If he will revise planning guidance to encourage small-scale enterprise in rural areas. [120139]

National planning policy guidance already encourages local planning authorities to plan positively for small-scale enterprises in rural areas. In preparing the rural White Paper, we are considering whether that guidance might be strengthened or clarified, consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If we want a prosperous and sustainable countryside, there must be more opportunities for people to work there, rather than having to go off to towns and cities to work. If farmers are to diversify successfully, as we wish them to do under the rural development programme and rural enterprise schemes, planning guidance must encourage that, and not stand in the way.

I am always willing to consider visiting my hon. Friends' constituencies—especially those that contain breweries. The performance and innovation unit report on rural areas suggested that planning was a barrier to diversification. However, analysis of responses to that report shows that some local planning authorities need better to interpret and implement national planning policies to encourage development to meet local needs. However, we are examining the matter and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is holding a seminar at the end of the month, which local stakeholders will attend, to see how the planning system can be improved to further assist farm diversification.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to sustainable development. I am sure that greater clarity is needed in the planning process. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, there is now a crisis in agriculture and in rural areas generally. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to planning authorities that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable small and medium-sized developments.

I am pleased to give that assurance. Policy planning guidance note 7 already gives strong encouragement to local planning authorities to provide for commercial development in their development plans, noting that many commercial and light manufacturing activities are acceptable in rural areas. The note encourages the reuse and adaptation of rural buildings and allows authorities to discriminate in favour of commercial—as opposed to residential—use. Such matters will certainly be raised in the seminar that I mentioned and the Government wish to take the matter further.

I urge my right hon. Friend to give the strongest possible lead to local authorities on implementing sustainable employment schemes in rural areas. As he knows, some of us represent rural constituencies that were massively neglected by the previous Administration and rural Conservative Members for decades. The legacy of poverty, isolation and despair is something to behold and the Government need to act.

We are introducing a rural White Paper soon—later this year—because we realise that rural regeneration, the breakdown of services, social exclusion and rural governance are all problems that were allowed to deteriorate badly under the Conservative Administrations of the past two decades. We believe that the White Paper will redress those problems in a visionary and practical way.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in promoting business, he does not really care whether greenfields are destroyed? Yesterday, the Daily Express said that, in pursuing development, the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that

greenfield—and even Green Belt—sites could have to be sacrificed

There is no point in waxing lyrical about a green and pleasant land.

The hon. Gentleman should not believe all that he reads in newspapers. Let me make it clear that, under the Labour Government, the area of green belt has extended considerably, and building on green belt, which was so noticeable under the previous Administration, has finally been reversed.

If he will make a statement on the proportion of brownfield and greenfield land to be used to build new houses in the south-east. [120140]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made his position clear in his proposed changes to draft regional planning guidance—RPG9. He expects that London will continue to achieve more than 80 per cent. of residential development on previously developed land and he proposes that local authorities in the south-east outside London should seek to achieve at least 60 per cent. of all new housing development on previously developed land.

Will the Minister reconsider the Government's figures for West Sussex, which he will be aware cannot be achieved other than on the basis of 60 per cent. greenfield and 40 per cent brownfield, because there is insufficient brownfield land available?

No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I shall remind him of the figures. Under the existing structure plan—the one that is in force, not the new arrangements—the provision in West Sussex as estimated by the south-east regional planning committee, Serplan, is 3,212 homes per year on average, compared with illustrative figures that we sent out to the chairman of Serplan a couple of weeks ago of 2,930 homes per year. There is no question that we shall impose an unreasonable additional burden on West Sussex—that simply is not true and it is wrong to pretend that it is.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, especially in the south-east, affordability is a key issue in planning future housing development? Does he also agree that a region having housing stock that is out of reach of most of the people living in that region is bad for the future of those people?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, which is why, in PPG3, the Government placed strong emphasis on making mixed developments, containing an appropriate balance of affordable housing, an important element of new development where necessary throughout the country. We shall continue to pursue that policy to ensure that all sections of the community have the opportunity to obtain a decent home.

Is the Minister aware that almost all the land outside urban settlements in my constituency is covered by an existing green belt designation? My constituents derive no comfort from the philosophy expounded by his colleagues, that building on existing green belt can be made up by redesignating green belt elsewhere. Will not that sort of thinking lead to the whole of the south-east, especially the areas just outside London, being concreted over?

No. As a former Minister, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the importance of the evidence, which clearly shows that the Government's target of 60 per cent. of new housing development in the south-east being on brownfield sites can be met. Those figures are confirmed by the national land use database figures, which show that the south-east contains 5,460 hectares of empty brownfield land that is suitable for housing development. It is important that development focuses on brownfield sites, and the Government are absolutely clear about their commitment to achieving that.

If he will make a statement on progress made in reducing the number of rough sleepers. [120141]

If he will make a statement on progress made in providing services to rough sleepers. [120147]

We are implementing the proposals in our national strategy "Coming in from the Cold". I am pleased to announce that I have agreed the final step required to ensure that there are enough hostel beds for vulnerable rough sleepers in London. We will spend £9.6 million on 150 hostel beds, which will bring the total to the target set out in the strategy. In December, we met our first milestone of reducing the number of rough sleepers by one tenth. January street counts showed that there had been a fall of around one third in the number of people sleeping rough in central London since June 1998.

That is most welcome news, but I would like to take the argument a little further. Clearly, there is now a commitment to deal with rough sleeping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important part of the new package is to ensure that rough sleepers do not return to the streets? Does she also agree that we should share the good practice of many local authorities in and around London, such as short-term accommodation for the young—STAY—in Crawley and the foyer projects of local government, the London and Quadrant housing trust and the Housing Corporation, which give young people stability and ensure that they do not return to the streets?

My hon. Friend is right; it is very important that we do more, both to prevent people needing to end up on the streets and to ensure that, once we get them inside having slept rough, we sustain their ability to remain in stable accommodation and work with them consistently. Projects such as the ones that she described in Crawley are exactly those that we are seeking to develop throughout the country, so that people recognise that coming to London does not mean pavements covered in gold, and they are able to find a settled life in their home area.

I was very pleased to welcome the Minister to Slough to open a practical project at the Look Ahead hostel, offering 18 places, to reduce the number of rough sleepers in our town. It is clear from speaking to its residents that crucial to improving services for rough sleepers is the quality of health care that they receive. Many have had problems with drug and alcohol abuse, and if health services and GPs do not provide them with care, they are likely to return to the streets. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Department of Health ways in which it can work with housing projects to improve health care for rough sleepers and former rough sleepers to keep them off the streets?

I was delighted to visit and open the Serena Hall hostel in Slough last week. It is another good example of co-operation between central and local government and the Housing Corporation to ensure appropriate services. We know that many people end up sleeping rough because they abuse drugs or alcohol, but that the necessary services have simply not been available at the time and in the place that they needed them. I assure my hon. Friend that we are already working very closely with the Department of Health. We are joining funds in order to establish contact and assessment teams to pick up people who have specific problems, and to ensure that they come inside and receive appropriate services. Mental and physical health and the tackling of drug and alcohol abuse are central to the strategy.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) who, when he was Housing Minister, launched the rough sleepers initiative, which was so successful under the previous Government? In working out how successful the RSI has been, does she agree that it is important to compare winter figures with winter figures and summer figures with summer figures?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the figures that I gave demonstrate a reduction not only since we began the strategy, but year on year from January to January. I am really sorry that he is not full-heartedly behind the policy. The problem with the previous Government's policy was that about £250 million was spent and much new accommodation provided, but there was no reduction in the number of people sleeping rough. Our strategy builds on what the previous Government did, but goes much further. We believe that it is not necessary for people to live on the streets, and we will make sure that they do not.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for communities. [120142]

Seventeen new deal for communities pathfinder partnerships have already received offers of long-term support of more than £770 million to help them implement strategies for real change. That funding will help communities tackle interconnected problems, such as unemployment, crime, educational under-achievement and poor health, in a fully integrated and joined-up way. A second round of 22 areas across England, including Derby, have submitted their proposals for achieving long-term sustainable regeneration.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He referred to the bid from my constituency, Derby, North. May I stress the need for the bid to go through smoothly? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the decision on that will be taken on 22 May? To illustrate the strength of the bid, may I read two quick paragraphs from a vision statement—

No.

Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Gentleman should save that for an Adjournment debate.

As my hon. Friend said, Derby is one of the new areas under consideration. It is clear that a number of areas in Derby are greatly in need of such a programme. We will make the decision as quickly as we can.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister say how much less the Government spent on urban regeneration last year than was spent in the last year of the previous Government?

At well over £2.5 billion, our regeneration programme is considerably more substantial in its direction and concentration in regeneration areas and developments.

The Deputy Prime Minister has again failed to answer the most basic question. May I commend to him for bedtime reading his Department's own annual report, which states that £1.4 billion was spent last year on regeneration programmes, as against £17 million less under the previous Conservative Government? Does he accept that, whatever the good intentions, and for all the repeated announcements and reheating of old rhetoric, the new deal for communities has been treacly slow to get off the ground? Does he agree that the local election results last week in London, Hartlepool, the midlands and many other urban areas were a clear verdict on Labour's failure to deliver for its urban heartlands?

When the hon. Gentleman has been in the House a little longer, he will understand the kind of problems that we inherited from the previous Administration. In the areas that we have identified to be new deal communities, the mortality rate is 30 per cent. higher than the average, and levels of unemployment, burglary and other problems associated with new deal areas are considerably higher. We have developed selected programmes in health, education and tackling crime, all to be added to the regeneration programme, in addition to the £800 million that has been designated for the new deal areas. That is the scale of resources that we are directing at those problems, and it is much greater than under the previous Administration.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the powerful film by Fergal Keane, which was shown on BBC television last night and dealt with the Lincoln Green estate in my constituency? I am glad to say that, since the film was shot, a start has been made on regenerating that area. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the people in the area who are working to make it a better place to live? Incidentally, there was a swing to Labour in the local elections there last Thursday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the kind of estate that could benefit from new deal for community funding?

I quite agree. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the key point of community involvement in the schemes. They are not simply about councils getting together, but are about the community's active involvement and different Departments joining up to ensure that the schemes are directed positively. All the schemes show a willingness to innovate and a long-term commitment to deliver. We have adopted precisely that strategy, and it fits the example that my hon. Friend cited.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the new deal has been a poor deal for constituencies such as the Vale of York, and that it has failed dismally to help the young unemployed or communities? The Deputy Prime Minister should focus the Government's attention on processing applications for state aid for pig farmers and for Rover. That would help industry much more than his four schemes.

I think that the hon. Lady has mixed up several schemes. We are considering the new deal for communities, whereas she referred to the new deal on unemployment. The scheme that she mentions is working. As we promised, we are getting more and more people back to work, and there has been a 70 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment; that is an important achievement.

If he will make a statement on progress made in combating homelessness. [120143]

Shortly after taking office, the Government introduced secondary legislation to strengthen the safety net for households accepted as statutorily homeless and ensure that they were given reasonable preference in the allocation of permanent local authority housing. The housing Green Paper, which was published on 4 April, includes proposals to fulfil the Government's election manifesto promise to place a new duty on local authorities to protect those who are homeless through no fault of their own, and whose needs are a priority.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I welcome the proposals in the Green Paper and look forward to their development in the Bill. Will my hon. Friend consider taking further the steps that the Green Paper outlines by placing a duty on local councils to prepare and publish comprehensive strategies to prevent homelessness? That would be the best way forward. I understand that the homelessness taskforce in Scotland has made such a proposal. Will my hon. Friend consider extending it to England and Wales?

There is a strong emphasis in the Green Paper on preventative work. We should like local authorities, in partnership with the voluntary sector, to take a more strategic approach to tackling the causes of homelessness and preventing their recurrence. The housing Green Paper includes a proposal to require local authorities to carry out an audit of all forms of homelessness in their areas and the provisions for dealing with it. They will be required to consult locally on their findings and the steps that they propose for dealing with any problems. They will also be required to incorporate their findings and proposed actions in their housing strategy. The Green Paper is a consultative document, and we shall consider carefully the responses to it.

