If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for communities. [107305]

What steps the Government are taking to provide a new deal for local communities. [107313]

We have now made offers of funding to 10 new deal for communities pathfinder partnerships to help them to deliver sustainable change for some of our poorest neighbourhoods. Seven more pathfinders will submit their proposals at the end of March. The success of the pathfinders has encouraged us to launch a second round of the programme in 22 further areas of England.

I welcome that statement. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Tower Hamlets is one of those pathfinder areas. Will she be able to issue guidance to other Departments—in particular, the Benefits Agency—so that they can work more closely together in delivering the objectives of the new deal?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the close interest that she is taking in the new deal for communities in her constituency on the Ocean estate, a community that has had many difficulties. She has agreed to chair the partnership and is working very hard to pull all the different groups together, for which she is to be commended. I reassure her that the Government take the fact that it is a whole Government programme very seriously—it is not simply a programme from our Department. I chair a ministerial committee on which all Departments have a representative to deal with the wide range of issues that the new deal areas cover. I assure her that the Department of Social Security is represented on that committee and we are working with it to seek new ways forward.

I thank the Minister for the £56 million recently received for the Greets Green area of the borough of Sandwell. Together with the funding for the new bus station and the town centre redevelopment in West Bromwich, it will go a long way to making up for nearly two decades of neglect in Sandwell. I am sure that I speak for you, too, Madam Speaker, when I say that making up for those years of urban decline and poverty in a town such as West Bromwich will require similar initiatives in future and we shall press the Minister along those lines again.

My hon. Friend is right. We offered the Greets Green partnership £56 million to implement its long-term strategy over the next 10 years. It is a good strategy backed with a real determination to increase the number of jobs; to improve the skills and educational attainment of people living in the area; to reduce ill health; and to tackle crime. I hope that he continues to take a close interest and ensure that we do whatever possible to turn the area round and make people proud to live and bring up their families there.

It is a particular pleasure to stand in front of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I look forward to maintaining the tradition of robust exchanges established by my illustrious predecessor. In the light of the last few days' revelations regarding my interests, I wish to make an apology. I apologise for the fact that my 20 years of real-world experience of planning, the environment and transport means that I have some practical grasp of the subject, which is not a problem that afflicts the Deputy Prime Minister.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. We, too, have real-world experience. Mine has been in working in areas of deprivation to build up local communities and work with them. Under the previous Government, that was an extremely difficult task. We are determined on all those issues to give the right sort of support to enable local communities to work effectively to turn their areas round. I wish to goodness that his Government had been slightly interested in that.

Now we know what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) meant when he said of the Government that minor functionaries give a wholly erroneous impression of what is going on. Are not the facts that under this Government, homelessness has risen by 3,500, brownfield development in our cities has fallen and crime is rising? Is it not also true that less money is being spent under the new deal than was spent on urban regeneration by the previous Conservative Government? When I read on Saturday that there was a vacuum at the heart of new Labour, little did I expect to find it sitting opposite me on the Government Front Bench. Is not the truth that Labour has abandoned the north and the inner cities, and is that not why its Ministers are abandoning the Government?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will learn to work out what questions mean. These questions are about the new deal for communities. It is one of our regeneration programmes; there are many others. Perhaps he would like to add them up—then he might get the right figures. This Government, unlike his, will work for the whole country: north and south, east and west, rural and urban. If he really is worried about the north, why did he support the closure of steelworks, pits and shipyards that did far more to undermine the north than anything else that his Government did?

Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending an invitation to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) to visit my constituency to see the real-world deprivation that exists, largely as a consequence of his party's policies for 18 years? In that respect, will she review the eligibility criteria for the new deal for communities so that some parts of my constituency can put in bids for the new deal communities? They would like to benefit from the fortune that places such as West Bromwich are enjoying.

I echo my hon. Friend's concern about the lack of knowledge of Opposition Front Benchers about some of our northern cities. Perhaps some day they will learn about them. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that Leeds is in fact able to bid for the new deal for communities in the next round.

If he will make a statement on the timetable for the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [107306]

Powers to create the public-private partnership for NATS are being sought in the Transport Bill. We intend to secure the benefits of the public-private partnership soon after those powers have been granted. This could be as early as 2001.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government's proposed golden share in the public-private partnership for NATS is legal under European law?

Yes.

If we were to go ahead without the acquiescence of the airline pilots, the British Air Line Pilots Association and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which represents the air traffic controllers, and unfortunately there was a smash-up—let alone a mid-air collision—before any public inquiry could possibly report, who does the Deputy Prime Minister think would get the blame?

Those who were guilty, and I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's assumptions.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, contrary to the assurances that he has given to his Back Benchers, the so-called public-private partnership envisages that NATS may be split up at some future point? Will he confirm that several different companies may provide air traffic services and that there will be several strategic partners? Will he confirm that the Government's shareholding could be reduced to 25 per cent, a point that has just been included in the Transport Bill? Will he confirm that the Government envisage circumstances in which NATS could be floated?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand the situation, just as he does in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. The BAA case is not the same as that of NATS, and that is why I was so easily able to tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there was no conflict. The PPP, involving a strategic relationship with a private partner, is the best way to go. We have explained to the Standing Committee—and will continue to explain on Report—that it will mean long-term investment, that safety will be properly maintained and that the advances and growth that we require from NATS will occur.

What steps the Government are taking to promote economic development in the west midlands through regional development agencies. [107308]

Advantage West Midlands has produced a well-balanced regional strategy for economic development in the region. We await detailed action plans and look forward to working with the organisation as we begin to implement the strategy.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his long-standing commitment to the regions. All the signs suggest that Advantage West Midlands will make a big impact. Does he agree that one cannot download a fridge or a hi-fi, and that we therefore need to ensure that goods ordered through dotcom companies are manufactured in areas such as the west midlands? Does he agree that we need the world-class infrastructure—road and rail links—that would allow those goods to be delivered quickly to the market? Will he ask his Department to examine conditions in the west midlands, where the transport infrastructure is clearly the worst around any major conurbation in Europe?

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said. In particular, I believe that regional development agencies play an important part in developing prosperity in the regions. Such agencies were successful in Scotland and Wales, and we cannot see why the English regions should be denied them. They will play an important part in the transport strategies being developed with regional planning bodies and assemblies. I accept that transport could improve a lot in Birmingham, and we are giving that point considerable attention and taking advice from people in the regions.

Order. Question Time is for the Opposition.

It is Question Time, Madam Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) asked about regional development agencies, and the Conservatives, having previously stated that they would abolish RDAs, have said today that they intend to keep them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells could let the House know what the Tory position is.

The Deputy Prime Minister will know that I am no fan of regionalism. May I ask him carefully to consider the strategy produced by Advantage West Midlands? It is written in incomprehensible English, and is so bad that the Plain English Campaign criticised the agency for falsely claiming that it had the campaign's blessing. It is also a facile document that contains no substance. He should consider what that says about the quality of the agencies that he has, in my view mistakenly, put in place.

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Wide consultations were held with people in the regions, including Tory councillors and the local authorities, all of whom played a major part in the development of the strategy. It has now been refined by the Government to determine priorities. Perhaps he will tell the House whether he still believes that the RDAs should continue to play a part in the regions.

If he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of housing directly managed by local authorities. [107309]

The Government continue to attach the highest priority to housing and are committed to a policy that promotes decent and affordable housing for everyone. Local authority housing is an essential resource in achieving that objective.

As Bolton is a band 1 housing authority, and in view of recent press rumours, will my hon. Friend say whether well-managed housing authorities will be able to continue to manage their local stock as they always have done? More important, will adequate funds be made available for the maintenance and management of that stock?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The recent press reports are inaccurate. It is up to each local authority, in consultation with its tenants—I emphasise that point—to decide on the best way to manage its housing stock. There are some advantages to voluntary transfers that we should expect local authorities to consider, but the process is not compulsory.

Will the Minister confirm that the housing Green Paper has been delayed yet again? It was due to appear last autumn and then this spring. Will he confirm that it will now appear in July? After almost three years, is it not time that the Government had a proper housing strategy? As the Green Paper will not appear until after the comprehensive spending review, does not that mean that, yet again, the Treasury has scored a victory over his Department and that he and his colleagues have backed away from any meaningful reform of housing benefit?

It is not true that the Green Paper has been delayed, because we gave no undertaking on when it would be published. However, it will be published shortly and will set out a clear statement of our vision for housing policy. As I pointed out, we have already committed an extra £5 billion for housing during this Parliament, so no one can say that we are neglecting the subject.

Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government continue to treat local councils differently from registered social landlords when it comes to raising commercial investment for improvements in the same housing occupied by the same people?

We are anxious to encourage local authorities to consider the best ways to manage their housing stock and not to think that there is only one way of doing so. We want them seriously to examine the possibility of transfers. However, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), there is no compulsion and they must always consult their tenants.

If he will make a statement on progress in achieving a public-private partnership for London Underground. [107311]

Excellent progress has been made, which will enable us to tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog on the tube that we inherited from the previous Tory Government, and to achieve our objective of a massive £8 billion of new investment to modernise London's underground network.

I thank the Minister for his response. Has he read the report by University college, London on the funding of the tube? Does he agree with its findings that the PPP will cost £1 billion more than a bond issue to raise the investment that is needed? Does he agree that the PPP will not allow for expansion of the tube network, that it will leave a shortfall between passenger fares and the infrastructure service charges of between £110 million and £175 million per year, and that that will have to be funded either by the Government or by the mayor and the Greater London Assembly?

I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully, but he must not believe everything that he reads in academic reports. The academics have got it wrong again. If the PPP competition leaves a funding gap, that will be allowed for in the grant that we pay the mayor; we shall not leave London to pick up the bill. The PPP is all about obtaining best value. Public sector bonds would cost £4.5 billion more over 15 years.

The travelling public in London do not need to read academic reports to know that they have been short-changed by the Government. Their manifesto promises are no nearer to being realised now than they were almost three years ago. Is it not the case that daily the delays persist and that there is no sign of the investment that was promised at the last general election? In other words, Labour's promises were fraudulent.

The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that the Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds more in the tube system than was ever planned for by the Conservative Administration. Currently, £1.8 billion of new investment is going into the tube system overall. Let me also remind him that in the autumn, the Government announced a massive extra £50 million for London's bus system.

What assessment he has made of steps taken by local authorities to improve the quality of housing since 1997. [107312]

Good quality housing is a right not a privilege. We are taking a great many measures to help local authorities improve the quality of their housing. They include a number of actions to raise building standards, the increased involvement of tenants and a new regime of Government funding that will release a massive £5 billion increase in the resources available for housing, a factor that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) should take into account.

I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend has said about cowboy developers. He will know that my constituency, which is rural, has had significant problems with rogue developers. My constituents will be pleased to know that we are dealing with those problems. Will he also say how many council homes he expects to be improved as a result of his measures? He is right that council tenants deserve good quality homes.

We faced a backlog of about £10 billion in housing, and the £5 billion that we have devoted to it over the life of this Parliament is a major step towards improving it. So far, we have improved 300,000 council homes and we plan for an additional 1.5 million council homes to be improved over the three years of the comprehensive spending review expenditure programme.

Is the Secretary of State taking a keen interest in the reform of housing benefits? Will he assure the House that local housing associations will not lose their income under the housing benefit reforms?

These are very important issues. We are considering them and changes will be set out in the Green Paper. Housing benefit support is an important issue in regard to sustaining the existing agreements on housing. However, it also needs reform and we intend to cover that in the Green Paper.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to council housing. Does he agree that no area of public expenditure was cut as much under the previous Government as housing? Although the release of capital receipts has been wholly welcome, we need sustained year-on-year increases to undo the damage done by the vandalism in the 18 years of the Conservative Government.

Yes, quite apart from leaving a backlog, the previous Administration cut their housing programme between 1992–93 and 1997–98 by half—from £1.5 billion to £751 million a year. That was their order of priorities. Another dividing line between the two parties is that we choose to use the money from capital receipts to refurbish housing and to make the investment that should have been made rather than keeping it in the banks earning interest.

Will the Secretary of State assess himself the policy of Labour-run Southwark council, which proposes to demolish perfectly good council housing that was built in about 1980 near Tower bridge and replace it with a smaller amount of council housing and private housing so that it can raise money from land sales? Other estates are much worse and, on any basis, they should be demolished, but they have not been included in the scheme. Will he ensure that all policy has the agreement of the residents first and that it is consistent with keeping sustainable communities?

I am not aware of exactly what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but social housing is an important matter. It is about mixed development and obtaining the agreement of tenants. I am sure that, in all cases, councils try to achieve that, but, in areas where there are differences of opinion, decisions have to be made. However, I am conscious of the importance of putting social housing at the top of the list.

I welcome the £5 billion of investment that will improve 1.5 million homes over the next three years, which is in complete contrast to the failures of the 18 years of the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State ensure the critical involvement of tenants in the use of that investment, which will improve their estates and their lives, so that the compacts that will come into operation from April will ensure local democracy?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That agreement will come in from 1 April, along with best value. We intend to improve the services provided by local authorities. It is important to do that as well as providing extra resources. That shows the Government's comprehensive approach to housing compared with that of the previous Administration. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was concerned not about housing but simply about building on greenfield land. He has experience of that because he has spent most of his time building on it.

If he will make a statement about the protection of established greenbelt land, and the acreage of it that has been approved for non-conforming use for development during the past 33 months. [107314]

The Government are entirely committed to the green belt as a method of restricting urban sprawl. The area of green belt has been increased under this Government by around 30,000 hectares. As I have already indicated in a written answer to the hon. Gentleman, information on inappropriate uses in the green belt is not held centrally.

The integrity of our greenbelt policy depends entirely on no part of it being built on. Is it not spurious to allow development on greenbelt land and then say that the problem is overcome by adding more land to the green belt elsewhere—land that would not in any case be built on?

The hon. Gentleman will know from his background in planning that it is always important to keep policies under review and that there are circumstances in which policies that might appear to be unduly rigid may need some modification to achieve a more sustainable outcome. That should always be allowed for. The Government whom he supported consistently allowed development on greenfield and greenbelt land up until their last year in office when the then Secretary of State released 1,200 hectares of greenbelt land for development. That was a shameful record, and this Government are protecting the green belt.

Northowram hospital in my constituency, which is in the green belt and has beautiful lands, is due for closure. My hon. Friend will know that NHS Estates is essentially the landowner. Is there anything that he can do to prevent NHS Estates from going for the easy option of more housing in an already crowded village and make it consider alternatives for that beautiful site?

Inappropriate development in the green belt is a strong prima facie ground for refusal of planning permission. Certainly, any concerns that my hon. Friend has about an inappropriate proposal for development in her green belt should be referred to the local authority, which should be guided by PPG2, the relevant planning policy guidance note, which makes it clear that inappropriate development in such circumstances should be refused.

Does the Minister recall justifying last week his approval of the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt in my constituency on the basis that the land is near the transport links of the A1 and the railway? Does he recognise that planning in this country works on precedent, and will he admit that the precedent that he has created gives the green light to ribbon development along motorways and railways, even when they go through greenbelt land? Will he remove that precedent by lifting his approval for the monstrous building of 10,000 houses on greenbelt land in my constituency?

No. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to know by now—he has heard it often enough from the Dispatch Box—the decision was properly made by the local authority in his area, which felt that it was better to concentrate development in one area with good access to transport links rather than to allow sprawl throughout the surrounding rural area. That was a decision properly reached by democratically elected local representatives who were facing up to their responsibilities rather than uttering cheap soundbites, of which he should be ashamed.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, under the previous Conservative Government, substantial development, particularly ribbon and dormitory development, took place outside the green belt, with a consequent impact on transport and services? Does he accept that a sane and rational planning policy must take account of that, and that the Government must plan accordingly for the future?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the appalling record of the previous Government in permitting consistent and profligate use of greenfield land, including the nibbling away of the green belt, for inappropriate housing developments. We have adopted a different approach. We are seeking to ensure that the principles of sustainability are at the top of the agenda and that greenfield land is protected wherever possible, to ensure that the bulk of development is concentrated in our cities and on brownfield sites.

The House and the country will be alarmed to hear the Minister say, as he did a couple of minutes ago, that greenbelt land is under review. Will he give us a commitment today that if the Government adopt any part of the Crow report, which disgracefully advocates concreting over large parts of the south-east, no greenbelt land will be lost? Does he agree that the Government's failure to protect the green belt has led to comments such as the one in this month's Environment and Planning Review, which states that

"considering Labour's pre-election pledge that the party would form the 'greenest ever Government'",

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three counts. First, he misinterpreted my comments about the need to take a serious approach towards policy, and not to be utterly rigid when circumstances suggest that there are real gains to be made from an adjustment of policy. That occurs in certain cases, and any sensible, serious Government recognise that.

What factors he will take into consideration in determining regional quotas for the allocation of future regeneration funds; and if he will make a statement. [107315]

The 2000 spending review that is currently under way will determine funding levels from 2001–02 to 2003–04 for all domestic regeneration programmes. Factors that will be taken into account in deciding regional spread will depend on the objectives and priorities agreed for the programmes, together with our policies for economic development and renewal, social inclusion and urban renaissance.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware of the concern that some areas have taken precedence over others that show high levels of deprivation and social need. To clarify the position, will she undertake to publish the data used in drawing up the new indicators of social need, and the way in which the indicators have been weighted?

As my hon. Friend knows, there has been heavy criticism of the methodology used for the current index, which is why we propose to change it. We need a better indication of small pockets of deprivation and of disadvantage in rural as well as urban areas. However, we recognise that no index is perfect and that an index cannot provide a measure of absolute deprivation, so it is important to use the index sensitively and flexibly in deciding future regeneration resources. We shall look into the question that my hon. Friend raises in relation to the data.

Why did the Government allow the European Union to cut Britain's allocation of EU regeneration funds last July?

The English regions will receive some £4 billion of European structural funds from the Commission this year. That, together with the £5.5 billion that the Government have committed to regeneration in our English regions, demonstrates how serious we are about tackling social exclusion, wherever it occurs. It is the legacy of the previous Government that social exclusion and deprivation exist in every region of the country.

If he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the bus employees' superannuation trust scheme and the National Bus Company pension fund scheme. [107316]

I have made it clear to the National Bus Company pension trustees that the Government understand and share the concern of NBC pensioners about the time it is taking to distribute the settlement sum we paid last July. I was pleased to be able to say in a written answer yesterday to a question from my hon. Friend that I understand that the trustees intend to make initial payments to some 8,000 older pensioners in March and April, and that they are also urgently investigating the feasibility of making an initial payment to other pensioners as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and the Government for taking steps to right the injustice that the previous Tory Administration inflicted on NBC pensioners. The initial payment is welcome, but those pensioners are again at the mercy of lawyers, who despite having all the evidence, have failed to return to the High Court to get the final go-ahead for paying pensioners what they are owed. Will my hon. Friend take up the matter with the trustees urgently and tell them to get their act together? Fifty thousand pensioners should not spend their twilight years feeling like characters in "Bleak House".

My hon. Friend has done NBC pensioners a good service in highlighting possible delay in instituting further court proceedings. I shall pursue the matter with the chairman of the trustees when I meet her shortly.

When he will set a date for a referendum on the setting up of a regional assembly for the north-east of England. [107318]

The Government are committed to moving to directly elected regional government in England, demonstrated in a referendum. The north-east is strengthening its regional presence through the work of ONE NorthEast, the north-east regional assembly, and other regional stakeholders.

Does the Minister recognise the need for those bodies to have some democratic accountability, and the desire of people in the north-east to have a strong regional voice, which can press for the sort of funding that Scotland receives for its public services? Am I to conclude from the fact that she, not the Deputy Prime Minister, is answering the question, that the right hon. Gentleman is believed to have gone too far over the top in insisting that the Prime Minister has not gone off the idea and that we will have a referendum on a Parliament for the north-east in a reasonable period of time?

There is no division between us. We, as a Government, are determined to move forward with regional policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we established the Northern Development Company and our own regional assembly in the north-east more than 10 years ago. We did that in the face of opposition by the previous Tory Government. It would be interesting to know what the Tories would do in the north-east, where the institutions that I mentioned were developed by people in the region. Conservative Members continue to say that they will get rid of them. Will they really do that?

I welcome my right hon. Friend's repetition of the pledge that we are moving towards democratic government in the north-east and, hopefully, other regions. People like me have campaigned passionately for that for more than 20 years because we want to tackle the long-term economic, health and education inequalities of our region. We do not do it because we want to break Britain up, but because we want to bring it closer together.

I know that. I have campaigned alongside my hon. Friend for many years for a decent regional policy. The Government are committed to that. We shall continue to develop our policy because we want the regions of this country to have the sustainable growth that will enable the whole country to develop steadier and more sustainable growth. That will mean that all people, wherever they live, will get the opportunities that they deserve.

Will the Minister explain the impact of that wholly unnecessary layer of government on traditional and existing local government?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not recognised or realised that local government very much supports regional development and the Local Government Association is holding hearings on precisely that issue. Indeed, 105 Tory councillors are involved in regional assemblies and many of them are also involved in regional development agencies. They support it; their party does not.

If he will make a statement on Government support for the location of new retail outlets in existing town centres. [107319]

Our policy is set out in planning policy guidance note 6, entitled, "Town Centres and Retail Developments". We have strengthened the guidance by requiring applicants for out-of-town centres to demonstrate that there is a need for the store and by making it clear that extensions to existing out-of-town developments are subject to a sequential test.

I welcome the strong stance taken by the Government. Is my hon. Friend aware that retail shopkeepers in the town of Bingley in my constituency were threatened by an out-of-town shopping proposal, which the local council was able to stand firm against and reject thanks to the strong guidance given by the Government? Will he send a strong message to those who have profited from the plundering of town centres, including certain Conservative Members, that the Government will stand firm in fighting for the viability of our town centres?

I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's comments and simply add that there was an explosion of out-of-town shopping under the Conservatives. No fewer than 7.7 million sq m of out-of-town shopping centres and retail parks were built between 1979 and 1997. That involved serious damage to many existing town centres. We are determined to concentrate development in existing centres and delighted that the bulk of retailers—including, I believe, Asda Wal-Mart—have recognised that their future developments should be located primarily in town centres.

If that is indeed Government policy, will the Minister undertake to talk to his colleagues in the Treasury with responsibility for the district valuers office and see whether the uniform business rate can be adjusted so that out-of-town supermarkets have a more sensible rate and in-town shops can compete with them?

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about the need to achieve a level playing field wherever possible. My evidence to the Select Committee stressed the Government's objective of ensuring that there is—as far as possible—a level playing field, not perverse incentives that make it easier to develop in unsustainable locations. I cannot give the specific commitment that he seeks because he appears to want an increased rate in certain areas. I am not sure that that would be an appropriate solution, but I can assure him of the Government's commitment to the principle of achieving a more level playing field.

What steps he is taking to encourage initiatives by local authorities to improve the quality of their environmental services. [107320]

The Local Government Act 1999 imposes a duty of best value on local authorities. It requires them to secure continuous improvement in the quality and effectiveness of their services and provides them with a major opportunity to drive up standards, including those for environmental services.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lincoln city council on its excellent initiative in establishing a graffiti hotline, which actions the removal of offensive and racist graffiti within 24 hours? What plans has he for ensuring that that best practice and determined action is mirrored across the country?

I am aware of the good example that Lincoln has set by establishing a 24-hour telephone anti-graffiti service and a policy of removing offensive graffiti—particularly racist graffiti—within 24 hours, which my hon. Friend described. That is another good example of a Labour-controlled council improving local environment services and driving up standards.

If the Minister is serious about giving local authorities a bigger role in improving their local environment, will he make sure that they have more power and more say over the allocation of new housing within their boroughs?

We are concerned about ensuring that local authorities have greater control over all their services. That is why this Government have made a major change compared with the previous Government, in releasing local authorities from the excessive and unreasonable bureaucratic controls that they had under that Government. That is why we have made a change, in particular, from compulsory competitive tendering to best value, which enables local people to have much greater control over the quality and cost of services, including housing services.

Has any environmental services department yet come forward with a solution to the problem of discarded chewing gum that we experience everywhere? It really needs to be solved.

I am certainly not stuck up on these kinds of problems.

If he will make a statement on the levels of traffic congestion in Great Britain (a) today, (b) a year ago and (c) two years ago. [107321]

It will be of interest for the House to learn that no Government of any political hue have ever published a measure of congestion. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, therefore, is that no estimates of congestion currently available would allow an assessment to be made of changes year on year. However, since the general election, this Government have begun work on measures of congestion, which could be used to monitor these changes in the future. Although we may not yet be able to measure congestion, we clearly know that it exists. Our report, "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published last month, showed that, with widespread support from local authorities, businesses and the general public for the measures in our integrated transport White Paper and Transport Bill, currently before the House, we can reduce congestion over the next decade.

With the glaring evidence before you, Madam Speaker, and indeed all hon. Members, of the most appalling traffic congestion daily in Parliament square, it is no comfort to hear from the Minister's answer that the present Government accept that they have failed to deliver yet another pre-election pledge, to

"reduce and then reverse traffic growth".

At least the hon. Gentleman had one good point, about traffic congestion in Parliament square. The House may be interested to learn that we have been informed that the work in Parliament square is scheduled to take two weeks, but I can assure the House that the Government are bearing down heavily on the companies undertaking that work.

Is the Minister aware that the busiest road junction in Europe—the junction between the M4 and the M25—is on the edge of my constituency? Is he aware of the application for the building of a so-called rail freight transport station there, and is he aware that 80 per cent. of movements will be by road? When the proposal is submitted to him, will he consider it carefully with a view to saying no, in the light of the impact that such a development would have on the M3, the M4, the M25 and the M40, which are already congested?

My hon. Friend is, as ever, an outstanding advocate for her constituency, but I am afraid that quasi-judiciality prevents me from making any comment about that specific proposal.

Does the Minister agree that one way of reducing traffic congestion would be to take robust action in respect of tour buses? Especially at the height of winter, such buses travel around historic cities such as Oxford, Chester, York and, indeed, Bath, clogging the roads, when almost or completely empty. The only purpose of the drivers is to make themselves eligible for the fuel duty rebate. Will the Minister conduct a review of the rebate as it applies to such vehicles?

I am tempted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Liberal battle bus, empty as usual; but I appreciate his concern. As he will know, the traffic commissioners have certain powers in this respect, which are strengthened by the current transport legislation. Moreover, the fuel duty rebate is paid only on the basis of compliance with a number of conditions. The Department carries out checks from time to time to ensure that those conditions are met, and, in fact, may well be doing so at around this time.

I am sure that the Minister realises that far more people are stuck up in traffic each day than are stuck up in chewing gum. Will he consider, in particular, the number of vehicles carrying goods in transit, often travelling through cities two or three times before the goods end up back in the shops? Will he and his ministerial colleagues give thought to specific measures that might encourage a reduction in food miles? Perhaps local partnerships could be established between urban consumption centres and rural producers, both to shorten food miles and to strengthen and shorten lines of food accountability.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is doing a great deal of work on precisely those issues. I shall ensure that his observations form part of its considerations.

What assessment he has made of the potential for development on brownfield sites in the south-east. [107322]

The Government are fully committed to the re-use of land for development in preference to greenfield sites, and have set a national target that 60 per cent. of additional housing should be built on previously developed land. Over 50 per cent. of dwellings are already built on recycled land in the south-east. Our national land use database indicates that over 10,000 hectares of land are available for recycling in the region.

Is not the harsh truth that in Surrey, for example, there simply are not enough brownfield sites to meet the Government's 60 per cent. target, if they accept the Serplan figures or, worst of all, the Crow report figures for the number of houses to be built in the south-east? Unless the Government attack the factors underlying the household growth projection figures and change those figures, the Minister's policy can end only in the concreting over of the countryside.

Concreting over the countryside is a phenomenon that the hon. Gentleman will be well familiar with because it took place repeatedly throughout the 18 years of Conservative Government, when there was a laissez-faire approach to private developers building houses throughout that area. It is sad and sobering that, until the Government were elected, there was no record of how much brownfield land was available. Until our national land use database was published, no one knew the potential for achieving what the Government are determined to achieve: a focus on development on brownfield sites within not just the south-east, but the whole region.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I should like to make some progress. I said then that if further information came to light which rendered my statement out of date, I would of course inform the House. Intensive discussions continue, and there remains the possibility of a further report by General de Chastelain and his colleagues on the international body.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

In a moment. At present, I have no further substantive progress to report. It is therefore necessary to put this legislation in place, so that if it remains necessary because cross-community confidence has been undermined, we can create a pause in the operation of Northern Ireland's devolved political institutions from the end of this week.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In dealing with the report, will he address a point that has been put from the Opposition Benches? Have the Irish Government expressed the opinion that the report should not be made public or available to the House?

Both Governments have agreed that for the time being, no further useful purpose is served by publishing the report because it does not contain additional information, other than that which I have already given the House, that would inform the House. We have, however, said that in the event of a further report being delivered to the two Governments by General de Chastelain, we shall publish both so that they can be seen alongside each other.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

No, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. There is no doubt in my mind that the necessary cross-community consensus which has existed, which supported the establishment of the Executive and of the institutions in Northern Ireland and north and south across the island of Ireland, and which is essential in creating those institutions and sustaining their existence, has been severely dented by the absence of credible progress on decommissioning—indeed, the absence of an unequivocal commitment to decommission, or a specific time frame in which decommissioning will occur.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable article in today's edition of The Irish Times by my hon, Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in which he pleads with the IRA to start decommissioning and explains why that is so essential? Can my right hon. Friend give the House a guarantee that, whatever the circumstances, he will continue to do his utmost to work closely with the Irish Government on decommissioning and other aspects of the Good Friday agreement?

I have read the article by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in The Irish Times today, and I heard his statements at the end of last week. I shall refer to what he has said later in my speech, but, for now, suffice it to say that I have absolutely no doubt that his remarks speak for the overwhelming mass of nationalist opinion in both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Will the Secretary of State give way?

If right hon. and hon. Members do not mind, I should like to make a little progress.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Good Friday agreement commits all parties to work in good faith for the fulfilment of all parts of the agreement, including decommissioning?

I can confirm that. As recently as the Mitchell review and its outcome, Sinn Fein again recorded its view that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process. That is most important, because members of both traditions need to feel that their commitment is reciprocated, but, at present, that confidence has slumped.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will in a moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Was it not implicit throughout all the negotiations for the Good Friday agreement that Adams and McGuinness spoke for the IRA? Indeed, it was reported in The Sunday Times that McGuinness made explicit the fact that he spoke for the IRA. That is why we are in our present pass. Will the Secretary of State confirm that? Will he tell us whether the Irish Government support the legal process that we are about to put in train?

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into the intricacies of the relationships between different parts of the republican movement—I am not an expert on that subject. I only note that it was significant that, at the conclusion of the Mitchell review, the IRA issued a statement in which it pointed out, among other things, that it acknowledged the leadership of Sinn Fein in those matters. Implicit in that was an acceptance of the strategy, the policies and, indeed, the expressed positions that had been taken by Sinn Fein. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about the Irish Government in a moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I am going to save up the hon. Gentleman's interventions. It would be an enormous shame if I were to take them all in a rush at the outset of my remarks, because I should have nothing to look forward to later.

I am not going away.

I know that.

"I believe that the basis now exists for devolution to occur, for the institutions to be established, and for decommissioning to take place as soon as possible."

"there is no other way forward".

I recognise that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has ruled out the possibility of the purchase of decommissioned equipment. Will that proposal still be on the agenda in the difficult months that now face us?

I am not conscious of that proposal ever having been placed prominently on the agenda. However, in so far as it was being considered, it may still be considered in its proper place and by the appropriate people—the international decommissioning body and its three commissioners headed by General John de Chastelain.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. He has said some extraordinary things. Does he not think that, possibly, Sinn Fein might be a section of that opinion that does not wish to give up weapons because Sinn Fein and the IRA, as his own Prime Minister has said, are inextricably linked? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman therefore realises that, if the IRA does not want to give up weapons, Sinn Fein does not want to give up weapons, either.

As the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I was referring not to republican opinion but to nationalist opinion, and the key point stands. Anything that smacks of surrender is unjustified; nobody is seeking to humiliate anyone in these circumstances. I cannot think of anything that would be more destructive.

Is the Secretary of State aware that after the atrocities at Enniskillen, Omagh and Canary Wharf, world opinion expressed much the same sentiment as is now being expressed, but inevitably gravitated back towards support for Sinn Fein and their aims?

Public opinion was right then and it remains right—decommissioning needs to start. I was disappointed and slightly taken aback that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle the other day supported an early token act of decommissioning, his intervention was dismissed as inappropriate by the chairman of Sinn Fein. That is a lordly and arrogant rebuff to someone who has committed much to the peace process and who has been rewarded with a Nobel peace prize for his efforts.

rose>—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I give way first to my right hon. Friend.

Given what my right hon. Friend has said, and the broad measure of world support for decommissioning and the process, why is he terminating the north-south links and the intergovernmental links, when nobody could possibly blame the Irish Government for having played any part whatever in delaying decommissioning and when, indeed, they have been entirely positive in their contribution to the agreement?

I shall come to that in a moment. It is enormously regrettable that we have to suspend the north-south institutions and the implementation bodies, not least because already in their short time they are making a valuable contribution to life in the island of Ireland. However, all those institutions are interdependent; they are all interlocked in terms of the Good Friday agreement, to which we have all been signatories.

My patience is rewarded, and I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is much good will towards him in the Chamber today, but I hope that he will not risk sapping that good will by continuing to try to imitate Kafka in the opaqueness of his statements. Will he state categorically to the House how he believes that confidence, about which he rightly talked, is increased by non-publication of the de Chastelain report?

If the hon. Gentleman lived in Northern Ireland and had lived through the enormous encouragement and excitement that people in Northern Ireland have experienced with the establishment of those institutions, as well as through the disappointment and demoralisation that they feel now that those institutions are threatened, he would be focusing on something else, and something frankly more significant than a single report by General de Chastelain. The hon. Gentleman says that his patience has paid dividends. I must express my disappointment in him. Unless he comes up with rather more substantive interventions, I may not be tempted to give way again.

The Secretary of State should give way. It was emphasised in the House last week that we were discussing the Belfast agreement. In the light of the Secretary of State's answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), may I point out that the only link with Good Friday is that the innocent are suffering with the guilty, whereas it should be the guilty who suffer?

The House has heard the hon. Gentleman's point and will evaluate it.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I have already given way to him.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Last Thursday I urged him to ensure that if suspension must take place, the period of suspension will be as short as possible. Will he confirm that the review will be treated as a matter of urgency? Who is to conduct the review? Is it likely to be jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend and Mr. Cowen of the Irish Government?

Those are important details, which I need to consider with the Irish Government under the terms of paragraph 7 of the Good Friday agreement. We will do that speedily. It is important that every hon. Member understands the imperative for and urgency of our actions. If we do not put the operation of the institutions on hold, subsequent events would so severely compromise and shatter their operation, that they would rapidly and irreversibly unravel. No hon. Member should doubt—I do not believe that any hon. Member will doubt—that the First Minister and his colleagues would resign their positions in view of the loss of confidence in the Executive and the institutions.

If the Secretary of State intends to comment on the point that I am about to make later in his speech, I am happy to wait until then. What is the ingredient that is required for reinstating devolution? For the Secretary of State, is it simply a statement from the Provisional IRA that it intends to decommission and that it has a timetable, or will he ask for product up front?

It is not me who has to be satisfied. First, General de Chastelain and his commission have to be satisfied that all the paramilitary organisations are properly and effectively engaging not only with the principle of decommissioning, but with the modalities of how it will be achieved. More important than satisfying General de Chastelain and his colleagues, the community and public opinion in Northern Ireland must be satisfied. That means that both traditions in Northern Ireland must be satisfied that decommissioning is taking place on an acceptable, effective basis. Unless both traditions are equally satisfied, and confidence in the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement is properly rebuilt, the Executive and institutions will not be able to resume their current operation. That is the bottom line.

Is it not the case that not only the IRA, but the loyalists are not decommissioning? How does my right hon. Friend address Sinn Fein's point that the British Government are responding to an artificial deadline imposed by the Ulster Unionists? The real deadline is a couple of months down the road, in May.

I am sure that my hon. Friend was present at the beginning of my speech when I addressed that point by saying that the problem we face is indecision or reluctance to decommission not only on the part of the Provisional IRA but on the part of all the paramilitary organisations. De Chastelain has obtained from certain of the loyalist paramilitaries an undertaking that they would follow if the Provisional IRA were to decommission. That is progress—something we can tuck under our belt—but we have to be absolutely realistic, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be. The biggest such stumbling block is the Provisional IRA's inability even to address the need to give a clear and unequivocal indication of its intention to decommission, let alone when and how it will do so. Without any sense of recrimination, threat, anger or anything else, I say that that is what we need to make progress, and for confidence in the institutions to be rebuilt.

As that is such a massive problem, what does my right hon. Friend think of a national day of reconciliation on which all relevant bodies might act together to provide reassurance to the others?

That is a creative and imaginative suggestion. I have always said—without in any way conceding an equivalence between legally and illegally held weapons—that normalisation of the security profile and elimination of the threat should go hand in hand. I am very willing to give further thought to those general ideas.

