What progress has been made in reducing dangers to pedestrians from rigid car fronts. [148439]

The European Commission has not yet made a formal proposal for making car fronts safer. On 6 February, the Commission hosted a meeting on this issue, and it is now considering how the matter should be taken forward. We are continuing to press for the best deal for pedestrians.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend, and welcome him to his first Question Time as Minister? In Europe, 2,000 deaths and 18,000 serious accidents are caused every year by the rigid fronts of cars, usually by bullbars or by what the Americans call "killer grills". It is possible to prevent such deaths, given that the bullbars and rigid fronts concentrate and multiply the force of accidents. The effects are usually concentrated at the level of a child's head or the vital organs of an adult. Why is such slow progress being made on this matter? I do not question the enthusiasm of the British Government, but why is it taking so long to introduce the reforms? Lives are being sacrificed in the name of vanity and fashion.

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcoming remarks, and congratulate him on his work over a long period in advertising the effects of bullbars. He will know that we have commissioned research by the Transport Research Laboratory, and that we have put forward to the European Commission a proposal to include in pedestrian protection proposals for cars the banning of dangerous bullbars. We have also submitted a proposal showing how the existing external projections directive could be modified to proscribe the fitting of bullbars. Discussions are continuing after last Tuesday's Commission meeting, and we will continue to try to find the best way to make progress on proscribing bullbars.

Is not a particular problem the large number of four-wheel drive vehicles on the road, some of which are excessively large, certainly for going down to Tesco's once a week? Is any special research being undertaken into the problems caused by such vehicles? If not, will the Minister initiate such research?

As I said, we have had the Transport Research Laboratory do the research. It is true that such items are mostly fashion accessories. People do not realise how dangerous they are. We must advertise the fact that they are a danger and that people should not fit them. We must then make the best possible progress towards a ban on dangerous accessories on the front of cars.

If he will make a statement on modernising British ports. [148440]

What his policy is on the construction of container ports on non-brownfield sites. [148441]

The Government announced the publication of a ports policy paper, "Modern Ports", on 27 November. Ports have an important role in integrated transport policy. The paper identifies a number of specific initiatives that we hope to pursue. We intend to promote better regulation of the industry, and agreed national standards and good practice for port management and port operations alike. The paper sets out a balanced policy on port development that aims to make the best use of existing and former operational land and secure high environmental standards while supporting sustainable projects for which there is a clear need.

This is a very important strategy nationally, but the work to be undertaken soon in the port of Whitby will be extremely important to many of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the harbour infrastructure developments in the port—to the tune of some £850,000, I understand—in addition to the needed rail and road land links into the port of Whitby, will deliver an important and viable future for my constituents? Will he support my plea for an inter-modal study to ensure that we can deliver the integrated transport policy to which he referred?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm support for the Government's new investment in the port of Whitby. As he will be aware, my Department has approved nearly £500,000 for Whitby, and we have also approved investment worth £350,000 for the port of Scarborough. Both ports have received extra funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for other refurbishment projects totalling £500,000. My hon. Friend has made powerful representations in favour of improved rail connections to Whitby and road links to Scarborough. The Government are considering his proposals very carefully.

The Minister having decided to group my question on the Government's policy on the construction of container ports on non-Brownfield sites with the previous question on the Order Paper, I am sorry that he has not felt able to answer it more specifically. Is he aware that yesterday Hampshire county council rejected by 21 votes to none to turn down the proposal to develop the Dibden bay container port on the edge of the New Forest? Is he aware of the devastating effects that that development would have on Totton and the people of the waterside villages if it went ahead? Does he know that Associated British Ports has now admitted that it is not part of a national economic need that this port needs to be developed? Can he reassure my constituents, who were extremely worried to hear the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, state on television on 8 February:

think it is a very valid proposal for developing a much needed container port in the United Kingdom."

