To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the proposed landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [15487]

The landfill tax is another step towards green taxation. It shifts tax from jobs and resources and has been widely welcomed.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the landfill tax at present constituted will penalise the very bodies and companies that are seeking to clear up contaminated land? In my constituency, it will add £20 million to the cost of any efforts made by the local authority to clean contaminated land, and cost hundreds of millions of pounds in the rest of Yorkshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the tax will do great damage to British Steel, for example, and other companies that want to clear up contaminated land? It is a tax designed to put money into the Treasury. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me and local authorities, as well as responsible companies, in opposition to the bean-counting twerps at the Treasury and devise a real tax that will stop pollution where it begins rather than where it ends?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the tax does not put money into the Treasury. It is a tax on landfill that will be recycled. The moneys will be paid out to reduce tax on jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be true. He shows by shaking his head that he does not understand the tax. I am surprised, because there is a landfill tax in Switzerland that works extremely well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tax, an environmental initiative for which he and I both worked, is yet a further sign of the Government's commitment to environmental matters? Does he agree also that no excuses can or should be accepted from local authorities for not implementing the landfill tax as it is clear that they have the moneys to do so?

My right hon. Friend will be as sorry as I am that the Labour party has shown once again that, although it talks generally about the environment sometimes—not very often—it is not prepared to make the major changes that are necessary when it comes to precise and practical details. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) knows, the concerns about how we should deal with landfill, which is the removal of contamination, are the subject of active discussion. Local authorities have already been able to retain in their baselines the moneys that they used to use for waste responsibilities. Those moneys have been transferred to the Environment Agency.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the tax, especially in the form of the £7 levy, will have a detrimental effect on the coal industry, and particularly on coal-fired stations where fly ash is produced by the burning of coal? At present 50 per cent. of fly ash is recycled. The other 50 per cent., especially in Scotland, is put into lagoons and reclaimed lands in the Forth estuary. It is an asset for the community and not detrimental to it. Is the right hon. Gentleman considering imposing the £2 levy rather than the levy of £7?

It is a useful material and we are trying to promote recycling. That is important. If we are to have green taxes, they should be designed to ensure that we recycle rather than continue with landfill, which is one of the least satisfactory uses of the material to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That is why environmental groups throughout the country have welcomed the tax change. I am sorry that the Labour party does not support it.

Is it not the case that an amendment that links the concerns of the hon. Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) has been accepted by the Committee that is considering the Finance Bill? Is not the real concern about landfill tax the fly tipping that is engaged in by those who are not prepared to pay for rubbish to be taken to an incinerator or a waste exchange area, which means that material is left on roadsides? Should not we be considering an arrangement for the general public to rid themselves of their rubbish without littering our countryside?

As my hon. Friend says, it is certainly necessary to give the general public more opportunities to be able to get rid of their rubbish. Many local authorities are already doing that. I hope considerably to encourage that approach. Amendments have been accepted by the Committee that is considering the Finance Bill, and they will go some way to meet some of the concerns. As the hon. Member for Rotherham clearly does not understand the way in which the tax will work and fails to appreciate that the Treasury does not gain from it—moneys raised by the tax will be recycled to reduce pressures on jobs—there was no point in supplying him with such details. He has not got that far.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Lappel bank case before the European Court of Justice. [15488]

The United Kingdom, with the support of France, has argued its case strongly at the European Court of Justice, and we await the Advocate-General's opinion.

I am grateful for that answer, but does the Minister accept that, if anything, the Lappel bank case teaches us that we have a completely unworkable system of environmental protection, because any Government Department can confer strong environmental protection on bird habitats and then unilaterally withdraw it when it feels like it, and that the only remedy for anyone who wants to contest the withdrawal is to go to the European Court of Justice, which takes ages, costs a fortune and has no powers of injunction to stop work in the interim?

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Our system is working perfectly well. In the Lappel bank case, while we await the opinion of the Advocate-General, we are mindful of the importance of the port of Sheerness and its continuing viability. On the environmental consequences, the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that Lappel bank is only 1 per cent. of the special area of protection in the Medway, which does not contain rare or endangered species. Our system is working well, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to bear that in mind.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979. [15489]

About 1.45 million tenants in England bought their homes between April 1979 and September 1995. At the moment, tenants are still becoming home owners at the rate of 200 a day across Great Britain.

How does my right hon. Friend assess the future for potential sales? Will they be direct sales? Does he have any other schemes?

My hon. Friend will agree that the changes that we have made, which give new opportunities to existing tenants in housing association property and thus ensure that future tenants in new homes will have the right to buy, and which have increased the ways in which tenants can be given a chance to buy their own homes, should mean that we shall continue to enable people to buy their own homes. The public will know that none of those 1.45 million families would have been able to buy their own home had the Labour party been in power, because it tried to stop the sales on every possible occasion.

Will the Minister consider seriously the Environment Committee report on housing needs and condemn mortgage lenders who are currently red-lining ex-council properties? The asset of those tenants is continually diminishing. Will he consider the matter with the utmost urgency?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration condemned such practices in his speech only last Friday.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Government's measures to revitalise town and village centres. [15490]

Through our planning policies, we provide a framework to maintain and increase their vitality and, through specific measures such as the urban design campaign, city challenge and our proposed rate relief scheme for village shops, support local initiatives that benefit the whole community.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that there is concern among retailers in the towns and villages of my constituency—for example, Holmfirth, Meltham and Slaithwaite—about the difficult trading conditions that they face, which will make it difficult for some of them to survive? I heard only this morning that Lloyds bank plans to close its branch in Marsden. Does he agree that although the Government are not able to force people not to shop elsewhere—in supermarkets, for example—it is important that they should take steps to ensure the continuing vitality of towns and villages in constituencies such as mine?

When judging planning applications for new retail development, we shall ensure that local authorities take into account the impact of any new development on such communities and follow our guidance in terms of a hierarchy of suitable sites. At the end of the day, of course, there is much that traders and the communities in which they live can do to patronise these shops and to ensure that local authorities have a properly thought-out strategy for each town, village and city centre.

The truth is that the Government have done their best to destroy town, city and village centres. May I remind the House that it was this Government and these Ministers who allowed hundreds of out-of-town shopping centres to be built all over the country, and to tear the heart out of our towns and villages? When will the Government be prepared to stop using planning policy to destroy city and town centres and use it productively to do what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) just asked—promote and protect town and village centres?

If the hon. Gentleman took a close interest in such matters, he would know that that is precisely how we use the planning system. Nothing has done more to destroy city centres over the years than Labour councils' imposition of massive taxes, which has caused many businesses to move out.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are two ways in which not to revitalise villages and towns? One is to introduce car parking charges, and the other is to insist that large housing developments take place on the edges of villages and towns, in green belts. Those are both policies of Labour-controlled councils in Lancashire.

My hon. Friend has hit two nails firmly on the head. First, car parking facilities for shoppers are a key way to ensure the vitality of town centres. Secondly, as my hon. Friend says, the more housing there is in town and village centres, the less pressure there is on the green belt and the more people there are in the towns to patronise shops.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authority leaders on the level of Government contribution to overall local authority revenue. [15491]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met leaders of the local authority associations on 15 January and on 6 February to discuss a range of issues affecting local government, including the financing of local authority revenue expenditure.

Has not Lancashire's education grant been increased by only 1.4 per cent.? That increase is smaller than the increases in standard spending assessment and inflation. Such small increases mean that counties such as Lancashire must either cut other services or increase the council tax.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Lancashire's SSA has risen by 3.1 per cent., its SSA per head has risen by 2.8 per cent. and its budget has risen by 3.2 per cent. If Labour councillors cannot manage, perhaps they should resign.

When will my hon. Friend take action—

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I give notice that I wish to raise the issue to which I have referred on a motion for the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policies for the promotion of home ownership. [15492]

The Government are fully committed to promoting the continued growth of sustainable home ownership, both by prudent management of the economy and through specific policies to help people to become home owners.

Given that home ownership is a core value of Conservatism, does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time at which to buy a house, that interest rates are at an historic low and that it makes good sense to invest in new property? Will he ensure that we include in the next Budget, and in the next general election manifesto, firm policy plans to enable more people to buy their homes? Home ownership is very popular, and most families aspire to it.

My hon. Friend is right. The relationship between interest rates, earnings and prices is now such that buying a home is virtually the bargain of the century. The market is clearly going to turn around next year. As for specific help for home buyers, my hon. Friend—who co-chairs the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill with distinction—will know that the Committee has passed clauses permitting housing association tenants to acquire their properties in some circumstances.

What are the Government doing about the tens of thousands of people in negative equity or the tens of thousands of people who, spurred on by the Government's propaganda and mishandling of the economy, invested in homes and then lost them again? What will the Government do for them?

If the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), had been at the Council for Mortgage Lenders on Friday, he would know that I raised that very issue with some of the lenders. I told them that their policies must be tailored to the new conditions in the economy—in which people have to change jobs and accept other changes—and that we now have sustained low inflation, rather than the rapid inflation to which people became accustomed. The Government's action is concerned with sustaining a very low rate of inflation, decreasing interest rates and, therefore, decreasing mortgage rates, which helps not only people who aspire to own a home but those who have difficulty sustaining the purchase of their home. We will be continuing with that action.

Will my hon. Friend reassure the House and all current council house dwellers that, should they wish to purchase their council houses after the next election, under a Conservative Government they will be able to do so? Will he contrast that with the wishy-washy commitments, if any, that we get from Labour Members and the fact that Labour councillors have for a very long time tried to deny council house tenants the right to buy their homes?

We shall not merely maintain the policy that allows local authority tenants to buy their homes; we are making it possible for housing association tenants to buy their homes on equivalent terms. That will be an opportunity that has been closed to many, and it is part of the extension of sustainable home ownership to which we are thoroughly committed.

Why does the Minister not admit that, far from helping home owners, the Government have created the worst crisis for home owners in this country's history? Millions of home owners are caught in negative equity, 1,000 home owners lose their homes through repossession every week and the market is suffering from a deep crisis of confidence. The Minister knows that the Government's policies have been a disaster for home owners. They have betrayed home owners, and home owners are rightly looking to Labour for a solution.

There is nothing like the Labour party when it comes to wallowing in other people's problems. The fact is that we still have more people moving into home ownership than are facing difficulties from home ownership. We intend to extend home ownership, which is part of our policy of achieving a sensible housing market in which home ownership, private renting and social housing have their proper roles to play. The Government have introduced that creative scheme. The Opposition have no creative policies except for the use of capital receipts, but they will not even tell us during what period they will be spent. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will spell at least that out next week.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage higher standards of urban design in respect of new developments in towns and villages. [15493]

I take every opportunity to raise the profile of urban design and the quality initiative that the document "Quality in Town and Country" spearheaded. I also launched a national urban design campaign last summer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have lost much green open space in my constituency of Cheadle, particularly to large out-of-town retail developments? If planning procedures allow such developments—against my will and that of a large percentage of my electorate—would it not be better if they were made more suitable for green, leafy areas, rather than, as at present, the American mid-west?

My hon. Friend will know that I have sought to insist that the town centre is the most natural place for retail development and to see that the quality of those developments should, like the quality of all developments, improve considerably. I am pleased to say that, although my hon. Friend has in his area the problem he described, he will note in the Henry Square Revival in Ashton-under-Lyne and the Gorse Stacks in Chester real examples of better design because of the Government's encouragement. We shall continue with that.

When promoting urban design, will the Secretary of State consider no build being extended under high-voltage power lines, as happens in many villages in my constituency? Bearing in mind the link between ill health and the electromagnetic field under power lines, will the Minister consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "The microphone is not on."]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been interrupted. The technicians are aware that the microphone is not working; I can see them working on the problem.

Bearing in mind the link between ill health and the electromagnetic field under power lines, will the Minister consider amending planning law to ensure avenues of no build under such lines?

No, I have no intention of doing that. I have considered the evidence carefully and believe that the hon. Gentleman is asserting as fact a very questionable argument.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the price of water for domestic consumers has changed over the past five years; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change. [15494]

Average domestic water and sewerage charges have increased by 35 per cent., including inflation, over the past five years. Charges have risen to help pay for the massive modernisation programme which has been necessary to raise water quality and environmental standards.

As the sharp rise in the price of water is so different from the sharp fall in the price of the services provided by almost every other privatised industry—I am thinking of electricity, telecommunications and gas—would not it be helpful to give the public a full explanation of that difference? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the basic reasons was the previous starvation of investment whereas the industry now has to bear the cost of implementing Euro-directives and the massive cost of removing agricultural chemicals and pesticides from water supplies?

My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to improving agricultural practices. On the wider issue, however, he is right to make the connection between the need for investment now and the lack of investment in the past. He will be aware that, since privatisation, investment has run at roughly twice the previous level. It is certainly much higher than it was before 1979. Higher investment is necessary to pay for the environmental standards that we wish to implement.

Does the Minister agree that the problem of the 35 per cent. increase is only compounded by the even greater increase in profits over the past five years? Is not it disgraceful that, for the past two years, investment in the industry has actually fallen, which gives the lie to his claims?

The hon. Lady fails to see the link between profit and investment. Profit is very important for investment, and we want investment to continue so as to provide higher environmental standards, cleaner rivers, beaches and bathing water and high-quality drinking water. The hon. Lady's party would take us back to the bad old days of the Labour Administration when the industry was starved of investment.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that the major reason for the increase in water charges is the fact that we have to meet EU directives. Will my hon. Friend confirm that half those directives have nothing to do with health and safety but are concerned only with matters of taste and colour? Even at this late stage in the huge investment programme, will my hon. Friend try to persuade his European ministerial colleagues to get rid of such unnecessary EU directives?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government are committed to high standards of drinking water. Higher environmental standards across the board are the essence of the way in which we impose and interpret those directives. I know that my hon. Friend would wish his constituents in Barnet to have good-quality drinking water standards, just as we would for our constituents.

The Minister will appreciate that the figures he cites disguise a wide variation in water prices across the country. Will he explain to those whose bills have doubled, or more, in the south-west—and other areas that have been hit hard—why the Government believe it is appropriate to continue to subsidise the already lower prices in Scotland but refuse any help to those who have been hit in high-paying areas such as the south-west?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the particular need for investment in the south-west and the problems along the coast there. He would do well to bear in mind the need for investment arising from the lack of investment in the past. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the improved environmental standards in the south-west. The hon. Gentleman should study the report issued by the Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, which shows that the rise in prices in Scotland has been very nearly the same as that in this country.

I note what my hon. Friend says about investment in the water industry. He knows very well the amount that Yorkshire Water has invested. What does he say, however, to consumers in Yorkshire, given that Yorkshire Water has recently announced a 5.5 per cent. increase in its charges—more than twice the rate of inflation—and said in the same breath that it is not sure that it will be able to supply water to its customers due to possible shortages?

My hon. Friend will know that, under the regulator's price structure, prices will be stabilised in Yorkshire and will be much lower in future. Particular problems in Yorkshire have been caused by exceptionally dry weather—[Interruption.] The Government are anxious to ensure that no water supply problems are caused by dry conditions in Yorkshire. Opposition Members who are shouting would do well to remember that, during the drought in Yorkshire last summer, no standpipes were used and there were no rota cuts, unlike what happened in 1976, when there was also dry weather.

Will the Minister confirm that the average price rise hides the fact that, while water prices generally have been pushed up by 80 per cent., charges for metered supplies have come down by 2 per cent. in real terms? First, is not such discrimination against one group of customers unlawful and, secondly, is not it part of the Government's general secret agenda to force or bribe everybody to go on to meters?

The hon. Gentleman is comprehensively wrong. It is a shame that he chooses to rubbish water metering, when it has important benefits for water conservation and the environment. The longer the hon. Gentleman rubbishes water metering, the more he shows that he is not concerned about the environment, has given no thought to the environmental consequences of water policy and has nothing constructive to say on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans to introduce a new rural business use class. [15495]

We announced in the rural White Paper our intention of consulting on the possible introduction shortly of a new rural business use class. A consultation paper is in preparation and the intention is to improve the rural economy by giving local planning authorities more confidence to allow appropriate new businesses to set up in the countryside.

That is welcome progress in helping to reduce rural unemployment in areas such as Rother, where it has been far too high for far too long. Does my hon. Friend agree that councillors and planning officials have been the most opposed to successful, small-scale business development? What plans are there to provide training and information for them so that such developments may be encouraged—so that we may have thriving villages and a thriving countryside?

My hon. Friend will be aware that, even at its consultancy stage, the White Paper will contain reassurance on exactly the concerns of local authority councillors and planning officials. I am sure that they will grab the opportunity and move with it when it is fully realisable.

Will the initiative extend to Scotland, Britain's premier rugby nation?

I should have thought that, bearing in mind my accent, the hon. Gentleman was taking a big risk talking about rugby—even at Murrayfield. I shall certainly put his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who might like to consider it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is pursuing to regulate the construction of telecommunication masts in areas of outstanding natural beauty. [15496]

Except in an emergency, the erection of telecommunication masts in areas of outstanding natural beauty needs planning permission from the local planning authority. Guidance on such applications is set out in the Department's planning policy guidance note 8, which emphasises the need to protect the best and most sensitive environments.

Can my hon. Friend envisage the great landscape paintings of Constable spiked with telecommunication masts for cellphones? Will he assure me that he will co-ordinate carefully the telephone companies and the local authority in Dedham vale in my constituency to ensure that masts are not erected in inappropriate and obtrusive places?

It is probably just as well that my hon. Friend mentioned Constable, rather than some modern painters whose works already look as if they have telecommunication masts all over them. I certainly accept what he said about the need for proper co-ordination between operators and local planning authorities. After all, the purpose of preliminary notification is to enable authorities to pick out plans for sensitive sites and to ensure that full planning applications are required for them.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is no earthly use his governing telecommunication poles unless he also governs electricity pylons? Will he ensure that in areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the Forest of Bowland, supplies are routed underground whenever possible?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I shall certainly think about what might be done in that regard.

It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is sometimes a convert to the need for regulation. What discussions has the Minister had with the Radio Authority and network planners? It is no good dealing with the issue piecemeal. We need a strategic plan in place, and his Department should take a lead role in that respect, ensuring that the proper infrastructure is there and that the environment is protected in the way described by the hon. Member for Colchester, North.

The whole point of calling operators and local authorities together is to ensure proper co-ordination. In trying to promote good practice, we shall certainly take into account the concerns that many hon. Members have expressed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding domestic energy conservation measures. [15497]

We have recently widened the formal arrangements for dialogue between the energy efficiency industry and Ministers, and I met representatives of the industry on 20 February. We have received to date 119 responses to our consultation on guidance to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. We have also received recent representations on our successful home energy efficiency scheme.

How can the Government still claim to be in favour of sustainable development when they have cut by one third the modest home energy insulation programme, which conserves energy and reduces CO, emissions? Is he aware that the number of backlog applications from people who are poor, old and cold is approaching 250,000, and that 1,500 jobs will be lost because of the cut made by the Secretary of State? Will the Minister now reinstate that £31 million, or does he say one thing and do another?

If anyone said one thing and did another it is the hon. Lady, because although she is fond of the scheme now, under the Labour Government there was no such support for energy conservation. Judging by what she says, I suspect that she would take an axe to the scheme even now. I have explained to the House several times that £30 million was added to the budget for the scheme in anticipation of the second stage of VAT. That was voted down by the House, so of course the VAT compensation package also fell.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that home energy efficiency schemes save individual households as much as 33⅓ per cent. on their fuel bills? Would it not be a long-term investment of the soundest kind, both for the nation and for the individual, if the scheme were further promoted as soon as it is possible to do so?

Indeed, my hon. Friend is right—and of course, even with the changes that we have made, more people will benefit. Those who do not qualify for free fitting of insulation will receive a 25 per cent. discount, which is a substantial incentive for people to adopt such measures in their homes.

The wreck of the Sea Empress has many lessons to teach us, one of which is that we must reduce our dependence on burning fossil fuels. Is not energy efficiency the first priority? How can the Government claim to be serious about the matter when they are cutting the home energy efficiency scheme budget by 30 per cent., and when the Energy Saving Trust will have to make do with £25 million for two years rather than the £350 million that it expected? Is that not a terrible indictment of the Government's lack of commitment and seriousness on the matter?

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that energy conservation is extremely important in tackling environmental problems, and it is also one of the most cost-effective ways of doing so. If I had to name the worst enemy of progress, it would be the complacency of the British public, and that is difficult to address.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessments have been made of the impact that the new United Kingdom Environment Agency will have on the cost of running small businesses. [15499]

Establishing the new Environment Agency will help all businesses by reducing the number of regulators with which they have to deal.

As the Environment Agency has the power to introduce new self-financing regulations, what will the Government do to protect the 4 million small firms that will be the victims of rampant and over-zealous officialdom? What is needed is a fast-track approach on appeal. Can something be done to reduce the impact on small firms of over-zealous officials who constantly want to gold-plate every rule and regulation that comes out of this place?

My hon. Friend is a zealous campaigner on behalf of deregulation, and I hope that he will welcome this as a deregulatory measure that will help business by providing a one-stop shop that can meet its needs. I hope that he will join the warm welcome that has been given to the new agency by the CBI and other representatives of business, including the Advisory Council for Business and the Environment. We will listen carefully to opinions as the agency progresses, but it will be a help to business and it will be deregulatory.

Will the Minister confirm that high environmental standards are extremely good not only for people but for jobs? In meeting those high standards, many small firms have been able to develop a market both at home and abroad. Should we not be doing everything possible to encourage high environmental standards and the jobs that go with them?

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. High environmental standards help businesses both large and small. For our part, the Government are prepared to give plaudits to businesses that are successful in winning environmental exports. We are interested in a positive environmental policy that benefits business and the environment. We wait to hear the Opposition's policies—so far, we have heard absolutely nothing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives of the GMB to discuss the provision of local authority services. [15500]

None.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the General Municipal Boilermakers Union has waged a sustained campaign against compulsory competitive tendering? Does he further agree that the fact that that union is one of the paymasters of the Labour party should strike terror into the heart of every council tax payer in the country?

There is no doubt that the Labour party in local government is much more interested in the dictates of the unions that represent local government workers than in the needs of the community of electors. There have been recent examples of that union attempting to stop contracting out to protect its closed-shop practices, and there are other similar examples all over the country. The union is supported by the Labour party—and by the Labour leadership—because it puts money into Labour's pockets.

When the Minister meets representatives of the union to talk about CCT, will he discuss the waste of money on housing management CCT, particularly in the city of Sheffield? In Sheffield, the authority had to spend £900,000 and not one firm tendered for the work in question. The last firm to withdraw said that it would not bid because it could not improve on the services provided by Sheffield city council. Is it not time that the Minister allowed local authorities to spend money on providing houses for people in need, rather than wasting money on the outdated dogma that he espouses?

All over the country, tenants have found that management has improved, even where they have not gone over to private enterprise, because for the first time, owing to CCT, local authorities are asking them what they want. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Labour party hate CCT as it means that their paymasters have to compete for jobs instead of taking them from the local authorities run by him and his lackeys.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regarding air quality. [15501]

My ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet officers of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to discuss issues of importance regarding air quality.

I welcome the new duty that is to be placed on local authorities to assess air quality and make improvement plans. I invite my hon. Friend to visit Castle Point to encourage the local borough council to provide additional air quality monitoring equipment in Benfleet, so that a better balance of air quality monitoring may be achieved in Castle Point.

My hon. Friend's point is well made. Last year, under the Environment Act 1995, the greatest progress towards achieving clean air was made since the Clean Air Act 1956. Local authorities have an important part to play in that strategy. I know that my hon. Friend will take a close interest in the progress made at Benfleet and the rest of the country towards the higher environmental standards, including clean air, that the Government seek.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.[15516]

This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my meetings in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House whether he knew of the £6.2 million rescue package put together by ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Lord Younger last October to save the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) from being disqualified as a Member of Parliament? Did the Prime Minister approve of the deal?

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I have to say to the hon. Lady—forgive me for that slip—that that is not a matter for me, and it was not a matter of which I was aware.

In his busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the book by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? What lessons does he draw from it for his own Government—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question about lessons to be drawn by the Government and hon. Members should listen.

May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the suggestion in the book that, under a Labour Government, each newly married couple would receive £5,000? Is he aware that the last time that that proposal was seriously made was in Germany under the Third Reich? Does he agree that, in seeking a role model for his own leader, the hon. Gentleman has bypassed domestic role models and seeks the concept of "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer"?

I have not read the book, but it clearly sounds an extremely good buy, even if I have to purchase it myself. I am not sure that the book will do a good deal of good for the hon. Gentleman who wrote it. If he has the influence on Labour party policy that many of us believe, I hope that everybody will take the opportunity of reading the book.

The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Government wholeheartedly in the peace process and will continue to do so. In view of the damaging speculation, will he clarify whether any deal was offered to the Government last night, as has been suggested?

I made it clear last night—and I have made it clear on earlier occasions—that I have no intention of doing any deal with any party on any occasion if the price of that deal is any given action by the Government in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process. I appreciate the support that I have had, across the House, on that process. To many Members of the House, the process has been seen as being above politics in many ways, which I believe is right. I am not in the market for deals now or in the future, and I think that every hon. Member is aware of that.

I am grateful for that reply. I hope that the Prime Minister will, therefore, deplore any briefing that was given last night about deals being offered to the Government. Does he agree that the issue of Northern Ireland and other issues of intense party controversy are best kept entirely separate in future?

I entirely agree that those matters are separate and, as I said a moment ago, there are no deals and there will be no deals, and I think everyone is aware of that.

The DUP?

There is no deal with any political party in the House—not with the Democratic Unionist party, not with the Ulster Unionists, not with the Social Democratic and Labour party. No deal—not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not at all—on this process.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to give priority to increasing the number of police officers available for beat duty, especially in rural areas? Does he agree that those officers should be full time, that the fight against crime requires total dedication and commitment from our police and that part-time officers are no substitute?

s: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tremendous reassurance that is given to people by seeing police officers on the beat. He will be aware that we have provided funding in this year's public expenditure round that gives chief constables the resources to put a further 5,000 police officers on the beat.

On GMTV on Sunday, the Defence Secretary said that he believed that a European single currency in Europe is very likely. Does the Prime Minister agree?

May I, first, in a spirit of cross-party good will, wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy birthday? I cannot promise that this good will will always last.

When my right hon. Friend goes to the intergovernmental conference, will he ask his Spanish counterpart how he explains to the young people of Spain, one third of whom are unemployed, why their jobs should be sacrificed on the altar of the social chapter?

My hon. Friend directs that question especially at my Spanish colleague, but it might equally be directed at several of my colleagues elsewhere in Europe. Throughout Europe, countries that have signed the social chapter and that have many social provisions that would be included in the social chapter, were this country foolish enough to sign it, have higher unemployment, including youth unemployment, than we have in this country—and, in many cases, far higher unemployment. That is why we believe that it would be quite wrong, in the interests not only of competitiveness but of having people in work, especially young people, to sign it. We will not, and it is one of the dividing lines between the policy of the Government and that of the principal Opposition parties.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15517]

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

Does the Prime Minister think it is right that last night's vote on the conduct of two Ministers was won only because the two Ministers concerned decided to vote to exonerate themselves?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has always taken a great interest in matters relating to Iraq. He demanded an immediate ceasefire and peace conference before Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the war, so he takes a great interest in this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper giving the history of defence equipment sales over the past 30 years or so? Is it not correct that the first super salesman at the Ministry of Defence was Mr. Ray Brown, who was appointed by Lord Healey? Did not Lord Callaghan, as Prime Minister, introduce the Chevaline missile without telling half of his Cabinet or the House? He would certainly never have told the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who were members of CND.

It is just possible that the reason why he would not tell them was given by my right hon. Friend at the end of his remarks. What happened under previous Governments is a matter of record. It is also a matter of record that this Government sold no hard armaments to Iraq and that the previous Labour Government provided many to Argentina. That is a matter of record, not speculation.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15518]

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister noticed the demonstration that took place in Edinburgh on Saturday against swingeing Government education cuts. Some 40,000 people—parents, teachers and children—marched in protest against those cuts. That is the equivalent of about 500,000 people marching on the streets of London. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister at the Scottish Office said that he would have joined the demonstration if he had been in Edinburgh? If the Prime Minister had been in Scotland at the weekend, would he have joined the demonstration also—bearing it in mind that the slashing of local government budgets means that he would not be guaranteed police protection?

The hon. Lady knows that more resources are made available year after year for education in all parts of the United Kingdom. She knows also that the proportion of public expenditure per head of population throughout Scotland is far higher than that throughout the whole of England and Wales. It is only smaller than that in Northern Ireland, where very special circumstances prevail. Of course, the hon. Lady is also in favour of an extra tax in order to provide more money and an extra imposition of £6 per week for every family in Scotland as a result of policies that she supports.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15519]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ending of the IRA ceasefire makes it even more important that the prevention of terrorism Act be renewed? Does he agree that that measure should be supported by all parties in the House and that to abstain, rather than to vote against it—which now appears to be the policy of the Labour party—is not sufficient and will do nothing to help in the war against terrorism?

I am grateful to the Labour party for the bipartisan approach that it has adopted: I repeat that point yet again. I was very pleased to hear from the shadow Home Secretary that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, they will be prepared to go a little further and support us on that Bill. It would be helpful were the Opposition to do so, but that is a matter that they must consider. I can say only that, on that Bill, I would especially welcome their support in the Lobby.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15520]

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

After yesterday's events, what advice would the Prime Minister give to a civil servant who is asked by a Minister consistently, deliberately and designedly to mislead the House of Commons?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case and that there is a code of conduct for civil servants, which they follow. That has been, is and will continue to be the case.

To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood parliamentary constituency. [15522]

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

May I assume from that reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is referring to his last visit to Royal Air Force Northolt in my constituency? On that occasion, he may have climbed out to the south-west over pleasant, open countryside and green belt. Will he ensure that his Government stick to the excellent sentiments expressed by him and the leaders of the Labour and Liberal parties in their letter to The Times on 9 February, in which they called for the preservation of the countryside?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently produced a White Paper on rural affairs as well and our concern for the countryside has not lately arrived, but has been a party concern for many years. That remains the case.