To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage more local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords.[4875]

To facilitate the transfer of council estates in poor condition, I announced on 28 November a new deprived estates challenge fund worth more than £300 million over the next three years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that large-scale voluntary transfers of housing stock have several benefits, including the diversification of housing stock, better management and faster repairs for tenants while providing capital receipts for local authorities which can be put back into social housing, used to pay off debts or used to reduce the council tax burden on council tax payers?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am pleased to see that authorities such as Manchester are now seeking to use LSVT to ensure that they can tap the capital that is tied up in housing estates and use it for the benefit of tenants.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the inquiry into the area cost adjustment to be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [4876]

It is our intention that the review team should report in June 1996. Professor Robert Elliott of the University of Aberdeen has agreed to chair the review of the area cost adjustment. He is an expert on labour markets and earnings in the public sector. The local authority associations have nominated Roy MacIver, until recently the Secretary-General of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. My right hon. Friend has nominated David McDonald, a former under-secretary in my Department.

That sounds encouraging. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be something intrinsically wrong with a system whereby a school in Staffordshire with 900 students receives more than £250,000 less than a similar school in Surrey which has similar costs? Is not it even more wrong that Labour-controlled Staffordshire council is sitting on huge reserves which it does not use? Is it not about time that we funded schools centrally from the Department for Education and Employment? Let us have central funding, but local control.

I do not agree that something is intrinsically wrong with a system in which there are differences in funding. The fact is that there are schools in different areas, and the purpose of the review is to find out what the total additional costs are. On that matter, my hon. Friend and I will have to agree to disagree.

The Minister said that the report would be available in June next year. Will he now give a commitment that a new and fair system will be in place for the financial year 1997-98? Does he appreciate that local authorities want action and not words? The present system discriminates against Nottinghamshire and the east midlands, which just want a fair deal.

Everyone wants a fair deal, but everyone disagrees as to what that fair deal is. There is a very good case for taking into account total employment costs around the country. In the review, we are trying to bring up to date this indicator, as we do with other indicators on a regular cycle. If the review team is able to come up with an agreed outcome which is robust and gives better answers than we have at the moment, we will seek to employ that at the earliest opportunity.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system prescribes that a person who takes one step across the border of Cambridgeshire into Bedfordshire is suddenly deemed to be in a very expensive area? Is this not a crazy system which has gone on for far too long? I appreciate my hon. Friend's efforts in this matter, but will he make sure that there is no undue delay in the review? Will he consider using the travel-to-work area system, rather than the arbitrary county boundaries?

We examined carefully the travel-to-work area system in the past year, and it did not prove sufficiently robust. The county councils tried to make their scheme of actual costs work, and that did not work either. That is why we have introduced an independent review, and we have appointed as chairman somebody who is an expert in labour market economics, because this is about costs in the labour market. I hope that the review will be able to produce a robust outcome that all the parties will agree produces the best system. That is perhaps the most optimistic part of my expectations.

Can the Minister confirm that, according to Government figures, if Staffordshire county council were to receive the same grant allocation for education per pupil as the Tory borough of Westminster, it would be able to recruit 4,895 extra teachers next year?

Would the hon. Gentleman like to make the same calculation for Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Camden and Lambeth? What benefits Westminster benefits all the other inner London authorities, and it is about time that the hon. Gentleman realised it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of the decision to raise capping limits on local authority expenditure. [4877]

The flexibility is to enable local authorities to meet priorities in education, and has been given in response to local authorities' requests and assurances that they will act responsibly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed capping limits for Suffolk county council should prevent it from wasting taxpayers' money? Does he share my outrage at the squandering of council tax payers' money in the form of the council leader's Christmas card, which bears the red rose insignia of the Labour party? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an utterly tasteless display of Labour propaganda at Christmas is an absolute disgrace?

I was surprised, as my hon. Friend was, to receive such a Christmas card from the Labour leader of Suffolk county council. I believe that the Opposition would be extremely annoyed if the Department of the Environment sent out Christmas cards with the Tory torch—even though that would be justified, as only the Government have an environment policy.

As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has admitted that the settlement for schools will be used up by increased numbers of pupils, salaries and inflation, and as the Treasury has also admitted that council taxes are expected to go up by 8 per cent., is not it therefore true that council tax payers will be paying more and getting less under the new settlement?

No, I do not think that it is. The hon. Lady would know that, if she looked at the facts and at councils that are properly run and that seek to make savings when unnecessary spending takes place. We have just heard about a small example in Suffolk. More than £2 million has been spent on signs for roads in Suffolk, and £250,000 on a road that will never be built. That is only in one county, and if that money were applied to education, much more could be done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the removal of capping restrictions, together with the 5.5 per cent. increase in the education budget for Lancashire, means that there is no excuse whatever for the county council not to pass on that money in full to schools; and that no justification from the controlling Labour group will be accepted as an excuse if parents, Members of Parliament and others see that that does not happen?

I am sure that everybody in Lancashire, as in every county in the country, now knows precisely how much extra money is available for schools. If it does not get through to the schools, it will be the Labour-controlled county council's fault.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty houses there are in the United Kingdom. [4878]

There are 845,000 empty houses in England.

When will the Minister stop being complacent about the large numbers of homeless people? Specifically, what will he do about the Department of Trade and Industry's void properties and the Ministry of Defence's void properties?

The hon. Gentleman should know of the importance that we attach to reducing the number of empty Government-owned homes. We made that a priority in our White Paper; and the announcement of the privatisation of married quarters will also assist the process. The hon. Gentleman should also realise that, included in the total that I have given him, there are a large number of empty private properties, many of which have been brought into use in the private rented sector during the past few years as a result of our deregulation proposals. The Labour party always wants more regulation—that is the party's instinct—which would reduce the supply and reduce the amount of private rented accommodation available for homeless people.

Although I accept that a large number of empty homes are owned by local authorities, will the Minister confirm that 18 of the 20 worst local authorities in terms of empty homes are Labour-controlled?

Certainly. It is a shame that some local authorities with high numbers of vacant properties cannot reach the standards of those with low numbers. Hackney, Labour-controlled, has the highest number of empty properties—5 per cent. It is a shame that it cannot match the standards of Wandsworth, fewer than 1 per cent. of whose properties are vacant.

Why will not Ministers acknowledge their failure to tackle the scandal of empty properties, instead of attacking local authorities? Incidentally, local authorities are the only organisations to have reduced the number of their empty properties in the past few years. Will the Minister recognise that the Government's record is the worst of all? The number of empty Government properties has increased scandalously, in fact. The Ministry of Defence has the worst record; its homes should now be offered to people in need instead of being privatised under the disgraceful deal which the Secretary of State for Defence is doing with his adviser.

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot join me in maintaining that the worst performing local authorities should try to reach the standards of the best. It is also a shame that he had to ride to the rescue of the beleaguered Labour-controlled Hackney council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will reconsider the powers of county councils and district councils to give themselves planning permission on their own land. [4879]

The procedures governing local authority development were revised in 1992. We have no plans for a further review at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is almost exactly the same answer as I had to give when I was the Minister responsible for planning? It has not worn well with the passage of time. Does he accept that, in the interests of natural justice, the gamekeeper should in this context be separated from the poacher?

I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that the right answer should be given by successive Ministers. Of course we have looked at the matter; the last thing we want is abuse by local authorities. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of that and draws it to my attention, I shall certainly look at it closely.

Does the Minister accept that these circumstances could be dealt with by a more general change? There could be a right of appeal against planning permission that is granted, just as there is now a right to appeal against a refusal. There is a pressing case for such a balance generally, not just in relation to local authorities.

The Environment Select Committee rejected that when it looked into the issue. It took a lot of evidence showing a conflict of interest, which is why the Government reviewed procedures at the time, in 1992.

A couple of weeks ago I initiated a debate on this very matter to which the Minister responded. The practice is becoming more and more prevalent: in order to raise cash, local authorities with land are capitalising on it and then giving themselves planning permission. But because this is not a national issue, it has not been called in by the Minister. Something must be done about this bad practice.

My hon. Friend has to recognise that the key thing is whether the proposals are in line with the local plan. If they are contrary to the local plan, they are referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and can be judged on their merits. On the other hand, if they are in accordance with the plan, the proper place to object to them is in the inquiry into the plan.

Does the Minister accept that his answer to his hon. Friend camouflages the crisis that affects our planning system? What is he going to do about the large backlog of cases at the planning inspectorate, the huge delays in processing appeals and the enormous cost of the planning appeals system? When are we going to have a planning policy that is coherent, consistent and cost-effective?

I believe that we have exactly that. The point is that when we have all the plans in place for each local authority throughout the country, the situation will be much clearer and that will result in far fewer people having to test their planning applications at appeal because they will be able to judge them against the plan developed for that particular area.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss safeguarding the area of outstanding natural beauty of the north downs. [4880]

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so. However, officials from our two Departments work closely together, particularly within the Government office for the south-east.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the area of outstanding natural beauty of the north downs there is a motorway construction site which is surplus to Department of Transport requirements? If Government rules prevent the Department from allowing Maidstone borough council to use that site for park and ride, there is a serious risk that it will be sold and, eventually, planning permission sought for a use totally inappropriate to an area of outstanding natural beauty. It will be his Department that will have to make that decision. Will he give an undertaking to discuss this difficult situation with the Department of Transport before it becomes very much more difficult to resolve?

As my hon. Friend is aware, I do not know the details of this matter. If they are as he describes, I would have thought that there would be some enormous planning hurdles to be overcome before planning permission could be given. Of course, if he is concerned, we will certainly discuss and look into the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the procedure for regulation of the water companies; and if he will make a statement. [4881]

I have no plans to review the water industry's efficient regulatory system.

Consumers will be thrilled by that scintillating answer. Is the Secretary of State aware that the second Cadbury review of corporate governance is considering seriously the question of supervisory boards? Would it not be sensible for the Secretary of State to consider how best we might proceed, given the abject failure of the present regulatory system, so that local people could once again sit on the supervisory boards and have a proper say about and input into the way in which the industry is regulated?

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the whole history of the water industry. We have problems there at the moment because of the lack of investment under the Labour Government. I know that that is true because I read carefully the words of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that the Government had said that investment in the water industry had been cut under Labour. She said:

"That is not true. The plans that we hoped to implement were not entirely fulfilled."—[0fficia Report, 30 November 1995; Vol. 267,c. 1385.]

May I recommend to Mrs. Gummer that Father Christmas places in the Christmas stocking of my right hon. Friend a little pamphlet from Conservative central office which I wrote on this very subject to give my right hon. Friend a little light reading over Christmas? Does he agree that it is remarkable that no matter how much the Almighty allows it not to rain, the Opposition cannot bring themselves to agree that water metering is the best way forward for charging for water?

I shall look forward to the pamphlet, but it is interesting that the Labour party is in favour of all environmental things in general but none of them in particular. The truth is that unless resources are properly looked after, we cannot have sustainable development. That is why the Labour party has no environment policy whatsoever.

Can the Minister confirm whether he has had reports that there are likely to be considerable water shortages next year, given the lack of rain last summer and the relatively dry weather this Christmas? If so, what is he doing in negotiation with the water regulator and others to tackle that?

Those reports have one thing in common: they say that the shortage of water arises because of a shortage of rain. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a special way of delivering rain, discussions with the water regulator will make no difference. The water companies have an extensive programme of further investment and already spend extremely large sums. The retained profits and £3.5 billion of borrowing by the industry have financed that unprecedented investment. Much of it makes up for the lack of investment when the industry was nationalised, which is what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) wants to return to. I assure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that I am looking at the position in the south-west, which is one of the areas most affected.

The fact that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recently upheld Ofwat's decision to peg water charges in the south-west shows that regulation is working in terms of that aspect of the industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the water company in the south-west cannot even deliver water to every house in my constituency and cryptosporidium affects water supplies, further regulation of the quality as opposed to the cost of the service should not be ruled out at this stage? Will he comment on that?

The drinking water inspectorate and the environment agency deal in their respective ways with quality. I am happy to point out to them, as I have in the past, my hon. Friend's views on those matters. I am glad that my hon. Friend points the House to the fact that the mixture of the water regulator and the opportunity to appeal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission show the toughness of the regulation, the affect on South West Water and the insistence that South West Water meets higher standards immediately.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to allow local authorities to build more low-cost rented housing. [4882]

Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. We expect around 70,000 additional lettings to be provided in 1995-96 through a mixture of public and private funding.

How many new starts will there be in 1996 in the low-cost rented sector?

The hon. Gentleman would do better to concentrate on the fact that housing associations provide 27,000 new starts out of a total of 70,000, which does not take account of the value of new social lettings through tenants going on to buy their own homes and the refurbishment of properties. He would do well to look at the value of the housing associations' contribution to providing high-quality property through the involvement of the private financial sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, where social housing is provided, it should be of the highest possible quality? Will he convey to the Government the thanks of my constituents who have just received a 47 per cent. increase in the housing investment programme, which should be spent on improving the quality of existing council houses in Castle Point, which is currently substandard?

I am happy to convey my hon. Friend's message. He is right to say that we seek to provide high-quality accommodation to meet social need.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence over the planned privatisation of the Ministry of Defence's married quarters estate. [4883]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence over the planned Ministry of Defence's married quarters estate. [4884]

We have made it clear that we wish to see genuinely surplus property used to provide homes for people. It will help to create sustainable and mixed communities if homes are available for both purchase and rent.

Does the Minister share my concern that those perfectly good homes are being sold off like so much Army surplus stock when social housing, which is his Department's responsibility, is desperately needed?

The important thing is to ensure that people live in the surplus houses that are available. There are about 70,000 MOD homes, of which 14,000 are empty. That is 14,000 too many. We must ensure that people can live in them. Whether that goes for social housing or for low-cost starter homes appears to me to be much less important. What matters is that they are used.

Does the Minister recall that in July 1994, his Department's task force report described the MOD policy of having thousands of homes standing empty as short-sighted and anti-social? Is not it clear to the Minister that Defence Ministers have totally ignored the advice of his Department by having 14,098 empty properties—552 of them in the Prime Minister's constituency? When will he take firm action to ensure that the MOD releases those properties for social housing, as he has said repeatedly that it should?

That is precisely what the MOD now proposes. It is manifestly the case that the programme of disposal has not proceeded quickly enough in the past few years. The MOD has had to cope with "Options for Change", which has meant much shifting of personnel and many changes in personnel in the armed forces, so it needs to ensure that houses are available. What matters now is that we ensure that those houses are used. Regardless of whether those houses are made available for rent, the eventual purchaser will have no interest in holding on to empty stock. He will want to dispose. It is immaterial whether he disposes into the private rented sector or the home ownership sector. What matters is that those houses are used.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that tomorrow—I am sorry, on Friday—on Thursday—[Laughter]—I shall present the keys to some MOD homes to new tenants from Magna housing association in my constituency. Many of those MOD properties will be sold to the private sector. However, where housing associations exist in districts where an enormous number of homes become vacant as a result of MOD changes in constituencies such as mine, will he ensure that they have the funds to recycle those homes into super housing association homes, and to get the very many people on the waiting list into them?

My hon. Friend has always been a stickler for terminological exactitude. [Interruption.] In other words, he knows what day of the week it is. He will know that some housing associations have already shown considerable interest in acquiring that stock and some of them, such as the North housing association, can do so with their own funds and do not need to apply for funding.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding contaminated land. [4885]

The hon. Gentleman is among those who have made representations, and I am sure that the whole House appreciates the campaign that he has mounted on behalf of those people affected by the asbestos tragedy in Armley. I hope that, for his part, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate what the Environment Protection Act 1995 has done in pressing home again the important principle that the polluter should pay.

I am grateful for the Minister's comments at the start of his answer. When will the Government publish the contaminated land guidance to the Environment Protection Act? In Leeds, there are about 929 hectares of derelict land, about a quarter of which is believed to be contaminated. Would not it be a wise investment now to give the resources to the local authorities to allow them to survey that land and bring it into productive use for homes and jobs?

The hon. Gentleman knows of the statutory guidance that must be issued, and that consultation must take place before it is issued. We are expecting that consultation to be carried out early next year. In the meantime, those people in Leeds who have an interest in the tragedy of the contamination by asbestos, especially Leeds city council, would do well to reflect on the important principle that the polluter should pay, and the relevance to that principle of recent legal findings on other areas of liability affecting the asbestos tragedy.

rose—

"Hear, hear."

I thank the House. Does my hon. Friend realise that there are many pieces of contaminated land in inner-city areas, which are an eyesore? We cannot really wait for land values to catch up with the cost of dealing with the contaminated land. Does not he realise that there must be some public input in order to remove such eyesores in inner cities?

My hon. Friend is aware that we have stuck firmly to the principle that the polluter should pay. He will realise the importance of the definitions that we established in the Environment Act 1995 and the regulatory machinery that we put in place to enforce that. I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend: we should deal effectively with the problem of contaminated land in inner city areas and develop those areas.

Does the Minister agree that opencast mining is not the natural way to deal with contaminated land with coal reserves beneath it? Avenue coke works in my constituency has been closed and the land is highly contaminated—British Coal Property should be aware of the principle that the polluter should pay and should clean the area without inconveniencing local people by introducing opencast mining provisions.

The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have issued much tougher planning provisions to deal with that issue. Every case will be considered strictly on its merits in the context of those tough provisions.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to help local authorities deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. [4886]

On 18 July and 18 October I announced a substantial package of measures to help local authorities to deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. After discussions with the housing association movement, I intend to extend that package to housing associations.

Many of my constituents, who have been badly affected by the behaviour of anti-social tenants, welcome the measures. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that many of the victims of anti-social tenants feel unable to give evidence because they are intimidated? Can he give the House an idea of how the victims will be protected by the package?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Something that I hear repeatedly as I travel around the country is that people know who cause the problems on estates—it may be just one or two families or their kids—but cannot find a way of dealing with them. Those involved may be taken to court and put on probation or their case may be deferred and they return to the estate and cause problems again. We intend to introduce new powers involving injunctions associated with arrest so that people can take action without fear of intimidation. We also intend to make it possible to use professional witnesses, as some local authorities—mainly Labour authorities—are already doing, to try to remove the element of intimidation so that people can enjoy the right to live peaceably in their own homes.

While the Government's proposals are welcome as far as they go, is it not a scandal that it has taken a decade of rising complaints and 17 deaths in noise disputes to get the Government to act? Does the Minister accept that every citizen has the right to enforcement of the law on noise? If so, when he gives responsibilities to local authorities why does he say that the level of service will depend on local conditions and resources? Where is the money to come from?

The hon. Lady confuses noise nuisance with anti-social behaviour. The latter is by far the more serious problem as no one has been materially injured by noise in the way that people have been injured by some anti-social behaviour. Both problems affect the quality of life on housing estates and both must be tackled and I hope that both sets of measures will receive a wide welcome. It is distressing that a number of Labour local authorities appear not to want even to implement the package on anti-social behaviour that we shall make available to them, although sensible authorities such as Manchester will implement it. I hope that the laggards will learn from the winners.

Following the point that my hon. Friend has rightly made, does he agree that in many of our seaside resorts Labour councillors and Labour activists are themselves unscrupulous landlords? They encourage people from outside the area, who become extremely anti-social tenants when they move in, and cause many of the social problems. Is that not the reality of Labour local government and does it not show, once again, that Labour is unfit to govern?

I am conscious of the problems in seaside resorts around the country caused by the changing nature of activities in those areas and by the people who settle there to collect benefit. We have taken measures under the planning system to resolve those problems and we shall take further measures to deal with houses in multiple occupation. I shall listen to the views of those who believe that additional measures should be taken so that seaside towns can enjoy the prosperity which has been theirs historically and which they deserve for the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of the number of homes to be insulated in the coming year under the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [4887]

We expect more than 400,000 homes to be insulated under the home energy efficiency scheme in the coming year, bringing the total number of homes insulated under the scheme to more than 2 million.

Will the Minister explain why he has cut the home energy efficiency scheme budget by £31 million in direct breach of a Government and ministerial promise to everyone involved? Is he aware that that will lead to the insulation of 200,000 fewer houses next year, the loss of 1,000 jobs in the small business sector and the loss of £12 million to manufacturing industry? In view of the economic, health and other effects of his decision, will the Minister now reconsider?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some £30 million was added to the scheme in anticipation of the acceptance of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. As he knows, the House voted against that measure, so the £30 million figure has now been reviewed.

My hon. Friend the Minister has anticipated the point that I intended to make. The home energy efficiency grant for last year was linked to the VAT increase. On that basis, given the uptake of the award, should the Government not be congratulated rather than criticised?

My hon. Friend is clearly in favour of that excellent scheme. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) failed to appreciate the fact that we have protected the most vulnerable groups while continuing to offer a substantial discount to those people who do not qualify for the free service.

How can the Minister justify a 20 per cent. reduction in energy efficiency in homes around the country when, as Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, he recommended increased expenditure on home energy efficiency schemes? Was it not a cynical exercise to increase expenditure for only one year in order to justify the imposition of VAT on home heating, which has hit the poorest and the worst off in our community?

That is clearly not the case, as we have protected vulnerable groups and increased the scheme considerably over the years. I remind the hon. Lady that there was no such scheme under the last Labour Government because they did not care about energy efficiency. We are determined to ensure that homes become more energy efficient in the coming year through a variety of measures, not least through the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which will encourage local authorities to make sure that people take up those schemes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes for rent were started by local authorities and housing associations in 1978-79; and what is his estimate for 1996-97. [4888]

In 1978-79 local authorities started about 62,000 homes for rent and housing associations started about 17,000. This year we estimate that about 49,000 social homes for rent or shared ownership will be started by housing associations, or released through home ownership grant schemes, and about 1,000 will be started by local authorities.

In view of the statement earlier by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that only 27,000 homes will be started by housing associations in 1996-97 and the fact that under the last Labour Government 112,000 new homes, on average, were started each year, will the Minister tell us this Christmas time exactly how the Government intend to house the homeless?

The hon. Lady is confusing two points. With regard to the general provision of housing, what matters is that properties become available for new lettings. The only thing that concerns a family needing a home is whether a house is available and whether they will have a roof over their heads.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss the standard spending assessment formula with representatives of the London boroughs. [4889]

Standard spending assessments are discussed throughout the year with the local authority associations in the settlement working group and in the standard spending assessment sub-group. Currently, we are also available to meet authorities to hear their representations on our proposals for the 1996-97 settlement, including those for standard spending assessments.

Does the Minister accept that the working of that complex formula can adversely affect outer London boroughs such as Harrow? Its proximity to Heathrow airport and its many ethnic minority communities mean that it has to bear extra costs of social provision, education, housing for the elderly and other services. Will my hon. Friend look again at the formula to see whether Harrow can have a fairer deal?

I would dispute any suggestion that it has not had a fair deal. The shift of expenditure under the formula shows that Harrow has had a reasonable deal. I am sure that, with my hon. Friend's assistance, the local authority will be able to meet the demands well. A comparison of local authorities around the country shows a massive variation. Labour authorities, in particular, seem to spend an enormous amount of money for little value. I am sure that my hon. Friend can assist his local authority.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4905]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Government rejoin the future large aircraft project urgently? Does the Prime Minister understand that the French and the Germans are increasingly sceptical of our approach to the project and may move to exclude us? Is he also aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency have lost their jobs and that the remaining 2,000 are desperate for Britain to rejoin the project? Given Britain's pathetic economic growth prospects, surely the Prime Minister wants a strong aerospace industry.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an indication of the subject that he intended to raise and I appreciate his concern to protect jobs in his constituency. On the substantive point, the Government are committed to joining the future large aircraft programme provided that our conditions concerning price, performance and affordability are met. That matter is under discussion with the United Kingdom industries concerned and with our European colleagues.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4907]

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In the next few days I shall be visiting the hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the retired and the nursing homes in my constituency. I shall visit many businesses and voluntary organisations. [Interruption.] All those people have benefited from additional resources as a result of the recent Budget. Can my right hon. Friend also give me some words to tell our customs officers in Dover, who are thoroughly against the policies that the Labour party would introduce in terms of the legalisation of cannabis and drugs? [Interruption.] Our customs officers have provided a valuable service in keeping Britain free from drugs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he supports the customs officers in Dover in that action? [Interruption.]

Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate next year.

I think that my hon. Friend has just had one, Madam Speaker. I very much agree with him about the excellent work carried out by customs officers at Dover and elsewhere in tackling drug trafficking. My hon. Friend can tell them categorically that we have no intention of legalising cannabis. We do not believe that it is the right way to proceed. As the chief constable of West Yorkshire said in the past,

"Legalisation or decriminalisation just isn't the answer."

Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has repeatedly refused to deny, which is that the costs of rail privatisation—the costs of the sale and of the extra subsidy—are set to amount to $1 billion over the next two years? Would not that £1 billion be better spent on improving a public rail service?

No. Even with the spirit of Christmas, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. On a like for like basis, overall Government funding for the railways after privatisation is expected to be broadly similar to the levels of recent years. The precise level will depend on the privatisation process and on the outcome of competition for the franchises. Instead of criticising the funding, the Labour leader would be better employed examining the £10 billion worth of investment that Railtrack plans, which would not occur in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to privatisation, will he tell us how he would replace the £10 billion worth of investment in British Rail? Which taxes would he increase? By how much would fares have to rise? Or will he at last realise that privatisation will produce a better service for customers?

We could start by taking the £1 billion and investing it in the rail service. Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer one simple question: will he guarantee that the level of service which now obtains will be the same after privatisation in the privatised services—not hope, not wish, but guarantee?

I note that the right hon. Gentleman had no response whatever to the £10 billion worth of investment. He talks about £1 billion, but £10 billion is promised. As for future services, he can see what is already beginning to happen. The passenger service requirements provide a guaranteed level of service. That has never existed in the past. Services to the passenger are already improving—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I will tell Opposition Members where. The operating companies are offering a range of new services. They are responding to their customers more quickly. There are new information services. To give Opposition Members a practical example, completely new train services are being provided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where"?]. I will tell Opposition Members where. For example, over 100 trains a day have already been added to SouthWest Trains' timetables. When will the Leader of the Opposition realise what is happening and realise also the opportunities for improving a service that has been too bad for too long?

We shall realise it when the Prime Minister guarantees that service levels will remain the same—[Interruption.] Yes, when he guarantees it. What is more, have we not just—[Interruption.] We shall listen to the Government when they guarantee that the service will remain the same, but they are not prepared to do that. Is it not right that at the end of the week—[Interruption.]

Order. The barracking is intolerable.

The Prime Minister keeps telling us about his plans for British Rail. Is he not the man who planned no increase in value added tax and then increased it? We are not interested in his plans. Have not his rail plans been overturned by the courts, his chief inspector of prisons walked out of his first prison inspection, members of his party are at each other's throats over Europe and the Government cannot get the national lottery right? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's year ended as it began—in weakness, chaos and incompetence?

Whenever the right hon. Gentleman loses the argument, he changes it. He has lost the argument on privatisation. He had no response to the £10 billion and no response to the fact that there has never been a guaranteed minimum service until now. Now the service is being improved and he cannot bear the fact that we are winning the argument in terms of improving services right across the public sector. All that he can do is to run down everything that happens in this country on every conceivable occasion for his own partisan political interests.

As more than 13,000 British troops are deployed to Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend send the best wishes of the House to them? Does he agree that, had the Labour party won the last election, we would not have had one tenth of the soldiers to send to that place, given the savage cuts that Labour would have introduced?

And would probably try to introduce were it ever given the chance again. We know the Opposition's record on defence and we know their capacity to hide their long-term affiliation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and we know that the armed forces know and the people of this country know that the armed forces would not be safe in their hands.

Does the Prime Minister understand why the possibility of a lone British veto tomorrow against a European subvention to help to privatise Irish Steel is regarded by the Irish Prime Minister as inexplicable? Will he explain? Will he assure us, in particular, that he fully understands the damage that could be done by that to British-Irish relations at a crucial moment in the Irish peace process?

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the whole matter; it is a very complex issue involving the interests of Irish Steel—very important to Ireland—and British Steel, and the matter is under discussion. We are seeking—and I hope that it will be possible to reach—an agreement that safeguards the United Kingdom's interests. That matter is under discussion at the moment. It would not be productive for those discussions for me to pursue the matter now, but there is an interest both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We are seeking, and have done for some weeks, to reach an agreement which meets the interests of the steel industry both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. I hope that we shall be able to reach such an agreement. If we cannot, it will not be for lack of trying on this side of the channel.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper report that Labour Members of the European Parliament, in supporting the French strikers, blamed their plight on the fact that the French Government were supporting the single currency? Does he not find it surprising that Labour MEPs should be supporting his own sceptical point of view? Is he not even more surprised that their position differs radically from that of Opposition Front-Benchers, who support the European Parliament and all its works?

I believe that the very wide and deep divisions in the Labour party on Europe were clearly apparent in the statement that I delivered to the House yesterday afternoon, when one Labour Back Bencher after another stood up and, in essence, flatly contradicted what the leader of the Labour party has been saying for weeks. As for Labour party policy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there was more than one summit in Madrid last week. The summit of socialist leaders, attended by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, must have been very amusing. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a significant extension of qualified majority voting, support for a European strategy on immigration, the social chapter, and restrictions on how long people can work. What he did not discuss were the details of fishing policy—and he a Member from Hull.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4908]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

As the national lottery regulator was warned by the Ministry not to take free air trips on his visit to the USA, but nevertheless did so, and given that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knew about that but refused to comment on it at Question Time yesterday, does the Prime Minister not think that it is time that both of them were sacked?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the matter and will make an announcement shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1979 only 30 per cent. of people in Scotland were home owners? Is he aware that the figure is now 57 per cent., and a Shelter report published today suggests that 77 per cent. of Scots aspire to home ownership? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative party will drive towards that objective?

My hon. Friend is right. Surveys show that more than 70 per cent. of Scots aim for owner-occupation, and that is particularly true among younger age groups. Since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, well over 300,000 houses and flats have been sold to their tenants, and owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. The right to buy has been immensely successful—introduced by a Conservative Government, opposed by gut instinct by the Labour party then, and still, in truth, loathed by it now.