To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission a study of the effect of pedestrianisation and traffic rerouting schemes on local socio-economic developments in the London boroughs. [7851]

Circumstances all over London are so different that I do not believe that an overall study would help. Nevertheless, it is up to local highway authorities to ensure that pedestrianisation and traffic rerouting encourage trade in local shops, ensure proper parking provision for shoppers and provide a safe and attractive environment.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his courtesy in answering the question himself. There is no reason why he should be conversant with the details of the Wealdstone traffic bypass scheme, but will he ask his officials to look into it, bearing in mind the fact that the pedestrianisation and traffic bypass configuration are causing local traders a severe loss of business? Would it be possible for an advisory group of his officials to put right the wrong decisions made by local officials and councillors in the original scheme?

I am happy to see whether my officials can help Harrow. It is crucial that local businesses should be given the best trading opportunities, particularly in an area such as Wealdstone. I am sorry that the council appears not to have taken that properly into account.

With London the most clogged-up capital in Europe, is not the best news for pedestrianisation in the capital the fact that Ministers' drivers are threatening to strike, which may make Ministers get out and walk, use the tube or the buses, or get on their bikes? For the first time in a long time, they will see how ordinary people have to live and move in London. Will the Secretary of State give us a clear commitment, before he goes into obscurity, that London will follow Europe and have more pedestrianised zones in the city centre?

As I understand it, London is in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is kind to favour us with his presence today from Geneva. No doubt he knows a great deal about the various capitals of Europe. I do not believe that his comparison between traffic in London and that in the rest of Europe is remotely accurate. If he spent enough time here to see how much we have been doing to improve traffic and pedestrianisation arrangements in London—not least the plans for Trafalgar square and Parliament square—he would be able to ask a more helpful question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the local authority associations on the 1997 revenue support grant settlement. [7852]

None, yet.

Does the Minister agree that his Government give with one hand and take with the other? For the penny reduction in income tax, the public will have to pay at least 2p in council tax. Does the Minister realise that, if the Government were a company, they would be prosecuted for fraud?

The hon. Gentleman is clearly subject to some arithmetical confusion. The Government have reduced income tax. Council taxes will rise somewhat because we have always felt that it is sensible to return some financial autonomy to local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Just wait. That is what local authorities keep telling me that they want. It is interesting that, when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who leads for the Opposition, addressed local government associations last week, he said that a Labour Government would spend much more on direct grants to local authorities to enable them to deliver what the Government wanted. I want to give local government more autonomy and he wants to give it less. If he does not trust his councils, why should anybody else?

Will my right hon. Friend be sure not to listen to any representations from Lancashire county council, especially if they contradict the representations that he has had from Lancashire Conservative Members? He listened to our representations and deferred the area cost adjustment, which was being pressed by the Labour party and would have cost Lancashire some £20 million. Does he recognise that he will receive the thanks of Lancashire Conservatives and of Lancashire folk as a whole for listening to what we said to him?

My right hon. Friend is right to say that he and other Conservative Members made representations on the area cost adjustment. It is true that I felt that there were problems that had to be resolved before we could address whether that mechanism could be adapted to the standard spending assessment. We have asked local authorities to suggest what work needs to be done to take the matter forward. If Lancashire wants to make representations to me, I must, of course, be willing to listen. However, as he would expect, I always listen to local government representations, with a long list of questions to which I want answers in return.

Is the Minister aware of the letter writing campaign of Cabinet Ministers, and no doubt other Conservative Members to head teachers and chairs of governors peddling the myth that the Government are providing more money for education this year? Is he further aware that the recipients of the letters treat them with scorn and ridicule because they know that the blame for education cuts lies with the Government, not local education authorities?

It is normal for hon. Members to want to be in regular contact with their teachers and local education authorities; I am, in my constituency. No doubt hon. Members will want to make it clear that local authorities, except those caught by the rule on absolute excess, can increase spending on the passported services, of which education is the most important, over and above what they spend now by the full amount of the standard spending assessment increase, without penalty or cash cuts in the other services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey that message to his head teachers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local government settlement was far better than many local authorities had expected? Would not their complaints about funding gain more credence if authorities embraced compulsory competitive tendering by encouraging the private sector to bid rather than awarding contracts in-house, and paid more attention to collecting taxes and rents?

My hon. Friend is right to say that local authorities have a prime duty to perform the basic management functions of local government efficiently. The filling of voids in council houses and the collection of rents and council tax, which is proving to be a good tax and one that is easy to collect, are the prerequisites of good local government. He asked whether local authorities thought that the increase was reasonable. I sometimes get the impression that, if the Archangel Gabriel were to fly across the country distributing £10 notes, local authorities would still find a way of saying that the settlement was inadequate.

Will the Minister confirm that, early next year, he will expect Conservative Members to vote for a local government grant settlement that will mean that the citizens of Westminster will contribute only 4 per cent. towards the cost of their council services, while council tax payers in the average Conservative constituency will contribute 25 per cent., and that some Conservative Members will be voting for a settlement that will require their council tax payers to contribute more than 40 per cent. of the cost of their local services—10 times what will be asked of people in Westminster?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has had a bad week, what with his little local difficulty in Camden and the Sunday newspapers saying that he was about to be demoted, so I understand why he has not asked an especially good question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to promote the use of citizens juries in local government and planning matters. [7853]

We are currently undertaking, with the local government associations, research on issues surrounding public participation in local government, which could include citizens juries.

May I ask the Minister to be slightly more interested in the reply that he has just given me and to give the House a sense that he genuinely wants to know about some of the innovations and experiments that are going on in local authorities throughout the country? For example, there is a scheme in Lewisham, involving young people on drugs; and one in Hertfordshire, involving local people in waste management issues.

We are certainly interested, and I am aware of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers; hence the conclusion that we might examine the matter in the research. The difference is that, in court juries, the selection is random and, as critics have pointed out, juries of the kind that he is talking about are not. I am sure that he would not want juries, whether on planning or on personality selection, to be rigged.

It would be an excellent idea to have a jury in the local government area of Hillingdon, where the socialist borough council is seeking to foist on local people plans for social housing in green-belt land, on the St. Vincent's hospital site and on Field End recreation ground. Those plans are bitterly opposed by local people. Is it not the case that, if local people were properly consulted and if the council heeded the objections of the Department of the Environment, such monstrosities would not be foisted on the electorate?

My hon. Friend is aware that there was a spontaneous jury in his area: about 4,000 objections were received at the second stage of the unitary development plan, and that is probably a record.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards providing protection for green-belt land in planning legislation. [7854]

I have pledged myself to defend the green belt. That attitude extends to metropolitan open land and to the attempt by some local authorities to sell off school playing fields.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Labour council in Oldham is planning on dumping the best part of 2 million cu m of industrial spoil on green-belt land in Beal valley? It can do that because it claims that the end use will be a golf course. Is he aware that a council of any political complexion could in theory dump on green-belt land for the best part of 100 years by claiming that the end use would be an approved development? Should not the guidelines be toughened to stop such despoliation?

I am aware that, after extensive consultation by the borough of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, it received only 21 letters, one of which was from himself. It is therefore extremely difficult to believe that the local authority—although it is not an authority that I support—has got it wrong. There are occasions when despoiling of green belt needs to be remedied, and sometimes that is done by the proper use of filling. That may or may not be right in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is for the local authority to make its decision, and he had a great opportunity, as a member of that authority, to put his case.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good way of protecting the green belt is to enhance the vitality of town centres, and will he therefore develop policy to curtail large out-of-town retail developments?

My hon. Friend is right. Creating such vitality would not only protect the green belt but draw people back into town centres, to live, work, shop and carry out leisure pursuits. That seems to be the right way forward, and I am glad that the Labour party has now begun to agree.

Does the Secretary of State think that opencast coal mining on the green belt should ever be justified? Will he make it clear that opencast coal mining applications on green-belt land will not be allowed?

I remind the hon. Lady that it was I who changed the presumption against opencast coal mining, which her party never did and had never pressed before. I did it without Labour's help—

That is wrong.

The Minister is wrong.

Hon. Gentlemen must not say what is untrue. I changed that presumption because I take the view that there should be very specific reasons for allowing opencast coal mining. I have been extremely careful in checking each application.

Is not the threat of 4 million new houses being built on the green belt due to the fact that people have difficulty living together? Every time a marriage breaks up, two houses are needed where one home was needed before. In order to cater for the 4 million new houses that will be needed in Britain by 2011, will my right hon. Friend ban building on green-field sites until the inner cities and land inside city boundaries is full? Many such areas have much vacant land at the moment, which could and should be used first.

I have made it absolutely clear that I do not intend to allow building on open spaces as a means of satisfying the need for 4.4 million homes. I have said that that building should take place to the maximum possible on areas that have already been used—on the present footprint. I intend to insist on that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to amend the criteria for publishing lists of beaches conforming or not conforming to European Union legislation on bathing water cleanliness. [7855]

At present, we have no plans to amend the Department's current practice in that regard.

As it has now emerged from recent written answers that I have received that 117 out of 346 English beaches and 22 out of 55 Welsh beaches failed the faecal streptococci test in 1996—the key test for determining public health consequences of swimming in dirty sea water—does the Minister agree that the Government need to change their policy and the environmental information that they publish for people about to use our beaches? If he promises to do something about that today, I in turn will promise never again to use the hoary chestnut about the need for real action on clean sea water rather than just going through the motions.

