To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the future of the uniform business rate. [20934]

I have recently received a report entitled "Improving the Rating System", which was sponsored by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the burden of business rates bears particularly heavily on small firms and that that is a major factor in the closure of a number of small shops in Maldon high street in my constituency? Is he aware that the Prime Minister's recent commitment to listen to the concerns of small firms about the impact of business rates is especially welcome? I urge him to give that the highest priority.

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will note that we have blazed a trail in the rural White Paper by suggesting that the single shop in the small village should have special consideration in that area. We are considering that matter urgently. I point to the fact that the report from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggests that we should continue to have a national non-domestic rate. My hon. Friend will remember the old system, whereby local authorities—particularly Labour-controlled local authorities—placed large burdens on businesses. Those businesses are now protected by this system.

Why has the burden of the standard spending assessment moved away from the revenue support grant to the national business rate and to council tax, causing difficulties for many people? Could the district of north-east Derbyshire have a standard spending assessment arrangement similar to that of Westminster so that everyone could have a return of £700, and presumably businesses could benefit also?

The system is precisely the same as that which applies in Tower Hamlets, Hackney or Westminster. It is an arm's-length procedure that provides an SSA which is responsive to the needs of the area, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. The Labour party has also suggested that a higher proportion of the weight of local spending should fall upon the resources of the local authority.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the ability of the United Kingdom to meet its Rio commitments with special reference to emissions from vehicles and power stations. [20937]

The United Kingdom is on course to meet its Rio commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by 2000. The United Kingdom is on course to succeed in reducing projected carbon dioxide emissions by 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2000.

I welcome that positive response and the progress that the Government have made in that regard. I trust that the Government will bear in mind last year's report by the royal commission on environmental pollution and take account of the issues that it raised.

We do, of course, welcome the report by the royal commission on environmental pollution. I well remember my visit to Enderby and I assure my hon. Friend that the proposals for a gas plant there will be subject to the stringent requirements of integrated pollution control that will address environmental effects.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has praised the work of the environmental industries group and the way in which it has demonstrated that trade can be won for this country by offering environmental solutions? Why have the Government backed away from their targets for volatile organic compounds, thereby considerably damaging trade prospects?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course we encourage environmentally friendly companies and try to win exports for them. He will be aware of the very important and high standards that we are achieving in emissions, and he might have mentioned the success that we have had in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We are also taking a lead and working with other developed countries to reduce emissions further.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that Conservative Members know only too well what the Government have achieved in environmental protection? Will he also consider pressing the Treasury to do something about reducing the rate for gas-powered vehicles? Sweden and parts of the United States and Canada have already demonstrated how such vehicles can help to control emissions and to keep the environment clean.

My right hon. Friend has played a very distinctive part in the Government's environmental successes, and he will be aware that we have taken a step in the direction that he favours. His point is certainly well made.

The Minister will note from the Audit Commission's performance indicators, which were published last week, that the rate of household waste recycling stands at only 4 per cent., and that there was a huge contrast between well performing councils such as Richmond, Adur and Sutton, and badly performing ones such as Oldham and many others. How will the Government meet the targets they have set for themselves of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000? Surely that goal is now impossible to meet.

The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the ambitious targets that we set in our strategy to make waste work. He will be aware of the incentives that we have put in place for councils to do just that and to promote recycling. The obligation is on councils to meet the targets, which are there for them to achieve. The hon. Gentleman will know of the lead that we have given them.

Will my hon. Friend again consider and consult the police on carrying out prosecutions against owners of vehicles and vehicle fleets that emit massive amounts of exhaust? It is quite wrong for such vehicles to spew out sulphur at those sitting behind them. We should be doing more about that problem.

My right hon. Friend's point is very understandable and fair. He will know of the powers that have been provided to have more spot checks on vehicles. It is very important that vehicle engines should be well tuned to avoid the type of emissions to which he referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation by his Department of international agreements on biodiversity. [20938]

The United Kingdom is the world leader in the national implementation of the biodiversity convention. A draft action plan for the UK has already been published. I have already welcomed the report of the biodiversity steering group, and the full response warranted by such an excellent report will be published in the spring.

Does the Minister therefore agree with me that urgent action is needed to ensure the survival of threatened species, such as the red squirrel population in the north-east of England? When will the Government publish the strategy for survival of red squirrels, which was mentioned by the Under-Secretary in a recent Adjournment debate on this subject?

The hon. Lady will know that no other country has done as much or moved as quickly as we have in implementing the biodiversity convention. It is a pity that the Labour party did not support this major lead by the United Kingdom. As I have already said, we will publish in the spring our response to the working party's excellent biodiversity report. I think that she will be very pleased with that aspect of it that relates to the red squirrel.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to simplify the procedure for diverting rights of way. [20939]

Current procedures are well established and enable all parties to express their views. However, we recognise that some people wish that the procedures were simpler and more flexible. Therefore, the rural White Paper states our intention to evaluate local experience in managing the network before consulting on proposals for change.

May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the target that all paths should be usable by 2000? Does he agree that, if that target is to be reached in that period, paths will become increasingly more contentious, and we will therefore need a simple procedure to divert paths? May I ask his Department to re-examine its recently introduced procedure whereby a separate order is necessary for cancellation, diversion and re-creation of paths, which would make it far more difficult and expensive to divert footpaths?

The Government remain committed to our ambitious rights of way target for 2000. As my hon. Friend says, in some quarters it is thought that the system is not simple enough. We have undertaken to look at local experience, particularly that of parish councils.

The Minister will know what a powerful lobby the farmers and large landowners are, and how they often get rid of public rights of way. Will he bear in mind the fact that the people of this country have a right to the countryside, and that it is consistently obstructed by many farmers? Is it not about time that the hon. Gentleman did something to open up more public rights of way, not to close them down or even divert them?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman pays no heed to our target for rights of way by 2000. We rely on farmers and landowners to play their part in managing access to the countryside. The hon. Gentleman's vision of uncontrolled access would not be in the true interests of the countryside or of those who want to enjoy it constructively.

In his initial reply my hon. Friend said that some people would like the system simplified. In my view, 99 per cent. of the people of this country would like the rights of way system simplified. It is only the other nutty 1 per cent. who force us into great expense and time wasting. Without them, we could have better rights of way and access for more people—no one in the countryside does not want that. Will my hon. Friend consider the views of the 99 per cent., not the 1 per cent?

I take my hon. Friend's point. His views may well be reflected in the local experience that we are looking to.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the backlog of unmet housing need. [20940]

The Government are considering what further work could yield meaningful figures on unmet housing need, following the Environment Select Committee's report on this question.

Surely the Minister is aware of a number of assessments of housing need, including one by his former chief economic adviser, Dr. Holman, to the effect that about 100,000 houses a year should be built in the social rented sector. How then can he justify allowing the number of starts in that sector to fall to its lowest level since the war, with a 42 per cent. cut in public investment in housing since 1992? Is it that the Minister no longer takes his own advisers seriously; or that he does not take housing need seriously; or that every priority has now been cast aside in the desperate search for tax cuts before the general election?

When the hon. Gentleman makes comments like that, I certainly do not take him seriously. He has been involved in housing, so he will know that evaluating housing need is a complex task, involving many projections—for instance, of household formation. He will know that the adviser, Dr. Holman, to whom he refers admits that many of his figures are based on extrapolations. It is genuinely difficult to estimate figures. Following the Select Committee's report, I have undertaken to do further work to see whether it is possible to come up with a more effective, meaningful figure for housing need.

When does my hon. Friend propose to take action on councils such as the one that used to be led by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)—Sheffield council, which takes seven weeks to re-let council houses, which does not collect its council house rents, and which does not collect its council taxes? Sheffield has been given more money in its education standard spending assessment this year, more money for community care, more money in revenue support grant and more money from business rates. Yet its knee-jerk reaction is always to say, like Oliver Twist, "Please, may we have some more?" But the word "please" is never heard.

My hon. Friend is right. The performance indicators recently published demonstrate what councils are really doing to deliver their statutory duties. If they are not collecting rents or filling void properties, they are letting down the people in their communities who depend on them. Efficiency is not just a question of self-satisfaction; it is about helping people get the services they deserve.

Have not the Government betrayed thousands of homeless people because of their political dogma, as they will not allow councils to use capital receipts to build affordable social housing? When will the Government do something about homelessness?

First, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the allegation that housing receipts are sitting there unused is nonsense. He will also know that that is Labour's only housing policy. It was fascinating that, a couple of weeks ago, there was the great Labour party shindig at the Queen Elizabeth II centre and everyone was saying, "Now, at last, we shall have some inkling of Labour's housing policy," but we heard only pieties, platitudes and pomposity, and nobody is any the wiser.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last visited Basildon to assess housing and regeneration. [20941]

I met market traders and councillors in Basildon, with whom I discussed plans to revitalise the town centre. I also visited Leigh-on-Sea in Southend, where I discussed plans—[Interruption.] The Opposition may remember that I represented Southend in the European Parliament. It is an area for which I have great affection. In Leigh-on-Sea, I discussed plans for a new parish council.

Order. The question to the Minister concerns only Basildon and when he last visited Basildon.

Will my hon. Friend accept my gratitude and that of other local residents for all the assistance that the Government have given to redeveloping the Siporex Five Links Bluehouse estate following representations from the former Conservative council, despite the Opposition trying to claim credit for it? Will my hon. Friend now please do all that he can to complete the development and thus restore confidence in the local housing market?

I felt that, in the age of open government, the House would require a full account of my travels on that day.

Order. The House requires Ministers to answer only the substantive question.

In regard to Basildon, which is the local authority adjacent to Southend, I hear what my hon. Friend says. There has indeed been a major commitment to the regeneration of estates. It is a successful programme. Clearly, we have to assess the requirements for funding on their merits, but I have no doubt that the schemes will be pursued with sufficient vigour for us to take seriously their claims on future resources.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to reduce the number of home owners who will (a) be unable to move house as a result of negative equity and (b) lose their homes through repossession in 1996. [20942]

Mortgage rates are the lowest for 30 years. Average mortgage payments are more than £150 a month lower than in October 1990. Many home owners are about to be notified of a further cut in mortgage payments. House prices have risen at a sustainable rate for the past seven consecutive months. That is all due to the success of the Government's economic policies which are meeting effectively the needs of home owners.

In view of the fact that 1,000 families a week are losing their homes through repossession, why is there nothing in the Housing Bill to help home owners who are trapped in negative equity or facing repossession?

I would take the hon. Gentleman's comment more seriously had the speech by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made any proposals on those matters. The hon. Gentleman rarely attends Environment questions, but if he did so more regularly, he would see that every creative idea about home ownership comes from the Government, and every attempt to stop it comes from the Opposition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the scandals for those facing housing problems in London is that thousands of empty council houses are owned by Labour councils, who are indifferent to the fate of council taxpayers, local tenants and those seeking somewhere to live?

My hon. Friend does not mention also the fact that the Labour party has opposed every change to help home ownership since the Government have been in power. Had Labour been in power, there would have been no right to buy, so the 200 families a day who are now buying their own homes through that and similar schemes would not be able to do so. Labour Members dare not speak on home ownership issues because they have no answers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment. [20943]

PA Consulting submitted its report last month on the options for transferring the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. I am currently considering its findings, and in the near future I expect to reach a decision collectively with colleagues on the way forward.

Does the Minister accept that the safety of buildings should be a matter of public concern, not private profit? Will he take on board the concerns of the construction industry, and drop the proposal?

I certainly take on board what the construction industry has to say. That is why representatives of the industry were involved in the assessment procedure. They have made a suggestion themselves, which I am seriously considering.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the valuable services provided by the Building Research Establishment up to now is advice to councils on asbestos removal? Will he also confirm that it would have been better for Westminster city council to seek such advice from the Building Research Establishment than for Tory councillors to get together in a secret cabal to place homeless families in buildings that they knew to be riddled with asbestos—and, as an independent report has confirmed, to do it for cheap, short-term party political gain?

The Government's view is that all organisations should take into account all sensible advice on health and safety. That continues to be our policy, and will be for as long as the present Government are here and determined to tackle any problems that occur.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the representations which he has received on the 1996–97 revenue support grant settlement. [20944]

We took into consideration all representations received from English local authorities and their associations during the statutory consultation period on the 1996–97 local authority finance settlement.

Why did the Government construct a settlement that puts so much pressure on local education authorities? Will not 25 per cent. of councils impose real-terms cuts on our schools, and will not taxpayers pay more and get less under the present Government?

The only reason for which I can conclude that the hon. Gentleman might be right is the incompetence of local authorities. Their standard spending assessment for education has risen by 4.5 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the local authority settlement provided sufficient extra money for education, community care and the police? Is it not up to local authorities to get their priorities right, and stop wasting money on politically correct initiatives such as equality units—as Labour-controlled Croydon council has, at a cost of nearly £250,000—and paying councillors more in special allowances? Is that not a disgrace?

I entirely agree. I have a similar interest in that council, which is proving to be as notorious as any other Labour authority.

May we have the truth from the Minister? Is not the truth that local authorities received only an additional 1.2 per cent. in money, that the SSA did not relate to the money that it actually received and that the Government have deliberately pushed money into council tax because they want to impose yet another Tory tax on people throughout the country? People are paying more and getting less, and the Government want to shift the blame to councils. That is the truth, is it not?

No, it is not the truth. The funding is more than adequate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of getting £5 million more than it expected under the revenue support grant, Ealing Labour council—[Interruption.] Yes. It is at it again. It is cutting disability grants, travel passes for disabled people, and travel allowances for children to school—thereby preventing choice of school. Many other deplorable policies are being introduced in Ealing, on disgraceful and dogmatic grounds, to the detriment of our community. We will throw the council out for its wickedness.

I agree with my hon. Friend and, of course, if the effort that was put into providing those dramatic blows was put into efficiency, those services could be provided at lower cost.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authority associations concerning capital challenge. [209451

The Minister for Local Government and Housing met them on Monday 18 March.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the funds available will be top-sliced from existing capital programmes and that there will be no additional resources? The whole thing is just a con.

The fact is that, by having a challenge system, we ensure that those who use the money best and get the best value for money get the money they need. I am pleased to see that the borough of Brent—now under new management, and not the worst borough in London as the hon. Gentleman once called it—is in favour of that system. That is because the council has seen how successful the system is, and that is why the council is so good.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that the people of Denton in the borough of Gravesham are delighted with the challenge fund, because they have waited for the improvements in Denton for many years and they have not had any progress out of the Labour-controlled councils' It is only the Government's challenge fund that is turning that project into reality.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the Labour party cannot take seriously that which has given a great deal of help to many people in some of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. The great advantage of the challenge fund is that councils do not get the money just because they have the need: they get the money just because they can meet the need. The Opposition cannot meet the needs of those who are most in need.

When will the Secretary of State realise that the competition that he is proposing in capital challenge is exactly the same in principle as that proposed for the single regeneration budget? He will know about the disastrous bidding process that led to numerous complaints about the way in which that process operated. Is not capital challenge just another cynical attempt by the Government and the Secretary of State to reduce further the ability of local government to make decisions locally, free from his interference and that of his ministerial colleagues?

The all-party Select Committee on the Environment praised that system. The local government organisations have seen how successful it is, and it will mean that local government has much more say over what it does. All local government has to do is show that it will use the money properly. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with his own members in the country. If he travelled around and met a few sane Labour members—there are a few—he would realise that what he has said has no connection with what they say.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of senior citizen households over 60 years of age who will not now be eligible for home energy conservation grants because of the introduction of means-testing. [20946]

None.

When fewer than one in 10 senior citizens are able to claim those grants and when up to 6 million of them live in houses without proper home insulation, is it not despicable that the Government are abolishing the non-means-tested insulation grants for pensioners? Is that not a cynical betrayal of the Government's promise to help pensioners with the VAT that they have imposed on heating and cooking?

The hon. Gentleman says that we are abolishing the grants. Since they are continuing to be paid, he is clearly talking rubbish.

How many such grants have been given since 1991 and what amount of money has been involved?

Close on 2 million people have benefited and that is an important contribution to ensuring that the fuel-poor have a higher standard of living in the future.

Surely the Minister is not denying that the criteria for eligibility for the scheme have been changed. Indeed, the consequence of cutting the budget by one third and introducing new criteria is that 200,000 desperate households have applied and are on a waiting list. Is the Minister aware that three quarters of those people who have applied for the grant in the past quarter will not get their work done until the new financial year?

As I have said in the House several times, £30 million was added to HEES in anticipation of the second stage of value added tax, which was rejected by the House. Therefore, the VAT compensation package was altered. Of course I understand the hon. Lady's point about those who are better off edging out the fuel poor. It is rather deplorable that some organisations in society are currently deliberately promoting the scheme to those people, thus disadvantaging the people whom we most wish to target. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Lady that pressure for amending the scheme so that it did not extend to those who were much better off came from neighbourhood energy action and others.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Minister has not mastered his brief and has perhaps inadvertently misled the House, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement. [20947]

The Housing Bill, which is currently in Committee, contains a very substantial package of measures designed to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In Scotland there are great problems, particularly in town centres where large numbers of older premises are taken over by housing benefit tenants, many of whom live in very cramped conditions. Can my hon. Friend help to relieve that problem?

I know how energetically my hon. Friend works in his constituency. He will know that the Housing Bill, which I am presently taking through the House, contains special control provisions. They will be available for registration schemes where there is a real problem with a concentration of benefit hostels, and they will give local authorities a great deal more discretion in their ability to manage such hostels in the event of management failure. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it may be that some of the circumstances in his constituency reflect those in the English towns where we have sought to address those problems.

Is the Minister aware that people are 28 times more likely to be killed or injured by fire in multiple-occupation houses than in other accommodation? Why is he letting his obsession with deregulation override the need for a mandatory licensing system that would raise standards and save lives?

The hon. Lady has not understood the measure. A registration scheme is available for all local authorities that wish to apply it. The measures in the Housing Bill extend the duty of local authorities to ensure adequate means of escape from fire to a much wider range of houses in multiple occupation and allows them to introduce a duty on HMO landlords to make sure that there is adequate fire safety. The measures that we are placing in the hands of local authorities, which are responsible for these matters, give them adequate powers to deal with these matters without being excessively bureaucratic.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the review of the area cost adjustment; and when he now expects to have its findings. [20948]

Local authorities and the local authority associations are making representations to the review team. I expect to have the review's findings at the end of June this year.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the frustrations of local authorities, particularly about the way in which the area cost adjustment works and is implemented? My hon. Friend will recall that the largest element of expenditure in local authorities is pay, and the fact that that is negotiated nationally should mean that area cost adjustment is unnecessary. Could my hon. Friend bring forward the review and get rid of area cost adjustment as quickly as possible?

If my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will appreciate that there would be as many screams on one side as cries of joy on the other; hence the review.

Although the Minister may be right about there being screams from the losing side and cries of joy from the gaining side, does he accept that it is not good enough for local authorities that believe they are losing to find out in June or July that the system is to be reviewed and that they will have to wait until next year? Should they not be given some assistance this year?

As an ex-local government man, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that that proposition just does not stand up.

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind, when he makes his decision, that if the area cost adjustment were abolished it would abolish jobs for teachers and police officers in every authority in the south-east of England?

I think that that explains the dichotomy across the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's record in energy conservation. [20950]

The United Kingdom has a good record in energy conservation. Primary energy consumption in the United Kingdom has remained fairly constant since 1970, despite the 60 per cent. rise in gross domestic product. The United Kingdom expects carbon dioxide emissions to be 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2000. We have a wide range of initiatives to promote energy efficiency, including the provision of information and advice, voluntary schemes, selective use of grants, incentives and regulation. For example, by December 1995, my Departments's energy efficiency best practice programme had generated energy savings worth at least £450 million a year.

Do not the Government's sustainable development indicators show that there is absolutely no room for complacency? Can the Minister explain how slashing the home energy efficiency scheme and putting value added tax at 17.5 per cent. on energy-saving materials can possibly help to improve the Government's record?

Of course the hon. Lady is right: there is no room for complacency. A few moments ago, I explained the situation regarding HEES. It is difficult to get the message across to individuals that they must use less energy, whether in their homes or in the way in which they use their motor vehicles. We will continue to try to get that message across, as, I hope, will individuals and local authorities, whatever their political persuasion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have personally helped more than 200 of my constituents to get home energy conservation grants, and that those grants help them to insulate their homes, to draught-proof and to lag their pipes and to save up to 25 per cent. on their energy bills? Is he not right to target that money on the over-60s, who need those grants? Will he take my word for it that he has mastered his brief excellently?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has certainly pointed out the importance of targeting. I remind him and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that those who do not receive 100 per cent. grants in future will nevertheless get a 25 per cent. discount for the work, which is a substantial advantage and should motivate them to get the work done.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to strengthen local authorities' planning powers with respect to the location of wind turbines. [20952]

Local planning authorities already have comprehensive planning powers over the location of wind turbines. These are fully explained in planning policy guidance note 22 on renewable energy.

Does the Minister not appreciate that the eagerness of some landowners to raise easy rents by having wind turbines on their land, combined with the insistence of operators to put them on prominent hill sites—often where the landscape is extremely valuable to this country—means that the visual amenity of these areas may be destroyed? Is it not the case that, while one planning authority might give planning permission for wind turbines, it is often the authority next door whose visual amenity is destroyed? Why is something not done about that?

It is extremely important that local authorities balance these environmental and energy considerations. I am satisfied that PPG22 does precisely that. If the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns about the way in which neighbouring local authorities co-operate, and would like to give me some examples, I would be happy to look at the matter sympathetically.

Will my hon. Friend listen carefully to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and make it possible for local authorities to ban these great lavatory brushes in the sky once and for all?

These planning applications, like others, must be looked at case by case. Although I understand that my hon. Friend does not like the appearance of wind turbines, they are an important element in generating clean energy for the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions are taking place, or are planned to take place, between his Department and the Association of County Councils regarding revisions to the area cost adjustment; and if he will make a statement. [20953]

The Association of County Councils is discussing possible revisions to the area cost adjustment with the team set up to review the area cost adjustment. Once the review has reported, my officials will discuss the review's recommendations with all the local authority associations.

May I support most forcefully the point made a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)— [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order.

In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, may I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that there are rather more Conservative Members representing areas that do not get the area cost adjustment than there are Conservative Members representing those that do? Does he recognise that the pay and other conditions that may have operated in 1990 at the height of the boom no longer operate in 1996? Therefore, will he urgently pursue his discussions with the ACC, which itself represents both areas receiving and those not receiving the area cost adjustment?

As I have said before, the winners cheer and the losers scream. It will be interesting to see the reaction to the review when it reports. There will be an opportunity for all local authorities to make submissions during the consultation process.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March. [20966]

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.

Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about unemployment, to which he gave an answer lambasting Liverpool city council. Will he now unequivocally condemn Tory Westminster council for risking the health of its people for political purposes by housing them in asbestos-ridden flats?

That issue was very properly investigated by Westminster, which commissioned an independent report. I understand that the council has taken action in the light of that independent report. Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, he should compare the overall record of Westminster with that of other authorities. As he is sensitive about his local authority, appalling as it is, he should compare it with Lambeth and Hackney. He might look at the rent arrears in Lambeth, which are six times the level of Westminster, or the rent arrears in Hackney, which are 10 times as great. There are 21 times as many unoccupied dwellings in Lambeth and 23 times as many in Hackney. Whose housing policies are a disgrace?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue is not really a party political crisis but a crisis for the whole nation? Can he persuade the Leader of the Opposition to stop making cheap party political points, which are doing this country and its farming community so much harm?

I do not think that anybody doubts the seriousness of the issue or the need to balance the competing interests of public health and the importance of the beef industry. It is important that we deal with the issue on the basis of rational, sensible decisions, based on proper information, not on hysteria. That is the way in which the Government have sought to deal with it thus far, and we will continue to do so.

Will the Prime Minister at least agree with me on the scientific basis of the case? Is it not, first, that scientists now say that there is a probable link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human killer; secondly, that prior to 1989 there was contamination of the food chain by BSE; thirdly, that after the regulations of 1989 there was supposed to be no such contamination, but there were breaches of the regulations; and, fourthly, that the scientists say that if, now, new measures are adopted, the risk in future will be "extremely small"?

It will be extremely difficult to restore confidence if right hon. and hon. Members continue to undermine that confidence whenever they have the opportunity to do so, for reasons that I think will seem unfathomable to people in the agriculture industry and to the wider public.

"In any common usage of the word, we"—

"think beef is safe. Anyone can eat beef or beef products and be safe."

Did not the Secretary of State for Health make a statement in the House last week that earlier scientific advice had been wrong, and tell us to wait for two days for advice on whether it was safe for children, while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was speculating about the killing of 4.5 million cows? Suddenly, the Secretary of State for Health appears to bristle with certainty and he tells us that the public are mad, not the cows. The matter has been handled with quite mind-boggling incompetence. I repeat that the scientists say that the risk in future is extremely small, but may I ask the Prime Minister once again to quantify that risk? As a matter of urgency, will he convene a meeting of producers and purchasers in the food industry to agree the necessary measures to restore confidence?

I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had done enough damage in the last few days—[Interruption.]

Order—all of you.

for them to stop trying to create health scares by inviting responses from any Minister who can competently comment only on the basis of scientific advice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. Since he wants to exchange quotations, may I say that it is not all that long ago that the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)—who has acted far more responsibly than some of his hon. Friends—told the House that

"the possibility of BSE being transmitted to humans seems remote"?—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 994.]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the scientific evidence that we have received, and he knows the way in which we have been invited to proceed on the basis of it. For what reason does he continually try to undermine public confidence?

When the Scott report came out, the Prime Minister blamed my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When this report came out, he has blamed other Opposition Members. Does he not realise that the country expects him, as Prime Minister, to take responsibility? Since he has mentioned my hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture, perhaps he will adopt the measures that my hon. Friend has proposed, and let us hope that confidence can be restored.

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how it might be restored, again by quoting his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East:

"We are talking about a huge industry and that is why we have to be very responsible and we must not hype something up and give the impression that it is wrong to eat beef or there is some evidence of a link if there is no evidence."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further reassurance that British beef is best—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members will be heard in this House.

I will start again, Madam Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further assurance that British beef is best? Does he agree that it is now time for the British media to stand up for Britain and to dispatch some investigative teams to Europe to study what is known there as staggers or manganese deficiency, which is often BSE by another name?

There are self-evidently two equally important interests to balance. First, there is the public concern about public health. That is of great importance to the Government, which is why we have repeatedly taken the advice on public health that we have been given. The second interest is confidence in the beef industry, the jobs it creates and its economic importance. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should look at both those matters and give them both great importance.

This morning, the National Farmers Union, which is presumably not hysterical, backed by the entire food industry, which is presumably not hysterical either, has called for older cows to be taken out of the human food chain. If the Prime Minister will not follow that advice, will he at least answer this question? What has he got to say to farmers, to abattoir managers and to cattle market operators? They have been ringing all morning to say, "My doors are closed, my market has gone and in two weeks, my business will be in ruins. What do I do now?"

I have received a letter from Sir David Naish and I have a copy of the letter that he sent to the Leader of the Opposition and to the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. My colleagues and I will study carefully the contents of the letter I have received. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening, he will get his answer.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Wiltshire police force on the 5 per cent. fall in recorded crime which was announced today? When he considers further proposals on sentencing, will he give careful consideration to the views of the chief constable of Wiltshire? He believes that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by a few known offenders and that

"custodial sentences take them out of the game."

I entirely agree with that view, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am delighted that, again, crime figures are falling in the United Kingdom. Today's figures show that recorded crime fell by almost 2.5 per cent last year. With the falls in the past two years, that represents the largest fall since records began more than a century ago. That has been achieved despite the fact that the Opposition have continually opposed the law and order measures which we have introduced—measures which, when my right hon. and learned Friend introduced them, they dismissed as gimmicks. The only gimmicks on crime are those from the Opposition. We are producing measures that are beating the criminal and bringing down crime.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March. [20967]

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

Given the Prime Minister's disgraceful performance this afternoon, does he remember telling the House last week that the Government have always and immediately acted on the expert advice given to them by scientists on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? In the light of that claim, can he tell the House why the Government failed immediately to implement the recommendations of the Tyrrell report to sample cattle brains to monitor BSE? We need a straightforward answer to that question.

We are continually taking professional advice on health matters. Opposition Members are asking me not to take the professional advice but to do something else. If I had not taken the professional advice on the question of BSE, the hon. Gentleman might have had some cause for complaint. As it is, he has none—except against his own Front Bench.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that McDonald's, the media and the Labour party have one thing in common: they are seeking to sell something, be it beefburgers, newspapers or themselves, and the Government have a heavier and wider responsibility to give leadership and guidance, based on the best possible scientific advice?

First, we have to make judgments on what is in the interests of public health, and we must base them on the advice that we get, because Ministers do not have the medical competence to make those judgments themselves. Secondly, we have to make judgments about what is right for the industry, if other people, with ill-thought-out comments, damage it when it should not have faced the damage that may have been created by comments that should never have been made.

With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.