| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Energy Efficiency
13. Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of the number of homes to be insulated in the coming year under the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [4887]
Mr. Robert B. Jones: We expect more than 400,000 homes to be insulated under the home energy efficiency scheme in the coming year, bringing the total number of homes insulated under the scheme to more than 2 million.
Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister explain why he has cut the home energy efficiency scheme budget by £31 million in direct breach of a Government and ministerial promise to everyone involved? Is he aware that that will lead to the insulation of 200,000 fewer houses next year, the loss of 1,000 jobs in the small business sector and the loss of £12 million to manufacturing industry? In view of the economic, health and other effects of his decision, will the Minister now reconsider?
Mr. Jones: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some £30 million was added to the scheme in anticipation of the acceptance of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. As he knows, the House voted against that measure, so the £30 million figure has now been reviewed.
Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend the Minister has anticipated the point that I intended to make. The home energy efficiency grant for last year was linked to the VAT increase. On that basis, given the uptake of the award, should the Government not be congratulated rather than criticised?
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is clearly in favour of that excellent scheme. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) failed to appreciate the fact that we have protected the most vulnerable groups while continuing to offer a substantial discount to those people who do not qualify for the free service.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: How can the Minister justify a 20 per cent. reduction in energy efficiency in homes around the country when, as Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, he recommended increased expenditure on home energy efficiency schemes? Was it not a cynical exercise to increase
expenditure for only one year in order to justify the imposition of VAT on home heating, which has hit the poorest and the worst off in our community?
Mr. Jones: That is clearly not the case, as we have protected vulnerable groups and increased the scheme considerably over the years. I remind the hon. Lady that there was no such scheme under the last Labour Government because they did not care about energy efficiency. We are determined to ensure that homes become more energy efficient in the coming year through a variety of measures, not least through the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which will encourage local authorities to make sure that people take up those schemes.
Rented Homes
14. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes for rent were started by local authorities and housing associations in 1978-79; and what is his estimate for 1996-97. [4888]
Mr. Curry: In 1978-79 local authorities started about 62,000 homes for rent and housing associations started about 17,000. This year we estimate that about 49,000 social homes for rent or shared ownership will be started by housing associations, or released through home ownership grant schemes, and about 1,000 will be started by local authorities.
Mrs. Prentice: In view of the statement earlier by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that only 27,000 homes will be started by housing associations in 1996-97 and the fact that under the last Labour Government 112,000 new homes, on average, were started each year, will the Minister tell us this Christmas time exactly how the Government intend to house the homeless?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady is confusing two points. With regard to the general provision of housing, what matters is that properties become available for new lettings. The only thing that concerns a family needing a home is whether a house is available and whether they will have a roof over their heads.
The housing associations are the main flag carriers of new social rented housing in this country. We also have an effective rough sleepers initiative to deal with the homelessness problem. The hon. Lady will know that we are developing that initiative and that we are consulting about how we should take it forward. It is operated by the Government and the housing charities in a unique display of very effective co-operation.
Local Government Finance, London
15. Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss the standard spending assessment formula with representatives of the London boroughs. [4889]
Sir Paul Beresford: Standard spending assessments are discussed throughout the year with the local authority associations in the settlement working group and in the standard spending assessment sub-group. Currently, we are also available to meet authorities to hear their
representations on our proposals for the 1996-97 settlement, including those for standard spending assessments.
Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister accept that the working of that complex formula can adversely affect outer London boroughs such as Harrow? Its proximity to Heathrow airport and its many ethnic minority communities mean that it has to bear extra costs of social provision, education, housing for the elderly and other services. Will my hon. Friend look again at the formula to see whether Harrow can have a fairer deal?
Sir Paul Beresford: I would dispute any suggestion that it has not had a fair deal. The shift of expenditure under the formula shows that Harrow has had a reasonable deal. I am sure that, with my hon. Friend's assistance, the local authority will be able to meet the demands well. A comparison of local authorities around the country shows a massive variation. Labour authorities, in particular, seem to spend an enormous amount of money for little value. I am sure that my hon. Friend can assist his local authority.
PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4905]
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.
Mr. Jones: Will the Government rejoin the future large aircraft project urgently? Does the Prime Minister understand that the French and the Germans are increasingly sceptical of our approach to the project and may move to exclude us? Is he also aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency have lost their jobs and that the remaining 2,000 are desperate for Britain to rejoin the project? Given Britain's pathetic economic growth prospects, surely the Prime Minister wants a strong aerospace industry.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an indication of the subject that he intended to raise and I appreciate his concern to protect jobs in his constituency. On the substantive point, the Government are committed to joining the future large aircraft programme provided that our conditions concerning price, performance and affordability are met. That matter is under discussion with the United Kingdom industries concerned and with our European colleagues.
Q2. Mr. David Shaw:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4907]
The Prime Minister:
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Shaw:
In the next few days I shall be visiting the hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the retired and the nursing homes in my constituency. I shall visit many
Madam Speaker:
Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate next year.
The Prime Minister:
I think that my hon. Friend has just had one, Madam Speaker. I very much agree with him about the excellent work carried out by customs officers at Dover and elsewhere in tackling drug trafficking. My hon. Friend can tell them categorically that we have no intention of legalising cannabis. We do not believe that it is the right way to proceed. As the chief constable of West Yorkshire said in the past,
Mr. Blair:
Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has repeatedly refused to deny, which is that the costs of rail privatisation--the costs of the sale and of the extra subsidy--are set to amount to $1 billion over the next two years? Would not that £1 billion be better spent on improving a public rail service?
The Prime Minister:
No. Even with the spirit of Christmas, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. On a like for like basis, overall Government funding for the railways after privatisation is expected to be broadly similar to the levels of recent years. The precise level will depend on the privatisation process and on the outcome of competition for the franchises. Instead of criticising the funding, the Labour leader would be better employed examining the £10 billion worth of investment that Railtrack plans, which would not occur in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to privatisation, will he tell us how he would replace the £10 billion worth of investment in British Rail? Which taxes would he increase? By how much would fares have to rise? Or will he at last realise that privatisation will produce a better service for customers?
Mr. Blair:
We could start by taking the £1 billion and investing it in the rail service. Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer one simple question: will he guarantee that the level of service which now obtains will be the same after privatisation in the privatised services--not hope, not wish, but guarantee?
The Prime Minister:
I note that the right hon. Gentleman had no response whatever to the £10 billion worth of investment. He talks about £1 billion, but £10 billion is promised. As for future services, he can see what is already beginning to happen. The passenger service requirements provide a guaranteed level of service. That has never existed in the past. Services to the passenger are already improving--[Hon. Members: "Where?"] I will tell
Mr. Blair:
We shall realise it when the Prime Minister guarantees that service levels will remain the same--[Interruption.] Yes, when he guarantees it. What is more, have we not just--[Interruption.] We shall listen to the Government when they guarantee that the service will remain the same, but they are not prepared to do that. Is it not right that at the end of the week--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. The barracking is intolerable.
Mr. Blair:
The Prime Minister keeps telling us about his plans for British Rail. Is he not the man who planned no increase in value added tax and then increased it? We are not interested in his plans. Have not his rail plans been overturned by the courts, his chief inspector of prisons walked out of his first prison inspection, members of his party are at each other's throats over Europe and the Government cannot get the national lottery right? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's year ended as it began--in weakness, chaos and incompetence?
The Prime Minister:
Whenever the right hon. Gentleman loses the argument, he changes it. He has lost the argument on privatisation. He had no response to the £10 billion and no response to the fact that there has never been a guaranteed minimum service until now. Now the service is being improved and he cannot bear the fact that we are winning the argument in terms of improving services right across the public sector. All that he can do is to run down everything that happens in this country on every conceivable occasion for his own partisan political interests.
Mr. Garnier:
As more than 13,000 British troops are deployed to Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend send the best wishes of the House to them? Does he agree that, had the Labour party won the last election, we would not have had one tenth of the soldiers to send to that place, given the savage cuts that Labour would have introduced?
The Prime Minister:
And would probably try to introduce were it ever given the chance again. We know the Opposition's record on defence and we know their capacity to hide their long-term affiliation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and we know that the armed forces know and the people of this country know that the armed forces would not be safe in their hands.
Mr. Ashdown:
Does the Prime Minister understand why the possibility of a lone British veto tomorrow against a European subvention to help to privatise Irish Steel is regarded by the Irish Prime Minister as inexplicable? Will he explain? Will he assure us,
The Prime Minister:
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the whole matter; it is a very complex issue involving the interests of Irish Steel--very important to Ireland--and British Steel, and the matter is under discussion. We are seeking--and I hope that it will be possible to reach--an agreement that safeguards the United Kingdom's interests. That matter is under discussion at the moment. It would not be productive for those discussions for me to pursue the matter now, but there is an interest both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We are seeking, and have done for some weeks, to reach an agreement which meets the interests of the steel industry both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. I hope that we shall be able to reach such an agreement. If we cannot, it will not be for lack of trying on this side of the channel.
Mrs. Gorman:
Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper report that Labour Members of the European Parliament, in supporting the French strikers, blamed their plight on the fact that the French Government were supporting the single currency? Does he not find it surprising that Labour MEPs should be supporting his own sceptical point of view? Is he not even more surprised that their position differs radically from that of Opposition Front-Benchers, who support the European Parliament and all its works?
The Prime Minister:
I believe that the very wide and deep divisions in the Labour party on Europe were clearly apparent in the statement that I delivered to the House yesterday afternoon, when one Labour Back Bencher after another stood up and, in essence, flatly contradicted what the leader of the Labour party has been saying for weeks. As for Labour party policy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there was more than one summit in Madrid last week. The summit of socialist leaders, attended by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, must have been very amusing. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a significant extension of qualified majority voting, support for a European strategy on immigration, the social chapter, and restrictions on how long people can work. What he did not discuss were the details of fishing policy--and he a Member from Hull.
Q3. Mr. Pickthall:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.[4908]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Pickthall:
As the national lottery regulator was warned by the Ministry not to take free air trips on his visit to the USA, but nevertheless did so, and given that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knew about that but refused to comment on it at Question Time yesterday, does the Prime Minister not think that it is time that both of them were sacked?
The Prime Minister:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the matter and will make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Gallie:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1979 only 30 per cent. of people in Scotland were home owners? Is he aware that the figure is now 57 per cent., and a Shelter report published today suggests that 77 per cent. of Scots aspire to home ownership? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative party will drive towards that objective?
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is right. Surveys show that more than 70 per cent. of Scots aim for owner-occupation, and that is particularly true among younger age groups. Since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, well over 300,000 houses and flats have been sold to their tenants, and owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. The right to buy has been immensely successful--introduced by a Conservative Government, opposed by gut instinct by the Labour party then, and still, in truth, loathed by it now.
"Legalisation or decriminalisation just isn't the answer."
He continued:
"I've not yet met a heroin, or ecstasy or crack cocaine user that didn't start on cannabis".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |