What recent discussions he has had with Virgin Trains on the rail service to Manchester and the north-west. [128400]

It is the franchising director's responsibility to monitor the two franchises that Virgin Trains holds: west coast main line and cross country. He is in regular contact with Virgin Trains about all its services, including those to Manchester and the north-west.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the travelling public in the north-west, served by Virgin Trains, hold the strong view that the standard of that service is appalling? It is not punctual often enough; it is shoddy and shabby; and, more importantly, is it very over-priced. Can he get the message across to Virgin Trains that we do not want to live for ever on promises from it? Can he scotch the rumours about delays in upgrading the west coast main line? As he is well aware, it is important to invest in that infrastructure so that we can have a world-class train service on the west coast and up to Scotland.

I am well aware of the complaints made about the services of Virgin Trains; I travel by train quite often and passengers come up to me and make that point very clearly. The company's target was that services should arrive within 10 minutes of the expected time and about 80.6 per cent. of services achieved it. The service has improved by 8 per cent., but that is a pretty miserable record. To be fair, the desperate need for investment in the west coast line has to be taken into account. We faced problems in that Railtrack and Virgin reached an agreement on the cost of modernisation, which they estimated to be about £2.3 billion; the figure is now £5.2 billion. That two private companies can produce such different estimates does not make it easy to modernise the west coast line. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall ensure that the modern standard of line that has been guaranteed is delivered. He knows that the Director General of Fair Trading and the regulator are questioning Virgin Trains about fares.

I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that, unless more trains arrive in accordance with the timetable—thus reducing the lateness that is so typical of the north-west line—the transfer of people from road to rail will not be achieved? Does he also agree that a town such as Macclesfield deserves a modern railway station as it is one of the major profit centres for Virgin in the north-west? Will he press Virgin, Railtrack and all those involved to make the necessary investment in the station and the track as well?

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the reliability record is far worse than under public ownership, but I make it clear that investment is still the critical factor. I have already referred to the major miscalculation of the resources needed to modernise that line. The regulator is investigating, with Virgin and Railtrack, the cost of that operation. I hope that there will be a statement shortly, especially on Railtrack's contribution, and that we can get on with modernising the line. The Strategic Rail Authority is very much involved. There is an important difference between the previous Administration's approach under privatisation and ours; we are trying to bring back public interest in the management of our railways.

Although I do not condone the performance of Virgin or Railtrack, the upgrading has started—we have waited many years for it—and the new tilting trains have been ordered, for which my right hon. Friend should take some credit. I have received a briefing from Railtrack today, and it seems to be getting its act together, but does he not agree that it is a great shame that all the track-laying equipment—and other heavy equipment—used to modernise our railways has been built abroad? Will he consider ways in which to help British manufacturers to get involved in those contracts?

My hon. Friend is right. We are already seeing an increase in the number of people travelling by rail, even on Virgin. There has been an increase of about 17 per cent. on average in rail passenger numbers since May 1997. The improvements that we are making and our commitment to the long term are important contributory factors in that. My concern about the manufacturing of rolling stock goes back to when we were in opposition. The problem is that no one was prepared to make a commitment to the long-term planning of the rail industry. We are now correcting that and, with our announcement on the 10-year transport plan, we will give a future to the long-term development of the railways and transport in this country.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least acknowledge that the west coast main line upgrade has started and that the money is being provided by the privatised rail industry—money that he would never have been able to obtain from the Treasury? In comparison, as we approach the general election, why are we still waiting for Labour's so-called transport plan to be announced, let alone started? What have the Government been doing for the past three years? As they feed the press, day after day, with speculation about £50 billion, £80 billion, £140 billion or £160 billion, will he reflect on his own words about what people really think? Did not he say, "They think, 'Isn't this spinning and spinning is about lying'"?

In 18 years of a Tory Administration, we had a decline in the use of the public transport service and disinvestment on a massive scale, but in three years, this Government have produced their first White Paper, the first piece of—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!] If the Opposition had thought a hit more about what they were doing, they would not have ended up in a mess. We have a White Paper, legislation and a major announcement of long-term investment in transport. That is why people now have faith in the development of an integrated transport system.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the South West of England regional development agency in letting the former HMS Osprey site on Portland. [128401]

The South West of England regional development agency is developing a framework plan for the former Royal Naval air station on Portland and a public consultation exhibition seeking local views was held at the end of June. I understand that the hon. Gentleman met the deputy chairman of the RDA yesterday to discuss development of the site.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer, but she will know that three years ago, the South Dorset economic partnership was dealing with the former Ministry of Defence sites very effectively. However, there is no permanent tenant on the site as yet and I am told by the South West of England RDA that dealing with other Government agencies—namely the MOD and the Crown Estate—is the problem. It also tells me that it is being held up by a consultation over flooding with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Can she please make sure that Ministers take a personal interest in the matter to cut through the problem and get some of the so-called joined-up government that we hear so much about?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the RDA is getting on with the job. It took responsibility for the site from 30 March and has already got a public consultation up and running. Although he was unable to attend the exhibition, he has seen the plans, which are working well, so he knows that there is a site of special scientific interest within the site. Obviously, we have to deal with that properly and undertake proper consultation, but I can assure him that the RDA, with our backing, is doing all that it can to make sure that proper and appropriate development takes place on the site.

What plans his Department has to encourage the economic development of rural economies. [128402]

The regional development agencies, established in April 1999, have all drawn up regional economic strategies, which fully recognise the needs of rural as well as urban areas. In pursuing rural development, they have at their direct disposal the £29 million rural programme and round 5 single regeneration budget funds, which included some £70 million to be spent on rural areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that the rural group of Labour MPs has recently published a manifesto. Although we acknowledge that the Government have done much and are doing much, there is a lot still to be done. Can he tell us today when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to publish the rural White Paper, for which we are waiting? Can he commit the Government to ensuring that the White Paper represents an action plan to address problems in rural areas? In particular, will he assure the House that changes will be made to the planning regime to ensure that it helps to achieve the diversification that so many of our farmers need if they are to secure a reasonable income?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the manifesto produced by many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches is an extremely good document by any standards. We expect to publish the rural White Paper in the autumn. It will take account of my hon. Friends' proposals, and it will be a wide-ranging, practical and ambitious paper covering the whole range of rural services : regeneration, access to services, new directions for agriculture, social exclusion, rural empowerment, conservation and recreation, and rural proofing.

If the Minister is so committed to the regeneration of rural economies, why are so many of the Government's initiatives on regeneration massively underspent? Is he aware that the single regeneration budget has been underspent by £45 million since 1997, that the European regional development fund has been underspent by £0.25 billion since 1994, and that the Minister's wonderful new scheme, the new deal for communities, spent only 2 per cent. of its budget in 1998–99 and less than half last year? Does he accept that, as a result of the massive mountain of bureaucracy and the Government's failure to co-ordinate these initiatives, rural economies have been offered a feast but are getting a famine? Will he at least publish details of those underspends and the reasons for them, and take action to stop them?

The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We are aware of underspend, but we are working with local communities precisely to increase their capacity to utilise those funds. He has ignored the fact that the actual spend on countryside programmes will increase in the current three-year period from £128 million in 1998–99 to a projected £174 million by 2001–02, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the rural development plan, which includes a 60 per cent. increase to £1.6 billion and a degree of modulation for expenditure on the countryside. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, in making a fair point, did not acknowledge the huge increase in expenditure that is now going into the countryside.

Given that a good, well-maintained water supply is vital to any regeneration in rural communities, has my right hon. Friend had time to study the Kelda proposals to sell Yorkshire Water back to its users? It seems blatantly to be trying to foist its debt on to my constituents and others in Yorkshire. Does he agree that there should be a public inquiry into this so-called sell-off, and that the managers, who have been incompetent and greedy over the years, should be held to account? They have put us all in danger by mismanaging a vital resource.

My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the Kelda proposals for Yorkshire Water. This is primarily a matter for the Director General of Water Services, whose approval is required before such proposals can proceed. He issued a consultation paper, which has not quite run its course—I think that the process ends on 17 July. Ministers do not have a direct responsibility in this area, but I have overriding responsibilities to ensure public health and to meet environmental obligations. I am expecting to see the Director General of Water Services later this week to discuss this very issue.

Given that agriculture, which is the major industry in rural areas, has experienced a 70 per cent. decline in income under the Government, that 400 post offices closed last year and many more expect to close in the coming weeks and months, and that the Royal Mail has decided to stop delivering post by private vehicle, which will detract from the service provided to countless rural businesses, how can the Government take any credit for any development in rural areas? [Interruption.] If the question is about—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a question, but because of the noise, it has not been heard. Will the hon. Gentleman begin again at "How will the Government"? I at least heard him.

I will willingly repeat my question, Madam Speaker.

I must say that I cannot but admire the brass neck of representatives of the Tory party who talk of the state of the countryside and rural areas, after the rundown of virtually every kind of service throughout the last two decades. By 1997, buses did not go to many villages. There has been a decline in the number of doctors' surgeries, and schools have closed.

What contribution the regional development agencies are making to the development of regional economies. [128403]

The RDAs are emerging as strategic drivers of economic development in their regions. They have had an excellent first year, putting £400 million into regenerating the most deprived areas and creating or saving some 35,000 jobs—including 5,000 new jobs in the west midlands.

My right hon. Friend played an important role in ensuring that RDAs were at the heart of Labour's economic motor in the regions. I pay tribute to what he did well before we were in government. Does he accept that the competitive agenda for the global economy as it applies to the regions is best driven along by further decentralisation to the RDAs, to improve their powers? Does he agree that the more quickly their lines of accountability can be developed, the sooner they will be able to take more control of national budgets, and thus bring about decentralisation from this place to the regions?

I have always believed that the RDAs can play a major part in reducing disparities of economic growth within and between the regions, and in the record level of inward investment that Britain has just achieved. To that extent, I believe that the RDAs should be given more influence—and, indeed, more resources—so that they can get on with their job.

Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen House of Commons Library research which suggests that the Government have abused the boards of the RDAs by packing them with Labour supporters and cronies? Can he confirm that RDA membership contains six times as many Labour supporters as Conservatives, and that 70 per cent. of all board members with known affiliations are Labour supporters or trade unionists? Is not the real truth that the Deputy Prime Minister has used the RDAs to extend the culture of cronyism, rewarding his friends in failed Labour councils with well-paid positions on regional quangos?

The evidence does not show that. Clearly, we believe that the RDAs properly reflect industrial interests as well as local authority and political representation in the region. About 100 Tory councillors are involved in the regional chambers alone. About four Tory members are involved in the boards of the eight regional development agencies. The Tories did not get many votes in the last election. It was in all the papers. Did the hon. Gentleman not read it? The number is proportional to that.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister now confirm that the RDAs are costing £17 million in administration alone, while spending on the ground on urban regeneration has gone down compared with spending under the previous Government? Does he agree with last week's report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which described regional intervention under the present Government as confused and badly co-ordinated?

I think that the House generally agrees that the interventions of the hon. Gentleman, whether in speeches or at Question Time, can lead only to the certainty that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will shortly replace him on the Conservative Front Bench. As for the investment of £10 million, I have already informed the House that £400 million in regeneration and 35,000 jobs have been secured by the active intervention of the regional development agencies. On its own, that is a justification for the investment, but, since we introduced development agencies in Scotland, it has seen an improvement: it went from having the seventh highest GDP in the United Kingdom in 1986 to the fourth highest. That shows the success of the development agencies in Scotland and Wales. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to deny that for the English regions, or is it just a promise made in opposition to be changed in government?

My right hon. Friend has mentioned the work of the Rover taskforce and of Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency there, in the economic strategy for the west midlands. Does he agree that, to deliver that economic strategy, it is vital that there is a transport infrastructure, particularly in an industrial heartland such as the west midlands, which is a major trade route from south-east to north-west and beyond

I readily accept that there is a strong connection between the two: investment in the infrastructure and the level of economic prosperity in the regions. The RDAs are playing a part. They produced their regional plan within the first year. We are changing our planning mechanism to allow them to influence the regional transport planning structure. We must await the spending review to see how much we are prepared to put into transport.

What proposals he has to combat the effects of acid rain on the brown trout population; and if he will make a statement. [128404]

Government measures to reduce acidifying emissions include the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Gothenburg protocol, the proposed national emission ceilings directive, the proposed amendment to the large combustion plant directive and the sulphur content of liquid fuel directive.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I know that he is something of an expert in environmental matters and has a great track record in that area, but may I urge upon him the need to move quickly with regard to intrinsic stocks of brown trout? They are dwindling now. May I suggest that the Environment Agency's remit be extended, so that a full audit is prepared and it can then look at ways of combating the present trend?

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on a matter that we are very concerned about. I am glad to say that, as a result of the string of directives that I read out, United Kingdom emissions of sulphur dioxide—which is the main cause of acid rain—have decreased by 57 per cent. compared with 1990 levels, and are expected to decrease by 84 per cent. by 2010. However, I understand that further action is needed.

When considering work to improve the environment, will my right hon. Friend have a word with his colleague the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about promoting research and development and a private finance initiative in clean coal technology—which will help not only to improve the environment, but to secure jobs within both the electricity generating industry and the mining industry?

Yes, I certainly shall. Although my hon. Friend's question is fairly wide of the main question, I am very happy to have such discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I think that clean coal technology is indeed very interesting. It is not yet commercially viable, but it has the potential of achieving continued and high levels of coal production in a manner that minimises the impact on the environment. We are certainly keen to see further research done, both in the private sector and in the public sector, to secure that technology.

Does the Minister accept that the greatest impetus to a healthy brown trout population is the existence of fishing? Is not the reason why so many Labour Members are enthusiastic supporters of the practice of fishing the fact that fishing is good for conservation? However, if that is true, why do not the same arguments apply to the co-existence of a healthy fox population and hunting?

That is a very good try. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but I am afraid that there is no analogy between the two issues.

What progress regional development agencies are making in developing transport infrastructure in the regions. [128406]

The RDAs are expected to work within the regional transport strategies, which are key parts of the regional planning guidance. The RDAs are making a significant input into those strategies, and will also be invited to comment on the forthcoming 10-year plan for transport.

Bearing in mind the inextricable link between economic development, prosperity and transport—which is why my constituents so welcomed the Government's commitment to dualling the A46, and the fact that work on that will commence next year—can the Minister say what action she will be taking to ensure that regional development agencies are able to inform and support the development of much-needed train links to places such as Lincoln? Such a link would enable my constituency not only to be drawn more fully into the regional and national rail transport system, but to benefit more fully from economic opportunity.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very constructive role that she has played in establishing the Lincoln rail forum. We would expect that the regional development agency would work closely with the local authority and with the franchise director, who operates within guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the provision of rail services within Great Britain. The guidance requires the franchise director to maintain effective liaison with the RDAs. It is, therefore, linking the national, regional and local imperative that will allow us to develop rail services across the country that really meet local people's aspirations while fitting into a national programme.

That all sounds very fine, but where in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 does it make any mention of transport as a responsibility of RDAs? Is not that something that RDAs have complained about? Is it not also symptomatic of the widespread confusion about the role of RDAs and their relationship with Government, which has been criticised by the Government-appointed RDA board members as follows:

too many overlapping national and regional bureaucracies, confused delivery systems…too many joins in joined up…a system full of treacle…disjointed, contradictory and very complex…?

Everyone else in the House recognises that for economic development it is vital to have an effective transport infrastructure. Therefore any organisation that is considering economic development will of course liaise with the organisations responsible for the transport infrastructure. That is precisely what is happening and what RDAs are participating in, and why they meet regularly with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.

Given that the East Midlands development agency was recently very positive about the regenerative potential of the Ivanhoe rail line through north-west Leicestershire and south Derbyshire, is my right hon. Friend confident that next week's comprehensive spending review will free sufficient resources to back such local projects and improvements to the rail infrastructure? Will she encourage one of her colleagues to receive a delegation from Leicestershire, including local Members of Parliament, to discuss the finance potential for that project?

I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport is always happy to meet Members of Parliament to discuss their commitment to developing local transport initiatives. The recent local transport plans demonstrated the Government's commitment to building up local transport that will make a real difference to local people, both in terms of economic development opportunities and more effective public transport. I am sure that those factors will be taken into account in the spending review for the next three years.

What proportion of houses in England has been built on brownfield sites in the last three years. [128407]

The latest year for which estimates are available is 1997—the last year of the previous Administration. In the three years to 1997, 56 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land or provided by converting existing buildings.

I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen to answer this question himself. Does he recall saying that the green belt was a great Labour achievement and we should build on it? Would it not be a better achievement if we stopped the present rate of building on greenbelt and greenfield sites and gave developers some real incentives to build on brownfield sites, so that we could meet the Government's target of 60 per cent?

The area of greenbelt land has increased by 2 per cent. under this Government. In the last four or five years of the previous Administration, it did not increase at all. It might have been useful for the hon. Gentleman to consider the implications of the 56 per cent. development on brownfield sites. That means that 44 per cent. of development under the previous Administration was on greenfield sites.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been extremely successful in getting some regeneration into inner-city areas, mainly on brownfield sites? Is he aware that there is now a major problem with the European Union's refusal to let us continue with gap funding? Can my right hon. Friend say something helpful to ensure that developers can carry out redevelopment of brownfield sites and existing buildings in our inner cities to continue that urban renaissance?

I very much agree not only with what my hon. Friend says, but with what the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, of which he is a Chairman, has been pointing out to us—namely, that we should increase the amount of building on brownfield sites. I gave a commitment to the House to increase building on such sites to 60 per cent. by 2008 and we will stand by that commitment. I am not sure what the Opposition's commitment is—it has changed five times in five years. The previous Administration stated that it would be 50 per cent. in their housing White Paper of 1995; their household growth Green Paper said 60 per cent.; at the election they said 60 per cent.; the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said 70 per cent. in October 1997 and 66 per cent. in January 1998; and by March 2000 it was 70 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell the House which figure they are picking ready for the election.

Is it not the case that under this Government the proportion of new development on brownfield sites is falling and that there is no prospect in the real world of the Government hitting even their own targets? Is it any wonder that the Secretary of State is poised to ignore the democratic voice of the south-east regional planning committee and permit large tracts of the south-east to be concreted over?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not give us the latest version of the percentage figure that the Opposition accept at present. He is wrong to suggest that the proportion of new development on such sites is falling. I said that in the last year for which figures are available—1997—it was 56 per cent. and the figure for the two previous years was 56 per cent. That is exactly where we are at the moment. To be fair, it fell in only one year, which was 1997—I should have said that it was 55 per cent. then, not 56 per cent. Our target means that we have to increase it by 0.5 per cent. a year. It is a tough target, but we have already spelled out to the House how we intend to do it: with the land database, the urban report by Lord Rogers and other things that make it clear that the change to the sequential testing means that one has to show that one is building on a brownfield site before there is any agreement for a greenfield site.

If he will make a statement on tolls for the Humber bridge [128408]

The Humber bridge board, which owns the bridge, is responsible for its operation and its finances, and for proposing any changes in the tolls to be charged. The Secretary of State has responsibility for determining applications to revise tolls solely according to certain statutory criteria.

While I welcome some of the action that the Government have taken to assist the board to restructure the debt on the bridge, does my hon. Friend agree that Europe's plans to impose value added tax on tolls will have a devastating effect on the communities north and south of the Humber? If that is to happen, I suggest that he does one of two things: restructure the debt again so that there is no increase in the tolls, or wipe it out completely.

My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these matters on behalf of her constituents. She has acknowledged that the Government have made considerable progress in finding a solution to the debt problem of the Humber bridge.

Perhaps we can revisit this matter when the European Court has given its ruling.

Order. We are on the Humber bridge at the moment and I know where that is—it is nowhere near that other bridge.

If he will make a statement on the progress of initiatives to give tenants a greater role in running their own estates. [128409]

The introduction of best value in housing and of tenant participation compacts from 1 April 2000 should ensure that tenants have more influence over the way in which their homes are managed. We will be monitoring whether local authorities have introduced compacts, and their performance on tenant participation generally, through this year's annual housing investment programme assessment process. We have also recently commissioned research to monitor how best value in housing and compacts are being introduced and developed. The initial findings will be available next year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He is undoubtedly aware that a number of large housing estates are run by housing associations, sometimes after large-scale voluntary transfer. Will he encourage such associations to follow the lead of those such as the Swaythling housing society in Southampton in introducing programmes of tenant participation and tenant management on their estates, so that the benefits of the programme that he outlined can be extended to other estates?

I very much agree with the approach described by my hon. Friend, and can confirm that the Government are working closely with the Housing Corporation so that the introduction of best value in respect of local authorities and tenant participation compacts is mirrored by measures taken by housing associations to ensure that they adopt best value principles and that they fully involve their tenants in an appropriate participation framework.

Which three steps would most empower tenants?

The hon. Gentleman asks which three steps would most empower tenants, but, if he had read our housing Green Paper, published in April, he would know that the measures that we are taking to give tenants greater choice, greater opportunity in respect of lettings policy and fairer rent structures will all give tenants a far greater say and involvement in their housing. That will lead to greater tenant satisfaction.

If he will make a statement on the outcome of the water quality consultation on regulations for drinking water. [128410]

The consultation period for proposed new regulations on drinking water quality closed on Friday 30 June, and almost 350 responses were received by that date.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply.

I certainly can give that assurance. My hon. Friend is right: under the new EC directive, we had the option to reduce controls on sodium or artificially softened water. On the advice of the Department of Health, we opted not to do so. The reason for that is the concern that when sodium is used in conjunction with infant formula, it should be safe for babies to drink without putting them at risk of the condition, infant hypernatraemia.

Will the Minister consider carefully the provisions under any new draft directives emanating from Brussels on the quality of drinking water? Is he aware of estimates showing that 50 per cent. of previous EU directives have not dealt with aspects of health and safety, but were entirely to do with the colour and taste of water? It can thus fairly be said that this country has spent hundreds of millions—if not billions—of pounds on meeting unnecessary standards.

Of course the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the health and safety of drinking water is absolutely at a premium, but I believe that he understates how important it is that all householders should receive water that is not unpleasant to taste or discoloured. Some 300 or 400 incidents a year are reported. I believe that, as we shall learn tomorrow, the number is gradually decreasing, but it is a matter of serious concern. It is true that, partly as a result of the investments that began under the previous Government but which we have extended substantially, the quality of drinking water in this country is second to none—as good as it is anywhere in the continent, and I would say considerably better than that of bottled water.

If he will publish the underlying data used to compile the proposed index of local deprivation. [128411]

Last December we published for consultation the information relating to local authority district rankings on five different measures of deprivation. As part of the consultation exercise we also offered each authority information on the ward scores and rankings for their area. I am today arranging for the updated ward scores and rankings to be sent to each authority for information. The summary report will be published later this year along with the deprivation scores and rankings of all wards and districts in England. The report will provide details of where to obtain, subject to any confidentiality constraints, the underlying raw data.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply. She will be aware of the concern that exists in some London boroughs about the possible implications for the index. I wonder whether she will allow a period of formal consultation following the publication of the data that she has announced today, to allow authorities to respond on the basis of that new information. Will deprived wards or ward clusters that fall outside the new index of local deprivation priority rank be able to access Government funding streams targeted at certain deprived areas?

The work is a research project which has been carried out for the Department and for the Government by Oxford university. It provides considerable new information. We are now using 33 different factors to give us better information about wards. That information has been shared with authorities over the past six months. The formal consultation finished earlier this year and additional work has been taking place to refine that.

Does the Minister accept that if her local deprivation index takes into account access or lack of access to a local sub-post office, it is set to show increasing deprivation because of the Government's cancellation of £400 million of revenues going to sub-post offices? Can she further confirm that the so-called guarantee against closures of sub-post offices will be completely worthless, because the fine print shows that the Government will still allow them to close if they cannot find anyone willing to run them because they have rendered them unprofitable?

I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the right hon. Gentleman his answer some questions ago: that under the present Government there has been a concerted effort to improve access to services for people, wherever they live. The index and the work that I mentioned, as well as other work through the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, will enable us better to ensure that people, wherever they live, have access to the services that they need, including post offices. The statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a couple of weeks ago demonstrates that the Government will follow through that commitment, and that support for rural post offices—and post offices in urban areas that have been struggling—will now be much more secure than it ever was under the regime of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

If he will revise planning guidance to allow local authorities to require that all housing developments in their area include at least 50 per cent. of homes at affordable cost for members of their local community. [128412]

Planning policy guidance note 3 "Housing" and circular 6/98 "Planning and Affordable Housing" recognise a community's need for affordable housing as a material planning consideration, and allow local authorities to require an appropriate percentage of such housing on suitable sites, where a local need exists. We have no plans at present to revise the guidance.

That is an unsatisfactory answer. I have not seen the minutes of the policy forum in Exeter, but would the Labour party like to think about a slightly radical policy for the next general election? Would it like to allow local councils, which at present are able only to have housing built to meet demand, not need—expensive homes rather than affordable homes—to decide that up to 50 per cent. of the properties in any housing development should be affordable? Can we have homes for people on lower incomes rather than big profits for property developers?

If the hon. Gentleman bothered to look at reality rather than producing soundbites, he would realise that that is possible under the existing guidance that he ridiculed. The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has recently agreed a major new private development with a 50 per cent. element of affordable housing. If it can do it in London, so can other authorities. The hon. Gentleman, who represents a London constituency, should check his facts in future before mouthing soundbites.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the increasing demand for affordable housing is making it difficult in Hertfordshire, and especially in my

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. She will know that in the housing Green Paper that we published two months ago, we set out a number of proposals for tackling precisely those needs. Those proposals include the starter home initiative, which is designed to help precisely the categories that she mentions—teachers and nurses—who need accommodation to enable them to work in the area in which they live. She will also be aware of our concern to introduce more effective measures to ensure a good supply of affordable housing provided through both the Housing Corporation-funded programme and planning agreements such as the one to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

But why are the Government building fewer affordable houses than the previous Government? Surely if the previous Government could do it, this Government ought to be able to do it.

Before the hon. Gentleman asks such a question, he ought to do a bit of homework. He would then know that the programme that we inherited from the previous Government involved a dramatic and damaging decline year on year—1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. We have stopped the decline. We have guaranteed the funding for the Housing Corporation. The hon. Gentleman will obviously have to wait until after the spending review to see plans for the future.

What plans he has to give additional protection to the green belt. [128413]

The Government remain firmly committed to the protection of green belts. Planning policy guidance note 2 contains a presumption against inappropriate development in designated green belts.

Earlier the Secretary of State spoke about obtaining more information about brownfield sites, but is he aware that in authorities such as Hertsmere, the planners have already done their homework and, in that borough as in many others in the south-east of England, there are precious few brownfield sites left in the sense of previously developed sites, let alone derelict or damaged sites? Is he aware that the greater the housing targets required of boroughs, the greater the incursion will be into the green belt, at the expense of the countryside, the environment and quality of life? Will he consider real policies to strengthen the green belt, rather than concreting over huge swaths of countryside, and will he listen to the views of Serplan?

As a former Minister in the Department that we have succeeded, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the very considerable range of policy development that has taken place in the three years since we took over responsibility from him and his colleagues. He will know about PPG3; he will know about the sequential approach; and he will know about the proposals on increasing densities. They are all designed to ensure that we make better use of brownfield sites, that we provide for the housing needs of our country and that we do so while taking no more greenfield land than would otherwise have been required. That is practical, sensible politics, designed to balance a responsible attitude to the environment with a responsible attitude towards meeting housing needs.

This is a sad day for the House and for Northern Ireland. This is not a timetable motion, but a straightforward guillotine. It is not up to the Minister to decide how long the House should take to debate the motion; it is up to hon. Members to decide whether they want to speak. It was unhelpful, and typical of the arrogance of this Government, that we were lectured on how long we should debate the motion.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that the motion was not a timetable motion but a guillotine, because it had not been agreed beforehand by other parties.

At no point did I suggest that there had not been proper scrutiny in Committee. In fact, the only thing on which I agreed with the Minister of State was that there had been proper scrutiny and no filibustering in Committee. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that the RUC and the whole country deserve proper scrutiny of the Bill not only in Committee but on the Floor of the House. A large number of Members are present on both sides of the House who did not serve on the Committee, and they have a right to debate, consider and discuss the amendments. That is the reason for our objection. We are simply saying that there should not be a guillotine on Report, and that there should be the opportunity to discuss properly all those important matters of reform.

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, which he makes quite clearly, but I am sure that he would agree that this is not a matter of principle but a matter of judgment about what the Government were trying to do with what I would imagine that they intended basically as a timetable motion, regardless of whether they agreed it with the other parties beforehand.

The Bill derives from the Patten commission report, which was presented several months ago and which, in itself, was flawed in that it stepped far outside Patten's terms of reference, which were based on the Belfast agreement. Patten chose to ignore that and published a report that was described in this House and elsewhere—I believe by Home Office officials—as an interesting report, but certainly one that had nothing to do with policing. That, of course, has had a knock-on effect in that we have before us a Bill that no doubt has to do with political accommodation, but has nothing to do with policing or law and order.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I need to remind him that we are debating an allocation of time motion. He is now straying a little too far from it.

