If he will make it his policy to encourage the establishment of community bus trusts to provide not-for-profit bus routes in urban areas. [143964]

The Government's policies recognise the value of community and voluntary transport, and the introduction of the urban bus challenge will further encourage that. Community transport already benefits from our rural transport funding and my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that many local communities will benefit from the 45 per cent. increase in support for rural bus services that was announced in the rural White Paper.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Is he aware that some urban bus companies in medium-sized towns and cities try to streamline their services by cutting out neighbourhood bus routes, which are a particular benefit to the elderly, people who attend hospital and those with restricted mobility? Does he think that an effective community bus trust would resolve many of those issues, if implemented well locally? Is he prepared to venture that his Department would look favourably on the formation of trusts that might fall foul of remnants of the Transport Act 1985?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I am aware that the possible loss of neighbourhood feeder services is an issue in Southampton, and he is right to raise it. We are keen to see the development of community provision, and there are likely to be opportunities for that in the urban bus challenge, as announced in our 10-year plan. The aim is to contribute towards improving transport provision for deprived urban areas, not only in inner cities but in outlying urban estates. Some £40 million will be available over the next three years, and we would certainly expect community transport schemes, with various structures, to be a prominent part of the project.

Will the Minister consider the bus routes that are operated by First York, and in particular the increasing unreliability of its bus schedules, from which a number of services have been cancelled? The community element of the service is that it gives people who live in Haxby and Wigginton access to York hospital. Without that bus route, they will simply not arrive to visit patients.

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of bus services in her constituency, and we share her concerns. We recognise that bus services, and in particular local authority budgets for bus subsidies, are under pressure in some areas, and that tender prices for subsidised services have been increasing. She will be pleased to learn that the recent revenue support grant settlement took those pressures into account.

May I stress to my hon. Friend how important it is that we deal with the legacy of deregulation in our urban areas? Last week, PMT, the local bus company in Stoke-on-Trent, announced the withdrawal of bus services 86, 92, 94 and 96. There will be quality partnerships across the city, but people who live on its fringes and cannot access the fast bus routes will not be able to make use of public transport. Will he look closely at how he can assist us to get back those crucial neighbourhood bus services?

My hon. Friend is right. It is disturbing to hear of the loss of services in Stoke-on-Trent because PMT has withdrawn some routes. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the disastrous loss of bus services as a result of deregulation and privatisation, which reduced bus passenger journeys by 13 million a day. However, I am delighted that there are signs that the Government are turning around the long-term decline in bus use, and we are determined to achieve further growth.

If he will make a statement on tenant participation in housing management. [143965]

We will continue to promote increased opportunities for tenants to influence and have more control over the management of their homes through tenant participation compacts linked to best value. The majority of councils appear to be making good progress with introducing compacts and some registered social landlords are also developing compacts with their tenants.

In my constituency, tenants in Warwick are looking forward to the local tenant participation compact, but it will involve them in handling some very complex issues. What support will my hon. Friend's Department offer for the training that will be required?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, because I know that there has been considerable progress in Warwick. The tenant participation compact, which has now been agreed by all parties, is due to be launched this spring. On the second part of his question, which was about funding, we have set aside £6 million in 2001–02 to help councils and tenants to develop compacts.

I congratulate the Minister on his forthcoming elevation to the Privy Council. Does he recall that, shortly after the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that there would be a return of council housing to other landlords? How does he square that distinct commitment with the housing Green Paper, which promises to stop the transfer of at least 200,000 council houses every year?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He will know from our housing Green Paper that we have an extremely ambitious programme to achieve a step change in the condition of all council housing in this country and have set the ambitious target of ensuring that all substandard properties are modernised within a 10-year timetable. That will involve substantial increased investment in council housing and the continued transfer of some properties to other bodies, such as registered social landlords, to secure additional investment. That is part of a comprehensive programme in which the tenants ultimately decide the best future for their homes. That is absolutely in line with the principle of tenant participation, which was the subject of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt).

Under this Government, council tenants at least have choices, are consulted and will have votes. Should they not be warned that, under the Tories, they would have none of that and all their council housing would be transferred at a stroke in an accelerated manner and without votes, choices or anything else?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This Government not only provided extra investment but made it clear that the choice about the future of their homes is one that tenants will make. It is right that they should decide. In somewhat ill-chosen remarks about housing, the Conservative party has implied that it intends forcibly to transfer all council housing to other landlords. I do not think that that is likely to command much respect among tenants.