On the broad issue, we recognise that there are strong views about Associated British Ports' proposals to develop new port facilities at Dibden bay on Southampton water. That is exactly why we have recently announced our decision to call a public inquiry, which should start later this year.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and invite him to visit the historic port of Whitehaven, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has done on previous occasions. If he does so, he will see the enormous potential of the regeneration of the port for tourism, water sports and fishing, but does he recognise that the full potential can never be realised unless road improvements are carried out? Will he therefore look very closely at the proposal to improve the A595 from Lily Hall to Parton? It is a modest scheme in national terms, but would nevertheless be of enormous economic and social benefit to Whitehaven and the people of West Cumbria, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savo ur s).

Of course I would love to visit the port of Whitehaven. The Government are committed to improving both rail and road links to ports as part of our 10-year plan for transport. I am aware of the campaign for the road, spearheaded by the Whitehaven News, and of the fact that the road was Cumbria's third priority in its recent local transport plan.

Will the Minister go back to th,, issue of Dibden bay and answer the question that has been posed by Mr. Brian Dash, the local county councillor who for the past 10 years has led the campaign against the development, about whether it is in the national interest? Successive Ministers in this Government and the previous Government have made the point that the Dibden bay development should not go ahead unless it can be conclusively proved that it is in the national interest for it to do so. As that manifestly is not the case, will the Minister confirm that the public inquiry is a complete waste of time?

I suspect that those who take an opposing view on the Dibden bay development might consider that it manifestly is in the national interest. It is precisely to determine whether the, development is in the national interest that we have convened the public inquiry to which I have referred. Furthermore, it may in due course be necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a decision about what is or is not in the national interest.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the success of the port of Dover, which is still a trust port and is the busiest ferry port in the world? When he makes representations on the European directive on ports, will he acknowledge the special differences between ports in the United Kingdom and ports on the continent? Will he ensure that the framework is set up in such a way that the rules do not prescribe against ports such as Dover and that those ports will not be disadvantaged?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, as ever, a doughty advocate of the port of Dover. Representations on the matter have been received from the UK Major Ports Group; we are also aware of the views of the British Ports Association and of several port and terminal operators. Our general policy on the proposed directive is to support the broad principles of liberalisation and competition in the provision of port services, subject to appropriate safeguards and standards.

What is the point of a ports policy, or, indeed, of an integrated transport policy, that does not address the most important issue facing ports, especially in the south-east—that of capacity? Is the hon. Gentleman mare that the industry forecasts that ports serving the south-east are likely to run out of container capacity within the next one to two years? Is that not typical of the Government's integrated transport policy? The policy is merely more pretty pictures, more warm words and more truisms. Like the railway, the tube and the road jams—the worst we have ever had—the Minister's policy is nothing but paralysis by analysis. [Interruption.]

That was, "paralysis by analysis"—just in case the House did not get it.

If he will make a statement on his support for concessionary bus fares for pensioners. [148443]

Local authorities in England spend more than £390 million on concessionary bus fares each year—money largely funded by central Government. The local government finance settlement for 2001–02 takes account of local authorities' responsibilities in this area. In particular, we have injected an extra £54 million to cover the additional costs of introducing the mandatory half-fare scheme for pensioners and disabled people under the Transport Act 2000.

I thank my hon Friend for that reply. Perhaps this is a rare occasion. May I congratulate the Government on the implementation of another election pledge—namely the introduction of mandatory concessionary fares. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many pensioners and disabled people are likely to benefit directly as a consequence of the scheme? For the information of the House, can he also tell us the view of the Tory Opposition on the scheme when it was debated in the Standing Committee?

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's congratulations. Our mandatory concessionary travel scheme will guarantee at least half fares on local buses for pensioners and disabled people. The bus pass will be free of charge. Where more generous schemes are already in place, they will, of course, continue. The scheme will come into effect from 1 April in Greater London and from 1 June in the rest of England. We expect about 5.5 million pensioners and up to a further 1.5 million disabled people to benefit from the new arrangements.

Given that we read in the newspapers today that the Government are keen to outlaw age discrimination, will the Minister explain why the Government want to continue the discrimination whereby a man has to wait until the age of 65 to receive a concessionary bus pass even though a woman receives one at the age of 60? Is the Minister aware of the case before the European Court, and of the fact that he only has until next week to make a decision on whether to contest that case, at great expense to the Government, or to accept that, on entitlement to bus concessions, there should be equality for men and women at age 60?

The Government certainly are aware of the Matthews case, which is before the European Court, to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. We are considering the implications of that case and our response.

Will my hon. Friend endeavour to speak to Tory-controlled Gedling borough council, which, despite the extra money that we have put into the half-fare scheme, has decided to axe the full-fare pass scheme for pensioners from April 2001? Will he do all that he can to get Tory-controlled Gedling borough council to change its mind because thousands of pensioners in my constituency are outraged at the fact that the council is receiving extra money but choosing to axe the full-fare scheme?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in condemnation of that Tory authority. I very much hope that that Tory authority will understand the force of his representations and the passions of local pensioners. It is an absolute outrage that Tory-controlled Gedling borough council has abolished the full-fare pass for pensioners from 1 April 2001.

The Minister has visited Purbeck on several occasions. I wonder whether he will have a word with the treasurer of Purbeck district council, who tells us that the bus concessionary scheme that it is being forced to introduce, which is very welcome to Purbeck pensioners, will put their council tax bills up by as much as 17 per cent. Will he please look at where the money has gone to, because it certainly has not arrived in Purbeck to pay for the scheme?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the situation in Purbeck. My presumption is that, heretofore, Purbeck has not provided such a concessionary fare scheme. The reality is that, although the Government, by allocating £54 million extra to local authorities, has made a proportionate allocation to each authority to allow it to introduce the scheme, those Scrooge authorities that heretofore have not had such a concessionary fare scheme will have to bear some pain in the process. However, the hon. Gentleman should think not only of the implications for the local ratepayers, but of the wonderful opportunities that will be opened up to pensioners in that locality.

If he will make a statement on the new local strategic partnerships. [148444]

Local strategic partnerships will provide a single, overarching local co-ordination framework, which will enable local stakeholders to address issues that really matter to local people. They will prepare and implement local community strategies and local neighbourhood renewal strategies. They will allocate neighbourhood renewal funds, which have now doubled to £200 million for next year, and rationalise local partnerships, working to deliver better services.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She can be assured that the additional £6.5 million of neighbourhood renewal funding allocated to Blackpool over the next three years will be very warmly welcomed by my constituents. Will she confirm that the successful existing partnerships that Blackpool council has developed can form the basis for the new local strategic partnership, so that that very welcome additional investment can be effectively targeted for the benefit of my constituents?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her commitment to ensuring that the deprivation is effectively tackled in Blackpool, and, indeed, elsewhere. This Government have recognised the importance of effectively targeting deprivation, wherever it arises. I assure my hon. Friend that local agencies should seek to build on the local arrangements that have already worked well, rather than starting again from scratch. As cross-sector, cross-agency umbrella partnerships, LSPs offer real opportunities to streamline existing partnership arrangements and to make them more effective, by making better connections between individual initiatives.

Could the right hon. Lady put her first answer into plain English?

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not able to hear because of the way in which his colleagues on the Front Bench were behaving. We are establishing local strategic partnerships throughout the country. Each local authority is working out how it can most effectively develop a strategic partnership that has an overview of the whole area, and really ensure that it identifies the strategic priorities, who will work on them and how they can ensure that services work much better in their areas. I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports that objective.

If he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and the new US Administration on global warming. [148446]

The Government are keen to encourage the new United States Administration to engage constructively on climate change. We have supported the deferral of the next round of talks by a few weeks to give them more time to prepare. I shall be taking every opportunity to raise the issue with the United States, including at the G8 Environment Ministers meeting in Italy next month. I have also asked colleagues to do the same and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with Colin Powell when he met him last week. However, this is not just about the United States; we will, of course, continue to discuss the way forward with other countries.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for that informative reply. The United States Administration asked for the resumption of the talks in Bonn to be postponed. What can we read into that? Are they dragging their feet, or does Colin Powell, the new Secretary of State, need more time to prepare the new Bush Administration's case on global warming?

My interpretation of the events is that the United States could have attended the conference in May and refused to co-operate with its objectives. The fact that the Administration have asked for more time, are seriously considering the issue and are appointing new officials to negotiate on their behalf is a hopeful sign, and I am forever optimistic in such matters.

In the Secretary of State's discussions on global warming, will he do his best to maintain the fuel duty differential between liquified petroleum gas and other fuels?

Anything that encourages people to make a better environmental contribution, including the greater use of environmentally friendly fuels, is to be encouraged. Tax arrangements which are dealt with by the Chancellor, are also important. We are making headway in such matters.

Will my right hon. Friend consider early-day motion 232 on climate change, which has been signed by 122 Members and which welcomes the e-campaign T.5.20? Does he agree that a country with 5 per cent. of the world's population that produces 20 per cent. of the world's greenhouse emissions has a particular responsibility to get its policy right? Giving it a little more time is probably appropriate in this case.

It is right to give everyone an opportunity to meet the objectives to which they signed up as part of the Kyoto agreement. Indeed, the recent UN conference in China on climate change revealed new and stronger evidence to show that global warming is continuing to increase and to have an effect on the environment, and that it is created by manmade activities. We are all beholden to take steps to reduce such activities.

It is instructive that Labour Back Benchers wish to express their suspicions of a new American Administration who have been in office for fewer than three weeks, rather than performing the role of the House in holding our Government—in this case, the Deputy Prime Minister—to account. The right hon. Gentleman led the European negotiators at The Hague with such diplomatic finesse that, when the talks failed, he characteristically blamed everyone else and his colleague, the French Minister, said that

"he lost his nerve, he lost his cool",

A typical Opposition question. The hon. Gentleman has the facts wrong. I did participate in leading the negotiations at Kyoto because, at that time, Britain was one of the three parties involved in the presidency, and I therefore played a part. That was not the case at The Hague because the meeting was controlled by France, not Britain. However, I hope that I played a positive role by suggesting a way in which we could reach an agreement. I am grateful that the terms of the negotiations are still on the table for discussion. That is a step forward and I shall not be put off by silly, stupid remarks by the Opposition.

If he will make a statement on improvements to British waterways. [148447]

British Waterways has made tremendous strides in delivering the targets that we set it during my hon. Friend's period as waterways Minister, turning what had been a liability into an extremely important asset. We have significantly increased public investment in British Waterways. It expects to eliminate its safety-related backlog by 2004 instead of 2006. The document "Waterways for Tomorrow" reported on British Waterways' initiatives to work with the voluntary sector and to establish new public-private partnerships in telecommunications, property and water transfer.

I thank the Government for their continued commitment to British Waterways, and I pay particular tribute to the strong leadership of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Department any nearer to achieving a single navigational authority for all the waterways in Britain, which would help modernisation?

I pay a warm and well-deserved tribute to my hon. Friend for his close interest in British Waterways and for the fact that, under his stewardship, the inland waterways were turned into the much more dynamic and successful enterprise that they are today. There has been a huge increase in funding—it has almost tripled since 1997—and a long history of under-investment has been reversed. "Waterways for Tomorrow", which the Deputy Prime Minister launched last June, considered several options, including the one to which my hon. Friend drew attention. That is still under discussion with the new, dynamic chairman and chief executive of British Waterways, and we hope to make an announcement before long.

Many of us have unexpectedly acquired waterways in our constituencies, as I have in Redbourn, because of flooding and burst mains, and the only improvement that we want is to return those waterways to roads. That is held up by a shortage of tankers. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of releasing tankers from the emergency services to supplement those provided by Thames Water and the county council?

I think that that question goes rather wide of British Waterways. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, who inherited this important asset, was unable to persuade his Government to end the huge under-investment that went on for 20 years. However, the point that the right hon. Gentleman made is sensible, and I shall investigate it and write to him.

If he will make a statement on investment in local authority housing. [148448]

The Government inherited a £19 billion backlog of council house renovation and improvement work. We have committed ourselves to bringing all council housing in England up to a decent standard by 2010. The resources provided to authorities for housing investment have been increased from £750 million in 1997-98 to £2.4 billion next year.

Council tenants in Doncaster are already seeing the extra money that is being invested in local authority housing beginning to reverse the years of under-investment under the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is aware not only of the amount of substandard housing in Doncaster but of the particular problems that we face, such as the need to improve former Coal Board housing? Will he assure me that he will consider those matters when reviewing the allocation of the major repairs allowance, so that housing in my constituency can become a right for all and not just a privilege for a few?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments about the increases in capital spending. She will know that Doncaster is receiving £12.5 million in the current year and will receive £16.5 million next year. Those are substantial increases on the £5.5 million level inherited from the previous Government.

Local authority tenants in Sheffield are keen that additional investment be made in their homes and are considering questions relating to the future tenure of their housing. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist their deliberations by making clear any link that exists between future investment arrangements and future tenure arrangements? Are the Government entirely neutral on who owns the housing, or is additional investment made available if housing is transferred from the local authority to other social housing providers?

We have made it clear to local authorities that they have four options to consider in relation to the future of their stock. Those include continuing to administer their housing through a housing revenue account managed by the local authority; the possibility of acting through an arm's-length management company, as set out in our proposals in the housing Green Paper, whereby ownership remains with the local authority but the housing is managed at arm's length; the private finance initiative, under which £600 million additional credits will be made available to allow private sector involvement, but with ownership remaining with the local authority; and large-scale voluntary transfer to a registered social landlord. Those are the four options; all have a different impact and we expect local authorities to analyse the financial implications for themselves and to conclude which is the best option for their area. The Government have no preference and are not pressing local authorities to pursue any one of the four options.

I put it to my right hon. Friend that, instead of being given four options, local authorities are being directed towards only one option: stock transfer. At the meeting last Friday, it was made plain to him by the leader of Barnsley council that the council has no money in its accounts for housing improvements because it has been transferred to the major repairs allowance or the housing revenue account. Arm's-length companies will be available to no more than half a dozen local authorities, so some authorities such as mine, which has already held a ballot in which stock transfer was rejected, are between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are being forced down one line by the Government and not being given money for repairs if they want to keep their council housing.

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, as I told his colleague the leader of Barnsley council at that meeting, that Barnsley has benefited from one of the largest increases in local authority capital funding of any local authority in the country—it is well above the national average. We want to work with Barnsley council and other local authorities to ensure the best possible outcome. It is right that authorities consider a range of options. I know that Barnsley considered stock transfer but that, by a narrow majority, tenants voted against it. I am sure that Barnsley council, like other authorities, will continue to do its best to use the substantially increased resources that the Government have made available, and that it will choose the option that is best for the interests of its tenants and housing in its area.

Does the Minister recall that, prior to the last election, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged:

"We need an emergency programme to reduce the number of empty properties, including those held by government departments"?

The Government have introduced a series of measures to encourage empty properties being brought back into use. In particular, we have taken effective action to bring empty Government property back into use. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman of our success in that respect: when the Conservative party was last in power, the Ministry of Defence had 14,000 empty properties; that figure is now down to 10,700—far too many, but decreasing. Under Conservative stewardship, my Department, now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, had more than 1,000 empty properties; last year, that figure was down to 241. The current Government are taking action to produce results and to reduce the number of empty properties in this country.

May I press my right hon. Friend on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) about local authority housing? It is important that those authorities that eschew large-scale voluntary transfer are not penalised. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those authorities that do not go through the LSVT option will not be penalised either through rents or access to capital for improvements in their housing stock?

It is difficult to see how local authorities have been penalised in a year when they have received a 51 per cent. increase in their capital allocations. Next year, authorities across the country are due to receive a further 26 per cent. increase in capital allocations. The Government are increasing funding to local authorities and we want them to reach a sensible choice, bearing in mind the need to improve their stock and to use all available options. We have said that that is a matter for each local authority to decide, bearing in mind the resources available to them and the Government's commitment to increase funding.

If he will make a statement on his policy concerning regional government. [148449]

We remain committed to a move to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. While no timetable has yet been drawn up, governance in the regions is already evolving through the work of the chambers, regional development agencies, Government offices and others.

The Secretary of State has helpfully reconfirmed the Government's position on regional government, as originally set out in the Labour party manifesto at the general election. That confirmed that where regional government was introduced, a tier of local government would have to be abolished. I quote:

"Our plans will not mean adding a new tier of government to the existing English system."

The sound of elections and county council elections is round the corner. As I have always said, I think both sides of the House are agreed that local government unitary authorities are the first tier of the local government structure. As for the second, regional tier, we shall put forward a list of options to the electorate that will be ready for the referendums for each region, and allow them to make a decision. That has always been our position, and it is the one that we shall be presenting to the electorate.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that probably the greatest feeling for regional government in England is in the northern region? Does he further appreciate that that feeling is strengthening, bearing in mind the relationship with devolved government across the Scottish border? With that in mind, will he consider the possibility that the northern region should again be reunited, and that a common region facing the Scottish border, including the north of Cumbria, should be involved in a new northern regional assembly?

I find in my journeys around the country that there is a growing feeling for some form of regional government and that that is as strong in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside as in the northern area. There has been a long history of demands for regional government in the northern region, and I am supportive of that. We must ascertain exactly what that opinion is, and we will do that by referendum. There is the age-old argument in the north about whether the region should cover Cumbria; it is a judgment that must be arrived at later.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the primary purpose of regional government is not to take functions from local government but to give democratic accountability for regional activities, which are mainly undertaken now by central Government, to the regions? Is he able to tell us whether we might have a referendum within two years of the general election?

I shall leave those comments to be made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have always believed in the regional government argument. It is important to recognise, first, that regional government should involve the decentralising of power and government functions from central Government to the regions. Secondly, we should not make the mistake of centralising in a region in the name of decentralisation. These are thoughts that we shall have in mind when we put the options to the electorate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his first reply on the subject this afternoon? Is he also aware of the assemblies' and RDAs' lack of democratic accountability? That accountability can come only from regional assemblies, so it should be a major priority for the Government after the next election.

I certainly believe that it should be a priority. On the form of regional government, we have made it clear that people in the regions will make that decision, and we will draw up several alternatives for them to consider in the referendum.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that it is a good use of taxpayers' money for RDAs to set up expensive new offices in Brussels?

I believe that the RDAs need to be represented where they can make decisions and where European decisions clearly affect their regions. As for the judgment about whether or not such offices are expensive, I do not know which one the hon. Gentleman is referring to. However, I get very suspicious of any talk from the Opposition about figures, particularly in view of the fact that they said that they would save £200 million by scrapping regional chambers, when no such commitment has ever been given; that is a black hole in the hon. Gentleman's own finances.

Most people in this country believe that is for the Government to represent us in Brussels as one country, not a nation divided into regions, each with its hand out. Is it right for the West Midlands regional development agency to have an office of up to 12 people and a budget of £1 million? Does it make sense to have five other RDAs with their own offices, and three more planning to set up offices, at great expense to the taxpayer? Is that not another illustration of the dissipation of the effort created by the RDAs and the cost to the taxpayer of unaccountable regional bureaucracies?

What I find a little difficult to accept about the hon. Gentleman's arguments is the fact that he makes great complaint about the English RDAs, but has nothing to say about Scotland and Wales, even though he is prepared to abolish RDAs in England, yet retain them as government for Scotland and Wales. As for the role and importance of the RDAs, we have found that the RDA played an important part in Birmingham in solving the problems of Rover and the motor car industry. RDAs are playing a part now in helping to develop regional economies.

"Well yes I think that, em, we're also pragmatic and we recognise that there's no fixed formula. Different solutions are right for different areas".

May I give my right hon. Friend a good reason for introducing a north-west regional assembly? Such an assembly would enable us, finally, to have in place a mechanism for keeping the North West Development Agency under control.

I think that there is a strong history behind that inquiry. My hon. Friend is right: development agencies should be accountable to representative bodies, whether directly or indirectly, whether elected or appointed. It is for the people of a region to make their decision, and the RDAs are but a tool for the development of the region to which they should be accountable.

What recent representations he has received from the British Road Federation about the level of fuel duty. [148450]

The Government receive representations from a wide range of interested bodies, including the British Road Federation, regarding the level of fuel duty and transport policy. Those are considered carefully and help to inform the Chancellor's Budget judgment.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his informative, comprehensive and inspiring reply. Is it not a fact that, after nearly four years of Labour Government, Britain's petrol, although among the cheapest in the European Union before tax, is the most expensive after tax?

I do not think that the House is likely to forget that the major source of the increase in fuel prices in recent years resulted from the previous Government's introduction of the fuel duty escalator. If there is any responsibility for the situation in which the underlying rate of increase results largely from the increase in oil prices, it lies with the global price increase in oil and the activities of the previous Government.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the price of lead-free petrol in this country is virtually identical to that in France, whereas diesel is much cheaper on the continent? People may argue about prices, but do they want to pay the extremely expensive tolls that individuals have to pay in France to drive on the autoroutes?

My hon. Friend is right. In the sometimes blinkered discussions of these matters, the total impact of various imposts on fuel are not taken into account. Notwithstanding the protestations of the Opposition, the costs of motoring are lower now than they were 30 years ago, in 1970.

The Minister is aware that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier, and that the significant differentials in fuel duty between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic have an extremely detrimental impact on the petrol retail industry and the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister make representations to the Treasury to have the matter addressed?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into the situation in Northern Ireland. He is aware, of course, that ministerially I have no direct responsibility for the situation in Northern Ireland, but I undertake to convey his observations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If he will make a statement on cleaning up contaminated land. [148451]

We are committed to cleaning up the legacy of contaminated land left unremedied by the previous Government. We brought a new regulatory framework into force in April 2000. We have also made significant public funds available both for remedying contaminated land and for reclaiming derelict land.

Is my hon. Friend aware that low-level radioactive waste is being dumped at Clifton Marsh, on the outskirts of Preston, causing great concern to the residents of Preston and the Fylde? Can she give me some reassurance that the activities taking place there are safe, and are not a threat to public health or the environment?

I understand residents' concerns, in view of what has been in the newspapers. My hon. Friend knows that the Environment Agency is carrying out an investigation into those claims. The preliminary investigation has found nothing to suggest that radioactive materials significantly above the de minimis level allowed under the current legislation have been deposited. The agency is continuing to investigate and, if any further information emerges, it will be made available at the earliest opportunity. The EA undertakes regular monitoring, including checks on randomly selected skips, and the results are routinely published annually. To date, nothing unusual has been found, and regulatory conditions have not been found to have been breached. On that basis, I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks.

Has the Minister considered the impact that a greenfield development tax would have on the amount of contaminated land that could be cleaned up?

The Government have brought in a range of measures to ensure that we make progress on cleaning up contaminated land That includes bringing into force regulations laid by the previous Government, who took no action to implement them and refused to make available the resources that local authorities and other agencies need to progress those orders and to make sure that contaminated land is cleared. Actions speak louder than words, and we have taken the necessary action.

If he will make a statement on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. [148452]

The Government's action plan, "A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal", was published on 15 January and sets out our vision for narrowing the gap between poor neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. It aims to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality schools, decent housing and better health to the poorest parts of the country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome the introduction of the neighbourhood management programmes that are about to be introduced. They will cover areas in my constituency where there are pockets of deprivation, such as Jaywick, where the grasslands, greens and village areas desperately need help for their roads, poor housing, street lighting, health problems, law and order problems and education problems. Will my right hon. Friend consider seriously any proposal put forward by the local strategic partnership in that area for future bids that would reflect the aims of such programmes?

