What recent representations he has received from industry and business concerning business rates. [152907]

We have received many responses from business to the proposals for business rates set out in the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance". A summary of the responses has been published on the Department's website. We will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she confirm that the Government's plan for a supplementary business rate, which could increase the business rate by up to 5 per cent. for hard-working enterprises, is to be scrapped, as reported in this morning's Financial Times? Will she now endorse the Opposition's call for a rates holiday for tourism and other businesses cruelly hit by the foot and mouth outbreak? Finally, will she endorse the Conservative policy of cutting business rates for vulnerable rural shops, post offices, pubs and garages by an average of #x00A3;1,000 a year over and above existing rate relief?

On the first question, the supplementary rate was an issue for consultation. As I told the hon. Gentleman, we shall publish our conclusions in the White Paper; he will simply have to wait for that. In response to the problems that businesses in rural areas are suffering from because of the foot and mouth outbreak, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will make a statement later, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. The Conservative party's proposals are interesting, but I suggest that he looks at the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, which the Government have published and presented to the House, as it will give additional rate relief to all food shops and to certain garages and pubs in small villages. Given his interest in the motor trade and the Leader of the Opposition's interest in the pub trade, I am sure that they will support our proposals.

There was a consultation meeting in Tarleton on the rural White Paper, and the proposals to give 50 per cent. rate relief to small rural businesses were widely welcomed by many of the people at that meeting. I urge my right hon. Friend to move swiftly to a conclusion on the consultation process. How quickly does she think that the Government will be able to implement those urgently needed reforms?

My hon. Friend has shown a very great and knowledgeable interest in this matter. As he says, the proposals on rate relief for small businesses are out for consultation, and we hope to bring them to a conclusion quickly. I am sure that he discovered at the meeting that he mentioned that, more than ever, people in the business world want a stable economy and no more boom and bust, and they know that they will get that from the Labour party.

From what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, it would be hard to believe that he supported the Government who introduced the uniform business rate. It was iniquitous then, and it is iniquitous now. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it penalises smaller retailers to the benefit of the larger out-of-town stores, so ably represented by the Conservative party? Is not it time that it was radically reformed and replaced with something fairer, which would also support traders in our town centres, not just those in villages?

I expect that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will fully support our proposals for rate relief for small businesses.

What plans he has to review the provision of new motorways and bypasses against pollution and other environmental criteria; and if he will make a statement. [152908]

The environmental impact of every new motorway and bypass proposal is assessed in accordance with the relevant European directives as implemented in the UK. We use the new approach to appraisal technique—NATA, as it is called—to assess all road proposals in our targeted programme of improvements. NATA takes account of sustainable development principles: environmental, economic and social factors are all properly examined and evaluated in a clear and consistent way.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, but will he take into consideration what happened in my constituency with the diversion of the A1 through Ferry Bridge? A public inquiry was held in the mid-1990s, but the evidence submitted on the environmental situation under planning regulation 10 was at least five or six years old at that time. The road will be built at some time in the next four or five years, so we are considering evidence that was submitted at least 15 years before it will be built.

I am aware that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in his criticism of the AIM Ferry Bridge to Hook Moor road. As he knows, an environmental impact statement was carried out originally and the project was then appraised in the 1998 roads review, using the NATA technique. Of course, when there are significant changes in the local environment, the appraisal has to be updated. I accept that that is not the reply that my hon. Friend has received in the past, but I repeat that, if changes can be assessed as significant in their environmental impact, I would expect a further application of the new approach to appraisal technique to be used.

How does the Secretary of State square the policy of completing a network of motorway service areas at 30-mile intervals, as reflected in the decision to allow the building of a service station in the Meriden gap green belt, with the Prime Minister's assertions that we need to put business, technology and environmental protection together?

That is exactly what lies behind a single appraisal summary table, which looks at issues of environment, economy, safety, accessibility and integration. They are very different in their applications and an attempt has to be made in every case to weigh them and to decide where the balance lies on which the decision should be made. I cannot speak about the case that the hon. Lady has mentioned. However, I am sure that that exercise was thoroughly undertaken and that the decision reflected not the fact that there may be environmental disbenefits, but that, on balance, the decision should be in favour of proceeding.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in finding a balance, it is important to take into account the relief of an urban environment as well as protecting the rural environment? Consequently, when Ministers consider the proposals for access to Hastings and integrated transport, including the bypass, will that be a consideration in their minds?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend, who has been diligent in his pursuit of this issue, that we shall consider that case extremely carefully. All that I can say is that, at this point, due process is being undertaken and it is not for Ministers to intervene in any way. We shall await the result of that process.

The Minister will be aware that a restoration project is going ahead for the Lichfield-Hatherton canal. However, is he aware that his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, overruled the Government inspector and said that the new Birmingham northern relief road should cut the canal in half? Will the Minister intervene with his right hon. Friend, overturn his decision, and try to restore the Labour party's promise that there should be an integrated and green transport policy?

The Birmingham northern relief road was planned under the previous Administration and the decision to go ahead was taken under the previous Administration. We inherited that decision and, on the balance of considerations, we have decided to proceed. The hon. Gentleman will know that the construction of the road has not yet begun, but it is designed to relieve congestion on the M6 north of Birmingham. As I and many others have experienced, that congestion is intense. Of course we accept that the road is controversial in that there are environmental impacts, but I repeat that, on the balance of considerations, relieving congestion in a major way must be weighed against the environmental effects. I believe that we have found the best solution.

When he plans to bring forward legislation on leasehold reform. [152909]

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was introduced in another place on 20 December last year is currently making good progress through its Committee stage.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the feudalism that underlies land law in this country is an inappropriate basis on which to deal with the law of property in the 21st century? Given that his Bill is languishing in the other place, which has a more recent affinity with feudalism than this democratic House, will he confirm that his Department will prioritise it when considering whether there is time to debate it here?

I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is not for me to determine the allocation of time when the Bill comes to this Place. However, I am pleased to tell her that that important measure, which gives effect to the Government's commitments to achieve fundamental reforms in the antiquated and unsatisfactory leasehold tenure, is making good progress in Committee in the other place. I hope that, with a fair wind, it will complete that stage in the near future.

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers saying in 1996:

"Labour in Government will have no hesitation in introducing a comprehensive leasehold reform package including commonhold legislation"?

That is pretty rich coming from a party that spectacularly failed to honour its pledge to introduce commonhold in the previous Parliament. We will take no lessons from the Conservative party on leasehold reform and commonhold. The Bill is the most comprehensive measure for several years on the subject. It gives new rights to leaseholders to take over the management of their homes if that is unsatisfactory, extends their opportunities to buy the freehold of their homes and introduces a new commonhold tenure to enable current leaseholders in flats to own the property collectively. It is an important reforming measure that shows the Government's commitment to leasehold reform, in contrast to the abject failure of the Conservatives.

What plans he has to increase access to public transport for people with disabilities. [152911]

We have made significant progress since 1997. Regulations requiring disabled access to new trains, buses and coaches have been introduced and similar regulations for taxis are planned. In addition, the 10-year transport plan introduced a new commitment to ensure that access for disabled people is a condition of all new public investment in transport.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's progress, in contrast to the Tories who failed to introduce the regulations necessary to provide increased access for people with disabilities. Although those improvements are welcome, does she agree that many railway stations, such as those operated by Connex in my constituency, present huge problems not only for people with severe disabilities, but for elderly travellers and parents with baby buggies? Does she have any proposals to deal with existing inaccessible infrastructure?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Vehicles are only part of the equation, and enabling disabled people to negotiate stations and transport premises is obviously equally important. In 1997, we established the disability rights taskforce, which led to the formation of the Disability Rights Commission. Those bodies, along with transport industry representatives, are working to produce the guidance that is necessary to ensure that providers can meet the requirement that the Act laid on them, which is that by 2004 they will have taken all reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use the service. Certainly the commission and the Government want to ensure that the guidance will bite.

Does the hon. Lady realise that it is almost impossible for disabled people to get on to the platform at most underground stations, and even if they were able to do so, they would need the strength of a British Lions rugby forward to get on the trains in the rush hour? Why, after four years, have the Government not fulfilled their commitment to initiate the public-private partnership for the tube, to modernise the system and to give proper access to disabled people?

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that although the Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995, the previous Government did absolutely nothing in their remaining two years to introduce any of the necessary regulations to implement its proposals. This Government have systematically worked since 1997 not only to make vehicles accessible but, as I have just explained, to make the transport infrastructure accessible.

I applaud what my hon. Friend said about disabled access to public transport. May I draw to her attention Tilbury Town station in my constituency, where all the residences are on the down side towards Southend? If my disabled constituents want to board a train to London, they have to travel an additional mile.

I assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is equally concerned about disabled access, and he will ensure that he has all the necessary information before he makes that visit.

I congratulate the Government on the steps that they have taken, and applaud those steps taken by the industry, such as bus manufacturers that have been equipping buses to take disabled people. Is this not also a question of changing thought patterns, particularly in the aviation industry, where people with disabilities can travel on some planes but certain companies can refuse to take them? Surely the Act should cover them all.

In principle, I agree. The hon. Gentleman will know that while we have taken many steps to improve the situation and to introduce regulations for national transport systems, it is more difficult to deal with methods of transport with an international dimension, such as aeroplanes and ships from other countries that come here. We need to work with countries in Europe and more widely to make sure that we can set standards with which a number of countries will comply. That is the only way to make sure that these issues are tackled across the board.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the several reports from the Employment Sub-Committee pointing out how crucial public transport is in getting people to work and, indeed, in getting them to participate in the new deal. Obviously, that is especially true of disabled people and those in rural and semi-rural areas such as Bishop Auckland and Teesdale. Despite the Government's best efforts, will she now say what further measures they will introduce to enable disabled people to get to work and to participate in the new deal?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how crucial the question of transport is to issues of social inclusion, in terms of ensuring that when jobs become available everyone, including disabled people, can access them. I think that he would acknowledge the additional resources that have gone into providing transport in rural areas. As I pointed out earlier, the transport plan includes a commitment to make access for disabled people a condition of future public investment. That initiative has been welcomed by the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which will monitor our performance on it.

If he will make a statement on the introduction of the congestion tax in London. [152912]

Parliament has given the Mayor, Transport for London and the other London local authorities powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to introduce congestion charging. The Mayor has chosen to use those powers and he is now consulting on proposals for a scheme in central London.

The Minister is correct in saying that this is a matter for the Greater London Authority. With that in mind, may I draw his attention to the front page of the Labour party's London manifesto for the elections that took place last May? Will he explain what exactly was meant by the words "no congestion charges"?

That is perfectly simple. It was the position of the Labour candidate in those elections that he would oppose not the principle of congestion charging, but its introduction in the first four years of mayoral tenure. In practice, the legislation is absolutely simple and straightforward. The Mayor is entitled to introduce congestion charging proposals and the evidence is that they are widely supported in London—[Interruption.] I hear cries of scepticism. Let me point out that the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, of Westminster and of Wandsworth, all Conservative boroughs—[Interruption.]

Order. There is absolutely no point in shouting at the Minister.

Those three Tory boroughs in London have opposed the introduction of the scheme and poured money into fighting it. However, when the borough of Kensington and Chelsea conducted a consultation exercise, the result was a majority in favour of charging. Further evidence emerged in a MORI survey of senior city executives published in February 2001—it revealed that 59 per cent. agreed that a system of congestion charging would benefit London. The Government are broadly supportive of the Mayor's proposals and so, it appears, is much of London opinion.

The hon. Gentleman failed to explain the sheer hypocrisy of the Labour party's position in its London election manifesto. After four wasted years on the tube, during which the Government have failed to raise a single penny of the private investment that was promised, will the Minister tell the House what exactly the Government have done for public transport in London since they were elected?

That was a pretty good rant from the hon. Gentleman. However, in addition to seeing through the completion of the Jubilee line extension, the docklands light railway, and the introduction of the Croydon tramlink, the Government have introduced the £60 million London bus initiative. Additionally, we have pumped no less than £1.5 billion into London's underground system. There is no need to look into the crystal ball to find out about Labour's achievement—hon. Members can read it in the book.

If he will make a statement on public service targets for neighbourhood renewal. [152913]

The Government have set targets to improve outcomes on employment, education, health, crime and housing in our most deprived areas. For the first time, public services will be judged on how well they are narrowing the gap between those areas and the rest, rather than on national averages.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Downham ward in my constituency is among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the country? The money that is going into neighbourhood renewal is being used effectively by all concerned: the council, the community and the local police. If the local police achieve the targets set by the public service agreement—and I am sure that they will—will they be rewarded for that achievement, not penalised?

The money that is going to Lewisham is in recognition of the number of people living in wards in the borough that are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country. I assure my hon. Friend that the targets that we set are minimum targets. Indeed, last week Lewisham council signed its local public service agreement, which extends those minimum targets and sets even higher targets. When people achieve those higher targets, they will be rewarded.

Does the Minister remember the wise words of her right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? He said of urban regeneration schemes:

"There is a proliferation of programmes with insufficient collaboration between the different agencies involved at national, local and area level. As a result we are spending vast sums of money, often over and over again on the same people through different programmes".

There were about six questions in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can reassure him that it is precisely to overcome different initiatives undertaken by different Departments that we have instituted the neighbourhood renewal programme, which brings all Departments together, nationally and locally, to make sure that they deliver effectively better outcomes for local people.

Given that my constituency lies at the heart of what the centre for the analysis of social exclusion deems the biggest poverty cluster in the United Kingdom, and given that the local Liberal Democrat council is unable or unwilling to access programmes for neighbourhoods in my constituency such as Anfield, Kirkdale and Walton, can my right hon. Friend suggest to my constituents ways in which they can gain rightful and proper access to the excellent programmes introduced by the Government?

It is precisely because we recognise those levels of deprivation in Liverpool that the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide the city with an additional £45 million over the next three years. That must be spent in such a way as to ensure that at least the floor targets are delivered. People in my hon. Friend's constituency can be assured that they will have a voice in the local strategic partnership. Their voice will be heard, which will ensure that their anxieties and aspirations are properly addressed.

If he will make a statement about Government plans to give greater protection to areas of outstanding natural beauty. [152914]

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced provisions for the better management and protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty, including requiring a management plan for every AONB and providing an option for the creation of conservation boards. Planning protection for AONBs has been confirmed as being at the highest level, alongside that for national parks.

I thank my right hon. Friend for all his efforts while piloting the legislation through the House, and assure him that it is greatly appreciated by all those in my constituency who live and work in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty, and by people from all over the world who visit the Wye valley. Can he give some indication of the timetable for introducing the measures that he outlined?

Yes. The main requirement relates to the introduction of the regulations that will govern the mapping process. I have already said that the mapping process must be concluded by 2005, although it is my intention that it should be concluded significantly earlier than that. It depends on the initial mapping exercise that the Countryside Agency is to carry out in the north-west and south-east of the country this summer. In the light of that, we will decide whether to proceed to open up areas of the country on a regional basis or by land type.

I welcome the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). Will he agree to give the same planning protection to sites of special scientific interest, including that which is identified along the line of the proposed pylons for which his Government have given approval and which go right through a SSSI? Will he agree to give SSSIs the same planning protection as areas of outstanding natural beauty?

The CROW Act, as it is called—the Countryside and Rights of Way Act—provides greatly strengthened protection for SSSIs, not just for AONBs. The degree of protection compares with that given to grade listed housing. In other words, if damage is done, the person responsible for it can be taken to court, prosecuted and forced to return the site to a pristine condition at his or her expense. That is a clear protection, which has never existed before and now applies to all SSSIs.

I welcome the speech that my right hon. Friend made earlier this month, particularly the creation of the pathfinder forces to be administered by the Tidy Britain Group, an organisation that has already shown extraordinarily good judgment by siting its national headquarters at Wigan pier. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the features that make our areas of outstanding natural beauty so attractive are the canals and rivers that flow through them? What plans does he have to extend part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include the banks, thereby giving authorities the ability to keep them litter free?

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I am concerned at the state of many riverbanks, and the surface of rivers is often badly littered. There are disputes about who carries that responsibility. I am keen to introduce as soon as possible new regulations or legislation that will ensure that there are adequate powers to deal with the issue. I have already had it brought to my attention, particularly in regard to the Mersey basin, but it applies to many other parts of the country. River basins that are badly litter strewn must be cleaned up.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to think about access to the countryside, particularly to areas of outstanding natural beauty, and how that would impinge on the present problems that the countryside is experiencing as a result of foot and mouth disease? It is possible that the Prime Minister will soon call a general election. Rather than cutting and running with a general election, does the Minister intend to stay in his Ministry during the election to make sure that the problems in our areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are causing concern to my constituents, are dealt with by the Government?

That question was rather silly and over the top. Of course there is a very serious point about access to the countryside during the foot and mouth outbreak. In a few minutes, I will make a statement about that. As we stated in the guidelines that we issued on Friday, there are many parts of the country, including areas of outstanding natural beauty, which people can safely visit, as long as they abide by the rules, which are to avoid all contact with livestock, keep away from farmland and, above all, strictly obey the "Keep out" signs.

If he will make a statement on disabled facilities grants. [152915]

The disabled facilities grant is a mandatory grant that is paid through local authorities for adaptations to help disabled people to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. The Government have increased the resources available for this grant in the comprehensive spending review by 20 per cent., to £87 million next year and £89 million in 2003–04.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she outline how Coventry will benefit from the increases, bearing in mind that many families waited for years under the previous Government, but were always denied access to the grant because of the lack of money allocated to them?

My hon. Friend is right on that last point. We have increased resources substantially from £56 million, which was the amount set in the last Budget of the previous Government, to £87 million for the coming financial year. I happen to have Coventry's disabled facilities grant allocation to hand. For the current year it is £456,000, but for the next financial year of 2001–02 it will increase by 23 per cent. to £561,000, which is about 5 per cent. higher than the average for the area. The allocation reflects Coventry's very good record on investment in facilities for disabled people and in housing adaptations.

What the current annual cost is of the South East England development agency. [152916]

rose—

Hurray!

Any more?

Is the Secretary of State aware that the South East England development agency has written to Members of Parliament asking them to make representations to the Commission in support of the Chancellor's highly controversial state-subsidised regional venture capital fund? Is he aware that it has supplied MPs with core scripts for that purpose? Is it genuinely the function of a regional development agency to try to rig a competition investigation in that way?

I do not accept for one moment that the agency is doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is doing an excellent job on regional development in the south-east. One can see how many jobs it has created and how much investment has been brought in. That is a matter of record. It is often said in the House that the Conservatives do not support the regional development agencies or the assemblies, which are actively involved, but it is important to bear it in mind that 105 Tory councillors serve on the regional chambers, 41 of whom do so in the south-east regional assembly. I note that the Conservative party is rightly prepared to keep the RDAs for Scotland and Wales, but that it has apparently said that it is prepared to keep them for London and not for the rest of the English regions. Greater London Assembly Member Bob Neil said:

"It is not the policy of the Conservative party to abolish the London Development Agency."

Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the South East England development agency, which leads the No. 1 region in Britain, has the resources that it needs for capital development, such as the proposed heart of Slough development? That would enable the local authority, local business and so on to create a hub of communications and cultural industries in the town that I represent.

Yes, that is exactly what the regional development agency is doing, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, but in many parts of the south-east. Indeed, we met RDA chairmen only about a week ago and told them about the extra resources and the single pool of development capital that will available for investment in the regions. That was welcomed, but we went further. We gave £500,000 a rear to each of the regional assemblies so that they can check what the RDAs are doing in their areas and to ensure that they are more accountable.

I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister does not accept that SEEDA is doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) says it is doing, because it has described exactly that in writing to all south-east Members. As the Deputy Prime Minister believes that SEEDA is such excellent value for money—indeed, it is one of the more efficient development agencies—will he say how much it spends on representation and lobbying in Brussels and how much it spent last year on PR and marketing, including its own annual report?

The amount I mentioned for administration was £6.3 million. I do not know the exact figure for how much is spent in Brussels, although it is clear that development agencies want to make representations because much regional funding is decided there. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to say how much is spent, but a quick call to the regional chair would have established it.

The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be totally out of touch, even with his own figures. Let me tell him the figure for administrative expenses, PR and marketing SEEDA itself—£630,000 last year. Furthermore, £50,000 is spent keeping employees in Brussels and a large sum also goes on lobbying there. The leader of Kent county council has specifically assured me, and has gone on the public record as saying, that he opposes the development agency and supports our policy to abolish it.

I fail to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's point. He is prepared to accept development agencies for Scotland and Wales, whatever the bureaucratic cost and whatever the difficulties in assisting with the differential between the north and south of Scotland and the English regions. Why can he accept development agencies for Scotland and Wales, but not for the English regions, where the populations are far higher and often in desperate need of economic assistance? The agencies have done an excellent job. In order to inform the House, and so that I can be better informed, will he comment on this statement by a Tory GLA Member:

"It is not policy of the Conservative party to abolish the London Development Agency"?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members have supported RDAs from the very beginning? Like him, I am a Yorkshire and Humber Member, and he will agree that Yorkshire and Humber is the No. 1 region in the United Kingdom. We believe in the RDAs, for all the country, because they are good for investment, good for innovation, good for planning and good for the future.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Tories said that they would abolish the Scottish and Welsh development agencies and they put that in their manifesto, but when they came to power they found that they needed such agencies to help to change and develop the economies in all regions. I suspect that the same would happen on this occasion were they to be elected, but there is not much chance of that.

What estimate he has made of the need for additional social housing in southern England. [152917]

Because of the wide variation in need between different parts of the country, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to carry out local housing needs assessments. In determining housing requirements for their regions, and in order to meet the full range of housing needs, regional planning bodies may have to estimate the future balance between general market and affordable housing. Draft regional planning guidance for the south-east suggests a provisional indicator of 18,000 to 19,000 affordable homes per year, and draft regional planning guidance for the south-west suggests a figure of between 6,000 and 10,000 per year.

That is an extraordinary statement from the Minister, given that his Department is interfering and preventing New Forest district council, which is a beacon council, from getting on with the job of building social houses to relieve homelessness. Is not that why 50,000 fewer social dwellings have been built under this Government than were built in the preceding four years?

New Forest district council has done extremely well under this Government. In the coming financial year, it will receive a housing allocation of more than £5 million, which is 25 per cent. higher than in the current year and 88 per cent. higher than the allocation when the Tories were last in power. This Government are giving more money to local authorities and more money for housing.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to assess the need for additional social housing it is a good idea to have some plan of the overall housing need in any region? Does he agree that a policy of abdicating the need for any planning guidance or planning decision in favour of allowing local authorities to build housing in their own areas, as the Conservative party believes, is a recipe for little or no social housing or for such provision to be unpredictable? Will he commit himself to ensuring that, in planning regional housing need, careful consideration will be given to what level of social housing is required and how it can best be provided?

My hon. Friend rightly emphasises the fact that it is important to make a proper assessment of the considerably varying needs from area to area. That is why we put the focus on local authorities analysing the needs of their own areas. We think that it is right and appropriate for regional planning bodies to estimate the balance between affordable, social housing and general market housing. That is an essential element in developing a proper analysis of each region's needs to inform local authorities' local plans. We will adopt that approach to ensure that a serious analysis is conducted region by region and local authority by local authority.

What assessment he has made of the benefits of encouraging train operators to invest in Railtrack. [152918]

The Government's 10-year plan provides scope for new ways of securing private sector finance and expertise, including from train operators when that makes sense. The Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and the preferred bidder for the south central franchise are currently working together to establish the first such partnership.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the fragmentation of the service and the complete split between track and train was probably one of the worst aspects of the previous Government's botched privatisation of the railways? In those circumstances, does he agree that there would be strong public support for any practical measures designed to reintegrate the structure and improve the performance, management and financial strength of the railways so that we can achieve the targets in the 10-year plan?

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but I have three observations about the argument on vertical integration. First, it would reduce the autonomy of franchisees and undermine current and proposed franchises. Secondly, it would make the Rail Regulator's role more difficult. Thirdly, it could hinder the efficient operation of cross franchise operators, such as freight companies.

Does the Minister agree that if Railtrack's structure is not changed, the notion of anyone investing in it is almost a joke? Given the complete chaos on our privatised railways, does the Minister believe that privatisation of the railways has created a market where "the customer is king", has led to

"new energy and enthusiasm in the industry"

"trains are cleaner safer and a good deal faster."

It is good to see the Liberal Democrat beast waken from its slumber at last. I am sure we are all extremely grateful for that.

Has my hon. Friend read the words of the Rail Regulator this morning? Given what he has just said about vertical integration, will he tell us what plans he has to ensure that before taxpayers invest £8 billion in the system they have some indication that their wishes will be carried out, that they will be given value for money, and that they will not be simply handing large amounts of their money to private investors?

I have noted the remarks of the Rail Regulator, which the Government broadly welcome.

What steps he has taken to reduce the number of road accidents in the past three years. [152919]

In March last year, the Government launched their new road safety strategy for Great Britain, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone". It included targets to reduce overall deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. and to reduce child deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010, compared with the average for 1994 to 1998, together with details of many policies and initiatives that will help to achieve them

I have very good reasons—personal reasons—to welcome any measures that will reduce the number of road traffic accidents. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the safest method of travel remains travel on our railways?

The whole House recognises and appreciates my hon. Friend's interest in road safety.

What action are the Government taking to encourage county councils to impose 30 mph speed limits through rural villages?

We have given councils the power, where they think it appropriate, to introduce 20 mph speed limits. That is part of the programme introduced in the paper "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone".