| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Metropolitan Green Belt
15. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy to protect the metropolitan green belt. [12515]
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have consistently made clear my commitment to green belts, including the metropolitan green belt. The revised version of planning policy guidance note 2 on green belts, published in 1995, reaffirms the strict control over development in green belts and maintains the presumption against inappropriate development.
4 Feb 1997 : Column 793
Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. Does he agree that the creation of green belts, especially the metropolitan green belts, has been one of the outstanding successes of our town and country planning system? Will he confirm that the pressure to develop in such places is at its greatest near the inner boundaries of the green belts and take this opportunity to iterate that none of the estimated 4.4 million more dwellings needed in the next 20 years are planned to be sited on green belt land?
Mr. Jones: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as a former president of the London Green Belt Council, provided able leadership for the movement to protect the green belt in the capital--as does the current president, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby). He is right about the pressures on the green belt, which we will resist, but if he wants to know who is on the side of the green belt and who is not, he need only look across his county boundary into Hertfordshire, where the Conservatives proposed that no new housing should be built in the green belt, but were voted down by Labour and Liberal councillors who wanted housing concentrated there.
Mr. Hardy: I accept the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), but will he make it clear that the Government will not be inclined to approve applications for opencast mining and mineral extraction in the green belt, especially where there is bitter opposition by local communities?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows that every application must be looked at on its merits, but--as I have just said--the strong presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt has led us to turn down many applications in the past.
Local Authority Housing (Transfers)
16. Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have transferred their housing stock to new landlords. [12516]
Mr. Curry: Fifty-three local authorities have transferred more than 230,000 homes, generating more than £3.7 billion of private investment. I announced at the end of last month the 1997 programme, in which a further 17 authorities will transfer all or part of their housing. The programme includes some 55,000 homes and will generate another £350 million in capital receipts.
Dr. Spink: Has it not been proved beyond question that tenants in deprived and rundown local authority housing estates are far better served in every way by non-profit-making landlords? Will my hon. Friend denounce my local council housing committee, which will not speak to my local housing tenants' association?
Mr. Curry: We have sufficient evidence on transfers to know that tenants like them and that they work in their interests. In addition, tenants have to vote for them. Local authorities should be more interested in service and less in ownership. The case for local authority home ownership is long past, and we must look towards a more sensible arrangement.
Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that, while there may be a case in certain circumstances for transfers
4 Feb 1997 : Column 794
of stock to increase investment, they will not create any new homes? Will he admit to the House--as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did in an earlier answer--that the Government have abandoned the target that he gave to the Select Committee only a year ago of 60,000 new lettings? The Government cannot achieve that figure, they have broken yet another promise and they have sold out and betrayed the homeless and the badly housed in this country.
Mr. Curry: That is a piece of nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should accept that there is an extremely good case for transfers--his own local authority is one of our transfer authorities, and is trying to transfer houses on the Charlton triangle in Greenwich. Instead of being mealy-mouthed about this, he should recognise that, unless he is willing to pour large public sums into housing--his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) may be, the shadow Chancellor says that he will not and he himself says that he would like to, but does not know how--he should concentrate on doing what is possible, which is improving the conditions of those who live in council houses, and liberating them from local authority control.
Local Government Finance
17. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the conclusions of the standard spending assessment consultations with local authorities. [12517]
Sir Paul Beresford: On 27 January last.
Mr. Brown: May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Department for the transitional relief provisions that they were able to make for North Lincolnshire? Will he confirm that there is no need for any local authority to make any cuts in education, providing that it spends sensibly? Will he set out the opportunities that exist for local authorities to make further savings in administration costs?
Sir Paul Beresford: I think that my hon. Friend is well aware of them. In fact, there was a debate on his local authorities in the House on exactly that point. They accept, even though they protest and screech and scream, that they have a special advantage--as they are now authorities governing all local government services--that would allow them to make much greater efficiency savings than they appear willing to do.
Mr. Turner: If the Minister had visited Wolverhampton and met members of my local authority, they would have told him that the Government have imposed very serious cuts--real-terms cuts--on all standard spending assessment blocks, and that we in Wolverhampton have the worst revenue grant settlement of the 36 metropolitan districts.
Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect that I was leader of a local authority when its SSA was cut by 25 per cent. but that it has the best services in London.
Mr. Turner: I am talking about Wolverhampton.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question related to Wolverhampton. However, it is 3.15 pm. Prime Minister's Questions.
4 Feb 1997 : Column 795
PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12530]
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. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister give a clear, unequivocal commitment that he will allow the Wirral, South by-election to proceed?
The Prime Minister: The Wirral, South by-election is proceeding.
Q2. Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12531]
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Rowe: The Lib-Lab coalition that runs Kent county council has said that it requires a grant increase of no less than 10 per cent. merely to stand still. Does the Prime Minister know of any other councils that are making a similarly absurd demand?
The Prime Minister: I do not yet know what other absurd demands may come, but I have no doubt that the natural appetite for spending of so many Labour and Liberal-controlled local authorities will mean that there are quite a number of substantially above inflation demands for increased council tax. When the shadow Chancellor talks about Labour's plans for public spending, he clearly does not talk for the Labour local councils, which spend and spend and must then tax and tax.
Mr. Blair: In respect of the Ofsted report, does the Prime Minister agree that the inspectors found much to praise and many competent and hard-working teachers, but that they also found severe problems in literacy, numeracy and, in particular, with a significant minority of head teachers? Given the central importance of leadership by a head in a school, does he agree that it is sensible at least to consider making the new national competence qualification a requirement for all new and aspiring head teachers, so that, over time, this weakness can be remedied to the benefit of our children?
The Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Undoubtedly there has been an improvement in the past year--that is clear from Mr. Woodhead's report, and I am delighted to see that. It shows that the quality of teaching is satisfactory or better in the majority of schools, and I am pleased about that. I particularly congratulate those schools singled out for special praise by the chief inspector on the basis of the inspection evidence. I believe that they will provide a real example.
4 Feb 1997 : Column 796
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the professional qualification for headship will be available nationally from September. It will equip aspiring heads with the skills necessary to lead and manage a school and it may, over time, be desirable to make it a requirement. I would like to see how it works in the short term, but I certainly would not rule that out.
Mr. Gale:
I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my desire that transport safety standards across and under the channel should improve. Does he agree, however, that proposals from Brussels to make cross-channel ferries list the names and addresses of every man, woman and child travelling backwards and forwards on day trips is a bureaucratic nonsense and wholly unnecessary? Will he resist it, please?
The Prime Minister:
I agree, both about taking whatever action is necessary to assure safety and about ensuring that action is not taken that will not help on safety grounds but will simply add to costs, the price of tickets and bureaucracy.
Q3. Mr. Janner:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12532]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Janner:
Has the Prime Minister seen the findings of the Employment Policy Institute, which show that some 4 million people in this country are seeking work? In those circumstances, will he use his speech in Brussels tonight to explain to our European partners why the Government's so-called unemployment figures are rigged, inaccurate and deliberately misleading, and that the only people in this country who deserve to be unemployed are the clapped-out, stale and fag-end Government?
The Prime Minister:
The hon. and learned Gentleman gives me the opportunity to tell the House that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 39 per cent. In due course, perhaps, the Labour candidate will add one to the figure at the general election. In reality, unemployment in this country is 6.7 per cent. and falling, compared with more than 4 million in Germany, 3 million in France and nearly 3 million in Italy. Indeed, 18.5 million people are unemployed in the European Union, and we have created more jobs in this country in recent years than the rest of the European Union added together. I shall send the hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the speech that I shall make this evening, so that in future he may be better informed.
Mr. MacGregor:
As rail privatisation completes its final stages, does the Prime Minister agree that it already demonstrates substantial benefits for both passengers and taxpayers? Is not its success one of the main reasons why the Labour party, which bitterly opposed rail privatisation through all its parliamentary stages, as it did with nearly every other privatisation, is all at sea over its policy?
The Prime Minister:
It is undoubtedly the case that the Labour party has not supported a single privatisation until it has proved to be a success, at which point it pays lip service to it. Under Labour, none of the privatisations
4 Feb 1997 : Column 797
Q4. Mr. MacShane:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12533]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. MacShane:
Is the Prime Minister aware that his Chancellor is proposing so to increase air passenger duty that a family of four will pay an extra £80 on a family holiday? How does he justify that increased tax on children and family holidays?
The Prime Minister:
It will be interesting to see which of Labour's expenditure proposals it will ditch to keep within the spending and tax plans that the shadow Chancellor has apparently endorsed. Is it not remarkable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has had from the shadow Chancellor the most remarkable endorsement of his economic policy that any Chancellor has ever received? On every single tax and spending decision, this year and next, the shadow Chancellor agrees that my right hon. and learned Friend is infallible.
Sir Peter Tapsell:
May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is no such thing as a stable currency, except for relatively short periods, and that any political party that sought to base its policies on such a misconception would merely demonstrate its complete ignorance of the way in which foreign exchange markets operate in practice?
The Prime Minister:
With the growth in importance of exchange markets and the growth in currency passing daily across exchange markets, my hon. Friend's point is undeniable.
Q5. Mr. Loyden:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.[12534]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Loyden:
On several occasions, and again today, the Prime Minister has told the House that the economic policies pursued by his Government have been responsible for inward investment and job creation in Britain. How does he square that claim with the fact that 1,300 jobs at Ford on Merseyside, as well as many others, are threatened? Is it not time that the Prime Minister woke up to the fact that jobs are being lost daily throughout the country? As far as I know--I have checked with the Library--Merseyside is still part of Britain.
The Prime Minister:
It is Conservative policy to keep every part of the United Kingdom within the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not support policies that might force an important part of the United Kingdom out of the United Kingdom.
4 Feb 1997 : Column 798
Of course I am concerned about the implications of the job losses at Ford as a result of the rationalisation of its business in the United Kingdom and abroad. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that, despite those job losses, unemployment has fallen by 130,000 in the past two months.
Mr. Skinner:
Fiddled figures, and 4 million out of work.
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeks to deny the reality of falling unemployment. He lives in his own dream world, where he may best be left. The reality is that unemployment is falling throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will know that people from areas such as Merseyside, where Ford has withdrawn its jobs, have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to see what assistance may be provided.
Mr. William Powell:
Will my right hon. Friend make available three days of Government time next week to give the whole House the opportunity to discuss a Government motion congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on his candour in admitting that the Opposition have ample scope for huge tax increases? Such a debate would also allow the House to discuss Opposition Members' widespread hopes and expectations that there will be a £30 billion increase in public expenditure, even though that is denied by Labour Front Benchers. Does my right hon. Friend believe that we should discuss the Opposition's extraordinary agreement to Government economic targets as laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Prime Minister:
I am not sure that I can immediately offer three days for debate, but we would certainly require three days to explain the distinction between the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and those of the shadow Chancellor. It was an outburst of candour from the hon. Member for Oldham, West and also from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who presumably has some idea of Labour's tax and spending policies. I cannot promise a three-day debate, but I can promise to mention that point on every necessary occasion.
Q6. Mr. Hain:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12535]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hain:
How does the Prime Minister reconcile his assurance to the chairman of the Japanese equivalent of the CBI that he supports a single currency and would take Britain into it, with his assurance to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that he opposes a single currency and would block British entry? Which of those views--personally expressed by him--is correct, or are they both "infallible"?
4 Feb 1997 : Column 799
The Prime Minister:
No, they are both incorrect.
Q7. Sir Ivan Lawrence:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12536]
The Prime Minister:
I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate a firm in my constituency, Technic Holdings, which is now the world leader in manufacturing tyre re-treads? [Laughter.] Will he note the laughter from Opposition Members about a firm that has increased its work force from four to 450 in nine years, and that uses
4 Feb 1997 : Column 800
The Prime Minister:
My hon. and learned Friend illustrates clearly where the new jobs are coming from. No doubt the hon. Member for Bolsover would say that those fresh jobs created in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency were fiddled jobs, but they are real jobs. They are jobs that would not have been created but for the Government's policies.
4 Feb 1997 : Column 799
4 Feb 1997 : Column 801
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |