To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure the independent monitoring of the quality of drinking water. [10368]

Before privatisation, there were no proper standards for drinking water and no effective monitoring. Since privatisation, strict monitoring by the drinking water inspectorate has been introduced and standards have risen every year since 1991.

The Secretary of State will probably be aware of the recent red alert on drinking water in the Wakefield area as a result of the discovery of cryptosporidium in drinking water supplies. Given the complete lack of public confidence in the privatised utilities, especially Yorkshire Water, will the Secretary of State ensure that, when there are red alert procedures in future, they automatically trigger an immediate objective evaluation and monitoring of the safety of that drinking water? Why are the Government unable to offer a definition of safe or unsafe levels of cryptosporidium in drinking water?

Before privatisation, there would have been no testing, there would have been no way of finding out about cryptosporidium and companies were not required to report it. Companies are now required to report it at once. The drinking water inspectorate runs independent tests and deals with the matter independently—another advantage of privatisation.

Do we not have the finest drinking water in the world? Is it not acknowledged that 99.3 per cent. of all the tests are passed with flying colours, and is it not disgraceful that, time and again, we find that very high quality being rubbished by Opposition Members?

I do not know of any other country in the world that has such good data and so universal a system of monitoring drinking water. In the whole of Europe, this is the only country to publish properly audited data and we believe—we cannot say for sure because other countries do not publish properly audited data—that we are among the best, if not the best, in Europe.

In Yorkshire, people may consider the Secretary of State's answers to have been complacent. Is he aware that the public health authorities in Sheffield and in the other parts of Yorkshire feel that the cryptosporidium leaks that have been acknowledged in the Elvington and Barmby Moor sewage treatment plants are serious? Is he further aware that they affect 20 per cent. of all Yorkshire Water drinking supplies? Does he realise that there is a possibility that those increased levels of cryptosporidium may be linked to the reduced flow through the waste water system because of the cuts and the drought?

I agree that this is a serious matter and, in that view, we are unlike any other country in Europe. No one except the United States treats the matter with the same seriousness as we do. We are the only country to have a system of monitoring and of dealing with the problems as they occur. It undermines public confidence to suggest other than that we have the safest drinking water in the world and the best services to ensure that it remains that way.

>: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives of Unison to discuss the provision of local authority services. [10369]

None.

My hon. Friend's reply is somewhat disappointing. Will he arrange a meeting with representatives of Unison, and use that as an opportunity to explain to them that compulsory competitive tendering has saved enormous amounts of taxpayers' money and has led to the improvement of many services—benefits that are now widely recognised across the political divide? Will he impress upon them the importance of removing their armlock from Labour party policy so that Labour drops its stupid opposition to CCT, which proves once again that it cares for those who pay for the Labour party and not for those who pay for local services?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is seriously wrong in one of his statements: that view is not shared across the political divide because the Labour party quite clearly does not share it. Labour is hostile to competition because it is funded by Unison and, if Labour ever came to power, we know that the council tax payer would finance Unison.

Does the Minister recognise that we acknowledge that we meet with trade unions? In the past few weeks, I have met the ex-Tory Member of the European Parliament, whom the Secretary of State appointed to chair the Countryside Commission, people from the City of London and from London First, and the people whom the Secretary of State has appointed to the Audit Commission and to the Local Government Commission. While we are on the subject of ministerial meetings—this is the Department that managed to lose £300 million in taxpayers' money through the privatisation of the Property Services Agency—will the Minister tell us whom Ministers and officials met when they organised that transaction? Did they meet any ex-Tory Ministers when they were deciding to sell off that industry?

I am very reassured to learn that the hon. Gentleman has such a busy social diary. However, he will know that his remarks have nothing whatever to do with the question. We sold that company because it was better in the private sector than in the public sector. The employees have benefited from that sale, and it has become an efficient company.

Did my hon. Friend see the report in an edition of The Spectator from last year in which Mr. Leo McKinstry—who was the aide to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) at the last general election—said that the unions still have a great deal of influence in Labour town halls? Is it not true that they are more interested in representing the producers than the consumers in our society?

One of the encouraging signs in recent years is the way in which a great many people in local government have embraced the partnership between the public and the private sectors. However, I am not sure to what extent that is followed by the Labour party at Westminster. It seems wedded absolutely to the idea of trade union power and the trade unions finance many of its activities. If my hon. Friend wants to discover what Labour is really like in government, I suggest that he makes some calls on a few local authorities, and he will find out in a very short time. Perhaps he should start with somewhere like Hackney.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the city pride initiative to more cities. [10370]

Birmingham, Manchester and London are making excellent progress in carrying forward their city pride prospectuses. We shall look at what they have achieved before extending the initiative. Meanwhile, there is nothing to stop other cities adopting a city pride approach and I am pleased that Sheffield is doing so.

I am interested in that reply because it appears that the Government do not intend to extend the scheme. We must bear it in mind that most towns and cities have pride. Why must they wait for some sort of lottery, which is governed totally by the Tories at Westminster, before they get the resources that they require? Is not the best and most logical way to allocate resources to establish a proper regeneration programme for all cities and towns and to stop messing about with Government diktats?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to recognise that pride is not restricted to one, two or three cities and is felt throughout the country. However, putting a specific programme in place is a different matter. We are assessing what has happened in the first three cities. The single regeneration budget has benefited enormously not only Sheffield, which receives some £200 million from the private and public sectors as a result of its two successful bids, but rural and suburban areas that have responded well to problems.

Does my hon. Friend agree that city pride can work only with efficient local government? Has he read the report in today's Evening Standard that Hackney had a policy, which cost the ratepayers £2 million, to employ officials to do nothing? Is he aware of what is happening in Lambeth, where corruption is rife and the council is renowned for its sheer damned inefficiency?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The records of Lambeth and of Hackney, and indeed of Walsall, mean that the alternative to the Government's city pride programme would be Labour's city shame.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's planned expenditure in the current year on measures to promote the conservation of water. [10371]

Measures to promote water conservation among customers are the responsibility of the water companies.

Is the Minister aware that the north-west has now experienced some 10 months of below-average rainfall? There is growing concern that, if that continues, not only will there be a dry summer, but circumstances could become very bad indeed in 1997? Does he accept that the Government cannot continue washing their hands of the matter, blaming the water companies and suggesting that it is their sole responsibility? It is time that he accepted his responsibility and produced some measures for water conservation.

The hon. Gentleman realises that it is a serious matter and that the north-west has been affected by exceptionally dry conditions. We are taking a serious long-term view of the issue. That is why we imposed a duty on the water companies to promote water conservation and gave the Director General of Water Services additional powers. We are also consulting on future byelaws. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government are looking carefully to learn the lessons of last year's drought. As for the hon. Gentleman's allegations about the water companies, they are in the best place to promote conservation. They have also substantially increased their investment, which this year is more than two and a half times as much as it was when Labour left office. The hon. Gentleman would do well to avoid the trap that was identified by his own policy makers, when they wrote:

"The Liberal Democrats do not always practise what they preach and are prepared to ditch environmental policies for short-term political gain".

Is my hon. Friend aware that Anglian Water has the lowest leakage rate of any water company in the United Kingdom and has spent £110 million on those matters since privatisation? In our area, on this subject as on so many others, we regard the views of the Opposition as total, unmitigated bosh.

I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend. We recognised in our consultation paper on water services that particular difficulties face Anglian Water and other water companies in the south-east. Those companies have clearly risen to the challenge and provide an efficient service.

This is a serious issue. The Minister may recall that there was a big problem in my constituency earlier this month, when the water supply was lost in half of it because of bursts in the mains system over Christmas and the new year. When those bursts occur in domestic, commercial and industrial premises, the water just drains away. Will the Minister consider, as part of his ministerial responsibility, modifications to the building regulations to include the provision of lagging for water systems, particularly in domestic premises, to minimise that risk?

We would be happy to consider the propositions that the hon. Gentleman has raised when we examine the future of the water byelaws and building regulations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the quality of the bids his Department received during the second bidding round under the single regeneration budget. [10372]

The high quality of the bids received in the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund demonstrated the value of competitive bidding. Sutton Regeneration Partnerships and the Wandle Valley Partnership have been successful in both rounds of the challenge fund entirely on the quality of the projects put forward.

I am sure that my constituents will be delighted to hear my hon. Friend's commendation of the quality of the bid that came recently on behalf of Roundshaw, South Beddington and Wallington. Does my hon. Friend agree that the distinguishing feature of that successful bid was the way in which it tried to ensure that there would be the fullest co-operation with the private sector, especially with leading firms in my constituency such as Superdrug, Homebase and Canon UK? Will my hon. Friend ensure that this feature of the regeneration process continues to be a dominant one in Government consideration?

I shall certainly do so. First, the essence of our regeneration proposals is that as well as a diverse range of players from the public sector, partners are brought in from the private sector. Secondly, the public sector money that is made available attracts private sector finance. By that approach, we arrive at a much more effective scheme. It is one that is generated by the community and it reflects its priority.

Will the Minister take account, in future, of bids from urban areas that may be classed as outer rather than inner areas? We are in great danger of separating the two. Good bids come from outer areas. In my constituency, for example, one has come in from Kingstanding and south Aston in Birmingham. I make no complaint about the successful bid in respect of the inner-city area of Birmingham. There is no evidence, however, that the Minister's officials take seriously bids from outer areas, simply because they are outer rather than inner. Is the Minister aware that that approach is building up a great deal of resentment in the populations of our great cities?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I scrutinise all the bids personally to ensure that they are chosen on merit. There are some, however, who would argue that all the bids should be focused on the inner city. Where discrete and sensible programmes can be put together with proper partnerships, however, they can have a major impact on areas that otherwise might be considered to be relatively well off, even though they contain corners or areas that suffer from deprivation. I am determined that the scheme should continue to have national coverage. Where bids succeed on merit, we shall award resources. That can apply equally to outer parts of our great cities as well as to some smaller rural areas where problems need to be addressed.

Is there any method by which unsuccessful bidders can reassess their bids for the next round? Is there any co-operation from his Department to enable such bids to be rejigged to fit the pattern?

There is indeed. If bids have not been successful in one round, we have made it clear that the bidders concerned should contact regional offices and go through their bids with them to ascertain where there are deficiencies. In the second round, there are many schemes that failed in the first round. For example, in Pendle there was a bid of poor quality in the first round that became a very good bid in the second. We work with local authorities and other partners to try to get bids into the best possible state so that they are competitive. Once they are in that condition, we judge them on their competitiveness.

I am sure that the House will be pleased that the Minister is now accepting that quality should be an issue in competitive tendering. That has not been the position to date. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will make the entire system more open? He has implied that Ministers interfere in the process and in decisions and there is no feeling at local level that there is any accountability. Is he aware that it is felt that Government officers are making decisions that should be made openly, properly and accountably in the political process?

I did not say that Ministers interfere. I said that Ministers fulfil their proper constitutional duty to scrutinise because we must take responsibility for the outcome. If the hon. Lady does not want Ministers to do that, it will be done, as she falsely describes, by officials. That would not be an accountable system. A Select Committee gave wide approbation to the regeneration scheme and I shall continue to scrutinise the bids to ensure that we get the best possible value for money and that the best bids receive the funds.

Has my hon. Friend noted the conclusion of the Environment Select Committee, that the single regeneration bids represent extremely good value for taxpayers' money? Does he agree that the local and regional offices of his Department have an important role to play in assisting partnerships to come together, and that partnerships that fail can still sometimes undertake work in future by virtue of the communications that they established in putting in a bid?

My hon. Friend is right. The job of the regional offices is to facilitate bids and assist people who are bidding. We do not ask people to put it together entirely by themselves without any form of a device or assistance. We want to get the maximum number of people into a competitive position. That is why we have had such successful schemes, and one of the most successful regeneration projects in recent times has been the Hulme redevelopment in Manchester. I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition praising such a Tory initiative in this field.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to provide redress for leaseholders in private residential accommodation from unfair treatment by (a) freeholders and (b) managing agents. [10373]

We utterly condemn the behaviour of unscrupulous freeholders, and the measures in the Housing Bill will attack wrong where it occurs and thereby ensure that the bad are driven out and that decent freeholders can continue to offer a valuable service.

Given that answer, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that no matter how people may try to evade legislation as it is introduced, as they have until now, he will not allow the Government's dogmatic attitude about regulation to prevent them from getting justice?

That proposal has already been introduced by the Government. It is tailored directly to meet the real needs of those who have suffered as a result of a small minority of unscrupulous freeholders, one set of which I named in the House yesterday, and we shall ensure that the legislation sticks.

Would my right hon. Friend consider amending the Housing Bill to add a clause whereby costs can be awarded against unscrupulous freeholders who refuse reasonably to negotiate with leaseholders in the lands tribunal?

I hope that my hon. Friend will see that I have suggested that we might move cases to the lands tribunal where there is an argument between the leaseholder and the freeholder about the costs. I hope that, after consultation, that will seem to be the right way forward, because it will make the whole process cheaper for the leaseholder who needs so to do. Freeholders who behave in the way in which some have behaved will be liable, for the first time, to criminal sanctions, and that is right.

The Secretary of State has acknowledged that a number of unscrupulous freeholders and their agents are threatening leaseholders with extortionate service and repair charges, backed by the threat of forfeiture. By all accounts, those pressures are intensifying and will put many leaseholders at risk in the months ahead while Parliament considers the Housing Bill. It is not good enough to wait until that reaches the statute book. The Secretary of State will know that I wrote to him more than a week ago, asking him to introduce a short, streamlined Bill that can go through the House immediately—it would have the support of the Opposition—to give instant protection to leaseholders in difficulty. Will he agree to that request—yes or no?

I note that when we started to legislate, suddenly the Labour party decided that it would have a go. The fact is that it is very complicated legislation, which we have to get precisely right, and the Opposition can help us. If they will allow the Housing Bill to go through the House quickly and expeditiously, as they should—the Bill will give fairness in housing, look after leaseholders and deal with houses in multiple occupation, all of which are good measures—the hon. Gentleman will be seen not to be hypocritical.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, all too often, leaseholders who attempt to exercise their statutory right to extend their leases or to buy their freehold face a great deal of elaborate and extremely ingenious obstruction from freeholders and their legal advisers? Is he further aware that he will have widespread support in the House for any measures that he introduces to ensure that the will of Parliament as expressed in the existing legislation does not continue to be thwarted in the present way?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I hope that the Labour party will not continue to obstruct the Housing Bill, which will introduce reforms for HMOs and reforms that ensure that those in need get social housing before those in less need. I look forward to the Labour party's support, and then we will get the proposed legislation through.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on reducing pollution of the sea; and if he will make a statement [10374]

My right hon. Friend led the debate in the fourth North sea conference which has agreed a strategy for preventing pollution in the North sea.

Given that this is the third anniversary of the Braer disaster, which showed how vulnerable to pollution our coastline is, will the Minister take further steps to control tanker traffic? Is he aware that the narrow sea route through the Minches daily carries three tankers through an area whose industries are very dependent on a clean environment, and which contains 100 sites of special scientific interest? An accident is waiting to happen. Will the Minister take steps now to prevent that accident?

That is a serious issue for the North sea coast. The hon. Gentleman will know that, following the Braer disaster, the Donaldson report produced 103 recommendations, many of which dealt with this very subject. The Government have accepted a large number of those recommendations, and my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport will soon present proposals for their implementation.

Will my hon. Friend give some support to the campaign mounted in the south-west by Surfers Against Sewage, an organisation which is anxious to improve the quality of sea water? Is he aware that Liberal-controlled Torbay borough council does not appear to be willing to reply to letters from Surfers Against Sewage, having originally campaigned on its behalf and encouraged it? Is that not another classic example of Liberal Democrat cynicism?

I am surprised by what my hon. Friend tells me about the Liberal Democrat-controlled council in Torbay, which would have been expected to take an interest in the subject. My hon. Friend will know that, more generally, there has been a big clean-up of our beaches, as there has been a clean-up of our rivers and other waters. Water quality is now improving in our rivers, as it is at the seaside.

Will the Minister be having discussions with his European counterparts with a view to offering their expertise to the Australian Government, who plan to monitor the seas in the area where the French nuclear tests took place and to measure the levels of radioactive pollution?

It is important for us to learn all the lessons that we can from international environmentalists. The hon. Gentleman will be interested in the judgments reached about this country by many such environmentalists, including David Bellamy, who says that our recent record suggests that we are now on the way to becoming the clean man of Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange to meet the chairmen of the water companies to discuss the quality and reliability of water supply. [10375]

I met leading figures in the water industry earlier this month to discuss how they are seeking to safeguard supplies in the summer in the case of a repetition of last year's weather. I press the importance of those matters on them at every opportunity.

How can the water companies possibly justify raking in more than £3,700 in profits every minute, while allowing more than half a million gallons of water to leak away every minute—largely because they have cut capital investment by £282 million since privatisation? Is it any wonder that, in the Strathclyde referendum, 97 per cent. of people voted against the quangoisation of Scottish Water, which they suspect is merely paving the way for the privatisation that has been an unmitigated disaster south of the border?

If privatisation is such a bad thing, why does the hon. Gentleman not ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson), Labour's spokesman on water, why the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers made such a sizeable investment in Thames Water? If the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras says that he does not know, it will be very surprising, because he is a sponsored member of the RMT. What is more, it appears that Thames Water dividends pay for his agent and pay his expenses. Here is another example of "say one thing and do another"; it is hypocrisy from Labour.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us in Yorkshire look for a much improved service from Yorkshire Water in the years ahead, and for sweeping boardroom changes in the company as the best way of achieving it? Is it not clear that, given the existing drought, but for privatisation and the substantial investment made with it, many of us in Yorkshire would have been on standpipes long since?

My hon. Friend is right. In 1976, when the weather was nothing like as extreme, more than 1 million people depended on standpipes or on rota cuts: in the recent weather, no one was so dependent. There are questions to be asked about Yorkshire Water, but it is now possible to ask them, whereas when it was nationalised there was no chance of gaining redress.

Is the Secretary of State aware that pre-payment meters such as Waterkey, which are being trialled in the poorest households, result in higher charges to the consumer and can and do lead to self-disconnection? Is he further aware that, by providing the means for self-disconnection, water companies' powers contradict local authorities' power to intervene in disconnections on behalf of the most vulnerable people? Will he raise that issue, and its consequences for the poor, when he next meets the people who have become very rich by selling water?

On no occasion when the hon. Lady or other Labour Members have raised these matters have I been unwilling to look into them, and I shall certainly do so, but I hope that she will respect me for displaying characteristic restraint, because I failed to mention the fact that the RMT also has shares in Cable and Wireless, British Gas and electricity companies. When she attacks such people, she is attacking the RMT, nearly 20 per cent. of whose investment is in privatised utilities.

If my right hon. Friend spoke to the chairman of Portsmouth Water Company he would hear that there has been no hosepipe ban since 1976, that it is top of the water quality league and that its water leakage level and water supply charges are the lowest in the country.

There has been no ban since the last Labour Government. Water companies in the privatised world are subject to tough controls. When the water industry was nationalised, there were no independent controls, so the consumer benefits enormously from privatisation, and the Labour party invests in privatised companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his current regeneration policies. [10376]

Our regeneration policies will focus on the single regeneration budget, which will continue to be distributed on a competitive basis.

Does the Minister agree that the fact that only one in five bids are successful represents a huge waste in terms of expenditure on consultants' fees and working out schemes? If we could remove that beauty contest element from the policy, the money could be used to improve areas?

The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect, because the success rate is about 50 per cent. If local authorities are not working out how to regenerate their areas, they are clearly deficient in one of their major functions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there was great rejoicing in the North Lynn part of my constituency when it was announced that his Department was making available a large amount of single regeneration cash? Will that not make up for the jobs lost at Anglian Canners four years ago and lead to new jobs and welcome environmental improvements? Is it not a good example of the public and private sectors working together?

It is an excellent example and it illustrates one of the points made earlier: that these funds can be spent in regions that are not metropolitan, where considerable needs exist and where they secure considerable benefits. The bid succeeded because it qualified competitively. No one receives an award without qualifying competitively.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the fire authority budget for 1997; and if he will make a statement. [10377]

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, met a delegation from Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority on 10 January to hear representations about our proposals for the 1996–97 local government finance settlement.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the budget announced yesterday, Tyne and Wear fire authority faces the prospect of having to cut 92 fire-fighters and four appliances, but that we could avoid that if he would set the cap higher? Will he please bear that in mind when he determines the cap?

There is a set procedure if local or other authorities come to determination. The hon. Gentleman will be aware what that procedure is, and we shall of course pursue it scrupulously. There has been a 2 per cent. increase in Tyne and Wear's permitted budget—£500,000—to allow a catch-up because of the circumstances of last year's settlement. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the local auditor's report, which suggests where certain savings could be made by the fire authority.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding new measures for butterfly and moth conservation. [10378]

I shall be glad to hear of the hon. Gentleman's support for the biodiversity action plan, which has been widely welcomed and is being copied by others. It contains, among other things, plans for butterfly and moth conservation.

Is the Minister aware that the priority species, the marsh fritillary, has declined by 62 per cent. in recent years, and that there are threats to four more of its habitats from opencast mining? Will he give an undertaking that the Government appreciate that the marsh fritillary and other butterflies are prime indicators of biodiversity, and will he give an assurance that the Government will protect that delicate and most beautiful living jewel of nature?

The marsh fritillary is one of the species that will benefit from a costed action plan under our biodiversity plans. Our plans will address the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I know that he takes a close personal interest in the subject, particularly in moths such as the dingy mocha. I am sure that all the matters to which he referred can be taken into account.

Will my hon. Friend commend to the House the campaign that has been waged on behalf of the Granville fritillary, a butterfly that is found only on the Isle of Wight? Does he agree that urgent action is necessary given the number of endangered Opposition Members with moth-eaten policies?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Isle of Wight produces some remarkable species. Unfortunately, our action plans cannot deal with the problem of the endangered species on Labour's Front Bench—those who practice what they preach.

May I take it from the Minister's comments that the Government are to adopt the biodiversity action plan and implement its recommendations? They have not publicly said that they will.

Our response to the biodiversity action plan will be made very quickly, but the hon. Gentleman should know about the widespread acclaim that our plans have received and the important initiative that we have taken to promote biodiversity in this country and in the rest of the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants bought their homes under the right-to-buy legislation in the last year for which figures are available. [10380]

Between October 1994 and September 1995, local authorities and new towns in England reported total sales under the right-to-buy legislation of almost 36,000 homes, while corresponding sales by housing associations totalled almost 700.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate the Government on the success and popularity of their right-to-buy policy. Is not it remarkable that, after all these years, we are still selling more than 100 houses a day?

The only thing on which I would disagree with my hon. Friend is that it is remarkable. Our policy matches the aspirations of the British public, which is why the Conservative party has been in power since 1979 and the Labour party has been in opposition.

Will the Minister confirm that, as an extension of the right-to-buy scheme, the Government introduced a rent-to-mortgage scheme in 1993? Will he also confirm that, by the end of 1995, only 13 houses had been sold under the rent-to-mortgage scheme, at a total cost in promotion of £140,000 of taxpayers' money? Is that not another example of the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of a failed Government and their failed policies?

I can certainly confirm that the hon. Gentleman is critical of every policy that we adopt to give ordinary people a chance to own their home. Over the years, many Labour councillors, and some Labour Members, have taken advantage of the right to buy. The carping attitude of the hon. Gentleman and others is a disgrace.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions the Health and Safety Executive requires to be satisfied before agreeing to the commissioning of the British Gas pipeline between Scotland and Northern Ireland. [10381]

The Health and Safety Executive will need to be satisfied that Premier Transco Ltd. has properly assessed the risks to health and safety and fully meets the standards required.

But how was British Gas able to lay a pipeline along a route that the Ministry of Defence opposed? How did it have a prohibition notice lifted, in spite of the opposition of the Health and Safety Executive? What influence has British Gas in the corridors of power in Whitehall?

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the route was moved in response to comments made about it. That is why it is north of where it was originally proposed.

To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had on the election of a successor to Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, when he last met (a) President Chirac and (b) Chancellor Kohl. [10398]

None.

In addition to a new Secretary-General, is there not a need for a deputy Secretary-General, as advocated by Sir David Hannay, to take charge of administration and finance, thereby allowing the new Secretary-General to re-examine most carefully such serious matters as Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions? At the very least, do we not need a public debate on those appointments and on reform of the United Nations?

I certainly agree about the need to reform the United Nations. I raised that at the last meeting of the G7, where there was general agreement about it. In terms of internal reform, I can see some justification for a deputy Secretary-General, and I can certainly see some for a proper reform of the United Nations. By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10399]

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.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of my constituents strongly support the Government's measures to give the Attorney-General power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences? Is not the fact that the Labour party voted against that yet another example of hypocrisy?

It is a matter of record that the Labour party voted against that measure, but it has voted against many other law-and-order measures over recent months, such as the right to silence. We increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10—Labour opposed that. We increased the maximum penalty for carrying a gun in crime—Labour opposed us. The reality is that it may sometimes use tough words on crime, but when it comes to actions it is very soft.

Conservative Members should remember that under their party crime has doubled.

With reference to his earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman might also remember that under this Government crime is falling for the first time in 40 years. [Interruption.] Statistics show that quite clearly, across a whole range of crime, and that is something that no previous Government have been able to say.

Yes, but Governments can regulate those companies, and this Government are not regulating them. Will the Prime Minister confirm that over the past few years investment has been falling, that prices to customers have risen by more than 40 per cent., that 500,000 gallons of water are now being leaked every minute of every day and that customer complaints have doubled? Those are the facts about the water industry under this Government. Why do the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his other colleagues defend each and every action of the water companies, rather than standing up for the customers who are being fleeced by them?

About £15 billion has been invested in the water industry since privatisation, £1 billion more than originally planned. That is because over several decades in the public sector there were not sufficient resources for investment in the water industry or in other public utilities. Of course, there is investment in them now, not least by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers as a shareholder. That union sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party; it is one of the stakeholders in the Labour party, and also one of the shareholders in the water industry and in most of the other privatised industries. [Interruption.]

Order. We have very little time. Keep quiet.

My right hon. Friend will have seen the lead stories in today's editions of the Financial Times and The Times. Will he confirm that universities are, in law, private bodies, that their financial relations with their students are a matter for them to determine and that the Government have no intention of nationalising the universities?

I certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees. They certainly complain about how they have been treated by the Government. Between 1989–90 and 1994–95, university funding rose by 23 per cent. over and above inflation. I hope that the vice-chancellors will recall that when they consider their future policy.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claim last night that the Conservative party is the only party interested in law and order with the fact that although he promised at the general election to increase the number of police officers on the streets by 1,000, the latest figures show that the number has fallen by 1,000? Is that what he means by saying one thing and doing another?

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at what is happening in law and order. If he does he will see that right across the range, for the first time in 40 years, crime is falling. He will also see the resources there for an extra 5,000 police officers—

indicated dissent.

There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman's living in some Disneyland of his own and waving his hands about; those are the facts. It is the Conservative party that has toughened the law and order position time and again, and his party, and the Labour party, have been in the Opposition Lobby whenever we have sought to do that.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House a firm undertaking that he will not take advice on law and order from the party that would change the meaning of the Sunday joint?

I happily give my hon. Friend that assurance.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10400]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

To return to education, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government slashed school budgets by £500 million last year, causing great difficulty to school heads? Does he recognise that the Government have slashed the higher education budget by £300 million this year, causing great difficulty to vice-chancellors? Why should our institutions and their students suffer because of the Government's economic failure?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the Government's economic policy is exceeding in a more spectacular fashion than that of any other Government in western Europe. Spending per pupil in the mainstream sector has risen by about 50 per cent. over and above inflation since 1979.

The true figure is 4 per cent.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), Labour's education spokesman, is shouting from a sedentary position. It is a novel relief for him to do so, rather than be undermined by the Labour leader in every single thing that he says about education.

"Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using"—

"Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10401]

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that selective schools will remain a part of our education system? Did he hear the Leader of the Opposition yesterday ducking and diving on his party's schools policies?

Not only yesterday. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman ducks and weaves. The hon. Member for Brightside says that he has no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and do another. I cannot think who he might have had in mind. The hon. Gentleman tells us to watch his lips—there will be no more selection under a Labour Government. The party's education spokesman says one thing, while the leader says another. Labour is split on education from top to bottom.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10402]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

How would the Prime Minister describe someone who, before the general election, promised not to extend the scope of VAT, but after the election extended VAT and imposed it on fuel at 8 per cent.? Would he describe that person as a hypocrite or a liar?

The hon. Gentleman should look at the economic performance that has been achieved under this Government. If he does so, I defy him to find any western economy that can match the current performance of this economy under this Government.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read of the four children aged 11 in Handsworth in Birmingham, who have been put through the fast-track education system and who have received the praise of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all four have won places at a grammar school, and will he reassure the parents of those children that, under this Government, their grammar school places will be safe?

I can certainly offer my hon. Friend that assurance. He highlights yet again the shambles of the Opposition's policy. They say that they support grammar schools, but they oppose selection. They say that they support special treatment for pupils, but they oppose streaming. They say that they support parental choice for the shadow Cabinet, but for no one else.

To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss human rights. [10403]

I have no plans to do so.

Does not the Prime Minister think that it is time that the British Government put human rights before arms sales, sought an urgent meeting with the Saudi Government on the abuses of human rights there, explained why BBC broadcasts to Saudi Arabia have been censored and explained why the British Government, with their craven attitude towards that autocratic regime, are trying to deport Dr. al-Masari from this country?

We and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudi Arabian Government and with others. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman has a rather unusual version of human rights, because it was him who said:

"We assert the right of all people to follow their own conscientious beliefs even if it involves them in breaking the law."