How much grant towards the cost of house purchase will be available individually for (a) nurses, (b) teachers and (c) police officers in Slough. [133301]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is so keen to see the benefits of our new starter home initiative. Over the next three years, we will provide £250 million for this scheme to help key workers on modest incomes to buy their own homes in high-price, high-demand areas, and at the same time to help employers to address their recruitment needs. We are currently working up detailed proposals in the light of responses to the housing Green Paper. Full details of how the initiative will operate, including the groups of key workers who will be eligible and the areas likely to qualify, will be announced later this year.

As my hon. Friend will surmise, I put both the list of key workers and my constituency into the question to demonstrate the powerful claim that we have for the funds. In my constituency, there are 50 teaching vacancies not covered by permanent staff, and more than 100 in nursing and midwifery. The situation in policing is slightly confused by the fact that we force police officers in the Thames valley into Slough. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the claims of constituencies such as mine to become sustainable communities and have key public service workers will have a high priority in the details of the scheme?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the scheme was devised precisely to address the kinds of needs that she has identified. As she will be aware, however, the scheme will operate as a challenge fund. We will therefore look at the bids that are submitted in response to the detailed brief to which I have already referred. We will seek to get support for those schemes that give the best value for money and help the largest number of people in need in high-cost areas.

Can the Minister not see how unfair and illogical it is to single out certain categories of key workers and not others—for example, to exclude ancillary workers in the NHS and civilian police employees? Does not he understand that using taxpayers' money in that way will only fuel house-price inflation, and that it is the Government's failure to provide sufficient affordable housing, especially in the south-east, that is putting such pressure on recruitment in key public services? Is not that exacerbated by the Government's barmy plans to build millions of the wrong homes in the wrong places? Is not the home loans policy just another example of government by gimmick?

That question illustrates the mistake that Opposition Members make when they write their questions in advance. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that the precise categories of people who will benefit will depend on the bids. We are not limiting arbitrarily the categories of beneficiaries: we will look at the proposals to judge which would be most effective in meeting real needs, irrespective of the category of public-sector worker or key worker that is involved.

If he will make a statement on the action that his Department has taken to assist poorer home owners to maintain and improve their homes through grants to local authorities for home improvement agencies. [133302]

The Government attach great importance to the work of home improvement agencies, the prime purpose of which is to help elderly and disabled people remain independent in their homes. On 24 July, we announced a significant increase in the grants available to local authorities to support agencies, increasing the total available from £6.7 million this year to £8.5 million in each of the next three years. Bids for this money are presently being invited.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that the Grasslands, Brooklands and Village neighbourhoods of the Jaywick area of my constituency have serious housing problems. Tendring district council has just completed a neighbourhood assessment study of that area, where other problems include a lack of proper roads and street lighting, and very poor drainage. Will my hon. Friend give very serious consideration to the findings of that study, and to the transport plan submitted by Essex county council? That plan is supported by Tendring district council and would permit further funds to be invested in the roads in that area.

We will certainly give serious consideration to the plans put forward by Tendring district council. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents in Jaywick, where, as he knows, major infrastructure improvements are required. The Government are willing to help, but we need Tendring district council and Essex county council to give a clear lead. There is still some way to go in that regard.

The Minister in the past has paid some attention to affairs in Northern Ireland and will be aware that, some years ago, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive went over to a means-tested system for housing grants. He will also know that, to put it mildly, that has not been an unmitigated success. Will he therefore keep in mind that any policy that he produces must also take account of the condition of houses, and that the amount of money per applicant should be strictly limited?

I shall certainly keep those points in mind. I should tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that my interest was not in matters Irish, but in the British justice system.

What recent representations he has received from organisations concerning housing in the south-east. [133303]

We received almost 900 representations on draft regional planning guidance for the south-east. We have also received 397 responses to our housing Green Paper from people and organisations based in London and the south-east. Responses to both consultations covered a wide range of housing issues and other matters.

It is hardly surprising that the Government should have received so many representations about their appalling policy of bulldozing and covering in concrete areas of green belt in the south-east to try and make up for the mess that they have made in developing sensible housing strategies for those areas under Labour control. Why does not the Minister simply adopt the commonsense Conservative policy of giving local discretion to local authorities on such matters?

