To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the amount of new development taking place on derelict or underused urban land (a) currently and (b) in 1991. [3116]

In 1985, 38 per cent. of land for new housing came from land previously used for urban development. Since then, we have moved close to the Government's 50 per cent. target. I am now looking at whether that target could be higher.

That is very welcome news, but given the natural and understandable propensity of developers to develop on green-field sites and the obvious benefit to the green belt and the countryside of developing underused urban land, will my right hon. Friend continue to give this very useful programme a very high priority?

Yes, certainly. I have committed myself to defending the green belt and believe that the present footprint is what ought to be developed first.

Is not the use to which underused and derelict land is put important and should it not be in line with Government guidance? Perhaps the Secretary of State is aware of the correspondence that I have had with the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency about a planning application for a 20-screen cinema complex in Broughton lane in my constituency. The application was bungled by the development corporation and there was a lack of decision by Ministers. As a result, an application for nine screens became one for 20 screens without any proper debate. As if that was not bad enough, by the time this business is finished, there will be more than 50 cinema screens in my constituency, which is far too many and clearly has a deleterious impact on Sheffield city centre. Does the Secretary of State accept that planning guidance should not be about warm words but about practical action? The development corporation's decision did not follow the guidance. The application will have a deleterious impact on the city centre and is not a proper use of the derelict land in question.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to comment on such a particular question. I am very pleased that Sheffield, with its development corporation, is now so attractive a place for people to invest in—which was not true when he was leading Sheffield city council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many town centre managers are now in place; and how many there were five years ago. [3117]

There are now more than 180 town centre managers in the UK, compared with fewer than 20 in 1991.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the post of town centre manager in Eastbourne was established in 1992 and that the present incumbent is Elliott Cairnes? The post forms a genuine partnership between the borough council and leading local retailers. It has had a broad measure of success in boosting the status of Eastbourne as a major regional shopping centre, as well as resisting the effects of out-of-town shopping development.

I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in saying what a good job is being done by all those involved in the Eastbourne town centre initiative. Eastbourne is a very attractive place and should be successful. It can be so only through partnerships of the nature described by my hon. Friend.

May I congratulate the Minister on adopting the policies on town centre issues that the Opposition have espoused over the past 10 years. It is a welcome conversion to common sense. I remind him that Labour councils, with their partners in the private sector, have been the ones to work hard to develop so many new initiatives on town centre management—without any help from the Government, him or the Secretary of State. Can the Minister point to one new policy—just one—that, if implemented, will directly assist town centre management, or is he just going to repeat some more political plagiarism?

I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was hobbling when he came into the Chamber—that is the trouble with trying to keep one foot in each camp. The hon. Gentleman has been trying to tell the supermarket developers that the Labour party would relax our policy, and to tell consumers that it would protect them. He cannot have it both ways.

Does my hon. Friend agree that too many town centres are being destroyed by unnecessary parking restrictions? Will he advise local authorities such as Barnet to get their finger out and do something about it?

Parking is a critical issue for reinforcing the attractiveness of town centres, and local authorities should look carefully at their policies to see whether they are putting people off coming to take advantage of the retail or leisure opportunities in their town centres.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his estimate of global warming for the next five years. [3118]

We are working on the basis of an estimated global average temperature increase of between 0.1 and 0.2 deg C over the next decade.

Is the Minister aware that a number of reputable estimates suggest that, within the next five years the average increase in global temperature will be 0.5 deg C above the 1951 to 1981 average and that, over the past 50 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from 300 to 360 parts per million? That suggests a substantial increase in global temperatures and, therefore, all the attendant problems of global warming. Given the conflicting evidence available to the Government, will the Minister, first, put more money into research into global warming, its causes and the likely crop effects and, secondly, do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from this country and do his best worldwide to ensure that the agreements reached in Rio and other places are adhered to, so that we do not go into the next century with a significantly higher temperature than is already predicted?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the estimates to which I referred are supported by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Hadley centre. It is important for us to work on the basis of the best scientific advice, which in this case is also accepted by other developed countries that have signed up to the climate change convention. As the hon. Gentleman may also know, since we signed up to that convention, we have gone a long way towards achieving our commitment, unlike many other countries.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that among the authorities that he takes note of are organisations such as NASA, which points out that the influence of sun spots, with the influence of volcanic activity, have more effect on global warming but that we can do nothing about them? Does he also agree that the amount of attention we pay to CO₂ emissions, which have a deleterious effect on industry, is possibly out of all proportion to their importance?

My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. She should be aware of the many serious implications that would follow global warming in the long term, including the effect it would have on particular regions and on sea level. It is important for us to address those implications, and we are. My hon. Friend should also be aware, as should the Labour party, that unlike many other developed economies, such as the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada and most of the European Union, this country is on course to comply with the targets it agreed in the climate change convention. We are now setting challenging targets for the future to protect our climate.

Will the Minister accept that road traffic increase is bound to be one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions? Does he agree that it needs urgent attention and that the Government could take the lead by setting targets within a strategy for road traffic reduction? Will the Government indicate whether they will support the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill, which will shortly be introduced by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)?

Our policies address the question of CO₂ emissions from road traffic, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the increases in road fuel duties. It is important to bear in mind the overall target for greenhouse gas emissions. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we signed up to the convention with other developed countries and it is important that we should have an objective and comprehensible target so that we are able to judge our progress and that of other countries. The hon. Gentleman will note that our progress is very good compared with that of many other countries.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to improve the energy efficiency of housing. [3119]

The Government operate and support a wide range of programmes and initiatives to improve and promote energy efficiency across all sectors of housing. We will continue to pursue them vigorously.

My hon. Friend and the Department have a good record in energy efficiency in housing. Will he confirm that more than a quarter of the energy use in this country is domestic usage? Will he therefore consider a further tightening of the building regulations with regard to new housing so that new homes use less energy and are among the most energy efficient in the world?

If one adds to the energy used in the home for heating and lighting the energy used by machinery within the home and in the generation of electricity, domestic usage accounts for about half of greenhouse gas emissions, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight that point. Yes, we can do a lot with new housing, but the vast majority of housing is older housing, and we must persuade the owners and renters of it to be less complacent about energy use.

In view of the Minister's comments, with which I entirely agree, does he recall that, in March, the Government came within one vote of being defeated—on a proposal to reduce the level of VAT on energy-reducing materials to that on energy, to encourage precisely the work that he suggests? Has the Department of the Environment made representations to the Treasury to make that reduction in the coming Budget? We were told during the debate in March that the Department would consider such a proposal.

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in any regard, but he can be certain that we shall continue our programmes to encourage the extension of energy efficiency equipment and measures in homes.

How seriously are local authorities taking their responsibilities in promoting home energy efficiency? Is there any more that my hon. Friend can do to encourage them to take more action?

Many authorities are doing a good job in taking forward the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. I was fortunate to be able to present the prizes yesterday for the Home Energy Conservation Act programme, facilitated by the Energy Saving Trust with finance from the Department. Other authorities must learn from the best, and that is why we will produce best practice guides as a result of our experience.

Before he preens himself about any improvements, will the Minister say when he will apologise for the Secretary of State's cutting of the funding of the home energy efficiency scheme by fully a third earlier this year, which knocked £31 million off home insulation grants for the poor and elderly? When will he realise that a nationwide home energy efficiency scheme—which we do not have—would save fuel, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, prevent cold-related illnesses and hypothermia and create up to 50,000 new jobs? If he and the Secretary of State do not have the imagination or the vision to introduce such a win, win, win scheme, I can tell him that we certainly will.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that £30 million was added to the home energy efficiency scheme in anticipation of the second stage of VAT, which was voted down by the House—at which point that £30 million fell. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that they want to get on to the pudding even though they have refused to eat their greens.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce which local authorities have been successful in their bids for funding under the pilot capital challenge scheme. [3121]

Before Christmas.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the key objectives of capital challenge is to assist in the regeneration of some of our historic towns while drawing in investment from the private sector and elsewhere to make that possible? With that in mind, will he give careful consideration to the excellent scheme proposed by High Peak borough council to assist in the regeneration of the historic Georgian and Victorian parts of Buxton to prepare them for the 21st century—a plan which surely deserves success under the excellent capital challenge scheme?

I will give careful consideration to that scheme, as I shall all the schemes that have been proposed. My hon. Friend is perfectly right: our intention is to allow local authorities to nominate their own priorities so that the Government choose the authority's priority if it stands up well. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that we have received some 326 bids, and that nearly two thirds of authorities that could bid have done so. He is quite right to say that there is significant leverage. Some £1.5 billion has been bid for, but that money will pull in some £1.2 billion from other public sources and £1.3 billion from the private sector. The scheme is working alongside public and private moneys to help the priorities nominated by local communities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the application of non-domestic rates procedure to assist businesses in difficulties; and if he will make a statement [3123]

Local authorities have the power to grant up to 100 per cent. relief to any business that suffers hardship. We will shortly commence a review of that provision, beginning with a detailed analysis of the way in which local authorities use it.