If I appeared to stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I was trying to illustrate how the Government are presenting the House with a Bill, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, that has nothing to do with policing and that the House must therefore put right if it is to have any significance whatsoever for society in Northern Ireland in general and for the police in particular.

I have been amazed at some of the statements that have been made in the debate already. They do not have much relevance to the amount of time that we have to consider the Bill.

rose—

I am not giving way, because we need time to deal with the Bill, which has nothing to do with the Baha'i faith. I have a good relationship with members of that faith and not once have they said that they have been persecuted in Northern Ireland. I would nail any suggestion that they have been as an atrocious lie.

The hon. Gentleman will agree that the position is even worse than he has described. Any votes will come out of time for discussion.

When the time for votes is taken away, how much time do we have? I urge hon. Members to look at the fact that more than 200 amendments have been tabled. We do not have adequate time to deal with a matter that has seriously divided the people of Northern Ireland and will continue to divide them.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I oppose the motion on more general grounds which, if I may be forgiven, are not especially related to this particular Bill. I want to protest at the frequency with which the Government are introducing these motions. I believe that this motion is the 36th to be introduced. Indeed, this time last week, we addressed a timetable motion for the Local Government Bill. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) launched an extremely formidable attack on her own Front Benchers' use of this type of motion.

At the moment.

Yes, of course, at the moment. Our views often coincide with the views expressed by our Front-Bench spokesman, but they do not always do so. It is important that the House should give Back Benchers a proper opportunity to discuss fully the detail of a Bill and amendments to it.

I have listened with interest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he aware that many Government Members who wanted to strengthen the Bill were kept off the Committee? The grievance is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's alone, but we must accept what has happened.

I am not being critical of the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, his point reinforces what I want to say. I am sure that there are Government Members who feel that the Bill is defective in one way or another, and they should have a full and proper opportunity to voice their opinions, as that is what democracy is about.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is simply another manifestation of the increasing power of the Executive over the liberties of the House and an attempt to circumscribe what is properly the function of elected Members of the House of Commons?

I do indeed. That point was made forcefully by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich when she was speaking on a timetable motion last Tuesday.

Order. I must invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to spare the House that particular reason; we are debating a specific allocation of time motion. If he wants to pursue procedural matters as a whole, he must find another opportunity to do so.

I am now coming from that general point to a particular one. If we consider the amendments that have been tabled by Members other than Front Benchers, we find that a number of them express the particular concerns of Back Benchers, often those from the Ulster parties. The effect of any timetable motion—and this is, in fact, a guillotine rather than a timetable motion, in so far as there is a difference—is that those Members will be shut out and they will unable to articulate the grievances that are felt very powerfully by their constituents. That cannot be right.

I, too, said that.

As the Minister says, he also made that point. What, then, are the Government guarding against? Why are we truncating debate? I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would stop any filibustering, but if the proceedings were filibustered, the proper course of action would be to move for closure and then to consider having a timetabled debate.

As a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, I echo the comments that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members and reiterate what was said by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). This is a sad day, given all that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, standing in defence of democracy and of the liberties of people living in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. It is shameful that its future should be dealt with in such a shoddy way.

The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is usually able to tell us who is responsible for these attacks—such as the one earlier this week, when he said at about 7 am, the attack having taken place the previous evening, that the bomb was the responsibility of dissidents. Has he been able to say whether it was dissidents or the Provisional IRA who were responsible for that attack?

Order. That is not helpful to the debate. I suggest to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) that he stick closely to the terms of the motion.

We are dealing with an issue that is vital to people in Northern Ireland. No one in the House would challenge that assertion. It is an extremely emotive issue for those on both sides of the debate. When Chris Patten was conducting his inquiries prior to compiling his report, he went round Northern Ireland and spoke to many people and listened to their concerns. I attended some of those meetings. I listened to what people said. When they expressed concern that their views would not be taken into account, I and others argued that there would be proper parliamentary scrutiny, that we would raise their concerns in Parliament and that we would seek to have changes made to the proposals that came from Chris Patten.

I hope that when the hon. Gentleman is talking to his constituents he will not inadvertently mislead them, as a great many of the amendments are tiny, technical and of no great significance. I hope that he will put that across to them.

The amendments may not be of much significance to the hon. Lady's constituents, but many of them are crucial to my constituents—to those who live in Aghalee and who were on the receiving end of last night's attack; to those who live in Dunmurry and who are on the receiving end of attacks by republican extremists; and, indeed, to those in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who stand in the line against attacks from extremists on both sides of the community. The amendments are important and they ought to be afforded proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is absolutely crucial.

In explaining things to his constituents, the hon. Gentleman could say that his hon. Friends the Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) represented their interests and made very robust arguments in all the areas considered in Committee. I therefore suggest that reading what was said by his hon. Friends will help him to explain to his constituents the case that was put.

Of course my hon. Friends worked very hard to put forward points of view in Committee, but how many of their amendments were accepted by the Government—no matter how good their arguments? We therefore want an opportunity to voice our concerns on the many amendments that the Government refused to accept in Committee.

There are, of course, matters in the Bill that will prove divisive, but the play that has been made of numbers should be put in context.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) properly raised the fundamental constitutional issue relating to the guillotine motion—that is, the relationship between the Executive and the House.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that he and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have expressed with regard to the membership of the Committee and their consequent inability to pursue amendments in Committee. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has the opportunity to table amendments and have them considered on Report. Can he tell me how many amendments he and his colleagues have tabled?

I have consulted the hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I am sure that the House knows that I do not have the same amount of back-up and number of advisers as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). However, I have made detailed, comprehensive and lengthy submissions to Patten, both in writing and orally. After all, the Patten report is the basis for the Bill. The Secretary of State and the Minister said more than once that they intended to implement Patten in full.

No hon. Member does not believe that legislation that affects Northern Ireland is supremely important. It is important to everyone who represents a British constituency on the mainland; it is supremely important to the citizens of Northern Ireland; it is also important to those in the Republic of Ireland. The peaceful settlement of Ulster is unquestionably a prize that we all seek. However, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) expressed a truth. What is the point of electing Members of Parliament if they cannot speak on the issues that come before the House? What is the point of electing Members of Parliament if they cannot touch on matters of the greatest importance to their fellow citizens? That is the matter of principle that fights against the guillotine.

This is not the first time that I have had the honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I entirely agree with him. We have always taken the view that guillotine motions are wrong in principle. The position of the House is an important matter, which should be vindicated. I do not intend to take much time, but I want to make a couple of points.

All visitors to the House pass through St. Stephen's Hall, in which there is a depiction of the barons confronting King John. That was the first formidable effort to restrict the power of the Executive in those days, and the House is directly descended from that incident.

Magna Carta.

Magna Carta, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some leeway for his preamble, but I remind him that we are discussing the allocation of time motion. His remarks seem to be more suited to a debate on Second or Third Reading.

As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the opportunity to make such remarks on Second Reading has passed and, as a consequence of the motion, time will be so severely restricted that it will be impossible to make them on Third Reading. If I am not to have an opportunity to make such remarks, does not that show that the Government's timetable motion is creating serious defects and that Members of the House have difficulties in calling Ministers to account over how they deal with policing matters in Northern Ireland, which are matters of life and death to many of our constituents? Those matters should receive detailed consideration, which clearly will not be possible as a result of the severe restriction of the time available.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too far away from the terms of the motion. I must direct him to come back to the point.

I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am content to comply with it. I was trying to draw an analogy with what happened with the poll tax legislation, which seemed simple and straightforward at first, but which led to riots and all sorts of problems. That was also driven through the House with a large Government majority and had unforeseen consequences, although some foresaw them. Those who were in a minority in the House were eventually proved correct, as I believe they will be on this occasion. I simply wanted to draw the House's attention to a past error of judgment, and to ask hon. Members to reflect on whether an error of judgment has been made on this legislation, as I believe it has.

Order. I once again say to the hon. Gentleman that he must come back to the particular and get away from the general. I do not want to have to remind him again.

Sometimes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is necessary to draw analogies.

Order. I have already opined to the hon. Gentleman what I think is necessary in the circumstances of this debate. I hope that he will accord with that.

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the help that you give me in reaching conclusions.

I oppose the motion.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the motion. I ask him to return to its confines.

I am happy to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I have indeed strayed I have been referring to remarks made in the House, without challenge, by others during the debate.

It is well known in Northern Ireland that two members of the Stormont Assembly, on the so-called loyalist side, represent terrorist organisations. It is they, with others, who are seen on the streets, and who are carrying out attacks on the police.

Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the motion.

I think that the issue has been dealt with properly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I feel that, as it was raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann without challenge, it was right for us to have an answer on the record.

It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman reminded us that the last time he was a member of a Standing Committee—the Committee considering the last Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998—he attended only two sittings. I think I am correct in saying that.

I have not the slightest idea what the Minister is talking about. [Interruption.] The debate will continue for some time, and we shall be able to return to the issue with the Minister.

The hon. Gentleman described my views on the guillotine as audacious. I thank him for the compliment, but surely he accepts that there was simply a difference of opinion. Members are perfectly entitled to have differing views. He himself has made important points, and I hope he recognises that I was not criticising him or his party for having a view different from mine.

I did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman had attacked our view. What he said was that there was sufficient time for the issues to be debated. My party, however, sought representation on the Committee, and was deliberately refused that representation. Our only opportunity to deal with the issues with which the hon. Gentleman had so much time to deal in Committee is tonight's debate, and we are being deliberately denied that opportunity by a Government who are afraid to allow them to be debated properly here.

Order. I have been very tolerant in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make the remarks that he has made in the context of the debate, but I must ask him again to return to the terms of the motion.