To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on local authority capital expenditure plans for 1997–98. [17001]

The Government forecast that local authority capital expenditure in England in 1997–98 will be £6.2 billion.

On the day that Birmingham city council meets to set its budget, will the Secretary of State congratulate Birmingham on being the most solvent council in the country, having reduced its debts by 5 per cent. in the same period as the Government have doubled the national debt? Secondly, will he explain to the people of Birmingham why the Government have cut the capital allocation to Birmingham by some 50 per cent. and education funding by 80 per cent? Why do the Government seem determined to stop Birmingham's children being educated in schools that have had all the necessary repairs?

It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to talk about education in Birmingham, given its scandalous history of education spending by Labour and the way in which money that should have been used for education was spent elsewhere. Birmingham's basic credit approvals for 1997–98 are the highest of the 392 authorities in the country. The hon. Gentleman should accept that his party has made a commitment that there will be no extra money, so if he wants an explanation to give to the people of Birmingham, he had better seek it from the shadow Chancellor.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that large numbers of local authorities could lay their hands on funds for capital expenditure if they transferred their housing to housing associations and paid off their housing debts? Does not the fact that Liberal and Labour-controlled local authorities hang on to their council houses like Stalin hung on to agriculture say something about them and their political parties?

The fact is that, under the new regime that we have put in place, in 25 Birmingham wards the local authority could spend 100 per cent. of its capital receipts if it went down the route that my hon. Friend described. Birmingham would have every opportunity to spend more if it opted for large-scale voluntary transfers as we would like and the tenants have agreed.

Has the Secretary of State read the report prepared for his Department by York Consulting on capital challenge? Does he agree with one of its basic findings that capital challenge has skewed the decisions away from basic needs, so that authorities have been unable to address the basic needs of their communities, but instead have had to respond to the Government's lottery? Will the Secretary of State meet local authorities to discuss the matter before the Government reach a decision? Will he take that basic finding of the report into account?

As we commissioned the report, we shall take its findings into account and discuss them with local authorities, as we promised when we started the pilot programme. What is more, Birmingham received £5.7 million under capital challenge. Local authorities that go in for capital challenge decide their own priorities. The hon. Lady wants me to continue with a situation in which we, instead of local authorities, decide where they should spend their money.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is so worried about local authority capital expenditure, will my right hon. Friend tell the House about the level of local authority capital debt across England and Wales, whether that has some affect on the public finances, and the Labour party's answer to the question?

Birmingham's problem in those circumstances is that, if the Labour party came to power and did what it said it would—release capital receipts—Birmingham would receive no money, because it has no capital receipts. Indeed, Birmingham would receive less money from capital allocations because, as local authorities that do have capital receipts spend them, the money available to be spent on capital would be reduced—unless Labour were to decide that it would increase public spending. However, Labour has said that it would not increase public spending. It cannot have it both ways.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's plans for the continued administrative operations and financing of the royal docks in the borough of Newham. [17002]

English Partnerships will complete certain projects in the royal docks when the London Docklands development corporation winds up, in March 1998. The LDDC is discussing with Newham successor arrangements for its other legal responsibilities.

Apart from the legal responsibilities of the London borough of Newham, are there not significant costs in maintaining the royal docks' magnificent marine facilities—which happen to be in Newham, but which provide services for all of London? In particular, the Victoria dock project for young people provides facilities for sailing, rowing and canoeing, and the magnificent 2,000 m Olympic rowing course would be available not only to residents of the south-east but to everyone in the United Kingdom, and perhaps also to citizens of Europe and of the wider world. If there are difficulties in maintaining those expensive facilities, does he not think that some provision should be made so that an unfair burden is not placed on those who live adjacent to the docks' facilities?

We are aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I can assure him that, certainly in the short term, English Partnerships will assume many of the responsibilities and that Newham will assume some. We are currently in discussion with those two organisations, on the basis of an asset-liability package. He will also be aware of the Royal Docks Management Authority. We anticipate that, in the long term, funding for it will come from service charges to developers of the area.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to involve non-governmental environmental organisations in the planning for the British contribution to the Earth summit II in New York in June. [17003]

The NGOs' involvement began with an Oxford seminar in June 1996, and continued with a Government consultation paper which was issued at the end of December. Comments on the paper are now being considered. We are in close touch with non-governmental organisations and have invited them, local government and businesses to join the United Kingdom delegation to the event and to the two preparatory meetings.

As the Minister is unlikely to be available in April for the final planning meetings for Earth summit II, what plans does he have to give more responsibility to NGOs and local authority delegations to press the United Kingdom's case? What action will he take to ensure that banks are meeting their Rio commitments? According to this week's Green Alliance report, they are failing dismally.

We are keeping NGOs closely involved, as we have throughout. We are of course including Friends of the Earth—which, on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, appears to have been excluded from his meeting.

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will he confirm that Friends of the Earth is playing an important part in planning Britain's contribution to the second Earth summit? Does that not stand in stark contrast to the extremely petty action of the Leader of the Opposition, who has banned Mr. Charles Secrett, executive director of Friends of the Earth, from attending his meeting with other environmental chiefs, simply because he had the temerity to write an article criticising the Labour party's environmental record?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have found that Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other organisations are particularly important in giving us advice. I have excluded no one from the discussions that we have had. I am sorry that the Labour party—which knows so little about the environment and has had so few meetings on it—has, now that it has called such a meeting, decided to exclude one of the most important organisations. Friends of the Earth has shown great independence of mind in criticising the Labour party.

One of the issues that concerns the NGOs in relation to Earth summit II is the continuing problem of relations between the United Nations' environmental work and the World Trade Organisation, which remained entirely unresolved at the Singapore meeting. Is there any progress on that?

I am not sure that it is fair to say that the problems are entirely unresolved. It is clear that the international environmental commitments that we have entered into cannot be overthrown by decisions of the WTO. We are seeking to ensure that proper protection of the environment continues and that any argument between the two can be resolved. Britain will continue to play a creative part in that.

As reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be such a crucial issue at Earth summit II, why did the Secretary of State cave in last night at the European Environment Council by tamely accepting a much lower level of cut than is needed? How can he pretend to green leadership in Europe when he offers only a 10 per cent. cut by 2010, whereas Germany and Austria have offered a 25 per cent. cut and the Labour party is committed to a 20 per cent. cut? Is not his problem that the Conservatives' hostility to public transport, which is environmentally friendly, and his recent cut in the funding of energy efficiency, far from helping to find a solution to global warming, have made it a lot worse?

Every comment that the hon. Gentleman has made is wholly wrong. Britain has taken the lead and has brought other nations on board. We were the first country to go for a commitment. We are the only country in Europe to be able to cut our emissions to below 1990 levels before 2000. The Labour party is committed to spending more money on coal-fired power stations, which would increase emissions. The Labour party has the worst environmental record of any socialist party in Europe and is a laughing stock among all its neighbours. All the other Ministers at the Council of Ministers, including those from Germany and Austria, complimented the United Kingdom on our leadership and wondered how we managed to play such a role with a Labour Opposition so uncommitted to the environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about replacing local authorities' services with cash allowances. [17004]

None that I am aware of. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations in connection with the community care direct payments scheme.

The Government say that they are in favour of more choice and opportunity. Why do they deny community care direct payments to 700,000 pensioners? Surely it is nonsense to say that town halls cannot cope with it as an optional scheme.

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are often pressed to introduce programmes on a trial basis and to extend them once we have ascertained that the trial works effectively. The scheme applies to people under 65. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will follow it closely. The option of extending it remains open if it demonstrates its value.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that many local authorities are unable to carry out the tasks that they are meant to perform, such as collecting rents, renting out houses to new tenants and collecting council tax? Will he therefore be wary of giving additional burdens to councils that are so incompetent at carrying out their existing duties?

My hon. Friend is right. The scheme involves giving money to people so that they can acquire services or equipment, short-circuiting the normal bureaucracies. It is a cost-effective way of giving choice, flexibility and speed of response. As for the fulfilment of basic managerial functions, it is worth remembering that a 1 per cent. improvement in council tax collection rates across the country would be equivalent to £80 million to spend on local services.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new rented housing starts he estimates will be made by (a) housing associations and (b) local authorities in 1997–98. [17005]

We estimate that the Housing Corporation will grant approximately 26,000 approvals for new rented housing association homes in 1997–98.

I am not sure whether the Minister was present when his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, told the Select Committee on the Environment on 10 January last year that he considered that 60,000 new starts in the affordable rented sector was "quite robust". The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the actual figure is less than half that. I am sure that his colleague did not want to mislead the Environment Committee. Was it simply incompetence on the part of the Department in not meeting its own targets?

The hon. Lady is right in that I was not present in the Environment Committee, but she is also wrong. If she studies the evidence, she will see that our target was 60,000 lettings, not new starts. She knows that we meet housing need in a variety of ways besides new starts, including tenants buying their own homes and the releasing of existing houses for new tenants. The target is 58,000 to 60,000 new lettings over the year—which we shall achieve.

May I say how right my hon. Friend is to emphasise the role of the private rented sector in meeting housing need? In that regard, will he and his Department have a careful look at the notorious activities of Hillingdon borough council in using public money through the Housing Corporation to promote housing association developments on green chain and public open space such as recreation ground in my constituency—a move that is bitterly opposed by local residents?

My hon. Friend is right. The private rented sector has an important role to play in meeting housing need. It has been very good that, since 1988, there has been a major revival in the private rented sector due to deregulation, which the Labour party bitterly opposed at the time but which has been a great success. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is important that we protect our green belt.

More and more elderly people and more and more disabled people like to feel that they are capable of living in their own homes. What advice are the Government giving local authorities and housing associations on an estimated reasonable percentage of new starts that should be adapted from the beginning to meet the needs of disabled people?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We give guidance through the Housing Corporation which, as he will know, has a role in overseeing the housing associations in ensuring flexibility in their programmes to provide for old people who want to stay in their own homes—something that we regard as very important.

Let me remind the Minister that, 20 years ago, in 1977. under a Labour Government, we started 81,000 council homes and 26,000 new housing association homes. Does he recognise that, in this last year of a discredited Tory Government, he cannot even forecast a single council start and can forecast only 26,000 housing association starts—exactly the same number as Labour achieved 20 years ago, minus the 81,000 council homes? Is not the fact that the Government have allowed the house building programme for social needs to fall to the lowest level since the end of the second world war an appalling comment on their neglect of their housing responsibilities?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we are meeting housing need. I take his contribution as a plea for higher public expenditure. He wants to go further. He should know that his idea of releasing council receipts amounts to higher public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman and his party have not done their sums correctly on this issue. Such an idea counts towards higher public expenditure.

There is in London.

Well, let me tell him that, in London, the three authorities that have the highest council receipts are Enfield, Merton, and London City. By contrast, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth have very few, and Southwark, Newham and Hackney have none at all. If that is the hon. Gentleman's idea of social geography in London, he has a very poor grasp of geography—almost as bad as his grasp of mathematics in not realising that his idea amounts to higher and higher public expenditure.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum allowed for local authority credit approvals for housing investment in 1996–97; and what are the figures for each of the past three years. [17007]

The totals are £789 million, £1,014 million, £893 million and £869 million.

When so many people are homeless or living in substandard accommodation, why are the Government cutting local authority capital investment programmes even further? Is it not time that the Government released, or started to consider releasing, the set-aside capital receipts, to boost local authority housing investment and help ordinary people?

It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) asking a question about investment in English housing. I suppose that he is getting his practice in, because, if the Labour party came to power, he would not be able to ask questions about Scottish housing. The hon. Gentleman's proposals run into the sand in three or four ways. They would involve public expenditure, no matter how the books were rigged. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has said, the need and the receipts do not match each other. For example, the extent to which Malvern Hills can invest is probably limited. There would have to be a massive redistribution and that would need primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman will not tell us how much he would spend, when he would spend it, or when he would legislate to spend it. The proposal is not worth a row of beans, let alone a row of semis.

Why is it that so many councillors believe that the capital receipts are sitting in some bank account, when local authorities have already taken them into their accounts and spent the money? It seems to be Labour councillors who believe in that mythical situation and who do not understand that the commitment by the Labour party to spend capital receipts would involve an extra £5 billion to £6 billion public expenditure on the public sector borrowing requirement.