The Minister will be aware that rates take a large percentage of small businesses' profits and that new businesses have difficulty starting up because of the rate element. Will he extend to urban areas the relief for post offices and shops that is being implemented in rural areas? Will he also consider the problems facing small garages and public houses, which suffer an injustice because their rates are assessed on turnover rather than profit? He knows perfectly well that local authorities cannot afford to give rebates to the extent that he has suggested because of the Government's standard spending assessment; it is for the Government to find resources to help those businesses out of difficulty. Will he accept that the responsibility is his? Will he do something about it?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are rural areas as defined in the Local Government and Rating Bill in metropolitan areas, so an area that meets the criteria will benefit from all the advantages that the Bill will bring. The local authority will have the discretion to grant relief up to 100 per cent. to pubs and other businesses, both as a hardship relief and if so doing would serve the interests of the community.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that rural petrol stations are a vital service and that thousands of them have closed in recent times, not least because of the business rate? Bearing in mind the fact that the Government receive the total income from the non-domestic rate, does he believe that the Government should be obliged statutorily to make provision for extra allocation to local authorities that give assistance to petrol stations in rural areas?

Under the Bill, local authorities will be able to grant discretionary relief to garages if that is necessary in the interests of the community. If the garage serves as a general store, it will get the full relief, and 75 per cent. of all discretionary relief will be paid by the Exchequer.

I appreciate the concept of discretionary relief, but the problem is that it may not be given. Should not a principle be established that, in development areas, businesses that have been hit should be re-rated immediately and we should not continue to extract from them money that they are not earning? I am thinking particularly of areas such as Sandy Row in my constituency where, for 20 years, through dithering in the Department, businesses have been hampered.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is always a great mistake to allow a long time to pass without revaluation. After all, before the revaluation of 1990, there were 17 years without one, which led to an enormous number of appeals when it finally took place. It is important to keep the lists up to date; then, everybody knows where they are and the changes that take place have a greater chance of being widely accepted.

Does my right hon. Friend remember a time when businesses in trouble removed roofs to avoid penal rates of local taxation imposed by the Labour party? When the economy started to improve, those factories were in no position to provide jobs, leaving civic leaders to whinge about the number of cinemas in their towns, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) did earlier.

I do indeed remember those circumstances; there was a migration of business from some of the places that most needed the revenues, jobs and the income they bring. That is why the Government changed the business rating system to give businesses a chance even where local councils were not prepared to give them one.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many district councils qualify for a sparsity allowance in their standard spending assessment. [3124]

The SSA of every district council reflects sparsity, even where it has a significant urban population, so 14 per cent. of Bassetlaw's SSA comes to it because of sparsity factor.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sparsity allowance is essential for rural areas because of the extra costs of refuse collection and public transport, for example? When rural areas were Conservative controlled there was no danger of the allowance being abolished, but now the vast majority are controlled by Labour or the Liberals, is there not a great temptation for the Government to abolish it and use the cash for income tax cuts in next Tuesday's Budget? Will he assure us that that will not happen?

I would like the hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Labour-controlled London boroughs and others who have long pressed for the abolition of sparsity factor. He may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and I have made it clear that recent research broadly supports the present sparsity rules. I have not made a final decision, but I think that it is unlikely that I will want to move from the present system when the evidence shows that it should remain. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get his Labour friends to stop bashing the countryside.

My right hon. Friend and I represent rural areas. Does he agree that many of our constituents in the countryside and in rural villages do not enjoy the level of services that people in towns and cities take for granted? Is not that why the Local Government and Rating Bill's measures to protect the small village post office, general store, public house and garage are so popular with parish councils? Can we be sure that district councils will have sufficient sparsity factor in their standard spending assessments to be able to afford the much needed discretionary relief?

I remind my hon. Friend that 75 per cent. of that money will come from the Exchequer. I also remind him of the Bill's Second Reading, when Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen showed that they knew little—and cared less—about rural matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on standard spending assessment. [3125]

We have received a number of representations from local authorities and others on standard spending assessments.

Is not it the case that if every council received the same support that Westminster council receives, most of them would be able to pay out rebates on the council tax and, in particular, if Hyndburn council received the same support as Westminster, it would be able to pay a rebate of £612 for every council tax payer in the borough? Does the hon. Gentleman understand the anger that this corrupt system causes?

The hon. Gentleman forgets that, if we went down that route, there would be another 14p on income tax. Perhaps he should examine some of his local authority's expenditure. I understand that it moved its school centre to the wrong location and so had to move it again—and then had to build a new building at a cost of £1.7 million.

My hon. Friend will, like me, be an avid reader of the Local Government Chronicle. Does he remember the 5 January 1996 article in which the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) was quoted as saying that she does not promise to change the present system? Is not it an indictment that Labour is out of ideas and policy and is prepared to keep the existing system as it is?

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He has taken one of the shots that we would have fired at a later date. He is right, and it is interesting to watch the scrabble of feet among the Opposition.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) continues to misquote me. I have not given any commitments to additional funding because of the mess that the Government have made, but we will introduce a fair system. How can the Minister justify the current system? Under the Government grant system, the council tax payers of Westminster contribute only 4 per cent. to the cost of their services while, for example, the people of Wirral are expected to pay 24 per cent. Will he promise to change that system?

The hon. Lady should recognise that experts consider the SSA to be the fairest system. However, some Opposition Members do not accept the word of experts. The taxpayer may not pay for any change, but the council tax payer will. First, the hon. Lady will massage the SSA, then she will remove capping, stop compulsory competitive tendering, return the business rate to local councils and introduce new regional authorities such as the Greater London council. I know who will pay for that—the council tax payer.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the initiative by Lancashire county council in requesting an independent review of the area cost adjustment. Although such a review may mean that the county gets £20 million less next year, and despite the stupidity of the Labour-controlled county council in asking for one in the first place, will my hon. Friend consider delaying its implementation for at least a year?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. The review will be implemented only if we are absolutely sure that the new system is robust and stands up to close inspection.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total annual amount spent by his Department on energy conservation in each of the last three years. [3126]

My Department's expenditure on energy efficiency was £68.3 million in 1993–94, £109.9 million in 1994–95, and £132.8 million in 1995–96—a total of £311 million for the three years.

Is the Minister aware that the cut of more than —30 million in the home energy efficiency scheme means that many people—particularly senior citizens—are no longer eligible for grants to insulate their homes or improve their heating systems? Now that the cold weather is upon us again and the last ever Budget of this miserable Tory Government is due next week, will the Minister make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase investment in the scheme in order to conserve energy and alleviate some of the hardship that has been caused by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power?

The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked a similar question. I find that quite understandable, so let me repeat that £30 million was added to HEES in anticipation of the House voting for the second stage of VAT on fuel. As it did not, the £30 million fell. I realise that HEES is extremely popular and successful. Incidentally, it did not exist under the last Labour Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that eligibility has not been changed in any way, shape or form. Pensioners and disabled people qualify for help under HEES. The fact that those who are better off get a 25 per cent. discount while those on the lowest incomes get a 100 per cent. discount merely reflects the advice that we have received from many that the scheme should be more targeted.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, since Labour was in power, we have increased the number of homes with loft insulation by more than double, to 89 per cent., we have increased the number of homes with cavity wall insulation tenfold, and increased the number of homes with double glazing sevenfold? Does not that demonstrate the success of the Government's policies?

That question certainly shows that my hon. Friend takes more interest in the subject than the whole of the Labour party put together. The HEES will have benefited 2 million households. That is an enormous achievement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the publication of the Office of Water Services' report on the financial performance and capital investment of the water companies in England and Wales in 1995 and 1996. [3127]

None. However, I welcome the fact that the report shows that capital investment in the water industry has remained high—far higher than before privatisation. At the same time, the regulator has encouraged companies to reduce their costs and to improve their efficiency.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Severn Trent's profits have virtually trebled since privatisation, and customer bills have rocketed by 44 per cent. more than inflation, but investment has been cut every year since 1991–92? Is he also aware that, since privatisation, Severn Trent has paid absolutely no corporation tax on its mainstream sewage and water businesses? Does that not amount to a double whammy on consumers and taxpayers in the west midlands?

I am aware that, when the water companies were nationalised, they spent an average of £1.6 billion on investment; in comparable terms, they now spend an average of more than £3 billion. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the mess that was left behind because of public ownership of the water industry has now been cleared up and that people are coming from all over the world to ask British water companies to do their water improvements.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that, as the result of the huge capital investment by North West Water, the sea off Blackpool's beaches has now been greatly improved and that tourism businesses will benefit dramatically from the good news of Blackpool's beaches now being approved under European Community standards? Is that not a further demonstration that the Labour party's carping criticism does not reflect the reality of real investment to help Britain's tourism industry?

I am certainly pleased by the clean-up of Blackpool's beaches, which was not possible when the water industry was nationalised. I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that the former Labour leader of Manchester city council wrote to the Canadian authorities to try to undermine North West Water's bid to help the water industry in Canada—again hitting out against the British water industry, British jobs and British investment. I hope that the Labour party will dissociate itself from its prospective candidate for Manchester, Blackley.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what local authority delegations he has received concerning the 1997–98 revenue support grant settlement. [3128]

I meet representatives of local authorities throughout the year to discuss a range of issues affecting local government. It is, of course, open to all authorities to request a meeting with Ministers during the formal consultation period that follows the provisional settlement announcement later this month.

Has the Minister read his Government's evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee in which they admit that it is policy that council tax levels should rise? Will he confirm today that the Government's policy is to hike up council tax, possibly by as much as 16 per cent. over the next two years? Does he recognise that that is the 23rd Tory tax rise since 1992 and that he cannot continue to blame Labour local councils for that?

I am always sorry for the hon. Lady when it comes to defending her local council in Sheffield, which seems to get itself in straight difficulty. There is a thing called Supertram, which looks more like a black hole. The council's property services department is underselling properties by a huge degree, which is to the disadvantage of the local authority. In addition to that, the department seems to have lost 200 properties. Nevertheless, the authority has rewarded the managers of that service by giving them a £4,000 a year pay rise.

Does my hon. Friend remember that, among the delegations that came to his Department this year, was one that represented a number of counties and all the major political parties and that was concerned about the unfairnesses of the area cost adjustment? Does he accept that those unfairnesses exist; that they were highlighted in the report by Professor Elliott; and that, if nothing is done to implement the recommendations in that report, those profound injustices will continue to affect Northamptonshire and many other counties?

I do recall my hon. Friend's visit with his delegation. As he will be aware, the report contained as many findings for as against, so before we implement the report's recommendations, we must be absolutely sure that they are well founded.

Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the Budget to be announced next week, the Government plan to increase council tax way above the rate of inflation as part of their long-term plan to raise council tax by £3.5 billion—equivalent to adding 2p to the standard rate of income tax?

The hon. Gentleman ought to know better. He has been here far longer than I have, and even I realise that that is a silly question, which I cannot answer; that will be left for the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the right time.

Has the Minister heard of an organisation called SPLAT, which stands for Sparsely Populated Local Authorities Team—[interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman's microphone is not on and no one can hear him.

I think that the Minister heard; I mentioned SPLAT, which stands for Sparsely Populated Local Authorities Team, headed by King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council and its superb treasurer, David Tate. Can my hon. Friend confirm that representatives have visited his colleague, the Minister of State, and can he confirm that their views and representations will be listened to?

I can confirm the point, and yes they are being taken on board and listened to carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authority leaders concerning capital challenge. [3129]

Progress with the pilot scheme is regularly discussed at ministerial bimonthly meetings with the local government associations.

Does the Minister recognise that council leaders everywhere are worried about the time taken in preparing bids for all those challenge-type schemes? They are fed up with the fact that no extra money is made available for them, they are fed up with the rules continually changing and they are fed up with those schemes not dealing with the urgent priorities of expenditure that exist in many parts of the country.

I was expecting the hon. Member to make that comment, because he firmly represents old Labour. Whenever we introduce a scheme, local authority leaders say, "This is terrible; it is new, it is innovative. We want to carry on as we always have," and when it works and it delivers they say, "That was a very good scheme indeed; you ought to continue it."

What sort of money is coming from the private sector? My right hon. Friend noted that local authority leaders always say that they cannot find matching funds and then promptly go off and do just that from completely new, non-public funds. Can he give us an idea of how much that has saved for the taxpayer?

In the capital challenge programme, according to the bids that we have received, for every £1 bid, £1.70 comes with it, of which 90p is from the private sector. Those are the bids; we expect better figures in the final acceptances.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [3130]

Our Department has made no estimate of future sales.

Given that many people are experiencing mortgage repayment difficulties, would it not have been far better to introduce a scheme for mortgages to rents, instead of that Tory political dogma?

No. I make no apology for a policy that was one of a range of options for enabling tenants to become home owners. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our policies have succeeded in enabling tenants to become home owners—more than 1.5 million have done so since 1979 and many more will have that opportunity under a Conservative Government in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last three months concerning opencast mining planning applications; and if he will make a statement. [3132]

My Department has received representations from three members of the public, a firm of solicitors, the Ramblers Association and the hon. Member concerning opencast mining planning applications in the last three months.

Why is the north-east corner of Derbyshire, involving the constituencies of Chesterfield, Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire, bottom of the league when it comes to standard spending assessment per head of population, bottom of the league when it comes to lottery grants, but top of the league when it comes to having its guts ripped out by opencast mining operations and current applications? Should not the rules be changed, so that there is a disposition against opencast mining, rather than the pressure for it from the Government?

The hon. Gentleman had better read the changes that we introduced in MPG 3. I will send him a copy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State recently visited the Windsor site in my constituency, and that that could shortly become the subject of an application to Kirklees council for opencast mining? Is he further aware that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) recently visited the constituency to tell local residents that he was the white knight on the charger who would refuse all such applications in the future?

I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) also told the nation how much it would cost to import coal, as we shall not have any.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the level of Government funding from his Department for the provision of public services by Rotherham metropolitan borough council in 1996–97. [3133]

The main financial support from central Government is the revenue support grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates. Rotherham gets £159,894 million from those sources.

Is it not a fact that if Rotherham and other northern and midlands boroughs got the same money as central Government give to sleaze-ridden Westminster, we would not have to put up council tax? When will the Government treat the rest of the country on a par with their friends in sleaze-ridden councils in London?

Westminster, of course, does not get anywhere near the amount of grant that Tower Hamlets receives. If Rotherham were to get the grant of Tower Hamlets, that would clearly be a massive injustice. I intend to see that grant goes where it is most needed, and the inner London authorities are uniformly where it is most needed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3146]

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.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the low level of unemployment in my constituency, Congleton, which has fallen by a further 7.5 per cent. over the past year, would immediately be put in jeopardy if the minimum wage, the 48-hour working week and the social chapter were implemented?

I am delighted to hear of the fall in unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am delighted that that fall is mirrored in the constituencies of hon. Members right across the House. It is certainly the case that, were extra impositions such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend to be placed on employers, they would stop the fall in unemployment and send it returning upwards. That is not what we want, which is why we shall not accept the social chapter or such impositions.

Why has the Prime Minister not yet made good the promise given two years ago to eliminate mixed-sex wards in our hospitals?

We are seeking to make progress as soon as we can on every aspect of improvement in the health service. We have given priority to other matters. That has brought the waiting list down, widened the number of operations that have been offered and improved the quality of care. As we can, we shall move on the other issue.

My point is that the Government made a specific promise two years ago that that issue would be a priority. Is not what is needed a proper programme that is led and co-ordinated by Government with the health authorities and national health service trusts, and the setting of a specified timetable to eliminate those wards, which cause enormous indignity, and distress people? The Government would thereby keep the promise that was made two years ago.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating—I agree with him—a properly managed examination of what could be done to improve the service across the health service. I agree with that. It is one of the reasons why we have focused on management. Management has been concentrating on getting more people treated. More people have been treated, and management will continue to move to improve that, and to improve the quality, dignity and privacy of service, as we announced.

I find it extraordinary that the Government are spending £1.5 billion more on administration—

He is out of order: he must ask a question.

Order. I need no lessons from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

Might I point out to the Prime Minister that there are 20,000 more senior managers and that £1.5 billion extra is spent on administration? Is it beyond the collective wit of the Government and the health administrators to deal with that problem? It is a question not just of money, but of political will. My point is very simple: did not the Prime Minister promise two years ago to deal with the problem? Why has he not delivered? If he does not deliver on that promise, why should anyone believe his promises about the national health service?

If I had said at the last election that we would treat as many new patients as we are now, the right hon. Gentleman would not have believed me. If I had said at the last election that we would deliver extra resources, he would not have believed me. He and his colleagues claimed that we would privatise the health service. We said that we would not, and we have not. I hope that he accepts that that is the case now, and that it will not occur in the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that fact.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3147]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 640—22 per cent.—since the beginning of the year? Is not a reason for that good news the fact that the United Kingdom has a stable industrial climate with few strikes, except in the public sector? Is it not true that only a Conservative Government can be relied upon to do anything about that problem because the Labour party, with its strong links to the unions, is still the strikers' friend?[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order.

There seems to be some support on the Opposition Benches for Labour's support of the strikes—I hope that everyone noticed it.

Given the Government's praiseworthy efforts to promote agreement among the political parties in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister explain why the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), proposes to reduce the number of education boards—which are the most highly respected cross-community bodies in Northern Ireland—from five to three? During the consultation process, every Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, the leaders of all political parties, all Church leaders and all local authorities disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. Why are the Government ignoring the unanimous wish of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to education?

I do not believe that that is the position with my right hon. Friend, but I shall examine the details of the hon. Gentleman's claims and then write to him. I would be very surprised if my right hon. Friend did not have an extremely good reason for any decision he may have taken.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Points of order come after questions, private notice questions and statements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average household electricity bill in the eastern area is £272, while in France it is £366 and in Germany it is £394? Does that not demonstrate the success of electricity privatisation? Is not a sign of its success the fact that the Opposition wish to impose a windfall profits tax on the industry and put it at risk?

The comparative prices that my hon. Friend quotes are a striking tribute to the success of privatisation over the past 18 years. I am delighted to see them. I very much hope that we shall keep those prices down. My hon. Friend is entirely right: a windfall tax would force prices up for consumers, and at an unknown amount, because we do not yet know precisely who will be subject to the windfall tax or what the levy would be on companies and thence on consumers.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3148]

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

With regard to yesterday's meeting in Brussels, and the beef ban, is the Prime Minister aware that the National Farmers Union for Scotland is openly accusing the Government of straightforward prevarication in their refusal to proceed with the selective cattle cull, and that that gives rise to a very real apprehension that the Government are simply trying to stoke anti-European feeling in advance of an election and, indeed, to sacrifice the farmers? Why does he continue to set his face against a phased lifting of the ban, which would be of immediate benefit to Scotland and Northern Ireland?

The hon. Lady is perhaps not aware of all the things that are going on in Brussels and the discussions that we are having, or she certainly would not have asked her question in that fashion.

Can my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to pensioners in my constituency who are worried that the so-called flexible decade of retirement will mean massive increases in public spending and taxes or a severe cut in the state retirement pension?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the plans proposed by the Opposition, in which a flexible decade of retirement would enable some people to retire early, would mean a massive increase in public expenditure, which they have said that they would not provide, or a significant cut in the basic rate of pension. I suggest that they come clean on precisely what they propose.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3149]

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

Is it still the Prime Minister's position that there is a moral case for cutting taxation? If so, can he explain the moral case for promising to cut taxation before an election and for increasing it as soon as the election is over?

Yes, I do believe in cutting taxation, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support when it is appropriate to cut taxation again in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that by cutting taxation we are giving money back to people. I would say that by cutting taxation we are taking less of people's own money.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3150]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the independent auditor's report, published yesterday, of the criminal and corrupt activities of Labour councillors on Labour-controlled Preston borough council who have lost or mislaid millions of pounds of Preston taxpayers' money in recent years? Does he agree that that is the real example of sleaze and corruption in public life which should be rooted out? Is not that further example of Labour mismanagement of local authorities damning proof of what will happen if Labour ever controls our country?

I do not think that the character of any party becomes clear until it is in power. [Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). In local government, Labour is in power, and in power it has a habit of pouring taxpayers' money down the drain and running up debts. Right across the country, where there are Labour councils one can see that "If you vote red, you live in the red."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3151]

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. It is difficult to hear.

Will the Prime Minister think again about his crass and insensitive reply to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he appreciate that the issue of mixed-sex wards is of particular importance to women? Does he know that 50 per cent. of women who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals have a history of sexual abuse? Will he give us a date when he will meet the promise that he gave two years ago? If not, how can we believe that the NHS is safe in the Government's hands?

The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Lady spend Question Time after Question Time painting a picture of the NHS that does not exist for those who use it. During our 18 years in office, we have continually put more resources into the NHS, widened the services available to it, ensured that more operations are carried out and cut waiting times. That is a record that no previous Government have been able to match. If the hon. Lady remembers, it was under the previous Labour Government that waiting lists went up, hospitals were closed and the NHS practically came to a full stop.