On Sunday evening, I walked past nine people sleeping rough outside the Army and Navy store in Victoria street. Clearly, the Government's action is deficient. What further action and incentives can the Government introduce to ensure that extra places are made available for those who sleep rough in London?

More beds are available for the homeless in central London now than at any time in the past. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right. People slept rough under Tory Governments and people sleep rough under Labour Governments, but we are trying to do something about it. We are doing a darn sight more than the previous Government.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the beacon councils scheme. [120144]

The scheme is making excellent progress. More than 1,500 delegates have already attended roadshows to learn from beacon best practice. We have also announced 11 new themes for the second year, all of which involve council services that directly affect people's lives and the communities in which they live.

Will my hon. Friend commend Coventry city council for achieving beacon status? It was one of six councils to do so, out of about 90 applicants. Will she also commend the Coventry partnership for achieving a 44 per cent. reduction in crime overall and a 25 per cent. reduction in retail crime? Does she agree that that is a tremendous achievement and a pointer in the right direction for the Government's policies?

Yes; we were pleased to be able to award beacon status to Coventry city council last year. That reflected its excellence in preventing local shopping and town-centre crime and disorder and its overall good performance, to which my hon. Friend alluded. The particular strength was its partnership with the police and local business. As well as achieving the reductions that he mentions, it has led to greater use of shops and car parks in the city centre and has therefore had a beneficial effect on shoppers and local businesses.

With so many councils now back under Conservative control, will the Minister set out objectively and transparently the criteria used to select beacon councils and beacon schemes so that there can be no scintilla of a suggestion of political partiality in their selection?

We shall have to see what the implications are for the overall performance standards of those councils that have changed to Conservative control. The record of Tory authorities on performance in local services is not good. The hon. Gentleman will have read the prospectus on beacon status schemes, so he will know that an advisory panel applies clear and rigorous criteria in judging the many applications from across the political spectrum. He will also know that councils controlled by all political parties were awarded beacon status in the first phase of the scheme.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be incentives for district councils, not just the metropolitan and unitary authorities, to apply for beacon status?

Certainly. There is now a list of 11 themes for the second year of the beacon councils scheme, including a wide range of services that are important to local people. Many are delivered at district level. We have tried to ensure that the scheme includes the services that county councils deliver so that they can participate. It also includes cross-cutting themes so that we can encourage those councils that are making good progress in integrating their services across several departmental areas. As in the first phase, I am sure that councils will be tremendously interested in applying for beacon status.

What progress has been made towards completing the schemes in the targeted programme of road improvements. [120145]

My noble Friend Lord Whitty confirmed on 3 February that we would let contracts for 13 of the 37 schemes this year. The Government have provided an additional £25 million in the Budget to enable contract awards for six schemes to be brought forward. We have announced the addition of four schemes to the programme. Government policy on roads is no longer based on the old system of predict and build; it is based on the new approach to appraisal, against the five criteria of environmental impact, safety, economy, accessibility and integration.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. He will know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), is coming to view the Dorchester relief road, which is in my constituency, on 13 July. He will also know that that scheme was ready to be built when the Government came to power and that they have become unpopular by cutting road schemes. May I urge him, in a spirit of cross-party support, to come to the aid of the Weymouth and Portland Labour party, which lost so heavily, and the Liberal Democrats, who control the county council and lost even more heavily in my constituency, and award them that scheme, which will be universally welcomed by all political parties?

The hon. Gentleman was doing quite well in impressing me until the second part of his question. His criticisms about cutting road programmes should be directed to the previous Conservative Government. The 500 road schemes decided in 1990 represented a wish list, because 60 per cent. of them had not seen the light of day before the previous Government left office.

Devon county council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats, underspent by £1.4 million on its roads maintenance budget last year, despite the appalling condition of the roads in my constituency. I fell off my bike recently, having hit one of the many potholes that are the result of the council's incompetence. Is that not another argument for the Deputy Prime Minister to give Exeter city council—another beacon council, Labour run—control of its own affairs, and the unitary status that it so desperately needs?

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. This is really about road programmes. I should apologise to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce): the Weymouth relief road is a local road, the improvement is among those that we are considering, and we have talked to the local authority about it. We are not too happy about the scheme that they have presented, but we are discussing how they might present it in a way more acceptable to us.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister say that he really cares about our crumbling road infrastructure and keep a straight face, given that he is spending less than the Conservative Government on road maintenance? Will he confirm figures that I have obtained from the House of Commons Library, which reveal that he is not only spending less than the average spent by the previous Government on road maintenance, but spending less on transport in total—less on local transport grants and credit approvals, less on infrastructure improvements and trunk roads on motorways, less on London Transport and less on support for the railways? When will he admit that the only programme on which he is spending more—an extra £100 million—is that represented by the running costs of his own Department? How is he to improve the transport infrastructure if he continues to lose all his battles with the Treasury?

The hon. Gentleman's rant is just not true. The resources that we have provided for maintenance are a considerable increase on what was provided by the previous Administration. We have spent £2.8 billion on trunk road maintenance; the previous Administration cut road maintenance spending considerably.

Given the encouraging progress on the roads programme to which my right hon. Friend referred, and the fact that the A21 is at the forefront of his mind, may I ask him whether, if—as is assumed—the access to Hastings study will result in a yes later this summer, the scheme will get somewhere in the next few years?

As we said in our paper on the roads programme, the 37 schemes that we identified are to go ahead; the others were passed to local authorities to consider in their transport plans. As I said to the hon. Member for South Dorset, some are to be dealt with in that way. We will give them the order of priority, and exercise the criteria, laid down in our paper.

When he expects to bring forward proposals for the reform of the system of allocating funds to local authorities by reference to standard spending assessments. [120146]

Decisions about the merits of the various options for reform will not be taken until we have consulted widely this summer.

Does the Minister accept that, for my constituents in South Gloucestershire, SSA might as well stand for "schools short-changed again", because for as long the council has existed, it has been the worst-funded local education authority in the country in terms of primary schools? Does she accept that my constituents will be angry if a whole Parliament goes by without reform of that unfair scheme? Will she tell them today that, before the current Parliament is through, we will have a fairer scheme in place?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows from previous Question Times, I am keen for us to move to a new form of funding, but that requires co-operation from local government, as well as ideas and determination from central Government. We have a system that I support, which recognises that different parts of the country need different levels of support from central Government. We believe that we should respond to need, and it is from that basis that we start.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system of allocating local authority funds creates too many inequalities and anomalies? For that reason, it is important that the review be carried out as quickly as possible to ensure that local authorities such as the one in my area, the London borough of Havering, can resolve some of their difficulties in delivering public services.

We knew when we came to power that there were great problems within the local government finance system. We have made some adjustments. More than that, we have substantially increased the amount of money going into local government compared with what went in under the previous regime. It is a question of ensuring both that we run the economy to get more money for good public services, and that we get a distribution system that is as fair as possible. We are seeking to do that, but I repeat: there is no holy grail and no system that everyone will think is fair to them.

Will the Minister undertake not to repeat the outrageous fix whereby, in the life of the current Parliament, shire counties will lose out by £623 million? Will she abandon the so-called front line first policy, under which funds will be diverted from properly elected local councils, with funding decisions being made by Ministers in Whitehall? The move was attacked recently by Sir Jeremy Beecham, the Labour leader of the Local Government Association, as amounting to

the strange death of local democracy.

Let me nail once and for all the absolute rubbish that the hon. Gentleman comes out with time and again about funding for shire areas. Far from the position that he suggests, we have put substantially more money into local government in the past three years, including into the shires. If shire authorities received the same amount of money now as they received under his regime, they would be receiving substantially less. We have uplifted the amount that has gone in, and his crazy creative accounting fools no one.

Does the Minister agree that the grand objective of the review should be to reduce the differentials between the winners and losers under the existing system?

That could be one objective. We are canvassing a range of objectives. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that if we reduce the differentials, we also take less account of differential need.

What is the average percentage increase in council tax for residents of band D properties in shire districts of England in 2000–01 from the previous year. [120149]

The average band D council tax for residents in shire districts is £848, an increase of 6.6 per cent. However, I think that a more accurate representation of what people really pay is the average council tax per dwelling. For shire districts, that figure is £735, an increase of 6.7 per cent.

Whether the figure is 6.6 or 6.7 per cent, is it not true that the ordinary member of the public does not understand a word that we say about area cost adjustments and standard spending assessments? The public understand only that—regardless of who controls their council, and of their council's location and efficiency—each year, their council tax increases, while councils struggle to maintain services. Is that situation not the result of the fact that the current Chancellor, and previous Chancellors in previous Governments, have shifted the taxation burden from central Government to local government? Is it not time that we had a system that was transparent and honest?

The hon. Gentleman says that it does not matter who controls a council, but the fact is that in Labour-controlled authorities, the average council tax per dwelling is lower by about £100 than it is in Conservative-controlled or Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities. As for the Government's record—I shall not even begin to try to speak for the previous Government—we have increased the grant to local authorities by 8 per cent. in real terms. Moreover, in the three years since the previous general election, unlike the three years leading up to it, that increase has allowed local authorities to increase spending by about 20 per cent, compared with a real-terms spending cut and diminution in service standards under the previous Government.

Is the Minister aware of the formation, last month, of the all-party fair deal for shire districts group, which I have the honour to co-chair? Does she agree that part of the problem is the fact that the SSA system fails to recognise the needs of smaller urban and semi-rural areas—areas such as North-West Leicestershire—which have growing populations and significant levels of unemployment and deprivation? Is she confident that the reform to which the Minister for Local Government and the Regions referred a moment ago will produce a better and more effective system for shire districts?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said, we are hoping that the creation of a fairer system will be the outcome of our review. However, such a system will depend on co-operation from all types of local authorities. If we are talking about a system that distributes money differently, we must be able to reach agreement not only with the authorities that might benefit from a different system, but with those that might feel that the current system is in their interests. Achieving that consensus is important.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions told my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that he was wrong to say that the Government were starving shire counties of funds. Can the Under-Secretary therefore explain why, this year, residents of the shire district of Worcestershire—which has a Labour-controlled council—are facing a council tax increase of almost 10 per cent? Are they facing that increase because the Labour-controlled council is inefficient? Are they facing it because the Government are starving the shire district of Worcestershire of funds that rightfully belong to it? Or is the increase—as Opposition Members believe—part of the Government's programme of stealth taxes? Can the Minister also explain to the pensioners of Worcestershire how they will pay that increase with the measly 75p increase in their pensions?

Perhaps I can begin to attempt to unravel that ragbag of a question. I remind the hon. Lady that a council tax increase in any local authority is a direct consequence both of Government grant—which has increased—and of councils' decisions on their spending. It is right that local people, as well as Government, should contribute to the improvement of local services. The Tories are pursuing the argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' I am answering the question as I choose to answer it. The Tories are pursuing the argument about stealth tax, but their figures are absolutely wrong. The Government have increased grant to local authorities in real terms by 8 per cent., compared with a real-terms cut of more than 4 per cent. by the previous Government. That demonstrates the different commitment of this Government to local government and local services.

What steps he is taking to ensure that local people are involved in renewing disadvantaged communities. [120150]

The active involvement of local people is critically important in regenerating deprived neighbourhoods, as recognised in the social exclusion unit's recently published consultation document on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. My Department's programmes, particularly the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget, already place great emphasis on the genuine involvement of local people at all stages.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when it comes to regenerating disadvantaged communities, between 1999 and 2002 this Government will spend six times as much as the Conservatives did during their last three years in office, simply in terms of the single regeneration budget? Will she confirm that it is not just a question of money, and that it is essential that local people are involved in the process that decides how the money is spent? Will she confirm that when we talk about disadvantaged communities, we are not talking only about areas in the north of England, Scotland or Wales, because some are in the south of England?

I can confirm my hon. Friend's point about money. Across the board since May 1997, the Government have spent almost £5.5 billion on regeneration schemes. That has been spent by my Department, and in education, health and elsewhere. That shows our commitment to regeneration and to helping those who were disadvantaged for two decades under the previous regime. We have learned from previous approaches to regeneration that unless local people are involved from the outset, and unless they have a say in decisions about priorities for their areas and how those should be achieved, any change will not be sustainable. My hon. Friend will see that the new deal for communities has been applied outside urban areas because there are pockets of deprivation in all parts of the country, and the Government are committed to tackling deprivation wherever it occurs.

When he last met the road haulage forum to discuss transport issues. [120151]

The last meeting was on 17 April.

I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. Given that the much-trumpeted cut in vehicle excise duty applies to only a tiny minority of heavy goods vehicles, will the Minister recognise that with fuel now by far the most expensive in Europe, with domestic profit margins slashed to the bone, with heavier foreign trucks seizing British business and with the Government taking seven times as much from the vehicle user as they spend on roads, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains in the sights of road hauliers in my constituency as public enemy number one?

The hon. Gentleman ought to contain himself—he is not on Lambeth council any longer. I do not recognise the true views of the road haulage industry in his remarks. This year's Budget gave a substantial boost to the trucking industry. For most lorries, real-terms taxation remained the same, and for some—notably the 40-tonne, five-axle lorry—the 10 per cent. cut in vehicle excise duty, worth £45 million, will provide an important boost to the international competitiveness of the UK haulage industry. In addition, the industry will benefit from increased spending on congestion hot spots and new roads schemes out of the extra £280 million for investment in transport announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the Freight Transport Association said:

For transport, this has been a positive Budget.

Have not all those meetings with the forum clouded the Government's judgment? Is it not simply because of pressure from the forum that they have made the ill-judged decision to introduce 44-tonne lorries? Why have they listened only to the forum and totally ignored the advice from the major railfreight operator EWS, which has made it absolutely clear that the introduction of those lorries will reduce by 19 per cent. the share of freight carried on our railways? Will the Minister at least accept the need to do something and consider reducing railfreight access charges?

The introduction of the 44-tonne lorry announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget was made at the recommendation of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which calculated that it would reduce lorry trips by about 100 million a year. That is a significant contribution to the environment, and this Government, with our well-known commitment to the environment, are delighted to have made that judgment.

If he will make a statement on progress in (a) the revaluation of non-domestic properties in England and (b) the revising of the distribution of the income from non-domestic council tax payments. [120152]

The rating revaluation of non-domestic properties took effect on 1 April. We have no plans to revise the way in which the income from non-domestic rates is redistributed back to local authorities, the current redistribution being based on the size of the local population.

May I draw attention to the problems and difficulties that small businesses are facing in town and city centres because of the revaluation of their properties? It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that that hardship is reduced in all ways possible. On the redistribution of income from non-domestic rates, may I draw attention to the fact that the Conservative Government withdrew the support to parish and town councils from the industrial rate? Will my right hon. Friend consider reinstating some of that resource to the smaller authorities so that they can generate much greater interest in their communities and provide the necessary services that come with parish and town council status?

The revaluation, which took effect on 1 April, means that the amount paid nationally in rates remains broadly the same, even though rateable values have increased by 25 per cent. That is because the rate poundage has been reduced from 48.9p to 41.6p. My hon. Friend will also want to know that we have recognised the particular pressures on small businesses, so for this year the maximum increase for any small business is 5 per cent., and in subsequent years it will be 7.5 per cent. At the same time, we have raised the level defining a small business to £12,000.

What steps he is taking to minimise the number of empty properties. [120153]

We have successfully encouraged a significant number of local authorities to adopt empty homes reduction strategies. From this year, we are requiring all authorities to publish indicators of their performance in managing their own stock and returning private sector vacant stock to use. We have set up an empty property advisory group to develop an effective policy aimed at building on the steps that we have already taken.

Before the Minister authorises the carpeting of what is left of greenfield Sussex with thousands upon thousands of new houses, will he take steps to change the council tax system, which gives a perverse incentive to leave properties empty? In Lewes district 812 properties get a 50 per cent. discount for being second homes or holiday homes, and 383 properties that get a 100 per cent. discount because they are unoccupied for six months or more. Will he have a word with the Chancellor, so that leaving properties empty will attract a penalty, not a benefit, for the owner?

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point—up to a point. We shall examine in the White Paper the issue that he raises about empty properties. Although his question was phrased in a rather churlish way, the local council in Lewes has made quite good progress in reducing the number of empty properties, which has just about halved in the past four years. We would like other local authorities to emulate that example.