I should like immediately to associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State's remarks about the people of Irvinestown. It was a devastating blow to that small and peaceful community when, at 7.20 on Sunday evening, a bomb exploded in the town and caused such damage. Can we as a House send one absolutely clear message to the men of violence, wherever they happen to come from? They will never succeed in their objectives by such dastardly actions, which are always, without exception, completely counter-productive.

The right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. He has already told us twice today that he welcomes the Bill. He has been calling for this suspension for weeks. Whether he sees the report has no bearing on his judgment; he has made it absolutely clear where he stands. Surely there is no point in pursuing this.

I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The House must have the maximum information available before reaching a decision: that is how it works. The Secretary of State rightly referred to the report both today and in his statement on Thursday, and, as right hon. and hon. Members have said—not just Conservatives, but Liberal Democrats and Unionists—if a report has been referred to, it is only proper for the information to be placed before the House so that all Members can reach a decision.

rose—

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a different view? The reason why the republicans, and certainly the IRA, are so isolated today is because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement. If we had not, if prisoner releases had been stopped and the rest of it, they would have had an excuse. They would have said, "Look. The British have not done what they claimed they would do." It is precisely because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement and the IRA has not even issued a statement on decommissioning that it is isolated, not us. That is recognised internationally.

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman because I sincerely and deeply believe that, had we stopped prisoner releases earlier, decommissioning would have started. The reason why the paramilitaries are isolated today is because of the courage of the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and of his colleagues in going into that Executive and testing whether they were prepared to decommission and be of their word. Sadly, we have found that that is not the case. It is deeply regrettable.

I note the seriousness of the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Perhaps that seriousness would be reinforced if he gave us the reasons why he feels that it is essential that that should be done by this Friday.

It is essential—as I think the hon. Gentleman, the Deputy First Minister, will be aware—because, in a democratic, civilised society, it is not right, practical or possible for people to share ministerial office for any length of time with those who have not completely renounced violence for good. If anyone is inextricably linked to the Provisional IRA—as Sinn Fein is—and if the Provisional IRA has failed to decommission any of its illegally held arms or explosives, it would not be right or proper for him or her to be in ministerial office for any length of time with other Ministers.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman did ask me a question. Although I should be very happy to allow him to intervene again, I should do him the justice of completing my answer. I shall then be only too pleased to give way to him again.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. My questions are asked only in the interests of clarity, which is so important in these issues. If I were to suggest that it should happen on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday—in the hope that that would provide time to achieve the type of movement on decommissioning that could prevent a suspension—would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to do it on Friday? Does he agree that we should provide that time, if there is a hope that it might work?

I would need a huge amount of convincing. Time and again the paramilitaries and their political friends have broken timetables and assurances, and failed to abide by understandings. The only way forward is either—as I hope—for decommissioning to have commenced to the satisfaction of the general by the end of the week or for the Secretary of State to suspend. I do not think that there is any other option.

I have listened intently to the right hon. Gentleman. Why does he think that a Minister should take away the rights of the electors in Northern Ireland? Ministers come and go and can be sacked, moved or defeated even in this country, but the characteristic of the Belfast agreement was that it gave the people of Northern Ireland the right to decide. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he wants their electoral rights taken away by Friday. When Assemblies are dissolved there are further elections. What makes him so sure that the Government should abolish the democratic electoral rights of the people of Northern Ireland? What gain would that bring to anyone?

It will be up to the House to decide what happens in a vote or a series of votes later tonight. I have told the Secretary of State clearly that he has my full support in introducing the Bill. I have confidence in his making the right decision and suspending on Friday because, as I said in answer to the Deputy First Minister a few moments ago, I believe that in a free, democratic, civilised, liberal democracy, people who fail to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives cannot hold ministerial office. It may be acceptable for them to hold office for a short time to encourage them to decommission. That is why I supported the establishment of the Executive and backed the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues when they entered into office with Sinn Fein. There was an understanding when they did so that there would be decommissioning within weeks. As we all know, after more than just a few weeks—we are now well into February—that has not happened. It is deeply regrettable, but that is the position that the Secretary of State and the House are in.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if General de Chastelain and the commission were to say that a few more days after Friday could produce a result, that would be enough for a possible route forward?

I would need to study carefully the text of what General de Chastelain said. As we do not have the current report and we are not getting very far with his text today, I am not confident. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The people of Northern Ireland, the House and world opinion have been let down time and again. We have been strung along with promises, understandings and timetables that have not been kept. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not confident of believing anything short of decommissioning. I would need an awful lot of convincing, even from a report from the general—even if the Secretary of State chose to publish it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from its inception with the Downing street declaration, the understanding that only parties totally committed to peaceful and democratic methods could be included has been inherent in the process? From then on there has been a continuous resiling from that principle. It is perfectly in order for the democratic majority in Northern Ireland to say that we are not going to sit down in an institution of government that claims to be democratic with the political representatives of a paramilitary terrorist group.

Over the past 18 months, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and I have clashed and disagreed over the Belfast agreement and its implementation, but on the point that he raises, we are probably as one. For no sustainable period can one have people who are inextricably linked to paramilitaries who are not decommissioning being Ministers in any part of a civilised democracy, such as the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I like to think that I can carry the whole House with that view. That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill and why I have—for some weeks, after it became abundantly clear that decommissioning was unlikely—been urging the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive and the Assembly.

rose—

Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members requested at a late stage to speak in this debate. I therefore make the plea for contributions to be brief.