To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the level of revenue support grant settlement in 1996–97 with respect to Westminster council. [25671]

I have received a number of representations, including some that point out that, when compared with a city such as Liverpool, Westminster has been much less generously treated by the Government than it was under the previous Labour Government.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that if every council got the same help that Westminster gets, 336 out of the 358 councils would be able to pay a rebate and that 10 would be able to pay a rebate of more than £900 per council tax payer? Is not that political largesse completely unjustifiable by anyone outside the Conservative party? It is a political fix and he should admit it and be ashamed.

What I will confirm is that if the same figures had been arranged under a Labour Government, more people would have been able to do more than that. That shows how ridiculous the hon. Gentleman's proposition is. If all councils were given the same money as Tower Hamlets, there would not be an area in the country that would not be able to do much better than he suggested, but the Labour party controls Tower Hamlets, so it does not like to say that.

As the working population of my constituency exceeds the national average by a factor of almost 20 and exceeds that of any other constituency by a factor of five, will my right hon. Friend accept my representation that I am glad that he has noticed that my two authorities are different in category and not only in degree?

My right hon. Friend may also have noticed that all independent observers point out that the system that we use is objective and the most sophisticated in the world. The only person who does not believe that is the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who said that he does not accept what experts say. That is because they never agree with him.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the experts disagree that Westminster is the fourth most deprived area and say that this is a serious matter that the Government should address? Should not the Government address the fact that, if Trafford got the same council tax support as Westminster, it would be able to give every council tax payer £527 back; Rochdale would be able to give £303 back; and Oldham would be able to give £145 back? The Westminster skew is a fiddle; everyone knows it and will show it on Thursday.

It is odd that, when the hon. Lady was asked about it, she said that she would not like to promise major changes in the system that we use. She is condemned out of her own mouth. She knows that what she says is not accepted by any of the Labour-controlled local authority organisations and that no one from any political party who understands the system agrees with her. She knows that she is trying to mislead the country. The country knows it, too, and will show it on Thursday.

Does my right hon. Friend know that Wokingham district council is receiving no revenue support grant this year, yet, for the third successive year, Conservatives have offered a cut in the council tax while offering improved services? Unfortunately, the Liberals have forced through a 13 per cent. increase in the council tax and a deterioration in services. Does not that show that Thursday matters and that people must vote Conservative on Thursday for lower taxes?

My right hon. Friend is too kind to the Opposition parties—it is true not just in Wokingham, but throughout the country, that it costs £225 a year more to have a Labour council than a Conservative council. What is more, the Audit Commission shows that people get less for paying more. They pay more with Labour and get worse services. That is what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is trying to hide with his wholly spurious comments about Westminster.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [25672]

My Department has made no estimate of future sales.

Does the Minister agree that the scheme has been another sunken disaster flagship policy for the Tory party—a waste of money and a waste of time? Would it not be more sensible, if the Government are really concerned about housing, to do something to help people with mortgage difficulties, perhaps by considering a mortgages-to-rents policy instead of a rents-to-mortgages policy?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an effort to help people into home ownership is a waste of time. He will be aware that it is one of a range of policies through which we have promoted home ownership since 1979. Due to that range of policies, more than 1.5 million people are home owners, including 2, 000 former council tenants in his constituency. I make no apologies for promoting home ownership. Tens of thousands of people are going into home ownership through such schemes every year. One of the interesting things about the scheme is that it is an attempt to help those on lower incomes into home ownership. The hon. Gentleman's party is turning its back on those people, just as it is turning its back on those who want opportunities in education by threatening to abolish child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. Labour is turning its back on home ownership and education.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that attack on the rents-to-mortgages scheme and Labour's votes yesterday to restrict the right to buy show that new Labour has the same stupid prejudices as old Labour?

The same instincts are there. Labour has criticised every attempt to help people into home ownership and it is still doing so.

Will the Minister now admit that, despite 13 clauses in legislation, huge publicity efforts and £140,000-worth of promotional expenditure, the Government have managed to persuade just 15 people in the country to take up the scheme? Does the Under-Secretary of State recall his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, saying in Committee of another Tory white elephant—the infamous tenants' choice scheme—

"it is daft to leave in the Bill something that does not work and is therefore redundant, so we will get shot of it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 April 1996; c. 1037.]

The import of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that it is wrong for Governments to explore opportunities for helping people into home ownership. The success of our policy is reflected in the more than 1.5 million people who have gone into home ownership since 1979. I am surprised that Labour's spokesman on housing is adopting the criticisms of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He should be aware that, in his constituency, more than 7, 000 householders have been helped into home ownership since 1979. We make no apologies for trying to help people into home ownership.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to strengthen the position of workplace safety representatives; and if he will make a statement. [25673]

The current system of workplace safety representatives works well, but we intend to bring forward regulations to extend consultation rights to workplaces where there are no trade union safety representatives.

It is interesting that the Minister says that consultation procedures are to be modified, as he will know that safety representatives, working through their safety committees, have been an enormous influence in reducing accidents but that accidents have increased in some industries, such as mining. A couple of weeks ago, I drew to the Minister's attention the fact that a mining company operating in Northumberland—Stormgate Mining Ltd.—had not renewed its employer's liability insurance, yet men were working at that colliery. In his modified consultation procedure, will he arrange with the Coal Authority a register of all the activities of companies employed in the mining industry, to include a copy of the employer's liability insurance certificate, so that it can be viewed by the safety representatives at the colliery?

We are looking at, reviewing and giving consideration to this case.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mandatory home renovation grants were awarded by local authorities in 1995. [25674]

There were 34, 300.

Tens of thousands of people live in unfit housing across east Lancashire. They struggle to get the grants to which they are legally entitled and, later today, the Government will seek to remove their legal right to mandatory improvement grants. Why is the Minister intent on taking away the only chance that my constituents and many other people have of getting a decent home?

The hon. Gentleman clearly has some difficulties with chronology—that does not happen in the Housing Bill, which we are to consider today. If he holds his breath and submits an application, he may be able to serve on the Committee that considers the next Bill, which will replace mandatory grants with discretionary grants. First, he should get his documents in order. Secondly, we cannot sustain a system that has a cash-limited grant and unlimited entitlement to it—the sums do not add up. Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to make a discretionary grant and to give local authorities the ability to focus it on the areas of greatest need so that they can serve the genuine interests of regeneration. That is what the Bill will do.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, sometimes, we need to go beyond these grants and that some housing estates require fundamental reorganisation? Is he aware that, for the past 10 years, an estate in Islington has been promised renovation work? Is he further aware that, for the past 10 years, Islington council has pontificated and promised the tenants some work, but that it has failed to fulfil its promise because of its incompetence?

My hon. Friend is right: some of the older estates require much more substantial work. The Government have an estates renewal programme that is specifically designed to tackle the worst estates. What he has said about Islington council will surprise no one—it has a dismal record, which no doubt continues.

Will the Minister admit that the 1.5 million people who live in homes that are unfit to live in will be disappointed that the Government are abolishing this scheme and that they are replacing it with a discretionary scheme? When will the Government provide money so that people can look forward to having their homes made fit to live in? That is not really such a big ambition as we reach the end of the 20th century.

First, there has been a substantial programme for the improvement of homes. Secondly, many homes are unfit for simple or minor reasons. Thirdly, public expenditure constraints have to be observed. Fourthly, when the second Bill comes to this House, it will be interesting to see whether the Labour party will do what it did in the other place—refuse to give any commitment whatsoever to restore full mandatory grants. If the Labour party wants to make an effective point on this, it would be awfully nice to know what it plans to do in this area of public expenditure and on taxation. The two are linked, and we still know nothing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the Government's planning policy guidance for the countryside. [25675]

Following our well-received White Paper entitled "Rural England", we expect to consult on a draft revision of planning policy guidance note 7 and on a possible rural business use class before the summer recess.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Department on the excellent White Paper entitled "Rural England". Is he aware—perhaps he will take account of this in his consultations—of the unhappiness in some rural areas, particularly in my district of Blaby and Harborough in Leicestershire, because district councils are being compelled to provide for a large number of new homes on green-field sites? Will he, in his consultation, look to encourage the regeneration and rebuilding of inner cities on derelict land rather than building new homes on green-field sites?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the White Paper. It is precisely because we want sustainable development in housing, as elsewhere, that, for the very first time, we have set a target for the percentage of housing to be built on existing developed land. I have said to the Environment Committee that, if experience allows us, we will raise that target in time.

Does the Minister accept that current planning policy guidance is a jungle of anomalies and inconsistencies? For example, why has he refused to publish the results of the review into planning policy guidance note 6 until after the local elections on Thursday? Does he realise that the delay is causing massive confusion? When will we have planning policy guidance that is clear, consistent and strategic, rather than the mess that we have at the moment?

Let me help the hon. Gentleman. He knows that there is a convention that announcements such as that are not made in the run-up to local elections. We shall make the announcement immediately after the local elections, in accordance with the right practices in government.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he intends to take to ensure that there is an equality of treatment when contracts are being let under compulsory competitive tendering between direct service organisations and the private sector. [25676]

My hon. Friend will be aware that, earlier this month, we issued new statutory guidance to local authorities on compulsory competitive tendering. In addition, we will publish our proposals for changing the CCT system next month.

I warmly welcome that guidance and my hon. Friend's efforts to root out anti-competitive practices in local authorities, but does he accept that many local authorities—especially Labour ones—will do everything possible to ensure that contracts are let to their own direct labour organisations? Will he take further steps to encourage the district auditor service more rigorously to try to root out those anti-competitive practices and to pay special attention to the terms of reference of direct service organisation boards, which appear to be set up to rig the system in favour of DSOs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shenanigans that some Labour and Liberal local authorities get up to dodge the common sense of competitive tendering are staggering. The district auditors, or the external auditing system, have the power to act in many areas, and need encouragement to do so. We shall certainly continue the encouragement, along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.

Does the Minister recall insisting that Birmingham city council should re-advertise its five housing management contracts when it had awarded them in fair competition with the private sector? Does he realise that that costs council tax payers in the city £1.5 million? Will he foot that bill?

The answer is that it was not a fair competition. The fiddling of the books and the shenanigans that went on were incredible—not only in housing, but in other areas, time and again—and the people who lose are the people who pay and the people who receive the services. This is a blow of old Labour, and it is about time that people, including Opposition Members, understood the advantages of competitive tendering.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a very good example of the importance of transferring contracts to the private sector may be found in Cambridgeshire, where nearly £2 million has been lost to direct labour organisations by the incompetent, half-baked Lib-Lab county council?

There are repeated examples of such cases throughout the country. Bradford is a classic example. By shenanigans, it lost £1.2 million. When it was forced to repeat the tendering process, the new contract went out to the private sector, with a saving of £700, 000.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the local authority grant per head in (a) Darlington and (b) Westminster; and if he will make a statement. [25677]

This year, £997 for Westminster and £621 for Darlington. That is a difference of 75 per cent. In the last year of Labour government, the difference was 84 per cent.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those figures. Do not they show that, if Darlington received the same level of Government help as Westminster city council, this year, every family in my constituency, instead of paying a council tax bill, would receive a rebate of £681? Is it not a national disgrace that the local authority grant system has been skewed and rigged to favour one inefficient Tory flagship council?

What it shows is that any skewing that took place took place a darn sight more under Labour than it does under the Conservatives. It also shows that the hon. Gentleman should not work out a supplementary question before he has heard the answer to the main question.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while a number of authorities may complain that the grant per head is not sufficient and that the methodology is weighted against them, whether one lives in Darlington or in Westminster, until the local government organisations controlled by the opposition parties can suggest alterations to that methodology that are acceptable to local authorities, it will be very difficult for the Government to make any changes?

My hon. Friend points out that all three local authority organisations that are run by Labour do not make the same claims as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). They understand how the system works and they are part and parcel of it. The hon. Gentleman, who will not listen to experts, does not understand how that system works. Parties such as his charge people £225 a year more than would a Conservative council.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the present grant regime, council tax payers in Westminster contribute just 4 per cent. towards the cost of their council but that, in Darlington, council tax payers contribute more than 30 per cent—and that council tax payers in Bromsgrove, Hertsmere, North Hertfordshire, Milton Keynes and Wyre Forest pay more than 30 per cent? In Basildon—the other Tory flagship—people must contribute 42 per cent. towards the cost of their council. Does not that show that the whole system is a rigged racket that favours Westminster, and that legions of Tory Members of Parliament vote for that racket, following the party line rather than standing up for local people?

Where were the legions of Labour Members of Parliament when Westminster did better under Labour than it does under the Conservatives? The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he has not done his homework. He thinks that, if he says the same thing again and again, people will believe him—even though what he says is fundamentally untrue, as anyone who understands the system knows.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the grant per head made to Suffolk county council is extremely generous? Does he share my shock at the way in which the Labour and Liberal county councillors are now ruthlessly switching resources away from the villages and the rural areas of Suffolk in order to prop up their friends in the towns? Does not that prove that, when it comes to rigging local authority finances, the Labour and Liberal parties are the experts?

My hon. Friend is far too kind. He fails to mention the fact that, although Suffolk county council received an extra £11.5 million to spend on education, it spent only £8.5 million and put the rest elsewhere. He does not mention either that the council cut off funding for transport for 16 to 18-year-olds, thus underlining Labour's tax on A-levels. The Labour party has taken money from parents by way of travel allowance and it would also abolish child allowance for 16 to 18-year-olds. It is opposed to those who keep their children at school. The Labour party costs more and it spends public money where it wants rather than where the people want it to be spent.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding forestry in England. [25678]

During the consultation on the rural White Paper, we received 54 written representations on forestry. We continue to receive representations on many aspects of forestry.

Will the Minister make representations to the Scottish Office, which has overall responsibility for our forests, to stop the back-door privatisation of Forestry Commission land by Forest Enterprise as that would restrict public access and reduce the environmental quality of our woodlands, which are a precious national asset?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that high-access woodlands are not included in the disposal programmes and that, in other cases, local authorities have opportunities to reach agreements on access. In view of his comments and concern, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Government are improving access to woodlands by the creation of the national forest and the network of 12 community forests serving large parts of Britain, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency in South Yorkshire. I hope that his constituents will enjoy that access in due course.

My hon. Friend will recognise that the few remaining areas of woodland and forest within Greater London and within the M25 are particularly important national assets. Will he ensure that those areas, many of which are green-belt areas and sites of special scientific interest, remain sacrosanct in respect of planning and development?

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend as my constituency is within the M25 and includes some of that woodland. He will be aware of the community forest that serves my constituency. It is Government policy to preserve open spaces and forests within the metropolitan green belt.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from local authorities regarding the role of the district auditor service. [25679]

None.

The Minister will be aware that the district auditor service is highly regarded by many local authorities, including Labour-controlled Kirklees. If he wants to talk or shout about squalid deals and shenanigans, he should recognise that many people in local government believe that the Secretary of State brought undue pressure on the district auditor to delay the report on Westminster city council until after Thursday's local election. If on May 7 that report—the Tories, who are shouting, do not like this—names the individuals responsible for wasting £30 million of taxpayers' money on gerrymandering, will the Minister or the Secretary of State ensure that action is taken to drive those people out of public life for good?

That accusation is categorically untrue. It is a scandalous attack on the integrity of the auditor dealing with Westminster's affairs.

Will my hon. Friend tell that lot opposite that we do not like having district auditors' reports carried out at the behest of council tax payers and Liberal Democrat councillors refusing to publish the results? Does he agree that everyone considering voting Liberal Democrat on Thursday should know that that party should carry a financial health warning?

We can all agree that any sensible system of local government must have a system of independent audit and that sensible politicians will recognise that the auditors must be allowed to get on with their job without political intervention.

Given the length of time that the auditor has had to report on Westminster city council, and acknowledging the great difficulties that have been created by the procrastination of former Conservative councilors—

When will the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) answer my question about the district auditor's report?

Order. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has put his question. Let us hear someone else now.

Given the delay in the publication of the report and its importance in respect of various people's continuance in public office, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that major reports are produced rather more quickly in future?

The Government have no intention of intervening in the process of audit for any purpose. If local government is to be based on financial integrity, the audit service must be free of political interference and in the hands of an independent authority. I do not intend to intervene in that process. The Labour party plans to transform the Audit Commission into a super surrogate for local government. Nothing would be more dangerous. The matter is best left in the hands of the Audit Commission, which does its job very well.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enhance the use and amenities of the River Thames in London. [25680]

My strategic planning guidance for the Thames will have as its three major goals quality building along the Thames, more freight and leisure traffic on the river, and the conservation of its natural environment.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are no elections in London this Thursday, is my right hon. Friend aware that the initiatives and the actions he has taken to promote greater use of, and to enhance the amenities of, the Thames have been far greater than were ever achieved under the old and little-lamented Greater London council? Does he further agree that the siting of the major millennium project at Greenwich will give a glorious opportunity for the Thames, especially in central and east London?

My hon. Friend will accept that the planning of the Thames needs to have a strategy that reaches way beyond the old GLC area, right down to the coast. That is another example of the fact that one can deal with London's strategic problems only on a variable basis. Boroughs on both sides of the Thames are now working together inside and outside the old Greater London area in a way that they would never have done when they were borne down upon by the expensive, inefficient and failed Greater London council.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the River Thames is a wonderful asset for London and that there are many new developments, especially on the south bank in my constituency? Will he especially welcome the new millennium wheel? It will be a most wonderful monument to the millennium. Does he further agree that, if we are serious about developing the use of the River Thames, we have to make it much easier for piers to be provided along the river, and planning guidance should be changed to help to achieve that? If new developments had to provide a pier, that would do a great deal to ensure that the river could be used.

I think that the hon. Lady will be pleased with the strategic guidance, because that is the sort of subject on which we have been working together in the all-party group that has directed the preparation of that guidance. I am also pleased to agree with her about the enormous advantages of the proposals that have been made for sites all along the Thames. It would be wrong of me to make an especial comment about the great Ferris wheel, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that we need to show that we have the confidence in these years to make big changes and to stand up for this generation to show that we have something to offer to the next.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses have been constructed in the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [25683]

There were 370, 100 completions in Great Britain in 1994 and 1995

Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of house building in Swindon rose from 664 houses in 1994–95 to 1,163 houses in 1995–96? Is not that near doubling in the number of houses under construction in those two years clear evidence of a very strong recovery of the economy?

My hon. Friend is right. The basis for that recovery is the containment of public expenditure and ensuring that interest rates remain low. Both those would be threatened by a policy of spend and high taxation such as the Labour party refuses to deny. The Labour party will not give us any details on what it will spend and what it will tax.

Despite those figures, is it not the case that real housing need—that of the homeless—is not being met? Is it not the Government's policy to prevent local authorities from building the necessary houses for social rent and affordable housing? When will the Government do something about providing homes for the homeless?

As a matter of interest, I spent part of this morning at a conference run by the English Churches housing association, dealing with the problems of street homelessness in London. At that conference, there was a very warm welcome for the imaginative and forward-looking programmes to deal with people in the worst possible circumstances—the street homeless. The hon. Gentleman will know that we plan to extend those programmes to cities outside London, where a clear need can he determined and where the voluntary sector and the public and statutory authorities can work together. That is a remarkable attack on the problems of the people in the worst possible circumstances in the United Kingdom, and it works.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the use of a pre-payment card system for the payment of water bills. [25684]

My Department has recently received representations on the use of budget payment units, which use a pre-payment card system, from the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and from one charitable organisation. I am confident that the units have helped to reduce problems of water debt, as have the trusts that a number of water companies have set up to help customers who cannot pay.

Is my hon. Friend aware that budget payment units are extremely popular with the 16, 000 customers who voluntarily opted to have them installed? is not it ironic that certain local authorities, mainly Labour, have sought to challenge the legality of the provision by water companies of budget payment units?

I agree that it is extraordinary. Not only have the units been helpful but MORI surveys have shown that 90 per cent. of customers are satisfied.

Will the Minister make a distinction between budget pre-payment units that make payment easy and timing devices that shut off the water supply when the money runs out, thus leaving the household without a supply? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that representations have been made against the latter devices by the National Consumer Council, local authorities, the National Federation of Housing Associations and environmental health officers because those devices pose a risk to public health? Will the Minister at least ensure that the number of people whose water supplies are cut off by such devices is published alongside disconnection figures, which are generally published?

The hon. Lady ought to acknowledge that both methods are popular and voluntary. I am sorry that there is a split in the Labour party on the subject. Clive Wilkinson, the former Labour leader of Birmingham city council, said:

"The overwhelming view of customers in my area who have had them installed is that these units are a good thing. I have not received a single complaint about the units from customers. I do not want to see customers being denied the choice if they want to opt for one of these units."

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposal from NORCHEM to establish a chemical waste recycling facility at Warndon, Worcester. [25685]

My Department has received 125 representations on that subject.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that number of representations shows the depth of anger in my constituency at an unwelcome and totally inappropriate proposal, which has already led to the deselection of the local Labour county councillor who argued for NORCHEM and against the interests of my constituents? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that the Environment Agency refuses a licence, and re-examine the city and county council planning procedures that led to this unfortunate situation?

My hon. Friend is correct when he says that there is clearly huge interest in this serious subject among the people of Worcester. My hon. Friend will be aware of the restrictions on me and on the Department in respect of planning cases and the actions of local authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that I will take a particular interest in the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regulation of the water industry. [25686]

The regulatory system for the water industry in England and Wales ensures that the companies can finance their investment programmes while protecting the interests of customers and the environment.

If Britain has a dryish May, June and July, who will pay for the emergency measures in August and September? Will it be the water companies, consumers or Government?

Happily, the likelihood is that, even if this year is as difficult as last year, no one in England will be subject to rota cuts or standpipes. If that is so, the privatised water companies will have achieved something that was never achieved by the nationalised companies at any time in the history of similar water situations. It is for the water companies to make provision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem being encountered by Batley city challenge, in being prevented by Yorkshire Water from using water for stone-cleaning activities? What advice can my right hon. Friend give that city challenge?

I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has agreed to look into that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) will know that Yorkshire Water has made major changes and considerable investment, to ensure that the water problems of last year are overcome.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of recent representations he has received on standard spending assessments. [25687]

We consider all representations received on SSAs. Proposals for change are examined with the local authority associations in the standard spending assessment sub-group of the settlement working group.

Why did the Government show favouritism to Westminster council?

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system of local government finance. We direct the funds where the needs are greatest, which is why in London the single biggest recipient of Government support is Tower Hamlets, followed by councils such as Southwark, Lambeth and Islington. If we did not do that, that would indeed be wrong. The idea that there should be a pro rata rate across the country is both fundamentally wrong and extremely silly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25701]

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.

Has the Prime Minister had drawn to his attention the article that appeared in the British Medical Journal last week, which stated that the Committee on Safety of Medicines recommended the prohibition, for pharmaceutical purposes, of all beef products from potentially bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected herds as far back as 1989? In view of that information, will he tell me why the Department of Health did not make similar recommendations about beef consumption at that time?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will weigh very carefully what he has to say in these matters. That is most emphatically not what his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) did some time ago. We take and make public the advice that is appropriate in terms of safety in this country. That is our responsibility and that is what we do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25702]

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

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his cohorts on the Opposition Benches fall over themselves to try to get the votes of the gin and Jag brigade—the middle classes—but is the Prime Minister aware that it is the Conservative party that speaks for those in my constituency, in Cleethorpes and Immingham, who are still proud to call themselves working class? Is it not a fact that those people look to the Conservative party and the Conservative Government to ensure that they have the chance to buy their council house, to escape from trade union rule, from the closed shop, and to ensure that child benefit is protected for their children, who want better and further education? [Interruption.]

The latest recruit to the middle classes, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is heckling from a sedentary position. I hope that his arrival among the middle classes did not cause them too much distress. The policies that he advocates certainly would: higher taxes on people—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says it on his aircraft. The shadow Transport Minister says it publicly and then does not subsequently deny it. There would be an extra tax, of course, on parents who have children at school between 16 and 18—a special tartan tax if someone happens to be a Scot. Those people can have that sort of tax as well. If someone happens to be a Londoner, they can have a top-up tax. Tax after tax. The Opposition know that that is their position. We are cutting taxes now. The Opposition plan to increase them.

I think that what most people remember is the 22 tax rises since 1992, and VAT going on—from the Prime Minister who said that it would not.

The minute that was leaked, which has caused some correspondence between the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, is not accurate. When the figures are available to us, we will publish them in the normal way, but I understand that the leak that appeared this morning was not accurate.

I hope that the Prime Minister will publish the full figures. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order—all of it. That includes the Front Bench below the Gangway.

The same memorandum says that recorded crime has now risen for six consecutive months. Is that correct? Is it also correct that the trend in crime is upwards, as the memorandum additionally says? If those two points are correct, will the Prime Minister accept that, since the Conservatives came to power, crime has actually more than doubled?

As I said a moment ago, we will publish the detailed figures at the usual time in the usual way; but, as it happens, parts of the figures in the memorandum that was leaked were wrong. Although monthly figures are always volatile, there is no doubt that crime fell in the last two months of 1995, so it cannot have just risen for the past six months, as the right hon. Gentleman said it did.

This party was advancing constructive proposals for law and order while the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers were still boasting about the numbers coming out of prison.

That comment was a long time coming, and it was not really worth waiting for. We will publish the figures in the usual fashion at the usual time.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25703]

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that child benefit for children who stay at school for a further two years to study for A-levels is worth in excess of £1,000? Can he also confirm that child benefit has its origins in tax rebate? If that were abolished, as Labour proposes, it would be equivalent to putting 5p on the basic rate of tax for the average parent. [Interruption.]

I note that Labour Members laugh at the thought of 5p on tax for people on average incomes. So much for their claim that they would not increase taxes. Child benefit was a tax allowance benefit; it was made into a cash payment for mothers to ensure that it was used on behalf of their children. Now Labour proposes to provide a disincentive to stop children from staying on at school.

Don't be so childish. You are Prime Minister, for God's sake.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his cool.

If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) studied his party's policy on this issue, he would be right to be angry at the way in which it proposes to treat people up and down the country.

The Prime Minister is, I believe, an honourable man. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. Will he therefore confirm that he understands that, if once again Conservative Members of Parliament try to change the Prime Minister, while denying the country the chance to change the Government, it will be totally unacceptable to all the British people? Will he therefore confirm that if, after Thursday, they try to get rid of him, he will ensure that we have a chance to get rid of the Government?

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing in fantasy again.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25704]

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

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the article in today's Evening Standard about tube and bus fares in London? Is that not good news for Londoners, who can look forward to the extension of the Jubilee line, improvements to the Northern line, Thameslink 2000, the Heathrow to Paddington link, improvements to the docklands light railway and the Croydon tramway link? Does that not show that we act, and the Greater London council just talked?

My hon. Friend, who has been lobbying on many of those matters for many years, has clearly studied the transport document with great care. He is of course right. It is good news for passengers in London, and so of course is the policy of capping fares. We expect London transport fares to rise at a significantly lower level than in the past as part of a strategy of making public transport more attractive.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25705]

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

With reference to the previous question, which the Prime Minister did not really answer, will he say whether he has ever discussed an understanding whereby, if the Conservatives do not do well in the local government elections this week, he will make way for the Deputy Prime Minister? We need a reassurance on that, as the Prime Minister must understand. Will he take it from me that he has the support of much of the House to remain leader of the Conservative party up to a general election? He has the support of at least half the Conservative Members, and of every Labour Member.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in mischief-making mode—[Interruption.] Clearly, he was not; clearly, he was just being silly.

My right hon. Friend had a very successful breakfast meeting with business men in Warwickshire on Friday. Will he therefore repeat, for the benefit of the House, the points that he made about the social chapter and the damage that it would do to employment and prosperity in the United Kingdom?

I noticed over the past few days that countries abroad, particularly Germany, are now beginning to take action to bring down some of the high social costs that have created fiscal difficulties and unemployment in their countries. In this country, we are not prepared to have a social chapter, which is damaging as it stands but would be infinitely more damaging if we signed it, the rest of Europe brought their social expenditures into the social chapter, had them approved by qualified majority vote as they could, and then imposed them on British employers at the cost of British jobs. We are bringing unemployment down. I intend to see it come down further. I do not intend to take this country into the social chapter, to stop the fall in unemployment and to see it begin to rise again. That is no bargain for the British work force.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25706]

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

Does the Prime Minister realise that not only is his deputy after his job but the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary are as well? We therefore need a categoric assurance that, however many seats the Conservatives lose on Thursday, the Prime Minister will lead his party into the next general election. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, the Prime Minister has the support of almost half his party, and the support of all the Labour party.

I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say just a moment or so ago, and I have no intention of accommodating his silly questions.

Given the interest in what happens after the next general election, did my right hon. Friend see the poll in The Times at the end of last week, which showed that the majority of people expected that, if there were to be a Labour Government, unemployment would go up, interest rates would go up, inflation would go up and there would be more control for the unions? Is that not the real reason why the Labour party wants to delay an election for as long as possible?

Of course people would expect that of a Labour Government. People know from experience that that is what has happened with every Labour Government we have ever had at any stage in the past, and that that would occur again—unemployment up, interest rates up and tax rates up. There is absolutely no doubt that that is what happened in the past, and that is what would happen in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25707]

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

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that this is the last day of work for Mr. Cedric Brown, who retires with a pension of £250,000 and a continuing consultancy with British Gas of £144,000? Does the Prime Minister care to comment on today's press release from the North West gas consumers council, which states that complaints in the north-west region increased by 97 per cent. last year? Does he believe that Mr. Cedric Brown warrants that largesse?

I believe that when people get an unsatisfactory service they are right to complain. They are right to complain to British Gas, and, now that British Gas is in the private sector and faces competition, people can expect that their complaints will be taken seriously, which they certainly were not when British Gas was in the public sector—when prices were rising dramatically and when the service was falling. Under plans for competition—for which I see no support from the Labour party—people who are not satisfied with British Gas will have the opportunity of going elsewhere. That is what competition means.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 152.

The new clause and amendments deal with the qualifying condition for enfranchisement rights, either under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 concerning houses or under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 concerning flats. I have a particular interest in that area, both as Minister responsible for London and because reference was made in debate to the particular, and some would say peculiar, circumstances of rural areas such as the one that I represent.

Will the Secretary of State now tell the House how many such tenancies exist?

I cannot say exactly how many there are, but later in my speech I shall tell the hon. Gentleman the precise percentage of tenancies that the measure is intended to cover. I am sure that he will be happy about that, but he must listen to my proposal.

Does a long lease at a rack rent exist? In my understanding, there is no such thing.

I have to tell my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, that on this occasion, he is wrong. He must not believe that because I cannot tell him how many elephants there are in Africa, there are no elephants in Africa. That is not a reasonable argument. There are such leases. To put it simply, if there were not, my hon. Friend would have no worries, as everything that he seeks would be achieved. There are such leases and it is only reasonable to deal with them equitably. In the same mode in which I have approached the whole issue, I am seeking merely to achieve equity. That seems perfectly reasonable.

On equity, does my right hon. Friend consider it right that there should be different forms of long lease? Is it not fair for one group of long leaseholders to be treated the same as the other? That is equity.

If my hon. Friend had followed the argument, he would know that that depends on the nature of the leaseholding. If, to all intents and purposes, a long leaseholder is an owner-occupier who pays a ground rent, that is one class of leaseholder. Other long leaseholders pay a full tenant's rent. They are not leaseholders in the sense that he and I understand it or those to whom many of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) referred—leaseholders who, for one reason or another, are excluded from the enfranchisement legislation. My proposal relates to those people.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association has enormous experience of enfranchisement. It has represented leaseholders for many years and has done stalwart work to advance enfranchisement. Mrs. Joan South, the secretary of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, wrote to me as follows:

"In our organisation we have never come across a single 'long' lease that has anything like a market rent."

I wish to make three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, I have made my way through complicated legislation on a whole range of matters, including all the detailed problems of agricultural tenancies and the like, and I have learnt that anyone who suggests that circumstances cannot arise is usually wrong. Such complications need to be considered extremely carefully, and one needs to recognise that even those with experience may well find that their experience is almost entirely with people who see themselves as long leaseholders of the sort with which the Bill is concerned. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that those who never have seen themselves as long leaseholders and have always seen themselves as full-blown tenants who happen to have a long lease would not be in touch with the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not find that surprising.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I wish to give the hon. Gentleman the three reasons, because it is important to face them.

There is none.

However small the number is, I do not find it possible to believe that they will be disadvantaged. It is possible for a reasonable relationship between landlord and tenant to be entered into, in which the landlord decides that he would like to have a long lease and gives a long lease in permanence to a tenant, who is then responsible for renovations and who pays the full market rent—not a ground rent, not even a pseudo-ground rent, nor even a bit above ground rent—as a tenant. That is all that we suggest, and I cannot see that that is a disadvantage.

As the Secretary of State will know from studying our amendments, we accept entirely the position on rural areas. We shall debate later an amendment that makes provision for that, because there are genuine problems that we are keen to address. As for the notional existence of long leases at a market rent for which the Secretary of State is making special provisions and creating a new 50-year test in new clause 21, there is no evidence for them. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association says that it has no evidence, but it has brought substantial evidence of people who will be disadvantaged by the 50-year test that the Secretary of State proposes. Would not it be sensible to reconsider?

The hon. Gentleman must listen to me when I come to the 50-year test. In contradistinction to the views that he has put forward, those who represent the landlords suggest that there are significant numbers in the long-lease category. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that it would be better, when considering such matters, to consider them from the point of view of equity. I was brought up to believe that if one person was accounted just, he should not suffer for all the 90 and nine who were not. If that is the case, we should have a system that includes even a small number of cases. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire has said that there are only three or four cases—I believe that all the evidence points to many more—but even if that were so, we should take account of them.

Lest my right hon. Friend be discouraged by constant criticisms and questions, people such as myself complained in respect of the 1993 legislation that while good landlords, such as the Duke of Westminster, were being protected by enfranchisement, a large number of retirement leaseholders in properties built by companies such as McCarthy and Stone and others were excluded. It appears that the Government are now proposing that long leases for retirement leaseholders will have the same advantages as other leases. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as that is the case, the Bill is a major step forward and will give rights to tenants who were previously unfairly excluded?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I have considerable sympathy with the need to enfranchise retirement leaseholders. There are a number of retirement developments in my constituency—as I share with my hon. Friend the clement weather and pleasurable areas of East Anglia, to which many people go to retire and to whom a protected lease is important. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that there is a distinction between the person who buys accommodation but on a lease, for the obvious reasons in such circumstances, and the person who has a long lease but pays a normal tenancy rent. Everyone has sought to make that distinction year after year. Labour has produced the entirely novel concept that such tenants do not exist. If that is so, why did Labour suggest such a distinction in its legislation and support that distinction in later legislation?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Duke of Westminster is one of the finest landlords in the country? He is marvellous at maintaining his properties and does not charge exorbitant rents. The duke went to great trouble some years ago to ensure that he was allowed to keep properties in London to let to people described as working-class tenants—which he does at considerable financial cost to himself.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that we must be careful not to suggest that the word "landlord" equates with a bad landlord. There are many good landlords in London, but they are not helped by the activities of the kind of person for whom the Bill is primarily designed. There are bad landlords and freeholders, and many of them have recently entered the business. They view their involvement not as a long-term commitment to a part of a city, as do the Westminster or Cadogan estates, but as a means of providing income in ways never envisaged by the freeholding system.

I understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, but does he not accept that he is turning existing laws upside down? Why not introduce a paragraph into the schedule, perhaps in another place, to say that, where the rent on a long lease approximates to the rent, so that a rent officer would establish that, such a test would be absolutely fair, because that is a rack rent? We could say that, if it was within 20 per cent. of a rent that a rent officer would fix for the premises, it would be excluded from enfranchisement. That would deal with the matter.

We have tried all sorts of mixes and they have not stood the test of time. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend will see—if I am allowed to proceed a little, on the mixture of things that I propose—that what we propose is a helpful way in which to deal with the problem that he sees.

Like me, the Secretary of State will have received representations from the Country Landowners Association. It specifically points out that arrangements in the countryside essentially revolve around agricultural arrangements. Where are those arrangements likely to be replicated in London?

I was trying to suggest that what the arrangements essentially revolve round is the need for continuity felt by many estate owners. I do not think that that need for continuity is to be found only in agricultural contexts. I do not disagree with those who want what some large landowners have—the ability to let, not sell, an albeit limited number of properties to real tenants at market rents. Letting such properties on a long lease will confer the continuity that owners of historic estates want in regard to tenants: they are looking not to one generation or even two, but back to many generations and forward to many more. I do not see why we should consider that inequitable; I think that it is rather a good idea, and I do not want to exclude it. Although I am a member of the Country Landowners Association, I am not bound by its view that all the arrangements must revolve around agriculture, horticulture or Welwyn Garden City.

I accept, inevitably, that we are not bound by the CLA's views. I am simply trying to establish—and I invite the Secretary of State to agree with me—that there is a fundamental difference between the circumstances applying in rural and agricultural communities and those applying in cities. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in its evidence to us, the CLA states:

"The reasons that surround the letting of houses on farms and estates on long leases are very different from the position in urban areas, where the leasehold system is widespread and akin to a business in its own right."

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to fall out with me. What the CLA has said is perfectly reasonable, but I suggest that what I have said is also reasonable. I have said that the existence of additional reasons why the arrangements are necessary in country areas does not mean that one aspect that is important in the country—continuity, and the wish for continuity that is so much part of long-established estates—should not be replicated in similarly long-established estates in the centre of London. I do not think that there is any difference between us in that regard: I think that my view is perfectly reasonable.

The ability of the great estates in London to maintain continuity, which is so important to them, is entirely dependent on the financial contributions of their leaseholders. Such continuity surely denies equal continuity to leaseholders and their being able to pass on, in the words of the Prime Minister, what they own to their own. Such an ability is at present denied to leaseholders.

The hon. Lady must not have been present for all my speech or she would have heard me address precisely that. She and I disagree on almost everything on this earth, and I am right in almost every case. She must accept it from me that it is no good coming into the House, gathering together her prejudices, and assuming that I have said what I have not said. I have in fact said the opposite to that which she assumed, and I am sorry that what has so far been a reasonable debate has been changed by her.

rose—

I will not give way to the hon. Lady if she cannot debate reasonably. We are trying to discuss a fundamental issue. I have spent about 25 minutes trying to explain a crucial issue, and it is not helpful to the House to go over it again.

I am particularly pleased at my right hon. Friend's flexibility on the 50 years, which is important. I think that he recognises that the 50 years is an arbitrary figure and that it might be better if it were slightly lower. Whatever it should be, it should be pitched so that it enables the maximum number of people to benefit from the legislation. That could mean 45 years, so I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend has expressed his willingness to be flexible and to consider changes.

As I said, I should like to look carefully at the examples. In setting the period at 50 years, we are dealing with up to 90 per cent. of cases. I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that I do not want to exclude people. I am trying to do what previous legislation has sought to do, but—many of us feel—has not achieved. I am trying to find a way in which one can make a distinction between the leaseholder who is in our sense a real leaseholder, the sort of person to whom the hon. Member for Hampstead referred—

And Highgate.

the sort of person to whom the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred. If she had been present, she would have heard that I was trying to distinguish, as Labour as well as Conservative legislation has tried to do, between such real leaseholders and the sort of person who is affected by a long lease in a wholly different way, because he is a full-time tenant in the sense that he pays full rent, and the lease is long because it gives continuity and stability.