My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party seems to think that the receipts are in an old sock under the mattress, but they are being used. They have been redirected into housing and housing revenue accounts, because otherwise rents and taxes would have to go up. That is a formula that Labour will not recognise. It is not a free option: it is an extremely expensive option. The Labour party would fiddle the accounts or betray its promise, and the latter is more likely.

Has it not occurred to the Government that the less we invest in social housing, the more we pay exorbitant levels of private housing benefit, keep people in the poverty trap and push up unproductive public expenditure? Is that not nonsense as Government policy?

The hon. Gentleman could no doubt make out a case for increased public expenditure across the range of public services. His colleagues could make a case for an increase in spending on education or on health, but if the Government gave in to all the demands for increased public expenditure, the economy and interest rates would get out of control and we would become less competitive. We would then find ourselves in the position of too many of our continental partners, who cannot run their economies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against refusal by local authorities to approve opencast mining applications have been (a) heard and (b) successful since the changes to minerals planning guidance 3 in 1994. [17008]

Some 34 opencast coal appeals have been heard since MPG3 was revised in 1994 and, of those, nine have been successful.

Does the Minister accept that the present minerals planning guidance means that many local authorities are accepting applications, rather than going to appeal, often despite the wishes of local communities? Is he aware of the huge Windsor opencast site that threatens my constituents in Morley and people in the constituencies of Normanton, Batley and Dewsbury? Is it not true that the only way in which constituents can be sure that that application will not plague them for 15 years is for a Labour Government to be elected, so that our 10-point plan for opencasting can be implemented and local communities can resist developments that they do not want?

I note from that last remark that the hon. Gentleman is committing the Labour party to deciding planning issues before an application has even been submitted, much less determined by a local authority, considered at an independent inquiry by an inspector or reached the Secretary of State's desk. That goes to show that the Labour party cannot be trusted with any judicial or semi-judicial system. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that all those issues have to be considered on their merits by local authorities and by the Secretary of State and that a balance has to be drawn between environmental and economic considerations.

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the site and is well aware of local opposition in Batley and Spen. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) is wrong to say that we need a Labour Government to refuse permission: it is up to Labour-controlled Kirklees council.

As my hon. Friend clearly says, the mineral plannings authority is a Labour-controlled authority.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce changes to the formulae for the standard spending assessments. [17009]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to begin discussions of standard spending assessments for 1998–99 with representatives of local government. [17010]

The 1997–98 formula is set, and discussions on the 1998–99 formula will commence later this year.

Can the Minister explain how he and his Department can preside over a scheme that adjudges Westminster the fourth most deprived place in the country, while Barnsley, which has had 18 pit closures, lies 326th? Will he confirm that the way in which the deprivation indicators interact with the overseas visitors allowance means that more than one in 10 of the visitors who go to the Ritz or the Hilton are considered by the Government to be in overcrowded conditions, and therefore attract extra grant for Westminster? Is that not a tremendous funding fiddle for the few—the very few—Conservative-controlled councils?

I am not as au fait with the Ritz as the hon. Lady obviously is. She has been involved in local government for many years, so she should know better than to come up with such gobbledegook. If the 1997–98 needs assessment for Westminster, in comparison with Liverpool, had been treated as Labour treated the 1979–80 assessment, Westminster's SSA would be £25 million more than it is; in other words, under those terms, Labour would have given each man, woman and child in Westminster £126 more.

Will the Minister admit that, far from there being new money for education next year, many local education authorities will face a cash cut in central Government funding? Bristol city council will have to cut its spending by £4 million next year, leading to staff cuts and larger classes. Will the Minister admit that it is Government policy to hike up the council tax, so that ordinary families pay more and get less, and that blaming it on Labour councils simply will not work?

The hon. Lady's local authority is becoming a unitary authority and the Labour councillors, while talking about cuts, are planning a party to celebrate. They are raising their own pay by up to 66 per cent. and building a new £1 million council building. I understand that it is to be quite a delicate building, with turrets that have been described as reminiscent of a French chateau. Perhaps the councillors should get their act together and concentrate on providing opportunities for the people whom they should be serving.

Does my hon. Friend accept that settlements for many areas, and especially Lancashire, have been more than generous for items such as education, largely as the result of pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament, in the face of opposition from incompetent county councils? Where does he think that the money that is being asked for by leaders of Lancashire county council will come from, when the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have said on the record that there will be no more money for local government?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend who, along with other Conservative Members from the area, not only pressed the Government for money but encouraged local authorities to try to produce better value for money. That is the action that authorities must take now.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the most objectionable feature of the formula for most people is that it cannot be easily understood? Does he accept that the doctrine of the Trinity is a kindergarten subject compared with local government finance? Can he offer any hope of enlightenment in the future?

Perhaps I should offer to take my hon. Friend by the hand and give him a little guidance before we set the standard spending assessments for next year.

Why will not the Government accept that what is needed is a fairer system than the present one, which so featherbeds Tory Westminster that millionaires in Mayfair pay less council tax than more than 7 million council taxpayers in other parts of the country>—including, for example, in Coventry, where everyone with a house worth more than £40,000 pays more than a Mayfair millionaire? Do not Ministers realise that the present system is indefensible, which is why the incoming Labour Government will change it root and branch?

That sounds like a doctrine of gerrymandering. The hon. Gentleman is talking about changing the system root and branch. He does not accept that it has been worked out carefully or that it is accepted by experts—but then he does not accept experts. He also fails to accept the meaning of the word "efficiency". If, in terms of its SSA, Camden were as efficient in 1996–97 as Westminster, his local residents would save £420.34. Harlow residents would get £48.73 back, Islington residents would get £520.04 back and Barking residents would get £293.06 back. I fail to see any understanding of the word "efficiency" on the part of the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the conclusions of his recent seminar on international environmental crime. [17011]

Our recent seminar was very successful and will help the UK to continue to take the lead in combating environmental crime. We are working with our partners in the EU and beyond to intensify our efforts.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the smuggling of hazardous materials and CFCs is on the increase? What action was planned at the conference? What does he propose to do to combat this crime, which is of great concern to our constituents?

We are certainly tightening the arrangements between the countries of the EU and within this nation, and this country has the most forward-looking system. But we want to ensure that we cover the areas of trafficking, most of it from the former Soviet Union.

Is the diesel motor engine detrimental to public health? What is the state of the Department's research on the subject?

I am not sure that that has much to do with environmental crime. Our air quality programme is better than that of any other country. We will get rid of both summer and winter smog within the next 10 years, so that once again we will be in the forefront of clean air policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the assessments of the needs of rural areas in the standard spending assessment formula. [17012]

We reviewed it last year and we have no plans to review it this year.

That reply notwithstanding, does my right hon. Friend agree that the resources allocated to most rural district and county councils are substantially lower than those given to metropolitan councils? The Labour party can whinge and moan all it likes about resources for London boroughs, but does it not have a lot to learn from smaller councils about efficiency and managing on low resources? When can people in rural areas expect the same funding for their schools and other services as urban areas have had for years?

My hon. Friend represents a rural community, as I do, and he knows that we reviewed the system last year and were told that it was about right. In the circumstances, we maintained it; but it is absolutely true that too often metropolitan areas do not recognise that delivering services to sparsely populated areas is an expensive business. I will make sure that we continue to assess their needs objectively and meet them.

Why do Conservative Members point at us as though Opposition Members do not represent rural areas, when many of us do? Does the Minister realise that part of my constituency, from Wanstead Flats to Epping Forest, is very rural? What recognition do we get for adding to people's delight at being able to visit rural areas? What has happened to the cattle of Wanstead Flats?

I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although not in an agricultural capacity. If he wishes to visit my constituency, I would be delighted to show him around; he might then understand the difference between countryside and countryside.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the amount of standard spending assessment allocated to Warwickshire county council in each year since 1993. [17014]

Warwickshire county council's SSA has increased from £267 million to £279 million since 1993–94. During that period, there have, of course, been changes in the responsibilities of county councils, in particular in relation to police and to community care.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer, which clearly shows that spending on education will rise and that spending on the fire service will go up by about £800,000, or 8 per cent. Despite those substantial increases, does he agree that it is time the outdated, clumsy SSA procedure was abandoned for something fairer and more intelligible?

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that every local authority that makes representations about its SSA thinks that the system is unfair to it, and that whatever proposals it has are justifiable on entirely objective criteria. We have to find a system that we can keep up to date and that distributes resources effectively; we then need efficient local government.

The Minister knows that Warwickshire is a very efficient authority, as the district auditor has said. The Minister also knows that over the past three years Warwickshire has had to go over cap to provide its services. Will he assure us that when the authority sets its budget this year, and has to go over cap again because the Department has not taken into account the education disregard, the Government will allow it to do so?

When a local authority sets a budget over the cap, it can explain its reasons to the Government. We take them into consideration in determining whether to accept the higher budget or to require something lower. The same will happen again this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the consultation process to determine the 1998–99 standard spending assessment. [17015]

We propose to invite representatives of local government to discuss possible changes in standard spending assessments for 1998–99 in the usual way.

Will the Minister make it clear during that consultation that if Nottingham were funded on the same basis as Westminster, band D council tax payers would not pay £809 a year but would get a rebate of £661?

That is a possible question, but one could also ask why Nottingham cannot be as efficient as Westminster and save its band D council tax payers £135.47.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a problem with SSAs in respect of tourism? Is he aware that there is a difficulty with standard bed nights, with visitor bed nights and with day visitors? When Torbay's local authority gains unitary status, will he at least reconsider the criteria on which day visitor numbers are counted so that they can be included with visitor bed nights?

As ever, I shall consider all sensible suggestions. My hon. Friend's suggestion seems as if it may be one that we may examine carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on inequities in the current funding formula for local government; and if he will make a statement. [17016]

What one authority considers an inequity, another often considers entirely justified.

I understand how difficult it must be to have Mayfair and Park lane and the poverty associated with those areas in one's borough, but is not the unfairness of today's formula the fact that the real benefits tourists in Britain are the rich in the Ritz? They are the ones whom the Government's tax subsidises, at a cost to almost every other local authority in Britain and every other council tax payer.

What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that the factor that he criticises in respect of Westminster, if adjusted, would necessitate a similar adjustment for Chester, York, Cambridge and Durham. He should recognise that, contrary to what has been suggested by Labour Front Benchers, one cannot gerrymander the system.

Rather than whingeing, would it not be better if local authorities got on and managed their services better? In that context, will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities to place more elderly people in the private sector and hence save nearly £750 million a year, instead of discriminating in favour of their own homes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—like many of us, he has to live with Croydon council. Many Conservative councils have overcome the difficulty that he describes by using the private sector, being imaginative and using lateral thinking.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17031]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that, if the negotiations in Northern Ireland result in a devolved assembly, Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland should continue to be able to speak and vote in this House on matters affecting England, Scotland and Wales? If he does agree with that, why would it not be a threat to the Union?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the powers that are likely to go to a Northern Ireland Assembly with those proposed for a Scottish Assembly. As he knows, they are not remotely comparable.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but they are not comparable. That is why his corollary is the wrong one.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of the past 18 years has been the strict control of immigration, which has much reduced racial tension in this country? Will he condemn the proposals, even by new Labour, to abolish the primary purpose rule and to grant immigration rights to the extended family? Does he agree that that will increase racial tension and create resentment even among sections of the Asian community?

In the past 18 years, we have seen the most extraordinary changes and improvements in race relations in this country. I think that is immensely important. I am certainly not going to lend my voice or my policy to anything that would damage that improvement.

The Prime Minister deserves credit for that answer.[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members must come to order. Mr. Jamieson.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree, following the past 48 hours, that it would be better for the Secretary of State for Health to concentrate on dealing with the crisis in the national health service, rather than adding to the crisis in the Conservative party?

My right hon. Friend has done a great deal to improve services in the NHS, and he has also tackled many social service matters that required examination and improvement. I think that he has been an outstanding Secretary of State for Health, and I believe that many people who are treated in the health service these days appreciate the improvements that have occurred.

Will the Prime Minister at least accept the evidence contained in a report due to be published on Thursday? A survey of 300 accident and emergency departments across the country shows that many are in acute and chronic crisis and that many simply cannot make do. The survey says that the problem has been made worse by the Conservatives' internal market reforms.

Over the past five years, as we have tackled the problems facing the country, we have had nothing but opposition from the Labour party. Whatever fresh proposition was put forward—whether for health, education or controlling public spending—we could be certain that the Labour party would oppose it, and it did.

The very problem that the health service has had is an ideological Tory Government causing difficulties. That is why we have 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. If the Prime Minister believes his case on the health service, education and other issues, let him have the courage of his convictions and put the matter to the country now.

I shall certainly be taking our case on the health service and other matters to the country. I look forward to discussing the reality of what has been done in the health service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that accidents involving NHS employees are costing £154 million a year, according to evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee only a few days ago? Will he therefore ask the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that the guidance given by the national health service executive to hospitals is put into practice? That would lead to great savings from fewer accidents; that money could be redeployed to acquire more nurses, more doctors and more services.

We are certainly keen to ensure that the money goes to patient services. That is happening increasingly now that we know how the money is being spent in the health service—before our reforms, we did not have that information. Of course I shall ask my right hon. Friend to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

When last week the Prime Minister instructed members of the Conservative party to start the fight back immediately, did he expect them to take him quite so literally? Lord Tebbit attacks the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord McAlpine seeks to duff up the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary seems to want to take on the whole Cabinet. In deciding how to deal with these delinquents, has the Prime Minister ever considered making use of secure accommodation and electronic tagging?

If that is an indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he does support measures such as electronic tagging, I am pleased that in some areas he is moving towards the Government's policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the proposition propounded by the post-war Labour Government that constitutional measures should always be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House?

Yes, I do. That has been the constitutional position in this House. It is the way in which matters have normally been handled. I cannot conceive that anyone would wish to change that long-established tradition.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17032]

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

Is Lord McAlpine correct to say that the Prime Minister asked him to collect a very large sum of money and that the person concerned turned out to be a Greek shipping tycoon, a very dubious character who had supported the Greek military dictatorship? Do the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General feel any responsibility for the fact that stolen money—and it is stolen money—from Asil Nadir is being used by the Conservative party for its election campaign? Should not all those matters be referred to the Nolan committee?

The Labour party has just been canvassing for resources in the United States, presumably from overseas donors. It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman, of all Members of the House, propounding the idea that it is acceptable to take money from Americans but not from people of other nationalities, were it to be offered. If he is concerned about funding, he should concern himself with the funding of his leader's office and his deputy leader's office, and with the trade unions buying votes in the Labour party.

Is it not all really rather simple, when properly understood? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has the most successful economy of any major country in Europe? Are not the Government determined to protect the interests of the United Kingdom in Europe and to protect the unity of the United Kingdom and its interests and influence throughout the world, and would not all that be put at risk by the Labour party's policies?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The most important element of the economy's success is the fact that success and growth yield the resources to fund the services, such as education and health, that we wish to improve but which could not be improved without an improving economy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17033]

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

Following the very decisive statement by the voters of Wirral last week, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to redeem his long-established reputation for indecisiveness and tell us whether the election will be on 1 May?

I warmly congratulate the new hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on his success, but I would advise him not to unpack his bags.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rate of unemployment in every constituency in Wales is lower than that in Germany and France? Does he agree that if the United Kingdom were to copy the European social model, as the Dollies opposite would have us do, unemployment in Wales would double?

The levels of unemployment have fallen dramatically across the United Kingdom over recent years, as a result of the policies that we have followed. For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), they have fallen by 25 per cent., and by 36 per cent. in the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in Sheffield, and by 40 per cent. in Sedgefield. On the back of that, one would expect the Opposition to agree that the policies that we have been following create jobs, whereas the policies that they are following have created unemployment across Europe.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17034]

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

Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the attack by Lord Tebbit on his Deputy Prime Minister, whom he described as

"tasteless, tacky if not dishonourable, and self-centred"?

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister replied for himself quite adequately on that matter.