To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what submissions he has received from the local authority associations concerning councils' capital programmes. [33931]

This and other topics are discussed regularly at my meetings with the local authority associations.

Does the Secretary of State accept that local authorities, such as Birmingham, need increased—not reduced—capital investment to provide new homes and to renovate existing, but crumbling, schools, homes and the road infrastructure? Will he ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities last year is honoured and that the private finance initiative is used to generate additional resources rather than to substitute for public borrowing?

The city of Birmingham has gained a considerable amount of money through the single regeneration budget. Birmingham City Pride, as an organisation, has provided the basis for many of the council's claims, and Birmingham will doubtless make an application under capital challenge. The private finance initiative will give many opportunities for Birmingham to operate satisfactorily. The council needs to make its relationships with the private sector even more effective, and that will give a result of which Birmingham can be proud.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the way in which so many Labour councils misrepresent capital receipts, capital funding and the standard spending assessment? In Ealing, the Labour council is already pretending that it will get £10 million less than it should have in the coming year, even though it cannot possibly have the slightest idea what its position will be. It also pretends that it did not have an increase last year, when it had a very good increase of £5 million. What can my right hon. Friend do to assert the truth when councils misrepresent the situation so badly?

Ealing is one of the worst councils for such statements. I live in Ealing during the week and it is difficult to find much that Ealing council says that has much to do with the truth.

Local authority capital programmes, especially social service ones, will be affected by last week's decision by the Court of Appeal on social service charges. What help and assistance will the Secretary of State give local authorities whose budgets will be depleted as a result of that ruling?

No doubt local authorities will have to decide how that ruling affects them and the capital effects it will have. Local authorities spend large sums of capital and the opportunities have been enormously increased by the private finance initiative. The problem is that many local authorities fail to use the private finance initiative, even though it is available. For example, Ipswich has failed to use the PFI to build a crematorium and wants to use money from the taxpayer.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reflect (a) through uniform business rates and (b) otherwise the effect of out-of-town retail developments on high streets and town centre retail businesses. [33933]

Where the presence of an out-of-town centre affects the value of town centre shops, this will be fully reflected in rating valuations. We have just issued revised planning policy guidance, PPG6, which will encourage developers of retail and other town centre uses to locate in town centres. We also encourage local authorities to develop town centre management to improve their competitiveness.

My hon. Friend is aware that in Northdown road in Cliftonville, formerly one of the south-east's fine shopping centres, there are now 40 empty shops, and there are more in Margate high street. That situation is common across the south-east of England and the coastal towns. Some of those voids are undoubtedly due to out-of-town shopping. Another out-of-town retail development has just been granted planning consent on appeal. Has not the time now come for my hon. Friend to consider whether the 1995 revaluations were hopelessly unrealistic, and should we not be considering a zero increase in business rates for the coming year?

Where there is a material change of circumstances, retailers and others can go back to the Valuation Office and have their cases reconsidered; but my hon. Friend must remember that not only are we restating our principles in PPG6 but we are vigorously carrying that forward into effect.

Is it not a fact that merely devaluing the rates because a property has been devalued does nothing to compensate shop-holders whose livelihoods may be lost and, more important, does nothing to help the community whose heart is being ripped out by out-of-town developments? Is it not a fact that the latest announcements by out-of-town retailers of further plans for further superstore developments show that the Government's policy to get people back into town centres is failing?

Retailers can make as many proposals as they want, but they still have to get through the planning system. My experience during the time I have been doing this job is that it is primarily Labour-controlled and hung councils that ask us to relax our planning approach, admittedly generally in the interests of regeneration, but not necessarily in the interests of the town centres.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the existence of out-of-town shopping is not the only reason for giving careful attention to the burden of uniform business rates on small firms, particularly on small retail firms? My hon. Friend should consider it carefully for all sorts of other reasons as well—notably, the system of valuation.

The system of valuation has been with us a long time, but that is not to say that it is perfect, and I am happy to consider any suggestions that my right hon. Friend may make for its refinement. My right hon. Friend is right to say that small firms in particular tend to be concerned about the swings that occur between different valuation periods, but the economy has been different at those different points and that has led to changes in the valuations, both in the south-east and, latterly, in outer parts of the country.

Is not the truth of the matter that the uniform business rate now accounts for a higher proportion of local government expenditure than when the Government imposed the system? If we add to that laissez faire planning policies that have led to more out-of-town shopping centres, has not the small business in inner-town areas suffered a double whammy? Given the seriousness of the situation, is not the Minister's response totally inadequate?

The hon. Gentleman should visit Hemel Hempstead in my constituency, where a recent audit of the town centre has shown vigorous and increasing prosperity.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans to extend challenge funding. [33934]

We announced on 15 May the Government's decision to proceed with a pilot scheme for the allocation of local authority credit approvals through competitive bidding.

My right hon. Friend will know that there are no greater fans of the Government's challenge fund than the people of Gravesend. For years, we waited for our county and borough councils to bring about urban regeneration and the relief of the ancient area of Old Denton. Now, the Government's challenge fund is bringing together voluntary organisations, companies and the local councils to find a solution in that urban area. So great is that enthusiasm, that Gravesham borough council is putting in a new application for improvements along the riverside, on which I hope my right hon. Friend will look benevolently.

I cannot prejudge what the decision will be, but it is interesting that Labour councils such as Gravesham are beginning to realise that the challenge fund is a way of bringing together need and the ability to meet that need, instead of making decisions according to need. In the past, we wasted a great deal of money by allocating it to areas that were in need, but were unable to use the money effectively. By using the challenge fund, we ensure that they can meet the need, and they do so in partnership with the private sector, voluntary organisations and other agencies. That is the way to regenerate our cities, not the old-fashioned, socialist manner.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept what everyone now realizes—that competition, the policy principle at the heart of his regeneration strategy, has been totally discredited? Is it not patently absurd to set towns and cities against each other to compete for diminishing regeneration funds? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore publish what Labour has requested for the past two years—comprehensive regional statements on which councils can bid for regeneration funds against an understandable, clear and coherent criterion of need?

The hon. Gentleman has already lost the argument. The Environment Select Committee has said that the competitive system, the single regeneration budget, is extremely successful. Labour council leaders around the country tell me that they like the competitive system because it shows them to be successful when they do it well and it shows up their Labour neighbours when they do it badly. The only people who do not like the competitive system are bad Labour councils and those dominated by trade unions who do not want any competition. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is out of date. New Labour not only means a new attitude; it means a new attitude to measures that have been good—that is, to deny them and destroy them.

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, Sheffield city council made two successful bids in city challenge amounting to £74 million. That is to be commended, as it has brought in £140 million from external funding, including £90 million from the private sector. Some of that money will be used to improve property and assist with training and business start-ups. Is it not the way forward? Should not cities such as Sheffield—even Sheffield—be commended?

Oh, yes. My hon. Friend will accept that, when I want to Sheffield, the Labour council leader had no complaints about his success. His only complaints were about the two previous leaders, both of whom sit in the House, who had run Sheffield into the ground so that it now needs urban regeneration. He is still paying the debts left by previous council leaders. He is still paying debts on the backs of the people of Sheffield because such a capital system did not exist.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the latest levels of atmospheric pollution and the plans he has to reduce it. [33935]

Air quality in the United Kingdom is generally good or very good most of the time. We shall shortly be publishing a consultation draft national air quality strategy.

Would the Minister like to tell us whether he intends to give local authorities additional powers to act against pollution black spots, and whether there are any proposals for a national approach to deal with pollution problems, which are very severe in some cities and cause real damage to the health of adults and children?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, 80 local authorities in 14 different areas—including some in south Wales—are trialling the duties under the Environment Act 1995. Resources have been made available to assist them and we shall look at the implications of that trial period.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern about air quality in my borough of Bexley? When he publishes his draft document, will he include some proposals to deal with the growing problem of air pollution in the London area?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local authorities will have powers: local authority air management areas will be established. My hon. Friend will also be interested in the action that we have taker to deal with summertime smog, and in the recent conference of north-west European countries, hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which discussed that international problem. The conference set the aim of reducing it, and if possible eliminating it, by 2005.

Does the Minister agree with the report published recently by the Environmental Industries Commission, which states that those industries have lost £2 billion because of the Government's failure to regulate? The problem has been exacerbated by the two-year delay in the control of volatile organic compound emissions. Is this not another example of the Government's producing warm green words and absolutely no action?

The hon. Lady completely misunderstands the VOC issue. As she will know, we have entered into a protocol on VOCs under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and we are well on the way to meeting our international commitments—as we are in regard to other emissions. What we are prepared to be judged on is our success in meeting international obligations. When we set targets and agree to obligations, we meet them, and that results in better air quality.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what, at the latest date for which figures are available, was the number of local authority dwellings. [33937]

At the beginning of April 1995, there were 3,565,000 local authority dwellings in England.

Is it not almost unbelievable that, during 1995, local authorities, deprived of money by this Tory Government, were unable to build more than 612 houses in one year? In 1978, which we regarded as a bad year for Labour, 78,000 houses were built. The ratio between the number of houses being built now and the number being built in the years before the Labour Government were kicked out of office is about 80:1. Is it not high time that the Government worked it out? There are millions of bricks in stock; people are lying on the streets and in doorways; builders and construction workers are without jobs. You do not have to be a Pythagoras to solve that theorem—but then this Government are not capable of anything.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how pleased I am to see him here and in such good voice.

In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will my right hon. Friend join me in looking forward to his enthusiastic support for recent proposals from the Ministry of Defence which will ensure that the most effective use is made of the large number of houses that it owns?

One can always live in hope, although it must be said that, in the case of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), there is not much hope.

Will the Minister now recognise that under his Government, the output of new housing for renting has fallen to its lowest level since the end of the second world war? At the same time, the number of homeless people in Britain has doubled since Labour was last in power. When will the Government face their responsibilities and get unemployed building workers back to work building the homes that are needed, letting councils use their capital receipts to finance that building?

The hon. Gentleman keeps returning to his old anthem about capital receipts, but it is a myth that that money is doing nothing. Those receipts have been invested and are earning interest. If they were not, council tax bills would go up.

In the context of local authority dwellings, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are thousands of empty properties in housing black spots such as Lambeth, Lewisham and Liverpool which are not well administered by local authorities? Is this not the question that we should be asking: "Why do these black spots exist and which party has created them"?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The essential skills of a local authority are to fill voids and collect rents. When it does not do that, people are deprived of homes and the borough is deprived of revenue for its services. There are 600,000 to 800,000 empty properties around the country and they must be brought back into use. It would be more sensible to do that than to have them lying idle. Some of them are in the private sector, but too many are still in the public sector and need to be utilised.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution he estimates the private finance initiative will make to the capital programme of local authorities. [33938]

The private finance initiative offers potential for significant additions to local authority capital investment in the coming years. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced on 21 May substantial changes to the local government capital finance regulations to facilitate the further development of the private finance initiative.

Does the Minister accept that, in the absence of proper local capital spending programmes by central and local government, the private finance initiative is becoming increasingly attractive to many local authorities? Does he also accept that the 32 regulations are red tape that needs to be removed and that we need clear, open guidance for local authorities so that the backlog on the private finance initiative is made available? In future, local authorities must have a clearer idea of what the private finance initiative means.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the private finance initiative, and I hope that he will get that message across to some of his hon. Friends who still seem hostile to the idea of involving private sector capital.

The Minister's staggering complacency is almost beyond words. Has he not noticed that, in the past few weeks, the confidence of the private sector has virtually collapsed? The legal decision added to the regulatory regime have prompted it to say, certainly to us, that it has no confidence in the ability of the private finance initiative further to push capital development by local authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore quickly review the position, because the construction industry and, more important, the public are suffering enormous losses as the necessary capital investment is simply not being made?

What we have witnessed is the staggering ignorance of the hon. Lady. If she talked to individual construction companies throughout the country that are involved in submitting projects and having them assessed, or met the construction industry on a national basis, as I do, she would know that they are enthusiastic about this and view it as the way forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the condition of the construction industry with particular reference to the house building sector. [33940]

There is evidence of increasing activity in the housing market as the effects of our sound economic management work through to improve consumer confidence. We look forward to a continuing recovery this year.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent and far-sighted speech to the Royal Town Planning Institute, and on highlighting the need to build more houses to meet the growth in household numbers, but is he aware that his wise words are falling on deaf ears, with county councils from Devon to Oxfordshire and from Hampshire to Cheshire ignoring the housing numbers required in regional guidance? Will he assure me that he will advise those county councils seeking to pass the housing buck that he will ensure that housing numbers in the structure plans are properly adhered to?

I am sure that the House would want to congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance Ltd., which has been expressing these views. I am especially concerned that we use all the land that has already been used to rebuild in the centres of our cities. I am still concerned about many local authorities that are not prepared to put together the land and to create opportunities for private builders, to build in those circumstances. I am insisting that the amount of land that needs to be released because of the figures shall be so released.

The Secretary of State said in his speech, to which reference has been made, that the Government were estimating that an extra 4.4 million homes would be needed just to meet the needs of new households in the next 20 years, and that that excludes the 1.5 million homes that need to be done up because they are unfit for human habitation. Is it not the case that we are building only 137,000 homes a year, which means that, at the present rate, the Government will fall 1.5 million homes short of their target? Would it not be a better idea if, instead of calling for national debates, the right hon. Gentleman got on with getting some houses built now, rather than talking about the far blue yonder, when he will not be in power because new Labour will be in new government?

I had to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity for the debate, because he has already contributed to both sides of it. First, he told the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians that not enough houses were being built.

Liar.

Then the hon. Gentleman told the Council for the Protection of Rural England that he would not build as many houses. [Interruption.] Oh yes.

Liar.

I will quote the hon. Gentleman's words in case he forgets them:

"we are looking at … shifting … from the present presumption in favour of development … 4.4 million households is a major threat to rural England."

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I do not take points of order until after questions.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. How can I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying with everyone bawling and shouting? Do shut up until Mr. Greenway has said what he wants to say.

I distinctly heard the Labour party spokesman use the unparliamentary term "liar" at least five times. Is that in order?

Is that the case?

I did use that word and I withdraw it.

I am obliged. The hon. Gentleman admits to using the word and it has now been withdrawn. Who was I about to call? I want somebody who can put a direct question. I call Mr. Coombs.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that recent surveys by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors show a significant improvement in sentiment in the housing market and considerably improved activity? Is that not the result of sustained low interest rates? Is it not a bit rich for the Labour party, in the form of its shadow spokesman, to talk about improving consumer confidence when the last time the Labour party was in government there was an average rate of interest—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although he should not need reminding, that Ministers of the Crown are responsible for their policies. They are accountable to the House not for anybody else's policies, but for their own actions. Let us now see if we can find a decent question somewhere. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulations have been made in respect of an aquarium in county hall, London SE1. [33941]

None.

That is a good answer.

You may think so, Madam Speaker, but it is a terrible answer.

At least it is a straightforward answer.

Unfortunately, it is not a helpful one, as an aquarium is due to open at county hall and it would appear that the Shirayama corporation, which is to run the aquarium, has not yet sought permission from the Department of the Environment for the species that it intends to import. Will the Minister check what species the organisers intend to put into the aquarium? It is not at all acceptable in terms of animal welfare. In view of what the Japanese are doing in the Antarctic—killing minke whales under the guise of scientific whaling in order to eat them—will the Minister check that they will not use the aquarium in county hall to bring in dolphins so that they can serve whale meat in the restaurants?

I can help the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the organisation has applied under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Notwithstanding the building's former use, apparently such an application is required. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would approve of the use of county hall as an aquarium. I cannot say whether there will be any newts in the aquarium, but it will definitely contain dog-faced puffers, tomato clown fish and red-bellied piranhas, among others. I understand that no application is required under CITES. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is an expert on endangered species, and also something of an authority on endangered species within the Labour party—Members who speak their mind.

Does my hon. Friend recall a time when certain unattractive species used to inhabit county hall? Can he give an undertaking that those dangerous and expensive species, who promised to spend a great deal of money to no good effect, will never be allowed back into county hall?

Thankfully, that species is becoming endangered and will become even more so when the public hear of the plans to create unnecessary bureaucracy and waste in London with organisations which duplicate work being done by others, all of which will result in substantial expense for London taxpayers—a new form of danger from new Labour.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enhance the riverside amenities in the vicinity of the north Greenwich peninsula in preparation for the holding of the millennium exhibition there. [33942]

We shall ensure that the Greenwich peninsula is properly reorganised and redeveloped in a manner that will be not only important for the millennium exhibition but valuable to the citizens of London for the rest of the century. If my hon. Friend has any supplementary questions, I shall be happy to answer them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is important that the millennium exhibition should not introspectively gaze only at its navel but should look outwards to the river, that great but greatly underused natural highway which flows through our capital and around the north Greenwich peninsula? Impressive though the Jubilee line extension will be when it is completed, should we not give every encouragement to those wishing to experience an approach to the exhibition from the water, as was the case with the festival of Britain, when more than 5 million people took to the Thames for their transport?

The Thames should be used as one of the accesses to the millennium exhibition. It is also important that we improve that area of London, which has been particularly damaged by successive Labour councils in the borough of Greenwich, where the development has not been helped. I hope that the effect of the single regeneration budget, which is certainly one of the ways in which to help that development, will enable other sources to be tapped. The river is crucial to the overall development of an area which, sadly, has been neglected for many years.

Is the Secretary of State aware that immediately to the north of the chosen millennium site at Greenwich are two sites available in the London borough of Newham? As he knows, the first is within 500 yd of the millennium site and is the two and a half miles of the royal docks. It has great potential for development, including a national exhibition centre. Secondly, within a mile to the north, the lower Lea valley could add to the millennium celebrations 100 acres of land for which the Government have so far failed to provide a reasonable and imaginative scheme, as we should all like.

Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, who has made a great contribution, I wonder how he can celebrate all the work that has been done by the London Docklands development corporation in view of the extent to which he and his fellow socialists attacked it and said that it was unacceptable. The LDDC has done more for London's development than any other organisation, perhaps for a century. I merely hope that when it winds down and hands on many of its responsibilities to the boroughs, the hon. Gentleman will ensure that those boroughs do half as good a job as the LDDC has done.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer in European Standing Committee A on 12 June at columns 4–6, if he will make a statement on measures to counter eutrophication and algal bloom. [33943]

Phosphorus removal is being installed at 41 sewage treatment works discharging into 29 designated eutrophic sensitive areas in England and Wales as part of our implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive.

What is being done to lessen the environmental and ecological havoc caused by phosphate and nitrogen from fertiliser going into rivers and streams?

The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious point. He will be aware of the experiences of other parts of Europe, including Germany, with the effects of algal blooms and black spots caused by the types of problems that he has described. Because of those experiences, we are monitoring eutrophic effects in inland waters and in coastal areas. Knowing of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter, I will keep him informed of the results of that monitoring.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide additional resources to local authorities and housing associations to deal with properties in their possession which contain asbestos. [33945]

It is for local authorities to decide how they allocate their resources.

My borough of Waltham Forest has suffered enormous housing investment cuts and borrowing restrictions. There is a severe maintenance backlog for council tenants and severe delays for those waiting for improvement grants. Now that asbestos has been found in some tower blocks, the safety of those tenants must come first, but that means that all the other tenants will have to wait that much longer. May I urge the Government to provide special extra funds to councils and to housing associations to deal with asbestos problems?

If the hon. Gentleman really wants improvements in the quality of housing and renovation in his borough, he should recommend to his council that it makes an application under the estates renewal programme. If Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham, Lambeth and Brent, among the London boroughs, can do so successfully, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can encourage his council to do the same. It is all subject to tenants' ballots and everyone will benefit substantially.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what submissions he has recently received about the cost of establishing the new unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [33946]

A system of supplementary credit approvals is being used in response to bids to cover reorganisation costs. However, there are clear opportunities for new unitary authorities to make considerable efficiency savings.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern of East Sussex county council at the very special costs being incurred by the new unitary authority of Brighton and Hove and the fact that that may lead to a need to increase council taxes within the East Sussex area? Can he reassure people living in East Sussex that that will not be the case?

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking at all the bids and bearing his point in mind. I should be very concerned if I had anything to do with East Sussex council as it is at the moment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33961]

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government's attacks on the Labour party are being scrapped because they were not hurting and not working?

Obviously, our campaign has already worked and already hurt new Labour. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me explain precisely why: new taxes on jobs, on Scotland, on parents, on employers, on shareholders; new chaos in schools, in hospitals, on roads; and new weakness in defence and in Europe. That campaign will run and run.

Should the Government not be congratulated on embarking upon the long overdue reform of the legal aid system? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been widely abused and, too often, used for blackmailing purposes? Does he further agree that it would be disastrous if Britain had litigation on the scale of the United States, where everyone seems to be suing everyone else?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will publish a White Paper setting out the Government's plans to reform the legal aid system in England and Wales. It is right that we should ensure the proper use of money, which is why we believe that legal aid should be directed towards those whose need is greatest. That means stopping weak or undeserving cases being pursued at public expense.

In respect of the sale of Ministry of Defence homes, will the Prime Minister confirm the following facts that have emerged? Not only is the MOD guaranteeing the property developer the full market rent for 25 years: on top of that, if the aggregate rents fall beneath a specified minimum the taxpayer is guaranteed to make up the shortfall for each of the 25 years; on top of that, every year a certain quantity of vacant homes will be made available to the property developer to sell at a profit; and on top of that, the property developer can exchange the sites of MOD homes for comparable sites, without the consent of the tenants. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in each of those four respects my understanding is right and, if so, what is the justification for that extraordinary deal?

The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the two most salient facts. [Interruption.] All the details will be made plain when the sale is concluded. He has overlooked, first, the extra £100 million released by the sale to provide better homes for the services throughout the United Kingdom and, secondly, the £1.5 billion or thereabouts that will be available to the Exchequer for other resources. He has a lot to say about how he is going to be stringent on public expenditure, but at the first difficult decision he wants to toss away about £1.5 billion.

The Prime Minister says that we should wait until the sale is concluded. With all due respect, I think that we should know the details now. It is precisely the worry about public spending that leads me to put this question. The right hon. Gentleman says that the services will get £100 million, but will he confirm that over the next 25 years there will be a recurring liability to the taxpayer—

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has not disputed a single one of the four points that I put to him. Will he say which of those four points is wrong and, in particular, whether the Government are guaranteeing not just a market rent but that if the aggregate of rents falls beneath the specified minimum the taxpayer will be obliged to make up the shortfall? We should know how much it will cost in future years.

The right hon. Gentleman still does not understand. This is going to yield substantial resources for the Exchequer. With the shadow Chancellor sitting next to him, I am surprised that he so lightly tosses £1.5 billion aside. There is no doubt that all he has to say about stringency in public expenditure is for public consumption but will not stand up to the first whiff of controversy when it comes to decisions. We are negotiating a good deal for the taxpayer, now and in the future, and a good deal for the service man—now and in the future—as in due course the right hon. Gentleman will be forced to acknowledge.

With all due respect, the Prime Minister is talking about the amount of money that he will get in this financial year, but we are asking the question because we expect to be dealing with these problems in future years. That is the difference between the short term and the long term, between the Tory party and Labour. Will the Prime Minister say which of those four facts he denies? Is not the truth of the matter that he is attempting to boost the capital sum in this financial year for pre-election purposes while leaving a recurring liability to the taxpayer for years to come for a sale that no service men or women want?

What the right hon. Gentleman has just done is to advance the precise argument against the windfall tax that he himself proposes. Perhaps he will now withdraw the windfall tax, which the shadow Chancellor has spent on three or four occasions already. The right hon. Gentleman still misses the substantive point: it is to provide better accommodation for our service men and that is what it will do, both now and in the future. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a worthwhile proposition.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the police on the success of their Euro 96 operation? Does he agree that this showed Europe at its best, acting in harmony and co-operation, and does he think it likely that there will be any plans to prosecute for racial incitement?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which Euro 96 was policed and about the behaviour of the overwhelming majority of people. I had the pleasure of attending the final and of hearing from football administrators across Europe how much they admired the way in which the competition had been run and the behaviour of the crowds at football grounds across the country. I very much hope that this will help us to obtain further such competitions. Prosecutions are, of course, a matter for the police, but I am sure that they will have noted what my hon. Friend said.

Further to the Prime Minister's answer to a previous question, does not a large part of the cost of our legal aid come from inefficiencies at all levels in the legal system? Why do the Government not attack those inefficiencies instead of attacking access to justice for ordinary people?

We are trying to ensure that people have proper and equitable access where there is a need for it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the legal aid system has very few friends at the moment because of the way in which it operates, and it is right that we should examine it in a White Paper and reform it, which is what my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to do. His plans will ensure better value for money, with the right services going to the right people, and greater fairness between legally aided people and their opponents.

May I ask the Prime Minister a question about Scotland? He will be well aware that the people of Scotland have much in common with the people of Yorkshire, chiefly in the fact that we will not wantonly part with hard-earned cash. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Opposition that that is why the Scots will never, in a month of Sundays, vote for a tax-raising tartan parliament?

The speed of the Opposition's changes on that policy become more bewildering day by day, so it is not at all clear what their policies will be by the end of this week or the end of next week. What we have seen in the past week or so illustrates clearly the total absurdity of the plans that the Labour party has been preparing for a long time but apparently has not thought about. Labour spokesmen have answered none of the questions asked here or in Scotland about that policy because they have no credible answers to them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33962]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) that there is a "get Portillo" campaign—a dirty tricks campaign—in the Tory party? Does he not think that such a serious issue—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Prime Minister about policies for which he is responsible.

I thought that the Defence Secretary was the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, like me, is determined to ensure the best possible accommodation for service men, and to ensure that an extra £100 million is available to be spent on them. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about criticism of one Member against another, I suggest that, after the past few days, he should begin to protect his own leader.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33963]

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

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the international influence and unity of the kingdom, the interests of England and the practical needs of his constituents and mine, will be assisted by radical constitutional change? Does he think that it was just a coincidence that, immediately after his strongly argued speech on the constitution, the Opposition's policies collapsed in disarray, posing a multitude of new dangers for our nation?

It is only the beginning of the collapse of those policies; there will be more progressive collapses to come. Whatever U-turns the Opposition continue to perform on their devolution policies, their policies for a devolved, tax-raising parliament in Scotland are bad news for the United Kingdom and bad news for Scotland, and they will prove to be bad news for the Opposition—of that I have no doubt.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33964]

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

Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the way his party's £10 million attack on new Labour today stooped to exploiting the blindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? Will he instruct his party chairman to withdraw that disgraceful attack and exploitation and apologise immediately?

No one would conduct such an attack. There are ample policies in new Labour to attack, and those are the policies that we find distasteful and wrong. They are concerned about controls to take rights away from parents, they are producing taxes that they are trying to hide, and they would produce chaos in our public services. Now that we have been able to focus on what the allegedly new Labour party actually stands for, we can identify its dangers and make sure that everyone is aware of them. New Labour and the new dangers will become very apparent to everyone, and it will be the policies that we shall attack, because they are wrong and damaging.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33965]

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the average family in this country will be £450 a year better off by next April as a result of the tax cuts announced by the Government? Can my right hon. Friend think of any good reason why the average family should trust and risk the Labour party's policies for tax and spend?

I can certainly confirm that growth in the economy and lower taxes mean that the average family will be £450 better off this year, even after taking account of inflation. I can also make it clear to the average family that inflation is down, interest rates are down, unemployment is down, investment, exports and production are up and the prospects for individuals as well as for families are brighter than they have been for very many years.