What plans he has to tackle road congestion in urban areas. [94209]

The integrated transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", set out a new approach to meeting local transport needs. In that document, we promised, and will deliver, extra money and new powers for local authorities to tackle congestion in their areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the key factor in reducing urban congestion is giving priority to good quality public transport? Is he prepared to take tough action where necessary if councils go wishy-washy on their commitment to public transport when faced with the tough decisions that are necessary to put that priority into action?

The House will recall that Sheffield provided an excellent example of an integrated public transport system, but it was broken up by the previous Administration's commitment to privatisation and deregulation. Our local transport plans—we have now received 80 from local authorities and will be making decisions by December—are very much geared to reducing congestion in our cities and improving public transport. That will have to be agreed with the local authorities for them to receive the £700 million that we have put aside for those plans.

Given the importance that the Secretary of State places on public transport to reduce traffic congestion, does he accept that improving public transport requires increased investment? Is he aware that the Library has only today prepared for me new figures showing that, after five years of a Labour Government, to the end of the comprehensive spending review period, total spending on local and public transport is set to fall by 7.5 per cent. in real terms? How will that help to improve public transport?

The hon. Gentleman makes the mistake of not taking into account the private investment that we are negotiating. Investment, whether public or private, will improve the underground or the channel tunnel rail link. He asked about investment: £7 billion is going into our underground in the public-private partnership and £6 billion is going into the channel tunnel link. That has to be added in to get the total figure, and he should revisit his figures.

Given that Leeds is one of the two cities that will be trialling road-pricing technology, can my right hon. Friend give my constituents an assurance that there will be significant investment in public transport in the city, in particular in the proposed Leeds supertram, before a decision is taken about the introduction of road pricing?

My hon. Friend is aware that we consider Leeds to be setting a good example in integrating transport. We have given some extra resources and are considering the extra demands in the local transport plans, but those decisions cannot be made until December.

The only way to tackle the increasingly serious urban congestion in my constituency is to authorise the A3 Hindhead improvement. Can the right hon. Gentleman help me? Although there are so many Transport Ministers, why have we been unable, in 30 months, to secure a visit from a single one of them to see that spot? It is the only single carriageway stretch between the home of Transport Ministers in Scotland and the very popular port of Portsmouth. Does he have a policy prohibiting visits to Conservative constituencies or can he help us to find a date on which a Minister will come to see that stretch of road?

The important question is why the previous Administration did not meet the right hon. Lady's demands for the road programme. We have stated our road programme and invested in the core route network, and the regional road structure is being determined with the local and regional authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that proposals to reduce the cost of car travel, increase speed limits, get rid of traffic calming and allow continuous left-hand turning at traffic lights in cities would not reduce congestion, but cause chaos on the roads and death?

Yes. The House has debated the Opposition's proposals on those matters. We believe that we have a much more sensible proposal—the integrated policy identified in the transport White Paper.

I welcome and congratulate the new Ministers, and it is a great privilege to have the Minister for Housing and Planning with us—so recently returned from his serious campaign for the London mayoralty and sparing time from the lost cause of helping the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).

It is a bit much for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that we somehow moved from a perfect situation to a standstill. We inherited massive costs and congestion in all our transport systems. The previous Government invested £70 billion in the roads programme while undermining public transport, and that simply increased the number of cars per mile from 70 to 100 after 18 years of Tory Government. On any assessment, there needs to be a change in policy. Rural transport investment has now increased, with 1,800 new services. The number of passengers has increased by between 30 and 50 per cent., with more people travelling on the trains and other forms of public transport. That is the first indication in the past two years that we have a better system and that people are beginning to use their cars less and public transport more.

I am sure that, in drawing up measures to tackle road congestion, my right hon. Friend will also look at a strategy to tackle parking problems in urban areas. In doing so, will he take into account the concern that has been expressed about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency supplying private wheel clamping companies with the names and addresses of drivers from photographs of registration numbers? Will he assure me that until those companies, some of which adopt dubious tactics, are properly regulated, the DVLA will not continue with such practices?

I am concerned about that; I shall have it investigated immediately and write to my hon. Friend about it.

What representations he has received about permitted development rights for Railtrack in Oxford; and if he will make a statement. [94210]

We have received representations from more than 300 people concerning Railtrack's permitted development rights in Oxford. The Secretary of State has considered all the representations carefully and informed the parties of his decision not to approve the direction to remove Railtrack's permitted development rights at Hinksey sidings in Oxford.

Does the Minister understand how shocked my constituents in South Hinksey and residents of south Oxford are that he should give the go-ahead for Railtrack to continue with that virtual quarry in green-belt land outside Oxford? In the week after health and safety responsibilities were removed from Railtrack—belatedly but rightly—how can he justify giving Railtrack a blank cheque to use permitted development rights to despoil green-belt areas? Is it not time that permitted development rights inherited from British Rail in the public sector were removed from privatised industries, which are making vast profits at the expense of spending on environmental schemes?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman expresses surprise about the decision, because he knows that we consulted at considerable length. We gave several opportunities for further representations and explored the many legal complexities. He knows that Oxfordshire county council's case that this was a "virtual quarry" did not have legal force. It is because the article 4 direction could not be effective—we had clear legal guidance on that—that we did not approve it. There is no point in approving something that would be ineffective—only Liberal Democrats suggest that.

What support he plans to give to the regeneration of coastal towns. [94211]

We are working with the relevant national, regional and local bodies to identify and address the problems faced by coastal towns. Today, I placed in the Libraries of the House a list of the areas that include coastal towns that received funding under the fifth round of the single regeneration budget, and a list of coastal towns that are included on the proposed European structural funds map. As my hon. Friend knows, it was this Government who included coastal towns for the first time as a specific priority in SRB round 5.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate her on her appointment to the Front Bench.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I pay tribute to him for what he has done to raise awareness of the needs of coastal towns. The urban and rural White Papers will mark an important step in our commitment to dealing with issues that affect competitiveness and quality of life in towns, cities and rural areas. In developing both those White Papers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to ensure that different areas have a place in those wider strategies. We recognise that coastal towns have specific needs, which will be addressed in the White Papers.

I join the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) in welcoming the Minister to her new position. Does she appreciate that, in many coastal towns, considerable investment in coastal defences is required to enable realistic regeneration? Will she join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of the flooding in the past few days, especially in Sussex? Will she give a clear commitment to providing the funding needed by the Environment Agency and others to upgrade and update coastal defences along our coasts?

I am pleased to acknowledge the important work of local authorities in response to the flooding, and I am sure that they will make every effort to meet the needs of their local communities. The hon. Gentleman will know that an element in the standard spending assessment takes care of coastal defences. However, I am well aware of the problems that those communities are facing, and they may want to talk to us about larger measures needed in response.

What plans he has for increasing the involvement of tenants in the management of local authority housing. [94213]

We are increasing the opportunities for local authority tenants to be involved in the management of their homes by introducing tenant participation compacts in all councils from April next year. We are also broadening our programme of grants to promote and develop greater participation.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the Government are considering Leeds city council's bid for a public-private partnership housing pathfinder scheme, which covers Swarcliffe in my constituency. The involvement of tenants and residents in the drawing up of the community plan has been central, and Whinmoor councillors and I remain committed to further extending local people's involvement as that is crucial to the regeneration of the area. Will the Minister take my remarks as discreet lobbying on this matter on behalf of my Swarcliffe constituents?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's involvement in the preparation of the proposed Leeds private finance initiative pathfinder scheme. He has been diligent in talking to his constituents and ensuring that there is effective communication between them and the city council, so that there will be full participation in the development of the proposals. He must accept, however, that we have to give further consideration to these and other proposals.

A legitimate concern for tenants in housing management is the length of the housing waiting list and how long it takes tenants and others to be rehoused. Given the Government's complete failure to control economic migrants, it now seems that such migrants will be dispersed around the country. According to an answer given to me yesterday by the Home Office, such dispersal may be compulsory. Will those economic migrants be described as statutorily homeless under the homelessness legislation? What will their status be in relation to those on the housing waiting list and local authority tenants?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to asylum seekers. He will know that the Government have taken steps to try to define proper procedures for dealing humanely and properly with asylum applications, rather than continuing with the chaos that we inherited. He will also know that we inherited a situation in which housing provision had been slashed during the last years of the Conservative Government, leading to a substantial shortfall in the number of homes available for letting. He will know that such a position takes time to put right. We are increasing investment and implementing a range of measures to improve housing prospects, but the damage caused by 18 years of Tory Government is very serious.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the potential role of housing co-operatives in the management of current local authority housing stock, and in the provision of good, well-managed social housing generally? What discussions is he having with the Housing Corporation on the possible easing of both the administrative and the financial regulations to allow better development of housing co-operatives?

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's views on the importance of tenant participation measures, including housing co-operatives. During the past fortnight, I have engaged in discussions with representatives of both the National Housing Federation and the Housing Corporation about how we can extend opportunities for such participation. I visited a particularly impressive tenant co-operative scheme in Birmingham, which was delivering very high standards of housing management and great tenant satisfaction. There is no doubt that allowing tenants more opportunities to exercise effective control over their homes is one of the keys to better housing management, and we are keen to promote it.

How much money his Department is making available to install a bus lane on the New London road in Chelmsford as part of the integrated transport policy. [R][94215]

The Chelmsford transport package was accepted for the first time, and by this Government, in 1999–2000, with an allocation of £575,000. It is for Essex county council to decide which scheme to carry out, but positive measures to improve bus services are at the core of the package.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. The people of Old Moulsham in Chelmsford, however, will not thank him for his Government's largesse in introducing a scheme such as that proposed by the local authority.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, and I hear what he says about the proposed New London road bus scheme. It is clear, however, that both his own town of Chelmsford and Essex county council have identified improved bus services as the best solution to the problem of the town's rapid growth. My Department is simply responding to local judgment. If he still has problems with the proposal, it is for him to exercise his well-known powers of persuasion with the local transport authorities.

What estimate he has made of the annual costs of (a) the regional development agencies and (b) English regional assemblies. [94216]

Regional development agencies have more than £800 million to spend each year, which includes £62 million for administration. The costs of the voluntary regional chambers—some of which call themselves regional assemblies—are a matter for their members, but we would expect the costs of their role in relation to the RDAs to be modest.

During the past seven and a half years, not one constituent has expressed any support for the idea of RDAs or regional assemblies. I should be interested to hear whether people flock to the Minister's door to tell her what a good idea they are.

This morning, the RDAs presented their regional strategies. Those strategies have been consulted on very widely. Indeed, I am confident that residents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been involved in the consultations. Business people have been, too. It may have missed his notice that the chairs of the RDAs are all from the business world and will resent being called amateur politicians by him. He says that there is no support for RDAs. I remind him that they were in our manifesto and that we got rather a lot of support for that manifesto.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the funding that is available to the East of England development agency? Will she at the same time try to ensure a fairer allocation of funding than that bequeathed to the east of England by the previous Government?

As I said, today we received regional strategies from the RDAs. They will identify the way forward in each region to achieve economic prosperity. That will mean that they are able both to increase the opportunities of people in the region and to contribute to the nation's prosperity.

If he will make a statement on progress made in improving the trunk road network. [94217]

The Government inherited a trunk road system that was in the worst condition of maintenance since records first began. That is why we have made maintenance our first priority and provided the Highways Agency with the resources that are necessary to maintain its roads properly.

The Minister will know that his Government have slimmed down the road programme from 140 to 37, but that is not the point that I want to register with him. Does he accept that the opening in the relatively near future of the second runway at Manchester international airport and the holding of the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 will generate a massive increase in traffic from all areas, particularly the south and east of Greater Manchester?

Order.

A line for the Metrolink—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He should come to order when I ask him to do so.

The hon. Gentleman has again demonstrated his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituency, and I certainly understand his concern in the matter. However, when the Government considered as part of the roads review the A555 eastern link road and the A523 Poynton bypass—to which he alluded—we found that the schemes were not sufficiently advanced to be included in the targeted improvements programme. Nevertheless, both schemes will form part of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, and I hope that he will be somewhat reassured to learn that invitations to tender for the study have now been sent out. It is envisaged that consultants will be appointed shortly, and the study will be completed in spring 2001, at which point we shall give it full consideration.

I do not know why Opposition Members are wittering on about the roads programme, because my constituents are delighted that, after 30 years of failure, the A650 Bingley relief road has, at last, been given the go ahead. Will the Minister consider some advanced work schemes, so that we might complete and open the Bingley relief road as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend, too, is always a passionate advocate of his constituency; it has already enjoyed considerable success on that matter, on which I congratulate him. The Government shall, of course, consider a raft of road improvements—that is part of the local transport planning process—and we shall certainly eventually examine the Bingley proposals.

What about the Birmingham northern relief road?

That was a very good question.

It is on its way.

And that was a very good answer.

What steps he is taking to ensure that air traffic control can cope with the forecast increase in flights into and from the United Kingdom. [94218]

The Government are committed to providing the United Kingdom with a safe, modern and efficient air traffic control system for the future. Through our innovative public-private partnership proposals, the Government will introduce a strategic partner to National Air Traffic Services to secure essential core capital investment, which will be about £1 billion in the next 10 years and will be used to maintain existing safety and efficiency levels against predicted traffic increases.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box; he is an inspired choice. However, he will know that in 1997, the Department forecast that, between now and 2015, aeroplane traffic in and out of the United Kingdom will grow by 4.5 per cent. annually. Given such a momentous increase in air traffic, is it not dicing with death to privatise air traffic control? Have not air traffic controllers repudiated privatisation, as has the airline industry? So far as I can gather, Labour party members also have repudiated privatisation—or did we get it wrong in 1996, when we told the Conservatives that our air was not for sale?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I only hope that I continue to justify his confidence. He was quite right to say that there will be a large increase in air traffic, making it all the more essential that we raise the £1 billion necessary to invest in state of the art technology. His fears about safety are completely unfounded. We are not proposing to put safety in the private sector: safety will remain with the public sector. The one thing that we shall do—it will enhance safety, rather than undermine it—is to separate regulation from operations, as that is not the case now.

May I add my congratulations to the Minister on his new position? I also congratulate the Government on their plans to proceed with the public-private partnership for NATS. Following his holding reply to my question last week, when might the Minister be minded to reply to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs report on aviation safety? Does the Minister agree that the air safety framework that he has described to the House provides a model that could be followed by the railway sector?

The reply to the Select Committee will be coming shortly.

May I too welcome my hon. Friend to his position? I recognise entirely the need for investment—there is no question about that—but will he recall the Select Committee's recommendations, which showed concern about the Government's proposals for NATS? The report suggested alternatives which would not only produce the required investment, but would follow proven track records from other parts of the world.

We take what the Select Committee says extremely seriously, and that is why we adopted its proposals on separating safety regulation from operations. We have looked at the other models available, and we are satisfied that the public-private partnership as proposed is the best one. It will give access to the capital that we need, and access to some badly needed private sector project management skills. That is not a small consideration. Finally, it will generate some proceeds which can be invested in other transport projects.

We too welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position, and we are delighted to be reminded by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that, before the election, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) proudly declared that our air was not for sale. Although Labour told the country one thing before the election, once in power it does another thing, announcing in July this year that our air will indeed be for sale.

No consideration has yet been given to the likely bidders, which will be considered carefully when the bids come in. We are not proposing privatisation of the sort that we saw under the Conservative Government, in which the main public assets were simply looted. We are proposing a genuine partnership that will give us the best of what the private and public sectors have to offer.

May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench? But those who have watched the world cup will realise when someone has been given a suicide pass, as seems to have been given to my hon. Friend with the air traffic control remit. He spoke earlier about private sector project management. Does he share the concern of some who have quizzed those in the private sector who are involved in designing the new system, as there seem to be problems in specifications from the private sector? Is there not concern that the second-line safety—that is, the Prestwick second control centre—now seems to be up for grabs, and may be written out of the system? Can we have an assurance that there will still be a two-centre control system for air traffic control, including Prestwick in Scotland?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will be two centres, one of which will be at Prestwick.

When he expects Transport for London to assume responsibility for the underground. [94219]

Transport for London will be established in July 2000 under the control of the mayor. It will assume responsibility for the underground following implementation of the public-private partnership.

Is not Labour keener on having a crony as its candidate for mayor than on implementing its manifesto promise to have Transport for London operational, including the London underground operating under a public-private partnership? The Government should admit that they have failed Londoners, who had an appalling summer of chaos. The taxpayer is having to pick up the tab to the tune of £500 million of unanticipated Treasury expenditure as a result of that catastrophic failure.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, as he failed in his bid to be the Tory candidate for mayor. The London transport system will be improved by our £7 billion investment, not in a public-private partnership in the sense that he refers to, but in a publicly owned, publicly accountable facility. The assets will be developed and improved by private capital, but they will all be returned to the public sector. For the first time, London's transport system will have desperately needed sustained planning and resource investment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I was on a Central line train that was held up because somebody was taken ill on the train behind us? It was decided to hold up the trains in front to pace the rate at which they went through stations. Is it not absurd that people are held up in hot, sweltering, overcrowded conditions because of such incidents? Is it not time that we had democratic accountability for London transport and the underground system; and is it not good news that the Labour Government are bringing about such accountability by establishing a mayor and elected authority for London?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are returning London transport and accountability to Londoners after consultation and a referendum, even though the Tories took accountability off Londoners with no consultation.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in pressing for the Central line to be extended as far as Uxbridge? That could be done at relatively little cost and would be a great benefit to many in west London—not to mention the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).

I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is a lot easier said than done. That was one of the first projects that I looked at when I came to office. I was advised against investing in it and concentrated instead on the main project of finding £7 billion to re-equip our London underground system.

Does my right hon. Friend still intend to hand over responsibility for the sub-surface tube lines to Railtrack? If so, why?

We have made it clear that Railtrack can make a bid for the sub-surface lines so that we can achieve the integration that we want. We have to wait until the spring to see whether we can reach an agreement, but the intention is to integrate the national rail service with the underground. That integration is part of the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I fought on. We intend to implement that policy.

If he will make a statement on drug-testing for drivers. [94221]

It is already an offence to drive while unfit through medicinal or illicit drugs, but the problem for the police is to recognise that a driver is drug-impaired. We are working with the police and the Home Office on the development of techniques and screening devices so that the law can be enforced effectively.

The Minister will be aware of the growing number of fatal accidents blamed on drivers who have taken a cocktail of hard drugs. Does he believe that the police should be given the same powers to tackle drug driving as they have to deal with drink driving? Does he further believe that it is a matter of urgency that a drugsalyser test should be developed to act as a deterrent for those who might be tempted to drive while under the influence of drugs?

The hon. Lady makes an important point. There has been a large increase in the number of fatalities caused by people who have taken illicit—or in some cases medicinal—drugs. The problem is that we have to develop the technology to enable the misuse of drugs to be detected. The technology thus far is not sufficiently reliable. Work is under way and we are hopeful that the technology will be better in the fairly near future. We shall not shrink from legislating at that point, but we must develop the technology first.

This is a difficult area, is it not? For example, will we prosecute drivers taking prescription drugs that affect the central nervous system? Bearing in mind the fact that cannabis can be detected in the body for up to 30 days after someone has smoked a spliff, will the charge against a person who has smoked only one spliff be possession, or driving under the influence?

My hon. Friend is more conversant with the terminology than I am, but he is right, in that there are one or two other serious difficulties as well as the problems with the technology. The offence will have to be driving while impaired through drugs, and we shall have to be able to demonstrate that before a court of law. There are a couple of complex issues; one is the technology, and my hon. Friend has mentioned the other—but we are on the case.

What recent discussions he has had with Railtrack on the movement of freight by rail. [94222]

Following the tragic accident at Ladbroke Grove, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Minister for Transport have had several discussions with Railtrack, and in this context have also met the freight operators EWS and Freightliner. Previously, on 14 September, the Minister for Transport had a meeting with the chief executive of Railtrack, at which rail freight was briefly discussed.

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench—a much merited promotion—and thank him for the information that he has given. Does he agree that, given the increase in rail traffic, especially rail freight, railway land should be retained for railway development? What are the Government doing to promote that idea?

I am overwhelmed by the accolade bestowed on me by my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with the thrust of his remarks. That is why our new draft PPG13, published on 18 October, draws particular attention to the need to protect sites and routes that could be critical in developing infrastructure, so as to widen choices both for passengers and those who dispatch freight. It is also why we have required the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, in managing the British Rail property portfolio, to give priority to transport users.

I add my congratulations to the Minister on his well deserved elevation to the Front Bench. Will he carefully consider the security aspects of the misuse of freight facilities elsewhere in Europe? He may be aware that when the all-party rail freight group, led by Lord Berkeley, visited freight facilities in northern Italy, members of the group from all parties were shocked at the lack of security. He will certainly know that there is grave concern about the misuse of—welcome—freight facilities for the purpose of illegal immigration. Will he carefully consider the report produced by his noble Friend on the rail freight group visit?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and I undertake not only to make my own inquiries into the matter, but to write to him with full details of our arrangements in connection with it.

May I advise the Minister that plans to increase the amount of rail freight travelling through Lincoln's already busy high street is causing considerable concern about how that can best be managed under existing arrangements, because new arrangements need to be made? Can he assist my constituents by looking into a practical solution, so that a useful way forward can be found?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue extremely pertinent to her constituency, but heretofore unfamiliar to me. The question she asks is important in the light of the Government's clear commitment to, and outstanding record of, developing rail freight facilities. Opposition Members have been very friendly to me so far, so I do not want to create too much hurt and pain on the Opposition Benches, but I must point out that in 1995–96, under the previous Administration, the total spend on rail freight facilities and rail freight grants was £4 million. In the past two years, under the Labour Government, it has been £29 million and we expect it to increase. Indeed, in recent weeks, the two largest ever rail freight facility grants have been given out by this Government.

Would the Minister agree that in some areas it is lack of track capacity that is the single biggest factor inhibiting the growth of rail freight, such as on the Nith valley line which takes coal from the Ayrshire coalfield to the English power stations? What pressure will he apply to Railtrack to invest in such facilities?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and he is right. That is why we have made the development of a rail freight strategy a major priority for the Strategic Rail Authority.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government's proposals for freight and for increased passenger use of the railways may lead to a problem in the medium term in allocating freight slots, especially near my constituency between Southampton north and south, and on the east and west lines from London to the west country? Can he give me an assurance that he is actively encouraging Railtrack to develop new rail facilities for freight, including track and new junctions?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and drawing our attention specifically to the situation in his locality. He is right. In the past two years, we have seen a 14 per cent. growth in freight tonne/kilometres on our railways, which is a terrific success. However, success does bring its problems and it will be a major responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority to examine the issues of track capacity and rail freight facilities for the future.

I join those who have welcomed the Minister to the Front Bench. Does he agree that the problem of increasing freight and passengers on the railways is one of capacity and the need to manage safety? I welcome the decision that the Government made in the summer approving the installation as quickly as possible of the train protection warning system, and the outcome of yesterday's safety summit. However, given that collisions such as the one at Southall would not be prevented by the TPWS, what did the Government do when they were first notified about the 25 per cent. increase in serious signals-passed-at-danger incidents in August, which was a dramatic deterioration in safety on the railway by any standards?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. He raises an important issue, but the answer is that the Government had instituted an inquiry into the increase in signals passed at danger—or SPADs—12 months before the Ladbroke Grove disaster. It is on the basis of the findings of that report that the Government are now engaged in urgent action to address the issue of rail safety.

What plans he has to improve the workings of the private rental sector of the housing market. [94223]

We have a number of initiatives already in hand. We are committed to mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation. We are reviewing fitness standards and piloting a voluntary rent deposit dispute resolution scheme. In addition, we support the national approved letting scheme for letting agents. We will set out our full conclusions on the future of the private rented sector in our forthcoming housing Green Paper.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that in my constituency and many other northern cities the market in houses on terraced streets built before the first world war is in disarray? Disreputable private landlords are bringing in anti-social, sometimes criminal, tenants on the back of housing benefit and driving decent people out. That has led to whole rows of terraced houses standing empty. Does he agree that one of the answers to that problem is to regulate private landlords?

I agree that there is a problem in several cities with abandonment of properties; it has been possible for certain elements to buy cheaply properties that are then unscrupulously exploited, as are the tenants who occupy them. That is why the Government commissioned a specific report from policy action team 7 to look into the social exclusion agenda and problems of unpopular housing. That report, which we warmly welcomed a few weeks ago, set out a number of interesting conclusions about action that can be taken.

Would the Minister confirm that in the past 10 years the number of households renting from private landlords has increased by perhaps 25 per cent.—an increase from roughly 1.75 million to well over 2 million? Does he agree that that has come about by relaxing regulations that control private landlords where that could be done sensibly? The one thing that would reverse that trend would be the imposition of excessive and unnecessary regulation now.

I agree that we do not want unnecessary and excessive regulation. There should be controls to deal with properties that are in the worst condition, where people's lives are put at risk by unscrupulous landlords. That is why we are licensing multi-occupied houses. We also want to encourage reputable landlords to come into the market—we have said so repeatedly and we will continue to do so. The overall pattern is one in which the private rented sector has stabilised. The number of lettings in the sector is not increasing and is below the 1979 level. We are however keen to see an improvement in the responsible side of the market, while we bear down on the more disreputable parts of it.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the housing benefit going to private sector landlords has tripled since 1989–90 while lettings have increased by only 11 per cent. in the same period. Given the amount of public sector investment going to private landlords, does he agree that it is essential that we get value for money by tackling the enormous amounts of disrepair in the sector, so that private tenants can enjoy decent quality accommodation in return for the housing benefit investment that the Government are giving private landlords?

I agree with my hon. Friend that tackling the problems of disrepair is important. That is why we are reviewing fitness standards, as I said. I also agree that we need to ensure value for money. That will be a fundamental issue to be tackled in our forthcoming housing Green Paper.

If he will make a statement regarding his plans for national park status for the New Forest. [94224]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 29 September that he has asked the Countryside Agency to consider designating the New Forest as a national park. The agency will work closely with my Department, local authorities, the members of the New Forest committee and a whole range of local and national interests in reviewing the options.

The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State's announcement was greeted with disappointment and dismay by the New Forest committee, the verderers, the commoners, the district council and the county councillors. Why did the Minister reject the clearly expressed preference of what was then the Countryside Commission, now the agency?

My right hon. Friend's announcement has been widely welcomed, including by local interests. The former Countryside Commission recommended tailor-made legislation, that is true. There is a serious drawback, however, which is the lack of parliamentary time. Primary legislation would be required and there is a lack of early parliamentary time. The previous Government repeatedly promised to introduce legislation, but they never did; we are doing so and we believe that there is scope for a national park authority to do an excellent job for the New Forest, just as the park authorities are doing for many other parts of the country.

It is clear, from the Minister's reply, that his assurance yesterday to the Countryside Alliance that he was in listening mode did not apply to people living near the New Forest. Will he confirm that he will need to repeal three Acts of Parliament before a national park can have full management powers? Will he say when those Acts will be repealed? Without that commitment, the House will think, rightly, that the announcement is merely another press release with no substance—another great Labour lie.

There has been enormous discussion of this matter. It was discussed for many years under the previous Government, but the problem was that that they did not act. We are very conscious of the desire of the great majority of local interests for action on this issue. The powers of the Forestry Commission and the verderers will not be affected by the creation of a national park, and the primary New Forest legislation already in place will not be affected. However, because we are listening to what is being said, we have asked the Countryside Agency to examine how the views of the Forestry Commission, English Nature and the verderers can be reflected in national park structures, especially in terms of membership structures and the creation of committees.