My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the tenacious way in which he has continued to put the case for the people of Jaywick. He will know that more than £6 million has been allotted to the neighbourhood in the past five years to enable it to seek improvements. It is eligible to apply for neighbourhood management but, as he knows, Jaywick needs the two councils to provide leadership and to recognise that they must pull agencies together to ensure progress. I hope that he will continue to work with them to ensure that that happens.

What steps he is taking to bring empty homes back into use. [148453]

The urban and rural White Papers, which we published in November, and our housing policy statement, which we published in December, set out a series of proposals that we are pursuing to bring more empty homes back into use. Those proposals include new tax concessions, guidance for local authorities and owners, and increased funding for the Empty Homes Agency.

According to the Empty Homes Agency, there are 87,400 empty homes in the south-east, which is under huge pressure for more house build. Given that that is the case, will the Government admit that although they have said much about the theory of using a sequential approach, involving the use of existing stocks before greenfield land is released for building, they are not doing anything to make that a reality? When will local authorities be given powers to make landlords return empty houses to the housing market? Will the Secretary of State impress upon the Chancellor the need to make repairs to existing buildings more affordable by equalising VAT on repairs and new build at a lower rate than at present?

The Government have done a great deal to change the emphasis and to focus on brownfield and inner-city development, rather than on allowing the profligate greenfield development that was so characteristic of the Conservative party when it was in power. The hon. Lady will be aware of the measures announced by the Government in respect of bringing empty properties back into use. Those measures have been welcomed by the Empty Homes Agency, which says:

"We are pleased that senior Ministers are talking about tackling empty homes and the recent policy changes introduced by the Government on planning and new housing provision that encourage using existing empty homes first will make a difference."

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful empty housing scheme initiated by Southampton city council? The scheme is called "Opening up the Empties" and is a partnership initiative that encourages the return to use of empty private sector homes. Will he encourage other local authorities to follow Southampton's example and to undertake similar schemes?

I am happy to agree entirely with my hon. Friend that Southampton's approach to tackling empty properties has been exemplary. It was one of the pioneering authorities in terms of its empty homes strategy, and Councillor Paul Jenks and his colleagues in Southampton deserve every congratulation on what they have done. They have been trailblazers, and if other authorities followed their lead more effectively, further action would be taken in bringing empty properties back into use.

What will the Minister do about local authorities such as Liberal Democrat-controlled North Wiltshire district council? Some five years ago, it sold off all of its council houses for £90 million and has since spent some £50 million of that money on assorted schemes, but has not built one single house, until now, when it is spending £25 million on building a new headquarters for itself. North Wiltshire has problems with empty homes and housing, but what can we do about the Liberals there?

I have to say that I have no responsibility for the Liberal party, either here or in North Wiltshire. I am, however, responsible for housing policy. It is the Government's objective to ensure that all authorities create strategies to make best use of the housing in their areas. That should include bringing empty homes into use. Authorities must also meet the needs of their populations through partnership with the private sector and registered social landlords, and use the additional resources that the Government are making available to them. We regret it very much when individual authorities fail to show the enthusiasm that is necessary to tackle problems in their areas.

What action he is taking to protect workers from exposure to vinyl chloride monomer; and if he will make a statement. [148454]

The control of substances hazardous to health regulations require employers to prevent or control exposure of their employees to vinyl chloride monomer, and several approved codes of practice give practical guidance on the application of the regulations to vinyl chloride. The Health and Safety Commission will consult about proposals to introduce a more stringent exposure limit for vinyl chloride monomer before the European Union directive is introduced.

Workers at the former Vinatex plant in my constituency were exposed to VCM, and many developed cancer. Recent research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer suggests that exposure to cancers through VCM is much wider than was previously believed. Will the Minister consider reinstating the angio-sarcoma register which details such matters, and extending it to include the new information that the survey reveals?

I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has pursued issues that relate to exposure to chemicals in more than one case in his constituency, which I have visited.