To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords. [38350]

To date, 52 local authorities have transferred their stock, raising over £3.7 billion of private sector money which has been invested, improving the level of repairs and maintenance in transferred housing. I am therefore encouraging all authorities to follow their example.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging words. He probably knows that West Dorset, which covers part of my constituency, has benefited from homes being released, thereby becoming a better landlord and keeping rents down and productivity up. Money is also released back into West Dorset to spend on job creation projects. Other councils in my area, however, say that they have to join a list and wait their turn if they want to get into transferring.

I shall certainly be happy to look at any suggestions from the local authorities concerned. I do want to encourage them. They should not use excuses, because the fact is that the money can be used for the benefit of tenants. We can lever in private sector money that would not otherwise be available, and maintenance is thereby much improved.

Is not the Secretary of State addressing the wrong issue? It is not housing transfer that concerns tenants most. Most of them want to stay with their local authorities anyway. What worries tenants is the need to build new homes and to improve existing ones. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be ashamed of the fact that the Government have allowed public investment in housing to drop by half since the last general election, at a time when local authorities possess £5 billion in capital receipts which could be used to improve homes and build new ones? Should not the Secretary of State be dealing with that instead of with fanciful notions about the transfer of housing stock?

It is odd, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that, that Sheffield should be one of the first local authorities concerned with the estates renewal challenge fund—which is precisely what we are talking about. Transfer releases capital from the private sector, which enables that capital to be spent. So the tenants who want better maintenance and improved homes get them. Experience in Suffolk Coastal, my area, shows that whereas there used to be many complaints, even about a well run local housing authority, there are now very few complaints because of the improvements that have been achieved. The hon. Gentleman should follow what Manchester has done, and what has been done elsewhere by local authorities that are a little more progressive than he is.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has further to extend the rough sleepers initiative. [38351]

I am studying the results of the survey into the extent of rough sleeping outside central London undertaken on behalf of the Government by Shelter and I expect to announce my conclusions shortly.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of people who have been sleeping rough in the centre of London since 1990 and the introduction of the initiative has fallen to about a quarter of the previous figure, according to the independent survey? Does he agree that it is therefore important that the initiative should be extended outside central London as soon as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter is well known. The initiative has been successful in central London and we are investigating the needs of other places which might require such an initiative. In some places, facilities may exist but, for example, the outreach services are not effectively directing people who need those facilities to them. My announcement on the future of the rough sleepers initiative will cover a range of responses to help people in the direst need.

Is it not a telling commentary on the Government that so many people are sleeping rough? Prior to 1979 and in the late 1960s, I do not remember leaving the House and seeing anyone sleeping rough in Charing Cross or in the Strand. On my way home now, many people are in that desperate situation, and that shows only too well the failure of the Government's housing policy.

The fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, that, according to independent counts—not done by the Government—the numbers have come down significantly. The hon. Gentleman would be foolish indeed if he assumed that all rough sleeping is directly attributable to one cause or another. We are all aware of the fragmentation of society, and the Leader of the Opposition recently devoted a speech to that subject. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government should be held responsible, automatically and immediately, for every development in society, he has a bizarre view of government. We are tackling the problems with remarkable success and with the co-operation of the voluntary sector. The hon. Gentleman would do better to pay tribute to those who work hard to help those in the greatest need.

I do not wish to accuse anybody of NIMBYism, and I acknowledge the achievements of the rough sleepers initiative, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that friction is increasing at the interface between the solutions to the problems faced by rough sleepers and, in some cases, their behaviour and the residential communities on which those solutions are beginning to impinge? Has he given thought to how that friction might be better lubricated?

My right hon. Friend is correct. It is often difficult to obtain planning permission, for example, for some of the specialist facilities, such as de-tox units, because residents are naturally fearful of the possible effect on the neighbourhood. If we can draw rough sleepers into some framework of care and discipline, that is better for the neighbourhood than if they remain on the street, but it is clear that people who live close to facilities should be invited to visit the facilities and the framework that exists and to give their consent. The changes must be made with the residents, not against them.

As the Minister is keen to quote figures, may I ask whether he agrees with the conclusions of the recent report of the inquiry into preventing youth homelessness, which was chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, that some 300,000 youngsters experienced homelessness last year? Does he agree that the spectacle of young people begging and sleeping on the streets of our cities is the most terrible indictment of the failure of the Government's housing policy?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not accept the figures of the inquiry chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, because they are based on a sample survey of single and homeless people taken in 1991, which has been extrapolated to 1995. There is a problem of young homelessness and, indeed, of all sorts and I would like to be able to tackle all those problems, but such figures, which are extrapolated, based on unreliable sources and designed for propaganda purposes, are not helpful. People would be better served if voluntary effort were devoted to helping those in need, rather than to concocting propaganda figures.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in relation to the construction industry. [38352]

My Department's role within the Government and the EU is to help sell British construction products and services in the domestic, European and world markets.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recovery in the construction industry is still slow? Will he encourage the private finance initiative, in co-operation with the Department of Health and the Department of Transport, and try to get it moving a little faster?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend and I have met those in the construction industry several times to discuss issues related to the PFI and, as a result, have encouraged bilaterals with the Departments to which my hon. Friend referred, but not just those Departments, because we must ensure that any, obstacles are overcome, whichever Departments are involved.

Does the Minister accept that half a million jobs in the construction industry have been lost over the past six years? How does he justify the Government's policy doing such damage to the industry, when £5 billion of local authority capital receipts are tied up and unusable and there is massive need in the country? Does the Minister accept any responsibility for that?

I remember the borrowing binge that the last Labour Government went through, and the massive inflation that did immense damage to the construction industry. We would no doubt have that again if we ever had the misfortune to have another Labour Government.

Will my hon. Friend have a word with his colleagues in the Treasury and draw their attention to the part of the construction industry that is carried out on the black economy, to the detriment of fair competition, adequate training skills and general competence, not to mention the Chancellor's cash flow? Would it not be of great benefit if that illegal activity were reduced, the revenue restored and the prospect of tax cuts for honest taxpayers brought much closer?

As my hon. Friend knows, legitimate contractors have considerable interest in trying to tackle the black economy. We have been engaged in discussions through both the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, and are contemplating what steps to take at this very moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much tax was paid last year by businesses in excess of the amount which they would have paid had not transitional arrangements been in force for those businesses the values of whose premises were reduced at the time of the most recent valuation. [38353]

Following the 1995 revaluation, 265,000 businesses saw a reduction in their rates bills in 1995–96. Of that reduction, £1.1 billion was deferred to help cushion the impact of the revaluation on 1.1 million ratepayers who would otherwise have faced substantial increases in their rates bills.

Given the lack of logic behind singling out those whose business values have fallen to pay welcome subsidies to those whose business values have increased, may we assume that the Minister will now persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the transitional arrangement for those whose values have fallen before the next general election—presumably in the forthcoming Budget—as happened before the last general election?

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would refer to the previous rate review, in which the reductions reflected on the businesses in London actually benefited them. In other words, it is swings and roundabouts. Businesses in London and the south-east benefited from the transitional arrangements then, while the reverse is now the case.

Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Chancellor in next month's Budget to look at the impact of uniform business rates on small shopkeepers?

Certainly, and as a part-time small business man, that matter concerns me as well. It is also of considerable concern to the Department.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the independent review into the area cost adjustment. [38354]

In our consultation, all four local government organisations have expressed reservations about implementing this review and have asked for further work. I will consider the representations after my meeting with them tomorrow.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent review endorsed the view expressed by Buckinghamshire county council and other local authorities in the south-east that the area cost adjustment needs to be enhanced rather than reduced? Will he look seriously at implementing the report by the independent review team, especially in the context of the difficulties that we face in Buckinghamshire as a consequence of Milton Keynes becoming a separate unitary authority?

It is unusual for all the local authority associations to express similar reservations, with differing degrees of intensity, about the difficulty of implementing a report. Therefore, I think that it is proper to listen to them carefully. I understand my hon. Friend's view, and the report makes some very important points. However, I do not think that we should rush ahead without hearing what the local authorities have to say.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, under the review's proposals, Cambridgeshire county council would gain by about £10 million this financial year? Does he believe that the Government were justified in imposing a capping limit on Cambridgeshire in its standard spending assessment in the face of that sort of evidence?

All those who would benefit from the proposed changes are very much in favour of them, and all those who would lose from them are very much against them—the fervour increases with the degree of gain or loss. We maintain a fair and reasonable system. Cambridge was warned that, if it sought to gain money from the community outside that system, it would be capped—and capped it was.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in Derbyshire and elsewhere about the way in which the current area cost adjustment works? Is he aware also that there is great dismay that the basis of the proposed reforms appears to be fundamentally flawed because the whole range of incomes has not been taken into account, particularly public sector salaries? Will he give an undertaking to take those concerns fully into account before he makes a final judgment about the proposals?

My hon. Friend points to only one of the issues raised by the local authority associations. They are concerned about some of the methodology used. I am determined that any changes we might make would commend themselves to the House as a whole and would remain in place for a reasonable and stable period. In order to do that, I must take into account precisely the points that my hon. Friend has made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve the provision of habitats for threatened wildlife species. [38355]

Our biodiversity plan is accepted as a world leader. It is based on a programme of targets to conserve endangered species in their habitats.

While there has been a positive reaction to the publication of biodiversity action plans to save threatened species, such as the red squirrel, is the Secretary of State aware that there is concern that it may not be possible to find the necessary resources, from both public and private sources, to fund those action plans? Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the plans will not fail due to the lack of a relatively modest level of resources?

I think that the hon. Lady will agree that this biodiversity action plan involves a very direct agreement between Government and the non-governmental organisations which helped to frame it. I have every intention of ensuring that it succeeds. I am committed to protecting those species, and I shall see that that protection is carried through.

In view of the known damage that is caused to wildlife habitats by the excessive and reckless use of certain toxic pesticides leaching into water supplies and contaminating land, will the Secretary of State take steps to restrict or ban the use of the more serious pesticides? In light of the Government's admission that Gulf war syndrome was caused by organophosphate spraying, and in light of official reports in 1951 and 1987 that condemned the use of those highly toxic chemicals in farming—particularly for sheep dipping—will the Secretary of State now ban the use of organophosphates?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench as Opposition spokesman on this subject, but I remind him that his question is entirely one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make such general statements about various substances, some of which have done a great deal to enable us to feed people in this country and elsewhere.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the provision of social housing. [38356]

The falling numbers of homeless, of rough sleepers and of households in temporary accommodation, show that we are already meeting need. We are also encouraging effective local authority policies to encourage the most effective use of existing housing stock.

Is the Minister aware that there are 11,500 people on Nottingham city council's waiting list? With the social housing programme at its lowest level since the war, does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is time to allow the council to release its capital receipts of over £40 million to try to boost the housing programme and to put some of the people on the waiting list—many of them elderly or disabled—into decent, affordable housing?

Councillors are not sitting with their capital receipts money under the mattress. If we followed the hon. Gentleman's advice, there would be upward pressure on interest rates, extra borrowing and an increase in council tax. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to come clean about that?

Does my hon. Friend agree that social housing and all other forms of development are best established against a clear local plan? Does he therefore understand the concern that we have in Leeds that, having been through the longest planning inquiry in history and having been promised a report in 1997, we have now been told that it has been deferred to 1999? Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into the reasons for the delay and try to bring forward some certainty in our local planning, both for social housing and for everything else in our city?

I fully understand the importance of my hon. Friend's point. If we are to have a plan-led system, we must have up-to-date plans. I am discussing with officials and a wide range of people outside the Department how we might speed up the system in regard to unitary development plans. That being so, my hon. Friend makes his point at a timely moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages of having elected mayors. [38357]

My Department received 600 responses to its consultation on the idea of locally-elected mayors. There were four favourable responses. Not a single London borough; not a single metropolitan council; not a single district council or for that matter a single county council was in favour.

Having spent 17 years trying to emasculate local government, could not the Government now take the opportunity to try to rejuvenate it? Why do they set their face against an idea that has the support of more than 70 per cent. of the population, or at least agree to some experiments? The Deputy Prime Minister was once enthusiastic about this idea, but that by itself is surely no reason for the Government to be against it.

I have just said that local government is against it. The Government have told local authorities that, if it is an area that they wish to explore, there is no reason why we should be hostile to it. When we consulted local government, it was clear that it was not interested. It was much more interested in the structure of committees. It was more interested, perhaps, in some form of cabinet system for local government. It was also more interested in the idea of a council manager. It was especially interested in councillors' allowances. It was not particularly interested in locally elected mayors.

Could the candidates for mayoralty include those who are in favour of one type of school for their own children and another type for everyone else's?

I am sure that the bolt will have gone home, as it always does when it is fired by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in England are unfit for human habitation. [38358]

Against the statutory definition the last English house condition survey in 1991 recorded 1.5 million such dwellings. More up-to-date information will be available from the 1996 English house condition survey, which is due to report next year.

Given the increasing need for new accommodation, does the Minister accept that it is extremely important for the Government to make the best use of existing stock? Is he satisfied that there are now sufficient resources to bring unfit dwellings up to date to modern standards?

There are many other sources of resources that are not being properly tapped by local authorities. As has been said, we want to encourage local authorities to go for large-scale voluntary transfers, which would release resources for this and other purposes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of local authority dwellings at the latest date; and how many were built in the last year. [38359]

There were 4.4 million dwellings in the social rented sector at the beginning of April 1995, of which 3.6 million were local authority dwellings. More than 76,000 new social lettings were provided in 1995–6, including 800 in new dwellings built by local authorities. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.

Is the Minister aware that the most savage indictment of this Government over 17 years is that, in 1978–79, when the Labour Government lost office, local authorities built 78 times more houses than the Government are building at this time? Only a paltry 605 were built for the whole of England and Wales during the course of last year. Old-age pensioners are being shunted from hospitals to community care who should be in warden-controlled accommodation.

It is the dwellings that were built by so many Labour local authorities that we are now having to put right by programmes such as estate renewal. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he has learnt absolutely nothing. He knows nothing about housing associations. He knows nothing about private sector investment of £10 billion in the social housing sector. He knows nothing about new opportunities for landlords. He knows nothing about new opportunities through housing companies. He wants none of that. He has learnt nothing and he has forgotten nothing. He is the last Bourbon of Bolsover and has views of no future but a failed past.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much of the presently retained capital receipts would be available for building if all local authorities paid off their debts?

My hon. Friend is right. While local authorities maintain debt, they have to pay interest on it and would have to levy council taxes to do so, or they can use the income from their capital receipts to meet those charges. It is entirely mythical that capital receipts are some bonus that has already been paid before. We are talking about public expenditure, and if it were to be spent, other spending would have to replace it or there would have to be borrowing. If the hon. Member for Bolsover really wants to help authorities that are in the worst situation, it would be much more simple to give credit approvals. That is public expenditure as well. There is no way around it.

Will the Minister confirm that just 605 houses were started by local authorities in England last year? As an example, in the north-west there are 14,000 homeless families, but not one house was started by local authorities in the north-west—not one house in Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale or Manchester. Does he not think that that is a disgrace? Does he not realise that many local authorities have capital receipts? That money should be invested in finding somewhere decent for homeless people.

The Labour party is obsessed with capital receipts and is trying to do it with mirrors—[Interruption.] The Labour party has said that it is not prepared to redefine the public sector borrowing requirement. The shadow Treasury team has said that. It may be that, occasionally, Governments get caught by their Treasury when they arrive in office, but it is remarkable to be shackled by the Treasury before being anywhere near office.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise standard spending assessment formulae to take greater account of the needs of rural areas. [38360]

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have commissioned some detailed research on sparsity which shows that there is no need at present for any radical changes to standard spending assessment formulae.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that it frequently costs more to provide services in rural areas, and that many people living in the countryside do not enjoy the services enjoyed by those who live in towns and cities, such as recreation and leisure facilities and concessionary travel arrangements? When my hon. Friend considers the studies to which he referred, will he please bear in mind those costs on shire district councils and ensure that, if anything, their SSAs go up, not down?

My hon. Friend will be interested to know of two other pieces of research. The sparsely populated authorities researched this subject, and their final report concluded that the allowances for sparsity should be at least as great as they are at present. Interestingly, the research for the Association of Metropolitan Authorities argued for lower percentages, and concluded that there was an argument for no sparsity allowances at all.

When considering the revision of SSAs in rural areas, will the Minister have regard to the representations made during the past five or six years by authorities in the Webber Craig group for fairness in the allocation of SSAs for education, social services and community care?

The hon. Gentleman makes such a large, kindly and clear plea that I shall certainly take notice of it.

My hon. Friend has made it clear that some people do not believe that there is any need for a sparsity factor at all. May I say firmly and clearly that in West Dorset we need that sparsity factor and we would take a poor view if it were withdrawn?

As I think I said in my original answer, research shows that there is a need for the sparsity factor, but that no great change is required.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current availability of houses for rent. [38361]

There are around 4.5 million homes in the social rented sector and more than 2 million privately rented dwellings in England.

Does the Minister admit that, since the Conservative party came to power, the number of rented homes in Britain has dropped by more than a million? In his view, does "opportunity for all" include the right of less well-off people to rent decent homes that they can afford, or is it simply the right for people to be homeless during the last cold winter of Tory rule?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman follows these matters, he will know that I place great emphasis on the provision of rented accommodation and, in particular, the revival of the private rented sector. That has happened. There are now 2 million homes in that sector. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to read The Observer, which I suspect is a newspaper read more by Opposition Members than by Conservative Members, he would see that Halifax Mortgage Services, Woolwich Direct, Mortgage Express and Homeloans Direct are now providing mortgages for people to build homes to rent in the private sector. The reason given is that

"the investment climate is now more favourable than in decades. Rent controls have been abolished. Investors are free to charge market prices and can guarantee possession of their properties through assured shorthold tenancies. There is also scope for long-term capital growth."

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many thousands of local authority houses are now standing empty, and have stood empty for years in Labour-controlled local authorities, and that we should not forget that, if there are housing black spots in Britain, the Labour party is responsible for creating them?

My hon. Friend is correct. Basic good management is an essential element in housing: collecting the rents; when tenants leave, getting new tenants in rapidly; and ensuring that repairs are carried out on time. That is an important element. There are also many empty properties in the private sector. It is important that those 600,000 or so properties are brought into use. There is no excuse for such an asset lying idle, whoever owns it.

Does the Minister not recognise that the thousands of people throughout Britain who are on waiting lists to rent houses do not believe a single word he says? They cannot understand why council house waiting lists are longer than in 1979 and why many councils have had to go back to a points system which they abolished many years ago.

What is understood is that, where houses have been transferred to a housing association, the satisfaction level expressed by the tenant is always high. We need a better balance in housing, which the Housing Act 1996 will achieve. We also need to mobilise private sector resources to go alongside the public sector to deliver social housing. With £10 billion in that respect in the past few years, we are achieving it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the use of (a) playing fields and (b) derelict land for housing and other construction; and if he will make a statement. [38362]

We want to make the best use of derelict sites for housing and other development. We also want to protect playing fields because of their vital contribution to health and to the quality of life. Our planning policies are designed to do both those things. Since August, any proposal to develop on a playing field must be referred to the Sports Council for England, as statutory consultee, to ensure that local planning authorities are aware of any deficiency in playing field provision before making any decisions.

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent action in saving the GWR playing fields in west Ealing in my constituency from development for housing by British Rail, and contrast that with the Ealing Labour council's strenuous attempts to build houses on Dormers Wells high school playing fields, until the council was stopped from doing so by the Government. May I support his admirable policies of building on derelict land, which is obviously more suitable than playing fields?

In his usual telling way, my hon. Friend makes the point that it is only the Conservative party that cares about the environment.

How much derelict land is owned by the Government?

Too much derelict land is owned by all owners of property in Britain, and it is incumbent not just on the Government but on local authorities, public institutions and private owners to try to get that land developed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that local councils such as my own in Wyre should be encouraged to develop land in urban areas, particularly derelict land, and not develop open fields on the edges of towns? Will he ensure that in future local plans reflect that need?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Given the great demographic challenges to which we must face up, the key way of trying to ensure that houses are provided is to ensure that they are on already used land. It is depressing that, when we are trying to encourage a return to central towns and cities, the Labour party spokesman on these issues, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is busy all the time promising developers that there will be a turning back from the encouragement to go into the centres.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the environmental benefits of forestry. [38364]

Representations have been very large—both in number and in variety.

Is the Secretary of State not aware of the huge concerns in community forests, especially those in urban regions such as South Yorkshire, about the huge threat that the landfill tax poses to forests because of the increase in illegal dumping? Is he aware that that, added to the fact that only 7 per cent. of forest sold since 1991 has had public access agreements—which is disgraceful—means that the public will be denied the proper enjoyment of public access woodland?

The landfill tax has been welcomed by almost every environmental organisation in Britain and has set an example for the rest of Europe and the world. The hon. Lady shows again that the Labour party does not care two hoots about the environment, and will use every method to attack the Government's progressive environmental policies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at 7 per cent., forest cover in England is the lowest in Europe, and that forest plantings have halved since the late 1980s? I suggest that that is not consistent with the rural White Paper, where the Government's intention was to double the rate of forestry cover within the next 50 years. Are there further measures which my right hon. Friend can take to encourage the planting rate, which will have an economic and environmental impact?

This is the first Government to make a commitment to double the area of forest cover. I am determined to achieve that, but we need to do so in a way that does not cause a financial ramp, which was a feature of the previous system. We must find a sensible way to increase forest cover.

Has the Secretary of State no shame? Is it not an indictment of his so-called green credentials that, in the past five years, only 7 per cent. of the forestry land that has been sold off has had public access guaranteed? Is it not a fact that, in raising millions of pounds, he has colluded with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise relief on inheritance tax for the few while denying the many their natural inheritance of access to our beautiful countryside?

The hon. Lady is wrong as usual, but it is nice to hear her talk about the environment, as no one on the Opposition Benches does so at any time. The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has made only one speech on the environment in two and a half years, so little does he care about it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38380]

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.

As a fellow working class warrior—I will take my coat off—will the Prime Minister confirm that he sent his children to a private school?

I believe in choice. I do not seek to deny choice to other people.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38381]

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

Which party controls the council with the worst GCSE results in England? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will take tough measures to tackle failing schools, rather than spouting about the family from thousands of miles away?

I am not sure which authority it is, but I know that the authorities with the poorest records are all run by the Labour party. That is undoubtedly true. As my hon. Friend intimated, we have now taken powers to deal with failing schools, and, when necessary, we shall use those powers.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the spate of reports of crisis in the national health service, culminating in a hospital refusing even emergency referrals of elderly patients because of a shortage of beds, are a disgrace? Will he accept the judgment of the head of the British Medical Association that that crisis is directly due to the Conservative Government's internal market reforms, which have undermined the health service?

No, I do not accept that for a second—nor do a large number of people in the health service up and down the country. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to travel up and down the country within the health service, where he will see in hospitals and in primary health care services the advantages that the reforms have brought about and will continue to bring about in the future. In particular, he may care to look at some of the group general practices that I have visited recently.

What I am putting to the Prime Minister is precisely the view of the doctors and nurses who work in the national health service. Perhaps he will confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, there have been 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. Since he became Prime Minister, in London alone there have been 2,500 fewer acute beds, and half the casualty departments in London have closed. When even doctors and nurses with a lifetime's experience in the health service say that that is due to the Government's internal market reforms, can the Prime Minister not see the fundamental damage that those reforms are doing to the very principles of the national health service?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he wishes to test whether the reforms are working, I offer him the one that was suggested by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was shadow Health Secretary: he said that the acid test was whether more patients were being treated. More patients are being treated; patient waiting lists have fallen; 1.5 million more patients are being treated than before the reforms; health expenditure has risen and been provided for by the Government; there are more doctors and more dentists; and waiting times have decreased dramatically. That is a health service providing a wider and better service. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman cherry-picks in order to criticise the health service when he should be supporting it.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute a single word I said. Furthermore, I do not know how he dare mention dentistry in the national health service after what his Government have done to it. He asked me to talk to those who work in the NHS. Does he recall what the chair of the consultants committee of the BMA said, just in the past few days? He said:

"I fear the hospital service will he close to collapse this winter."

The right hon. Gentleman knows that most of what he has just said about the health service is completely misleading and, in many parts, totally inaccurate. Waiting lists are falling. Since 1979, the health service has had the largest sustained building programme of any stage in its history. There are more doctors—that is a matter of fact. There are more dentists—that is a matter of fact. There are more nurses and midwives—that is a matter of fact. I regret very much that he chooses to run down a service that the people who use it know from experience is a better service, which is improving day after day. Treatments that were never before available are provided more speedily and are improving. That is a record in the health service of which we can be proud. Unlike his party, we have not cut building and nurses' pay.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38382]

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tremendous news announced today by Vauxhall at its plant in Ellesmere Port in north-west England of £300 million-worth of new investment and 200 jobs? Does he agree that that not only is good news but will create a raft of new opportunities for the region—opportunities that would not be there if a minimum wage and the social chapter were thrust on us?

Today's announcement is certainly more good news on top of a range of inward investment in different parts of the country that has brought a great deal of hope and employment to many parts of the United Kingdom. If we continue to pursue the same policies in future, I believe that we shall continue to attract very large-scale inward investment, partly using the United Kingdom as the base for operations in Europe and beyond, which I very much welcome. That will be lost if we follow the wrong policies. If Labour Members are so certain that the minimum wage will cause no harm, perhaps they will tell us what the minimum wage level will be, so that a judgment may be made.

May I ask the Prime Minister a simple question of general principle? Is it right for a Government to seek to interfere in or manipulate the outcome of a Select Committee of Parliament?

As you, Madam Speaker, said yesterday, allegations ought not to be bandied across the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has a complaint, he should put it to the appropriate Committee, and he will see that there is no one in this House more concerned than I am that it should be properly examined.

Would the Prime Minister care to confirm to the House a statement that he made in a letter to me on 1 October? The letter stated:

"The Coronation Oath is indeed regarded as a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign which is binding throughout Her reign. Ministers would not advise Her Majesty to sign into law any provision which contradicted Her Oath."

I can certainly confirm that that is my view of the Coronation oath.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38384]

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

On the day the FTSE index of the top 100 UK companies soared to record new levels, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the 12,000 Scottish teenagers and under-25s every year who register as homeless? Will he remember that they are but the tip of an iceberg that spreads throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he resolve at least to stop preaching at them about decency, duty and responsibility, and instead begin to show a scrap of decency—a modicum of the duty and responsibility that his Government owe to them—by guaranteeing each and every one of them their human right to a decent and safe home to live in?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that an extra level of taxation in Scotland would help those people—I very much doubt it. Throughout the past 17 years, we have followed policies that will widen opportunity for people, whatever strata of society they may be in and whatever their personal circumstances may be. That is the policy that we have followed. It is the policy in which I believe, and it is the policy that we shall continue to follow.

Has my right hon. Friend seen recent examples of the way in which female victims are sometimes treated in court, particularly where sexual offences are alleged? Did he read of the cases in which one young lady was cross-examined for six hours by her rapist and another was cross-examined for 12 days by lawyers acting for six defendants? Should it not be a matter of urgency that court proceedings are reformed to spare female victims that cruelty?

I think that there will be a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend said. Certainly, the case in which the lady was cross-examined by the accused rapist struck deeply with many people throughout the country. I agree that it is something that we should examine.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38385]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the price review announced today by the Director General of Water Services shows that the Labour party was right all along and that consumers have been ripped off for years under weak regulation, weak government and weak leadership?

The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. It shows the Labour party to have been wrong all along. If the industries had remained in public ownership, we would not have had any regulator looking at price reductions, we would not have had a better service, and we would not have had the extra investment. We would still have had the massive amount of taxpayer subsidy to inefficient industries.

Will my right hon. Friend disregard the London-based bleat of the Leader of the Opposition and come to my constituency, where he will find the best health service in Europe at all levels, as my postbag proves, week after week?

I believe that my hon. Friend speaks not only for himself and for his constituents but for the many millions of people who use the NHS each year and who know from their own experiences how well they have been treated in it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38386]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to have a high-speed rail link on the west coast main line—with all its environmental advantages, including a reduction in road congestion, and with all the advantages for the western part of the British Isles—there will be a need for public money to upgrade that line? If so, have the Government given any consideration to this matter?

We have put a great deal of public money into a number of rail lines—[Interruption.] I suggest that, if Opposition Members do not understand that, they go to look at the new services. I suggest that they also examine the extra investment after the privatisation of British Rail-a privatisation that they said could not be done, should not be done and would not be done. The fact is that it has been done, and that it is a great success. Investment is up, and the service is improving.