If he will make a statement on the future of two-tier local government and the Government's plans for regional government in England. [143966]

We remain committed to moving to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. In the meantime, there are no plans at present to reform the structure of local government in England. Unlike the previous Government, we believe in the decentralisation of power at local, regional and national levels.

Has the Secretary of State seen the Library research into the political affiliations of the members of regional development agency boards? It transpires that nearly three quarters of them are Labour cronies, so does he understand the preference of many of our constituents for sticking with their county councils and doing away with the regional development agencies altogether?

The hon. Gentleman must be including an awful lot of business people in his Labour cronies. That makes a remarkable change in the political situation in the regions.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer to the opening question, which made it clear that the movement towards regional government in those regions that make a case for it and can convince the people that it is right will not be blocked or delayed by the irrelevance of dealing with unnecessary local government reform?

Yes, that is the point that we have made. In the referendum on the London strategic authority, 75 per cent. voted yes. On that occasion, the Tories asked people to vote no, but I presume that they have now accepted the result. They always oppose the establishment of development agencies and constitutional change, but they eventually come round to accepting them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that regional government costs the taxpayer a fortune without our being able to see any great advantage from it? Does he realise how angry that makes people in Rochford, where the grant this year is £400,000 less than it was six years ago? The people there think that the money would be far better spent on giving help to existing councils.

Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no form of regional government at the moment, but there are regional organisations. The first regional body set up by the previous Administration was that of the regional government offices, which presumably cost a few bob to run as well. There is not a great deal of money being spent on reorganisation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many fine cities in England would be perfectly capable of running their own affairs, although at the moment they have to suffer being lumped in with county councils, in which rural interests dominate? Does it not make sense for matters that are best dealt with on a regional level to be dealt with in that way, for those best dealt with locally to be dealt with at district or city level, and to deliver, at long last, the unitary status that cities such as Exeter deserve?

It is true that many of the unitary authorities that were established under the previous Administration do a good job, and we see local government being built on that unitary system. It is also true that strategic decisions that need to be made in the English regions are perhaps not being made as well as they are in the London area, where strategic decisions are made by a strategic body. We have said that, ultimately, the people will decide, in a referendum. The people will be given the choice, and if they want the provision we shall observe their wishes.

After three and a half years in government, has the Deputy Prime Minister forgotten completely that it was a solemn Labour manifesto pledge to introduce directly elected regional government? Is not the truth that, although he is still enthusiastic, he has not succeeded in convincing any of his colleagues? The Prime Minister has cold feet and the local government Minister has said that the issue is all a great diversion.

We made it clear in our manifesto that we believed in decentralisation, after 18 years of centralisation and the break-up of local government under the previous Administration. In our three years, we have introduced radical change, in the form of devolution in Scotland and Wales; introduced the necessary legislation to conduct the referendum in London, and established regional bodies such as the RDAs; and reformed the civil service structure to enable us to make joined-up government decisions in the regions. Those are good steps towards our commitment to decentralisation.

The truth is that we have no directly elected regional government. All that we have are extremely expensive regional bureaucracies delivering nothing to anybody. After three and a half years, the Government cannot make up their own mind on what was a manifesto pledge. Is not the truth that the Conservative party is now the party of local government, and that Labour is presiding over what the head of the Local Government Association—who is a Labour supporter—described as the strange death of local democracy?

The obvious assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Conservatives will lose the general election. I agree with him on that. He mentioned regional bureaucracies. The previous Administration set up regional government offices that were accountable to no one but central Government. They were not accountable to people in the regions.

What about the RDAs?

It is true that the RDAs are appointed centrally, but they contain locally elected representatives, such as the 105 Tory councillors who sit on the bodies to which they make their reports. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative party is the friend of local authorities, but in that context I shall mention only the Banham review—a report into the organisation of local authorities that was a total mess and had to be withdrawn—and the poll tax, which cost the country £14 billion. By any fair test, to suggest that the previous Administration were the friend of local authorities is not acceptable.

What representations he has received on the council tax banding of park homes. [143967]

Last year, we received one representation from the British Holiday and Home Park Association in response to our local government finance Green Paper, and a further 15 representations and one petition to the Queen from residents of mobile and park homes about council tax.

Most of my constituents who live in mobile homes in the Tarleton, Penwortham and Banks areas occupy properties worth less than £20,000. They always tell me that they consider it unfair that they should pay the same council tax as occupiers of properties worth twice as much. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration in the current review of local government finance to the introduction of an additional council tax band below band A to deal with that blatant unfairness towards owners of park homes?

My hon. Friend is very experienced in matters of valuation generally, so I respond to him with some trepidation, especially as I cannot accede fully to his request. He will know that restructuring the bands, including splitting a band, would require primary legislation. We have no plans to introduce such legislation in the foreseeable future. However, I am aware of the views that he has expressed and we are keeping the matter under review, as I have made clear.

It is not the Minister's fault, but there is complete disarray when it comes to the council tax bands applicable to park home estates. Whether a park home is placed in council tax band A depends entirely on the whim of the district valuer. A great many people, both in the House and outside, assumed at the outset that park homes would be in band A. Is not there an excellent case for putting them in band A and dealing with them in that manner?

That is another example of the new party of local government demonstrating its very short memory, as the banding structure for council tax was introduced by the Conservative party. By definition, any banding system will mean that bands have lower and upper limits, and that there is a range in each band. The Government are aware of the view that the bands should be restructured. We are keeping the matter under review. The relevant legislation will not be changed in the foreseeable future, but we will consider the matter in the context of the White Paper on local government finance.

I support everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has said about council tax banding. One indicator of the health of the park home sector is that people are prepared to invest sometimes six-figure sums in such homes. Does not that show that the Government are right to pursue reform of the sector, and that the previous Government's Mobile Homes Act 1983 was completely useless and transparently hopeless when it came to preserving the rights of park home owners? Is not it now time to introduce new housing legislation to protect the rights of those residents?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the investment that many owners of park homes put into their properties is very creditable. He will know that it was this Government who established the working party to take up some of the issues that the previous Government had long neglected in relation to park home owners. That working party's report was published in July 2000. We are consulting on it and considering the recommendations.

What measures his Department is taking to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour by travellers; and if he will make a statement. [143968]

My Department has issued revised circular guidance to local authorities on unauthorised camping, making it clear that criminal or antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated in any circumstances. Such behaviour is as unacceptable in the gypsy and traveller communities as it is in the settled community and it should be dealt with using the powers already available to local authorities and the police. A copy of the circular, issued on 26 July 2000, is in the Library of the House.

The Minister must be aware that one problem that is often encountered is that when an illegal encampment is evicted, the occupants simply go a short distance away and create another nuisance. Is his Department thinking of any measures that could be taken that would prevent such behaviour, which is creating much expense for local authorities, individuals and businesses?

The difficulty is that merely moving people on does not solve the problem, because it simply transfers it over the border into the area of a neighbouring local authority. The key to dealing—[Interruption.] It is a serious issue. The key to dealing with problems with travellers is co-operation between local authorities and the police. When the police and local authorities work closely together—there are some examples of good practice that others would do well to emulate, such as in Essex, Northamptonshire and Oxford—the problem caused by antisocial travellers can be easily contained.

Is not one problem that the traditional activity of many illegal travellers and campers is waste collection and disposal, which they carry out in defiance of environmental protection law, which covers the licensing of vehicles and the safe and appropriate disposal of what they collect? Would it not be useful to ensure that the regulatory authorities understand that law, and apply it properly to those who carry out those activities?

Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. A large part of the problem is not a lack of powers but a lack of proper enforcement. The powers exist and there are some fairly stiff penalties, but co-operation between local authorities and police, and sometimes other agencies, is needed to ensure that they are properly enforced.

I wonder whether the Minister recognises how complacent he sounds on this issue. The Government have simply failed to act effectively. If he does not want to accept that from me, perhaps he will listen to the words of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who said in July 2000:

Travellers are setting up on illegal sites in Derbyshire because the police are seen as a soft touch.

Sometimes the reason for non-exercise of

will he a lack of police resources?

As I said, this is a serious issue. We are not in the least complacent. First, we have already toughened the guidelines. Secondly, we made available £17 million over the past three years to upgrade legal camping sites, and not a lot happened. In many cases, those sites deteriorated beyond recognition under the previous Administration, and it is a serious problem. We cannot hope to evict illegal travellers unless they have somewhere reasonable to go, so we are making available £17 million to upgrade the 300 or so existing sites. We consider that to be an important precondition for addressing the problem.