As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the previous Conservative Government approved unprecedented levels of development by private developers on greenfield sites all over the south-east. The legacy of that Government's failed policies have quite rightly generated public concern. That is why this Government have instituted a 60 per cent. target for brownfield development and introduced new planning policy guidance. PPG3 gives clear guidance on how we should aim for development in the cities first, concentrating on urban renaissance rather than on profligate building on greenfield sites, which was the record of the previous Conservative Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for high house prices is the lack of suitable, appropriate and affordable housing? Does he agree that it is important to build housing that is close to where people work and not in areas where there is no work?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the importance of the provision of affordable housing for people in need—a point that eludes the attention of the Conservative party—and of ensuring that new housing development is properly related to opportunities for employment, shopping, transport and all the other things that make decent communities. That is why we have introduced our new policies on planning, which are designed to create communities and to encourage urban renaissance. I am impressed by the efforts made by many local authorities, including that of my hon. Friend, to ensure that the opportunities for sustainable urban development are used, rather than the profligate building on greenfield sites that was the record of the previous Conservative Government.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government's new planning procedures in PPG3 are intended to result in fewer houses being built on greenbelt land, that if those procedures were applied in Hertfordshire it would obviate the need to build 10,000 houses west of Stevenage on greenbelt land, and that senior counsel has advised that the Government's refusal to apply their own procedures in this case is illogical, irrational and contrary to the law?

The right hon. Gentleman, as has so often been the case in previous debates on this subject, is wrong. He will know that there is a distinction between greenbelt and greenfield land, although he clearly fails to note the proper distinction. He will be aware that the principle of sustainability requires an approach that reduces profligate use of greenfield land. That is one of the keystones of PPG3.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Gravesham borough council and North British housing association for the provision of 51 high-quality but affordable rental homes in the centre of Gravesend? Is that not the way to provide much-needed affordable housing in the south-east, without eating into green belt and greenfield sites, as the previous Government obviously did?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I was able to see this very development with him in Gravesend only last Friday. It is exactly as my hon. Friend describes it—a new development in an urban, town-centre area in the Thames Gateway, which enables us to meet housing needs while at the same time reducing pressure on the countryside. That is exactly the kind of development that is the hallmark of this Government's policies.

Given what has been happening in the south-east over the past couple of days, the Minister's response is breathtakingly complacent. Will he acknowledge that when, after the floods two weeks ago, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ministers wrote saying that action would be taken, it was reasonable for people in the south-east to think that part of that action would be to cut the number of houses that the Government want to build in the wrong places in the south-east? Will the Minister give the House an assurance on that? If he cannot do so, will he recognise that among the things washed away will be his reputation for competence?

The Opposition have once again got it wrong. The hon. Gentleman knows that after the floods that occurred two years ago, we took action—we prepared new guidance on planning in relation to flood plains, which was issued for consultation in the normal way this summer and on which there has been extensive consultation. The hon. Gentleman also knows that those proposals make it clear that we expect developments to avoid flood plains when properties could be at risk. That guidance, which is in the public domain, was issued by this Government. It is time that the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition stopped their silly sloganising on this subject and focused on the real question—how do we meet genuine housing needs in a sustainable manner and protect the countryside? That is what we are trying to do. Everyone knows that the Conservative Government had a disgraceful record—they allowed profligate development all over greenfield sites, including flood plains. I am sorry that he did not apologise for the previous Government's record.

If he will make a statement on the proposed Central Railway project and his Department's policy towards it. [133304]

The amount of freight moved by rail has grown steadily over the period of this Government. Our 10-year plan for transport reinforces our commitment to ensure that that growth continues.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I appreciate his difficulty in commenting on the merits of the scheme. However, is he aware of the effect of current legislation on my constituents? Although a loss-making company with, effectively, no assets can propose to build a multi-billion pound scheme, there is no requirement to bring that proposal forward for formal consideration within a specified period. In the meantime, my constituents are blighted: they are unable to sell their properties. Does not that offend the Secretary of State's sense of natural justice? If so, what does he propose to do about it?

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which I believe he made in an Adjournment debate, and which I read last week. I am happy to concede that most large infrastructure projects are affected, and that the problem is real. He suggested one or two solutions, but they did not fit well with our approach, which we believe can deal with the matter. However, the difficulty is that we cannot do anything until an application is made and the applicant says what he wants to do.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable support for the scheme in the north-west of England? It would take much freight off the roads and put it on the railways. Even in the north-west, however, there is considerable concern about trying to protect routes for that proposed railway, which could be used for other purposes, well into the future. Will he encourage Central Railway either to get on with the scheme or give it up?

I am, of course, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and I have to wait until Central Railway makes its application. The concern about the problem of blight could, I hope, be dealt with by a code of practice, which we have tried to get companies to agree to. However, until Central Railway makes its application—it said that it would produce it several months ago, but still has not done so—I can only suggest that it should bring the scheme before the House. If that were done, there would be a vote. If the House voted to accept the proposal, we would have to deal with the situation, but if it rejected the proposal—it did so on the previous occasion—that would be the end of the matter.

When the Secretary of State takes account of Central Railway's proposals, will he also please give a fair hearing to the arguments that have been advanced by Chiltern Railways, which said that the scheme is incompatible with the current level of passenger rail service in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies? It also said that the scheme would have the paradoxical effect of driving many rail passengers back into their cars.

Frankly, I have a planning and judicial role and I cannot decide or even comment. When the House debated a different proposition from Central Railway, comments were made. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on his remarks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem that faces the railway industry is a shortage of track capacity for the future? Would it not be a good idea to keep open all the options for the future, including possibilities such as Central Railway?

I can go a bit further in the sense that the Strategic Rail Authority has an obligation, now that the regulator has reported on the financing of the railways. Basically, he will shortly present a report on the strategic framework, which includes the contribution to be made by freight railway systems and extra capacity. The regulator is considering that matter as well as the financing.

When the Government consider the proposal, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that environmental considerations will be uppermost in their mind? Does he understand that, in my constituency, the properties of hundreds of people in the Byfleet and West Byfleet areas on the edge of the motorway are blighted because details of the proposal are included on local searches? Does he realise that it is an important issue, as is noise and the other environmental problems that affect so many individuals all the way along the M25? Their interests are really important, are they not?

I agree and, of course, an environmental assessment will have to be made alongside the other matters to be considered.

When he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the review of byelaws for the coast, published in 1998. [133305]

We are working towards developing legislative proposals. In the meantime, local authorities can use their existing powers to manage recreational activities on the coast. We have published a voluntary code of best and safe practice for leisure craft users, and we are exploring options for a voluntary boat registration and identification scheme.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. May I draw his attention, however, to recommendation 12, which clearly states the need to consolidate existing coastal byelaws? Furthermore, does he agree that all users of motorised craft, including jet skis, should be required to have third-party insurance and proof of competency, as they are on most inland waterways and, indeed, on all our roads?

We have said that we will consolidate existing coastal byelaws. The proposed legislation, to which I referred, will certainly do so. The review proposes that local authorities should be given the power to require third-party insurance in various circumstances and we shall take that into account as we develop our plans. The review did not recommend proof of competency, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall look at that when we develop our legislative proposals.

What steps he is taking to improve rural transport. [133306]

We have made an extra £175 million available to support the transport needs of rural communities. The 10-year plan for transport provides more, so that we can support more scheduled rural bus services, expand the rural bus challenge to support more innovative services and deliver up to 500 new community-based transport schemes in the next three years through the rural transport partnership fund.

Does the Minister agree that it would be exceedingly helpful if he extended the fuel duty rebate to include all forms of community transport, to aid people in villages who rely on the community bus? Also, should not more money be invested in research on liquid petroleum gas and its availability?

The conclusion that we should draw from the fuel crisis is that we need to reduce our overdependence on oil and to speed the switch-away to alternative fuels and renewable sources of energy. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Lady. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will deal with that matter in the pre-Budget report and we shall soon return to the issue in the rural White Paper.

Is the Minister happy that, in Transport 2010, to which he has just referred, sufficient emphasis is given to the potential for rural rail lines, such as the Ivanhoe line through west Leicestershire, south Derbyshire and east Staffordshire? Does he know that Leicestershire county council feels that present funding regimes are unduly restrictive and that they prevent the recreation of passenger services on this mineral railway, thus contributing to our overall transport objectives?

My hon. Friend is right; the 10-year transport plan is certainly not confined to roads. We propose expenditure of just less than £60 billion on the rail system in addition; indeed, we should see a considerable increase in ridership and a doubling of the amount of freight carried by rail.

The Chancellor made much of the £15 billion a year rural bus grant. However, will the Minister confirm that that modest amount is dwarfed by the extra costs faced by bus companies, such as the cost of the working time directive and higher fuel prices, and by the fact that shire counties have had their rural transport budgets cut by the Government?

I entirely understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but I think that he is entirely wrong to suggest that the considerable expenditure that has gone into rural transport—£175 million—is swamped or dwarfed by what he refers to. VAT and duty on petrol now make up a lower proportion of the total price than in 1997. The UK has the lowest total tax burden in the European Union—far lower than the average. Foreign hauliers and others who operate abroad have to pay road tolls and are subject to higher VAT and corporation tax. When all those relevant factors are taken into account, the picture is very different from that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of my constituents, who recently heard that Stagecoach gave only six weeks' notice of the withdrawal of all their bus services to Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth, in order to secure as much money as it could from local authorities through the rural bus initiative? Does he agree that that matter must be looked at, so that private operators such as Stagecoach, which exercise a monopoly, do not hold local authorities and the public to ransom in that way?

I very much support what my hon. Friend says. Although the 10-year transport plan is about the expenditure of substantial increases of money—42 per cent. in real terms on the previous 10 years—it must also take into account the restrictive practices or monopolisation that can exist and the need to deal with that. We certainly intend to look at the matter.

Despite all that the Minister said, will he confirm that rural passenger bus journeys have actually decreased every year under the Labour Government; that the countryside is in crisis; and that the grants for rural bus services are peanuts compared with the amount of extra fuel tax levied on country people by the Government? Will he confirm exactly what he meant during last week's debate on the fuel crisis—that the Deputy Prime Minister could not be bothered to attend—when he said that, far from being abolished, the fuel duty escalator may be brought back by the Government and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in the future?

The hon. Gentleman has, once again, got virtually all his facts wrong. First, there has not been declining ridership on bus services—he should get his facts right; the £175 million has funded 1,800 new and enhanced services. There has been increased ridership—an extra 16 million passenger journeys.

Again, the Government appear to be in denial both on the fuel crisis and on the crisis in the countryside. What could be more provocative than Ministers seeking to claim that the Government have not put up fuel duty in the past three years? Nothing could be more provocative for the protesters, and nothing could be more unwise, in advance of the events of next week. What could be more provocative than a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box claiming that the number of bus passenger journeys in the countryside has increased, when the Government's own figures show that that number may have gone up in London, but has declined in the shire counties in the past three years? If the Minister disagrees with me, why does he not quote the figures in his response?

it is essential that taxation does not result in further isolation of those in rural areas…?

rose—

Order. Before the Minister responds, may I point out that I want brief questions from those on the Opposition Front Bench, and brief answers from Ministers.

I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because it is easy to be so. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made a very long, dreary and ineffective speech last week, and he appears to have the same habit when he asks questions. May I respond to the one point that he made? I did not say that there had been no increase in duty; I said that VAT and duty as a proportion of the total petrol price were now lower than in 1997. To blame the Government is completely wrong. The cause is the tripling of oil prices.

What proposals he has to improve road access to the Magna project in south Yorkshire. [133307]

The planning permission for Magna granted by Rotherham metropolitan borough council requires access to the visitor attraction from the south to be via junction 33 of the M1. Some £500,000 of the resources available to Magna have been set aside for additional road works, signage and traffic-calming measures at that junction and on the road layout to the Magna project.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. She will be aware that Magna is a millennium project that, sensibly, is opening next year—the first year of the millennium—so as to avoid the curse of everything that opened in 2000. The access road to the project from the Meadowhall shopping centre is important, and Rotherham and Sheffield councils are working together. The project is essential for economic regeneration, so will my hon. Friend ask her officials to consider giving priority for the new access road in the first five years of the 10-year development plan for south Yorkshire? If she cannot answer that technical point from the Dispatch Box today, will she receive a delegation to explore the problem further?

As I said, the success of Magna is not dependent on roadworks at junction 34, but my hon. Friend strongly makes the case for improved links between Meadowhall and Magna. However, it is for the south Yorkshire local authorities, in the local transport plan, to set their priorities for the first five years and then for the second five years. They have indicated that there is a possibility for 2006 and beyond, but that is not in the first five years of the plan. They are considering priorities in relation to the objective 1 programme. I should certainly be happy to talk further to my hon. Friend, but the priorities for such schemes need to be set locally.

When he plans to make a decision on the location of new ring roads; and how many of those have been determined so far. [133308]

We have not determined the location of the up to 100 bypass schemes for which funding is provided in our 10-year transport plan. That will depend on priorities identified in developing regional transport strategies and local transport plans.

In setting that programme, will the Minister accept that the south-east of England, and South-end in particular, has become about the most over-congested area of the nation, and the most neglected for road programmes? Bearing in mind the impact that that has on employment, is he willing to receive an all-party deputation from Southend to discuss possible solutions, including a ring road, which is urgently needed?

It is up to Southend borough council to determine its transport priorities in seeking Government funding through its local transport plan. We have heard the judgment of Southend borough council, and the council's full local transport plan, which was submitted this July, includes proposals for public transport improvements in the A13 corridor and road improvements in the A127 corridor to assist freight movements, but no proposal for a northern A127 bypass of the town. The hon. Gentleman should address his concerns to the local authority. The Government's position is that it is for local people to find local solutions to local transport problems, and we shall do our best to support them.

Does my hon. Friend think that, in designing new ring roads, it is essential to agree that they should indeed be ring roads, so that they do not immediately become clogged with parked traffic and so on, which defeats the purpose of building such roads?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the sort of matter that we consider in our very careful appraisal of all proposals for ring roads—or, to use the more modern terminology, bypass proposals.

Given the appalling state of the nation's roads following the dreadful cuts in the roads programme inflicted by the Labour party, would not the Minister be well advised to give his attention to those road problems? When the nation's railways are in crisis, and many of the nation's roads are flooded and covered by fallen trees, is it not extraordinary that he makes the announcement:

My Department is proposing to make bells on bicycles compulsory…?

A good try by the hon. Gentleman—but I should have thought that as an avid cyclist, he would have welcomed that announcement. Indeed, I have led him on my own bike through the roads of London. We are in a difficult position, we are taking it very seriously and we are addressing our immediate attention to the transport difficulties that we are now experiencing—but do not knock the cyclists.

Would not the best possible thing that the Government could do for the city of Lancaster be to reverse the many years of Tory neglect, to aid the environment, to underpin a sustainable public transport system and vastly to increase the prospects of economic regeneration, by announcing the funding for Lancaster's western bypass in December, so that it can be built?

Another day, another demand. That is the second time that I have heard that demand from my hon. Friend, who participated in an Adjournment debate on precisely the same subject in Westminster Hall this morning. I commend him on his assiduous representation of his constituents' interests. I must say now what I said to him earlier: the bypass is a proposal in the local transport plans, on which we will make our announcements before Christmas.

What plans for bypasses have been (a) cancelled and (b) proposed by the present Government. [133309]

Twenty of the 40 schemes in our targeted programme of trunk road improvements are bypasses. We cancelled the Salisbury and Hereford bypasses because of their impact on environmentally sensitive sites.

According to the Government's own figures, they receive £36.5 billion in taxation from motorists and spend £4.9 million a year on road building. Is that fair?

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that this Government are committed to a sensible and achievable programme of bypasses and trunk road improvements. Twenty of the 40 schemes in our £1.5 billion targeted programme of trunk road improvements will provide bypasses for local communities, creating safer and healthier environments for those suffering from the effects of heavy volumes of traffic.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important reasons for bypasses is to relieve the narrow and ancient streets of small market towns and villages from the ever larger heavy lorries that must rumble through them? Will he confirm that the Government support such bypasses in the 10-year plan, and are prepared to fund them? Now that Suffolk county council has finally recognised the need for the Bungay bypass in its structural plan, I hope that some money will be found within a reasonable time scale to enable that project to become reality.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point on behalf of his constituents. We agree in principle; we shall be examining the detailed proposal in due course and making an announcement.

The Minister mentioned the cancellation of the Hereford bypass—a scheme that the previous Government downgraded. Given that there is much concern in the city of Hereford about the road traffic problem, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of Herefordshire council, of the local chamber of commerce and of business and environmental groups, to see which schemes, short of a full bypass, could be taken forward to help relieve that problem?

I am, of course, open to any reasonable request for a delegation, and we are obviously perfectly happy to consider proposals made by the hon. Gentleman and the local authority. After all, our recently announced 10-year transport plan will ensure the funding of up to 100 bypasses on national and local roads and 130 other major local road improvements, and will deliver up to 80 major national trunk-road schemes to improve safety and traffic flow at junctions. Against that backdrop, we are of course a listening Government, and will certainly listen to his concerns.

What role tenants will play in deciding the future of local authority housing. [133310]

Tenants should be fully involved in making decisions on the future of their homes. The introduction of best value and tenant participation compacts will ensure that they are fully involved in reviewing and developing options for future investment in housing.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. On this issue, there is obviously clear blue water between the Government's policies and those of the Conservatives, who would flog off all local authority stock with little consultation with tenants. When my hon. Friend consults local authority tenants on the options in the recent housing Green Paper, will there be a level playing field?

The answer is yes. We have made it clear that local authorities and local authority tenants have a range of options to consider, including the new proposal for arm's-length companies and the possibility of investment through the private finance initiative, as well as the possibility of stock transfer. I know that my hon. Friend and his local authority have been exploring variations on those models with a community regeneration company in Bolton. I congratulate him and his authority on those discussions, and particularly on the fact that the Bolton Association of Tenants and Residents Associations—BATRA—has been fully involved. That, by contrast with the policies pursued by the Conservative party, is a model of the way in which the Labour party believes tenants should be involved.

Does the Minister recall the Secretary of State, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that "in the wake" of a Labour Government—I am sure that that phrase is appropriate—he wanted to see the return of council house building, and promised 100,000 council houses every year? Will he now admit that the Government have done a U-turn and adopted the Conservative policy of taking council housing stock out of local authority control?

No, I will not. The Government have set a highly ambitious programme to deal with the entire backlog of substandard council housing within 10 years, which gives everyone living in council housing the prospect of having a decent home within that time. That is a major change from the previous position. We have said that it is up to tenants and local authorities to explore a range of options for the future of the housing stock. Some will pursue the option of stock transfer, and some will want to keep the property in council ownership and improve it, using the new arrangements that the Government have put in place. That is entirely in line with the principles of the housing Green Paper, which was entitled "Quality and choice: A decent home for all". It is precisely quality and choice that we are pursuing for public sector housing.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement that council house tenants will have a role in determining their destiny. Will he also take into consideration the fact that resources are needed to replace metal frame windows and improve bathrooms and kitchens? He noted the point that was made earlier, but will he give further consideration to providing resources to make sure that we can improve our council houses and bring them up to 21st-century standards?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I can assure him that through the spending review, we have secured continued substantial increases in resources to enable local authorities to improve their housing stock, and to allow an increased supply of new, affordable housing to be built. I can also tell my hon. Friend that from next April we are introducing the major repairs allowance, which will for the first time give local authorities a proper basis for the maintenance of their housing stock, to stop the deterioration that was such a lamentable characteristic of council housing under the previous Government.

The Minister knows that many tenants have already voted to transfer to housing associations, such as Banbury Homes in my constituency. Those housing associations have agreed and settled business plans with the Housing Corporation. Will the Minister give an undertaking that those business plans will be honoured?

The hon. Gentleman is referring, I think, to the proposals for rent restructuring in the Green Paper. They are designed to ensure a more coherent framework in future for the rents that apply both to registered social landlords and to local authorities. We have had productive and detailed discussions with registered social landlords and other interested parties about the impact of the rent restructuring proposals, and I am pleased to say that they have been carried forward in a constructive spirit of seeking to achieve the Government's objective, to which everyone subscribes, and at the same time safeguarding the viability of RSLs.

What steps he is taking to improve public transport and relieve traffic congestion in south-east London. [133311]

Our 10-year plan for transport provides substantial resources for transport improvement in London. The Mayor of London has a crucial role to play in deciding priorities for south-east London.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. If we are to address some of the problems experienced by my constituents—notably the increasing traffic on the roads from Kent and East Sussex that come through my constituency—planning and powers beyond London and beyond the Mayor's sphere of operation will be required. It is for the Department to deal with that. Furthermore, in my hon. Friend's future discussions with London Transport, which he will continue to have in spite of the introduction of the Mayor, will he impress upon London Transport the need to improve links with the new North Greenwich underground station, so that people can access it for their travel to work?

My hon. Friend is right to say that transport issues in south-east London must be considered in a wider context. Indeed, they are being considered in the context of the Thames gateway strategy. Links to North Greenwich station have proved an enormous success in this millennium year, and we are looking carefully at ways in which they can be sustained. I am confident that effective transport links to that station will remain after this year has ended.

Does the Minister agree that notwithstanding the recent problems caused by severe weather, public transport in south-east London was already in complete chaos as a result of recent work by Railtrack? Does he agree that if that work was necessary, it was incumbent on Railtrack and the train operating companies to provide the travelling public with reliable information? Was not the lack of information a disgrace? Does the Minister agree with my constituent, Mr. Steve Wharton, who suggested in The Guardian today that we now have a "notional" rail inquiries service?

Those were exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in saying that the travelling public—or the would-be travelling public—deserve a better information service. That service did not work during yesterday's difficulties, and it ought to have done. Frankly, many aspects of the system ought to have been able to withstand yesterday's circumstances, and the Government are paying urgent attention to that matter.

May I tell my hon. Friend of the great relief in my constituency and throughout south-east London when Connex South Central lost its franchise? However, there was then some dismay because GoVia, the company that is to receive that franchise, has, in its operation of Thameslink in my constituency, a record of punctuality even worse than that of Connex South Central. Will the Minister give my constituents guarantees that rail services in south-east London will be improved?

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and very much appreciate the way in which she has put them. Decisions on refranchising are for the franchising director, but I am sure that he took into account the totality of GoVia's offer, which includes an £800 million investment in new rolling stock, an undertaking to fit all trains with the train protection warning system, more than 100 extra drivers, station refurbishments, more other staff and more car parking.

What assessment he has made of the extent to which the clearance and new house-building policies of Newcastle city council are consistent with regional planning guidance. [133312]

The panel report of the public examination of regional planning guidance for the north-east was published in October. I am currently considering what changes are necessary, and will consult on that in due course. Once the regional planning guidance is finalised, local authorities should ensure that their plans and policies accord with it.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Like me, he will understand that there are great possibilities for regeneration in Newcastle. However, mass demolition of neighbourhoods against the wishes of the people who live there should never be part of our policies. The wishes of the people of the inner city, their hopes for the future and their aspirations for themselves and their children are the essential building blocks for reviving neighbourhoods—not property deals.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes about inner cities—a point that he has made strongly to the House before. However, he will accept that, where there are an awful lot of empty properties that cost local authorities considerable resources, that provides us with an opportunity to have less density in city areas and provide more open spaces, as identified in Lord Rogers' plan. Inevitably, and rightly, that should not be done without the widest consultation and support of people affected by the plans.

When he last met the Royal Automobile Club to discuss road building. [133313]

Ministers regularly meet the RAC foundation both bilaterally and in the context of the motorists forum. At those meetings various issues are discussed, including road building.

Is the Minister aware that the number one priority for RAC members and others in my constituency is the construction of the much needed A590 bypass at High and Low Newton? The Minister knows that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and I have made many representations to her on the matter. The bypass is supported by every tier of local government in the area. Will the Government give the area good news soon?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because the road provides a good case study for contrasting the action—or non-action—of the previous Government with the action of the current Administration. He knows that a public inquiry approved the building of the road, and that it was included in the previous Government's wish list of 500 schemes in 1993. However, there were two priorities on that list—priority one was maybe; priority two was never. The road received priority two status.