calming measures have reduced accidents, injuries and deaths among our children by 67 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) describes traffic-calming measures as impediments, that causes great offence, particularly to those people who have lost relatives on the roads? Will my hon. Friend say more about the exact mechanism for distributing resources to local authorities through local transport plans, which is a particularly important issue in my area, where there is a crying need for more traffic-calming measures?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The right hon. Member for Wokingham is guilty of not only insensitivity, but, in my view, the advocacy of criminal policies on road safety. Local transport plans will be received this month, and mean that, for the first time, local authorities will be able to make the integrated, strategic decisions that can ensure that they will play their part in meeting our targets for the reduction in deaths and injuries on our roads.

Does the Minister accept that many Members warmly support the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? In those proposals, he has represented many organisations that have considerable knowledge of motoring, the motorist and roads. Does the Minister agree that if, as she has announced this afternoon, she is prepared to provide over £700 million for local traffic schemes, she might consider increasing the amount of her money that her Department advances for the maintenance of this country's roads, which are deteriorating rapidly under her Government and contributing to the number of accidents and deaths?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the Government's vast increase in funding road maintenance, in marked contrast to the previous Administration, who slashed such funding year on year. We have increased the funding for the maintenance of local authority roads by 8 per cent. in one year. The right hon. Member for Wokingham may be an expert on motoring, but he is clearly an ignoramus on any of the measures that protect pedestrians—[Interruption.]

Order. That was quite unnecessary. I require the hon. Lady to withdraw that remark. [Interruption.] Order. I shall deal with this. I require the hon. Lady to withdraw the remark.

Of course I abide by your ruling, Madam Speaker, and withdraw the word "ignoramus". In fact, I meant to say "a comprehensive lack of knowledge".

Figures published this week show that the number of accidents in Derbyshire has fallen by 40 per cent. on roads with speed cameras since their introduction in 1993, preventing injury and saving the lives of 225 people. Labour Members welcome the investment in road transport announced by the Minister, but, in the light of the success of speed cameras, will she consider supporting proposals to allow income from speeding fines as a result of speed cameras to be ploughed directly into traffic-calming measures to save yet more lives?

My hon. Friend makes many valid points on the part that speed cameras can play in reducing the numbers of deaths, injuries and accidents on our roads. I am sure that she is aware that the issue of fines is part of on-going discussion between my Department and the Home Office. I am sure that she is equally aware that it is part of the Conservative party's transport policy not to increase the number of speed cameras.

If he will make a statement on his plans to implement the urban task force's recommendations. [89491]

The final report of the urban task force, "Towards an Urban Renaissance", was published on 29 June. The urban White Paper will provide our main response to the task force's recommendations, and will be published in the next 12 months. In the meantime, we have invited comments on the task force report from interested parties.

In answer to an earlier question, the Minister suggested that Lord Rogers's task force had said that the Government would achieve the building of 60 or even 65 per cent. of new housing on brown-field land. The reality is of course quite different. Lord Rogers said that the Government would achieve only 55 per cent. of such building unless they accepted one of the task force's 105 recommendations.

The reference to 65 per cent. concerned the east midlands, in response to the specific question asked. The green belt would be subject to public examination, to which everyone could contribute. It is absolutely clear from Government guidance that the green belt is there and that we will protect it. Indeed, a Labour Government introduced it, as they did national parks and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. We are very proud of what previous Labour Governments have done in land-use planning over the past half century.

Will my hon. Friend do as much as he can to encourage as wide a public debate as possible on Lord Rogers's report, since it is a most important document? If we do not get some of the things in it right, we will find the implementation of many policies, such as those protecting the green belt and others that we want, difficult to achieve. It is essential that we include the public in the debate about how to implement Lord Rogers's report.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There will be a wide-ranging debate on the Lord Rogers task force and the report that it has produced. However, we shall be going wider than that as we produce the urban White Paper, which will be the first such document for more than 20 years. It will be taking on issues such as education, crime and a reasonable environment in our major urban areas where people will want to live, work and play, contrary to what the Conservative Administration left us to deal with when they left office.

Those Members who are concerned with proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill will wish to know that a new version of the amendment paper, incorporating amendments tabled up to 2.30 today, is now available for them in the Vote Office.

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill:—

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

May I make a little more progress, and then I will? The Bill sets out how this failsafe would work. Let me go into some of the detail, and I will then take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

In two seconds. Ministers will cease to hold office. The North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will cease to function under the terms of a supplementary treaty between the two Governments. The draft treaty is available in the Library of the House.

The Secretary of State referred to a few days and a few weeks. Can she tell us exactly how many days and how many weeks?

I am sorry to say that it is not my decision. General de Chastelain, who is well respected on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, chairs an independent body and it is his decision as to the time scale. However, he made the position clear in his report on 2 July in which he said that the process would start in a number of days, and actual decommissioning would follow in a number of weeks. He made it clear in the report that he will put down a timetable as to amounts, and it will be clearly laid out. The independent commission making that decision was agreed by all the parties, earlier in June, as the best mechanism to move forward.

My right hon. Friend said that there would be a wind-back to the position that we have now, but that is not quite accurate. In fact, articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution would have been amended and the Anglo-Irish agreement ended.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but, as those points were agreed so long ago, I assumed that they were taken for granted. He is right to say that that will happen, and that the changes to the constitution of the Irish Republic will continue regardless.

The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have rightly emphasised that the essential safeguard in this whole exercise of trust—because a certain amount has to be taken on trust—is the failsafe mechanism, which is the ultimate protection. I understand the difficulties and the independence of Sir John de Chastelain, but the House is being asked to assess the quality of that failsafe mechanism without, at the moment, being absolutely sure of the benchmarks against which it is to work.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that General de Chastelain is independent. One of the difficulties of independent bodies is that one cannot tell them what to do, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the report that General de Chastelain gave at the beginning of July outlines clearly the stages that will be taken. As I have mentioned already, he has said that, after devolution, it will be a number of days before the process begins and at most a number of weeks before the actual process starts. In that report, he says that there will be a timetable with modalities, and outlines the amounts and the time scale that he thinks suitable. That will be there for everybody to see.

I wish to pick up the point about rewinding that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) touched on. It is possible to look over past events and to see how brilliantly the IRA has conducted negotiations. The communities on both sides have made major concessions to get to this position, but the IRA has not made any major concessions. The communities made those concessions in the hope that the weapons would be decommissioned.

All sides have made progress and shown a determination to move forward. For example, the republicans and the nationalists have accepted the principle of consent and the changes to the Republic's constitution, both of which are big steps forward. Moreover, the Assembly, perceived as a partitionist body, has been accepted, even though it is not high on the nationalist agenda. It has not been easy for either side, but both have made progress.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to make some progress and finish describing the content of the Bill, I shall surely take an intervention from him.

When the Secretary of State replied to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I took it that she said that changes to the constitution of the Irish Republic would still go ahead. However, I am sure that she is aware that the Government in the south of Ireland have made a statement that the matter will be postponed for two years. I want to ask about something that is more important to me—the Government of Ireland Act 1920. What will happen to that? Will it be repealed, or retained?

The Government of Ireland Act 1920 will be kept. I do not have the information that the hon. Gentleman says he possesses about the Irish Government changing the date of their constitutional amendment, which I am convinced will still happen according to the given timetable.

The Secretary of State has spoken about exclusion. Will she confirm that a Minister can be excluded from a future Executive only if there is a cross-community vote in the Assembly under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998? The Executive can be suspended, but no one can be excluded unless there is a vote to exclude that individual, or an individual party, from holding office.

That has always been the case. The new Bill focuses on the situation in which someone in the Executive fails to make the required commitment in line with the de Chastelain timetable, providing an automatic mechanism to mean that that person is out, the Executive stopped and the process suspended.

Everyone is out.

The process means that the Executive is stopped, as a result of which people will not have to share a position on it with those who are not willing to decommission. Matters can proceed in Northern Ireland only when there is a collective Executive. If one party changes, whether it is loyalist or republican, there will be a knock-on effect. We cannot treat parties in isolation, because of the collective impact exclusion would have. That is why the entire Executive would be disbanded. The hon. Gentleman knows that matters would rewind to where we are now. No one would be worse off than they are at present.

The Secretary of State correctly says that one of the criteria that she must consider under the 1998 Act is whether an organisation is co-operating with the de Chastelain commission. May I direct her attention to clause 1(1)(a)(ii) of the new Bill, which makes one of the bases for a report a failure to take any step required by the commission? Anyone failing to co-operate with the commission would fall within the terms of the Bill, which provides for automatic suspension. Cannot the Secretary of State say that the remedy with regard to prisoners will be just as swift and certain as that provided by the Bill?

I cannot rewrite the agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. There is a clear relationship between prisoner releases and ceasefire; there is not that relationship between the accelerated release of prisoners and decommissioning. That is what the Bill states and that is my understanding of it.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

No, I want to make a little more progress.

"prepared to define a timetable for decommissioning of arms by the main paramilitary groups",

"will be expected to adhere to it to ensure completion by…May 2000."

I am anxious to be clear before I vote on the timetable. Earlier, the right hon. Lady said that the Government cannot dictate the timetable. Now she has said that the Decommissioning Commission will produce one, but it has not already done so. Will it be possible by the time we vote tonight to know exactly we are being asked to vote for—exactly when these things will happen? If not, there surely cannot be any guarantee.

I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, General de Chastelain has made it very clear that he will put in place a full timetable after devolution is in place and when he is talking to all the groups. However, in his statement of the 2nd, he made it patently clear that a decommissioning process will start within days of devolution and that the first act of decommissioning will be within weeks—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen keep shouting, "How many days? How many weeks?" What we have here is the best chance—the best option—for getting not merely a token gesture of decommissioning but a process that will start now and will be completed by May 2000.

rose—

Let me finish. It is partially a risk because it is saying that, after d'Hondt on Thursday and devolution on Saturday, it will be a matter of days before the process starts and a matter of weeks before actual decommissioning starts. Is that too long to wait to find out whether this process can work? We will know who is serious—we will know which side is not going to fulfil its agreement—within weeks. That is worth doing to find out whether we can get real decommissioning.

rose—

I will make a little more progress.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

This will be the last time.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Does she realise that the impression that has been given over the past 12 months is that she, as Secretary of State, and others have been prepared to turn a completely blind eye to murder, beating and mutilation, and to the number of families who have been intimidated and driven out of the country? What does she say to those who formed that impression? How can she give us confidence that serious activity by terrorist organisations will not be ignored in the future?

For the past couple of months, I have been implementing the Good Friday agreement, for which the people of Northern Ireland voted. In addition, the Bill gives guarantees to both sides that, if decommissioning is not honoured and if devolution is not honoured, they do not have to sit in the Executive with people who have not decommissioned. That is a worthwhile guarantee; within weeks, we shall know if that is serious.

I start on a personal note by thanking the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and the Prime Minister for the consideration that they have shown my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself in taking us, step by step, through the latest developments. As I shall point out later, there are matters of doubt and disagreement, but we appreciate the courtesy that has been shown to us.

The Good Friday agreement says that decommissioning is an obligation, not a precondition. We all want decommissioning to happen as quickly as possible, but there was no timetable in the Good Friday agreement. What the deal gives us is a timetable from next week for full decommissioning. That is the difference and why this is a good Bill to have.

I put it to the Secretary of State that I wish that that were so, but there is no specific timetable in the legislation. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move amendments to the Bill—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall respond to the Secretary of State first and then give way. There is no specific timetable in the Bill, and we want to ensure that there is. I shall elaborate on that later in my speech. Meanwhile, I give way to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).

On the question of what is meant by decommissioning and when it should happen, may I quote from a letter from the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of my party? It is dated 10 April—Good Friday—last year and is signed in the Prime Minister's own handwriting. It states:

"Furthermore, I confirm that in our view the effect of the decommissioning section of the agreement, with decommissioning schemes coming into effect in June, is that the process of decommissioning should begin straight away."

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says: that the Prime Minister, who obviously and genuinely wants decommissioning to take place as soon as possible, just as I do, has made commitments—including the commitment in that letter to the First Minister designate—which, to be frank, have not been fulfilled.

rose—

I shall give way once more but, because we are time limited, it must be the last time.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most telling factors in the referendum campaign were the public pledges given in the Prime Minister's own handwriting that there would be a direct nexus between decommissioning and the release of prisoners; and that those pledges remain dishonoured and unfulfilled?

The hon. and learned Gentleman might recall that the Leader of the Opposition and I were campaigning for a yes vote in the Province on the same day as the Prime Minister made his handwritten pledges. I welcomed those pledges, and I think that they made a significant difference in ensuring a yes vote in both communities. Since then, many people in Northern Ireland who voted yes have felt badly let down. Today, we have an opportunity to put that right, if our amendments are passed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I should like to finish this point, and then I shall certainly give way.

"Within days of devolution, the paramilitary organisations, including the IRA, must notify intention to decommission. If they don't there's a failsafe that unwinds devolution.

Within weeks they must decommission. The process is then verified by an independent commission, headed by the highly respected General de Chastelain."

"This failsafe will be put in legislation and made automatic".

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall specify which failsafes are missing, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make it very clear why we believe that the failsafes promised by the Prime Minister are not in the proposed legislation, and why we shall be seeking to amend the Bill to ensure that they are. When the Bill is amended, we will vote enthusiastically for its Third Reading.