I do not accept the tenor of the question, because there are some decent travellers, but I want to raise a specific problem that has arisen in my constituency and elsewhere. Itinerant horses have strayed on to the A13, for example. The local authorities and the police do not have the power to require that the cost of impounding the horses be met by those reclaiming them. Will my hot. Friend consider introducing legislation to ensure that the costs of recovery and custody of the horses are recoverable, or the horses are not returned?

We recognise that there are still many problems, such as the one that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We are in the market for constructive suggestions. We will consider any serious suggestion for improving the enforcement of existing regulations. In most instances, the necessary powers exist. It is a matter of proper enforcement, and there are councils where that has happened.

If he will make a statement on the progress made by the rail recovery action group. [143969]

Following the derailment of a train at Hatfield on 17 October, Railtrack instituted an immediate examination of the entire network, leading to nearly 1,000 20 mph speed restrictions being imposed, and requiring 450 miles of rerailing and the replacement of 650 points.

The House will join the Deputy Prime Minister in congratulating all the engineers and technicians, who have done good work so far. However, he will recall that on 9 November the Government held a summit—he was present, as was the Prime Minister—with Railtrack. He said that there would be a reliable timetable by Christmas. Sadly, that did not happen. We also heard of high hopes for a reliable timetable to begin yesterday. However, less than 50 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The House does not like to hear what I have to say, but it is the truth.

It is true that I told the House and said in public that I supported the evidence given to me and the statements made by Railtrack, to the effect that it would need only three weeks to produce a railway recovery programme. Any Minister in my position is bound to accept that professional advice. We know now that the promise and the recovery programme, followed by a sustainable timetable, can be achieved in normal circumstances only by Easter. I remind the House that normal is defined as 90 per cent. punctuality and reliability. That was called the normal service, which the previous Administration left us. We were working to improve that, and there were some signs of improvement. That was the definition of normal that was given to me by Railtrack, and it is a matter of record.

My right hon. Friend will have seen the statement made by Railtrack yesterday, in which it set out the difficulties that it foresees in meeting its maintenance programme. Will he ask the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail recovery action group to provide practical ideas about whether Railtrack is capable of being the core service for the railway system, as well as about whether we need to find another strategy if the company is not fit for that purpose?

My hon. Friend makes an important point and describes very much what I have been doing. I have been asking the Strategic Rail Authority questions, as it is the body that should advise us on these matters. She will know that the Strategic Rail Authority invited all the operators to submit evidence and it established working groups. It did so on the basis of the statement made by the then chief executive that there was some conflict between the organisation of the railway under privatisation and the running of a safe operating railway. I rejected that assertion and I notice that Railtrack now also rejects it, as do most of the rail companies. The working groups were established to examine the difficulties, provide alternatives and consider how we might present proposals for discussion in the industry.

May I preface my question by saying that it does not imply any personal criticism of the right hon. Gentleman? Can he explain why two broken rails at Hatfield—they were on the line to my constituency—have wrecked the entire railway system? Has that happened because Railtrack and the train operating companies did not know that hundreds of rails throughout the country were dangerous—or because they did know that but continued, month after month, to put at risk the lives of thousands of passengers every day?

The House will understand that that is a matter for the HSE, which is currently investigating it. It is clear from the work that is being done that the track might not have been in a proper state of repair, but that will have a lot to do with the record of investment under the previous Administration.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in negotiations with Railtrack, the Government should be negotiating from a position not only of strength and conciliation, but of fear? Does he accept that Railtrack will not improve its performance unless it knows that there is a distinct possibility that the Government are prepared to take the track back into public ownership?

The framework in which we operate is to ensure that the economic regulation of the railways is done by the Rail Regulator. I appointed a new Rail Regulator, whom I believe to be doing an excellent job. Strategic decisions about preparing not only for the maintenance of a good railway system, but for its enhancement, are given to the Strategic Rail Authority, which has been established in legislation and takes effect on 1 February. The regulator and the authority have an active interest, as do the Government as we provide resources to Railtrack.

The Secretary of State is very ready to tell everyone else what their responsibilities are while rarely taking on his responsibilities. We will hold him to his commitments. However, let me remind him that, two years ago, he told John Humphrys on the "Today" programme:

Quality, quality, quality … You will be able to tell in 12 months, John.

More people are travelling by rail than ever before. That was our intention—[Interruption.] Let us wait and see. I thought that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was talking about the last four years. In those years, more people have travelled by rail, more goods have been carried as freight and the railway system has been safer. That is absolutely clear to anyone who looks at the record. The investment that was announced in our 10-year plan was on a scale that had not been witnessed in the House for decades [Interruption.] I can tell the House what went wrong. I shall quote the hon. Gentleman, who said:

Certainly what we're happy to concede is that with the benefit of hindsight some of the privatisation decisions could have been improved.

If he will make a statement on resources for local authorities to improve their housing stock. [143970]

The Government inherited a £19 billion backlog of renovation and improvement work that was needed on council housing stock. We have made a commitment to tackle that and to bring all social housing in England up to a decent standard by 2010. Allocations for housing capital expenditure by local authorities have been increased from £750 million in 1997–98 to £1.9 billion in the current year. Next year, there will be a further large increase to £2.4 billion, more than double the annual average that the previous Government made available over their last five years.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful comments. Does he believe that they will help my young constituents in Ilkley, where there is a total lack of affordable housing to buy or to rent, mainly due to the previous Government's right-to-buy legislation? When many of my young constituents in Ilkley want to set up home, they have to move away from the areas in which they were brought up, and away from family and friends.

We fully understand the problems that people experience because of the shortage of affordable housing and the poor condition of the housing stock, to which I referred earlier. That is why we have increased capital allocations. I am pleased to say that the increase for my hon. Friend's authority means just over double the current allocation, in line with the national trend, from £12.7 million in 1996–97 to £26.3 million in 2001–02.

Will the Minister give more help to housing associations, which, in partnership with local authorities, occasionally provide housing for single people? For example, in my constituency Quest housing has done a remarkable job. Will that work be extended?

As my hon. Friend will have heard me say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), we have doubled the Housing Corporation's allocation for funding of registered social landlords. Total provision will rise from some £690 million in the current year to more than £1.2 billion at the end of the three-year spending review. The money will be available for new investment by housing associations, and local authorities will be able to use their enhanced housing investment programme allocations in the form of local authority housing grants to support similar initiatives.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to ensure that there is enough investment in social housing for them to honour their commitment to bring all council housing up to a decent standard within 10 years?

As my hon. Friend says, we believe that it is for tenants to determine the best option. We have provided four options for the future of council housing, all of which include increased resources.

When he last met representatives of Railtrack to discuss investment in the rail network. [143971]

Ministers meet Railtrack from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest. Most recent meetings have been in the forum of the rail recovery action group.

The news today is full of the crisis in investment in the railways. [Laughter.] As I have said, the news today is full of the crisis in investment in the railways. Can the Minister explain how the Government's intervention in the make-up of the board of Railtrack— which has resulted in a 10 per cent. drop in the share price—will help to lever-in private investment, which is necessary for the Government's 10-year plan?

It is a bit of a liberty for a representative of the Conservative party to talk of a crisis in the railway industry. It was, after all, the Conservatives who undersold Railtrack for £1.9 billion in a botched privatisation that left the rail network starved of investment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of chronic under-investment in the rail industry goes back at least two decades, and pre-dates the botched privatisation by a long time? Will he reiterate, for the benefit of those who may not have heard or understood him earlier, that investment is currently at historically high levels? Will he confirm for those of us who worked for the railways that people who call for the renationalisation of the industry must convince us that the Treasury will make a better fist of running it in the future than it ever did in the past?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is true that we are now experiencing unparalleled levels of investment in rail infrastructure. As for my hon. Friend's remarks about the oft-mentioned probability of renationalisation, the Government have no such plans. The rail industry has experienced sufficient instability in the aftermath of its fragmentation into 100 pieces by the previous Conservative Government. The cost of renationalisation would amount to at least £5 billion, all of which would go into the pockets of shareholders. We believe that, for such sums, there are better investment purposes in the rail infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the Minister's view on Railtrack's position, does he accept at least that the City has, in effect, put Railtrack on the critical list, its credit rating might be downgraded and there is even talk of Railtrack pulling out of the second stage of the channel tunnel rail link? In those circumstances, what will the Government do? In particular, if part of the solution is to speed up already planned public investment in Railtrack, will the Minister at least agree to match that investment with increased public control over how the money is spent?

As for Railtrack's financial position, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that yesterday Railtrack announced that it accepted the Rail Regulator's review of its access charges. It is looking for a successful conclusion of discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government on the timing of certain payments due under the review. The option of an interim review of on-going maintenance costs and other matters with the Office of the Rail Regulator remains open.

May I tell my hon. Friend about a particular transport difficulty in my constituency of Bury. North? It is possible to travel from the centre of Bury, South into Manchester, via the excellent Metrolink; and it is possible to travel from the centre of Bury, North to the very important town of Ramsbottom, via the East Lancashire railway; but it is not possible to travel from Ramsbottom into Manchester. Does he share my passion to renew for the citizens of Ramsbottom the rail link directly into Manchester that was cut by Dr. Beeching almost 40 years ago?

Order. I think that the Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman wants from the question.

Mr. Speaker, as you very well know, as an old railway man myself I am extremely keen to see the restoration of any rail links where possible. I dare say that if I represented Bury, I would share my hon. Friend's passion for the restoration of the Ramsbottom link. A number of options are available for the restoration of such links. I recommend that he deals with his local authorities in investigating the possibility of a rail passenger partnership.

The Government must have had confidence in Railtrack's investment programme or, on 16 November, they would not have produced a DETR press release stating that

The Prime Minister today called industry heads to a meeting at Downing Street

The recovery plans will deliver:

… sustainable timetables, which will be in force for all train companies from Monday—

with the prospect of steady improvements over the coming weeks

virtually all serious current disruptions will have been dealt with by the end of the year.

As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister explained in answer to a previous question, the announcement before Christmas was made on the basis of promises made by the late chief executive of Railtrack. We are now aware, of course, that there is a promise from Railtrack that 85 per cent. of the system will be returned to normal by the end of this month, with the prospect of the entire system operating normally by Easter. We take that promise very seriously and we expect the rail industry to deliver on it.

If he will list the types of aircraft which exude smoke odours and fumes into their cabins. [143972]

The safety regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority receives reports of smoke, odours and fumes entering the cabins of all UK-registered passenger aircraft types. Analysis of the 171 incidents reported in the year ending 30 June 2000, resulting from a variety of causes, indicated no significant pattern regarding aircraft type. Only 14 related to oil contamination and none suggests any risk to health and safety.

Does my hon. Friend have any knowledge or figures on incidences where the cabin crew or the pilot became ill from causes unknown? Does he have a view on today's tabloid headline in the Daily Express about deep-vein thrombosis and whether the figures purported in that article are truisms or, as I think, guesstimates?

As I said, none of the 171 incidents reported in the year up to 30 June 2000 was deemed to pose a serious risk to the health or safety of pilots. Should an incident pose a serious risk to health or safety, the Civil Aviation Authority would oversee a more detailed investigation. Let me take the opportunity to comment on the irresponsible story in the Daily Express this morning. It was based almost entirely on the word of one Mr. Farrol Khan, who runs something called the aviation health institute, of which, so far as we can tell, he is the only member. Mr. Khan gave evidence to the excellent inquiry into aviation health conducted by the Lords Select Committee, which described his evidence as

nonsense … careless with facts … we ha ye been concerned at the confused thinking, lack of substance and erroneous statements in some of the other material presented to us and the public by Mr. Khan, the institute's founder director—

In spite of his evident enthusiasm for his cause, sadly we have not found him to be a reliable source or scientific and medical information.

How many complaints from members of the public have been received about smoke odours and fumes in aircraft cabins? How do those figures compare with the number of complaints received over, say, the past three years from members of the public, passengers on aircraft who have suffered colds, coughs, sore throats and other ailments as a result of the increasingly unsatisfactory circulation of air on aircraft?

As I said, 171 incidents have been reported from all sources, including members of the public. I do not have a breakdown as regards air quality. The Lords Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman. The Government are taking it seriously. We have commissioned research to see what gaps there are in our knowledge, and we shall take any measures that are necessary. However, it is possible to exaggerate in this area and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep a sense of perspective.

If he will make a statement on regional air links with Heathrow Airport. [143973]

The Government acknowledge the social and economic benefits of air links between London and the regions of the United Kingdom. However, demand for take-off and landing slots at Heathrow greatly exceeds capacity. Slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. The Government have very limited powers of intervention; to date, they have concluded that no regional air services into Heathrow qualify for a public services obligation, which would enable slots to be protected.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. Does he share my view that regional air links are crucial for business, for tourism and, indeed, for inward investment, but that there is a worrying trend for carriers to cut regional air services in favour of more lucrative international destinations? May I press my hon. Friend on public service obligations? Does he agree that they are the only real way to guarantee a future for rural, regional air services?

We certainly accept that there is a case for good regional air services into London. What we do not accept—as my hon. Friend will recall from the discussions we held when he came to see me—is that all those services can go into Heathrow, which is heavily over-subscribed.