The hon. Gentleman revels in undermining the British tourist industry, and that is a disgrace. I shall give him a clear piece of advice. So long as there is a Conservative Government, we shall conduct affairs based on proper understanding of science and risk. If there were ever to be a Labour Government, their windfall tax would ensure that there was no room for improvement in standards, as well as hitting people's pensions and creating unemployment in the water industry.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate all those in Fylde who have helped to make the beaches around Blackpool and Fleetwood so much cleaner? Will he join the leader of the Labour council in Blackpool and other local Labour politicians in their criticism of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for his ill-informed criticism and comments on the clean-up of the Fylde coast?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will remember that rainy winter's day when he and I stood on the front at Fleetwood considering possible remedies to the problem. Together, we conducted a campaign to ensure that Blackpool's beaches were improved. I congratulate him on his achievement, which has certainly done a great deal for the tourist industry in his area.

Further to the Government's emphasis on their record, will the Minister confirm that, in 1990, the Secretary of State for the Environment claimed that all bathing waters in the United Kingdom would be brought up to European standards by 1995? On that basis, will he explain how, in 1996, 47 UK beaches officially failed to reach the European mandatory minimum standard—more than the number that failed it last year—and some of them failed it due to pollution more than 20 times above the maximum permitted limit? Since the Secretary of State likes to use his family to persuade us that things are safe, will he allow them to swim off those beaches?

Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman that the late unlamented Labour Government, of whom he was an especially undistinguished member, had a moratorium on investment in the water and sewerage industries, as a result of which the privatised water industry had to cope with a huge backlog. None the less, we are making rapid progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide assistance to local authorities in respect of anti-social tenants. [7856]

The Housing Act 1996 contains a package of measures to help local authorities deal with anti-social tenants.

The Government's recent announcements are good news for many council tenants in my constituency of Norwich, North. They provide another example of the good that the Government have done for my constituents since 1983. Complaints about anti-social tenants feature strongly in my constituency surgeries, so the news is indeed good. Can my hon. Friend ensure that Norwich city council starts the introductory tenancy scheme at the earliest opportunity?

My hon. Friend is right about the good news for tenants—the vast majority of tenants, who want to be protected from the activities of anti-social tenants. Norwich council would do well to consider the proposals for introductory tenancies, as well as strengthening the grounds for obtaining possession against anti-social tenants and making it easier to give evidence against tenants who behave badly and intimidate law-abiding tenants. All those measures will be important in helping the vast majority of law-abiding tenants.

If the Government are so concerned about the problem of anti-social tenants, and want to take action, why did they reject Opposition amendments tabled to the Housing Bill in Committee, with the support of Labour local authorities and their tenants, especially those designed to extend witness protection schemes to all occupiers irrespective of tenure, and in very serious cases to extend the use of injunctions with mandatory powers of arrest? The Minister, in particular, rejected those amendments, although local authorities and tenants want the powers to be used.

If the hon. Gentleman read the Act, he would see that it attaches the power of arrest to injunctions. He will remember that, when the Committee examined in detail the Labour party's proposal for a community safety order, it was found to be an unsatisfactory and unworkable mess that was not even pressed to a vote. He may also remember that, when proposals came before the House to impose secure training orders on youngsters who persistently commit serious criminal offences, the Opposition voted against them. Talk is cheap, but the Labour party has no stomach for firm action.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's planning guidance for out-of-town shopping developments. [7857]

In June, we published the revised policy planning guidance note 6, "Town Centres and Retail Developments", which is designed to provide stronger support for town centres. We shall report progress on the Government response to the Environment Committee next month.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but the Government's belated recognition of the issue of town centre development has caused much damage to many urban centres, including those in my constituency such as Ossett, Rothwell and Normanton, as well as the neighbouring towns of Horbury and Wakefield. Out-of-town shopping developments such as Asda and Meadowhall generate car use and damage the environment. Can the Minister assure communities and local authorities that turn down planning applications for out-of-town shopping developments that the developer must prove beyond any shadow of doubt an overwhelming need for such facilities before the Department will give approval?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition, because that is Government policy. All applications are dealt with against the background not only of PPG6, with the rigorous tests that he mentioned, but of PPG13, which focuses on the issue with which he started—traffic generation—so I can certainly give him those assurances. I find it disappointing that there are still councils that do not judge such issues against the background of PPG6 and PPG13, with the result that we have to call applications in for examination at a public inquiry. It would be much better if that were not the case.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Government's change of policy on out-of-town shopping developments has been most welcome, for some areas—such as my constituency—it has come too late? We now have a large shopping development at Cheadle Royal, with another two miles away at Handforth Dean in the Tatton constituency. Those developments have had a significant impact on the villages of Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green and Bramhall. Given that the Government obviously recognise the damage that has been inflicted by changing the policy, will they not consider going a step further and looking at the possibility of reducing business rates for small retailers in a five-mile radius of new shopping stores?

As my hon. Friend knows, rateable value is based on the going rents in a particular area and any decline in the relative prosperity of a particular village or town will eventually come through in terms of a differential in the rateable value of those out-of-town sites.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of his public expenditure proposals for local government on the provision of local authority services. [7858]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 27 November.

Is it not the case that central Government funding for local education authorities is increasing by only 0.5 per cent. in cash terms—well below pay and price inflation? Far from there being new money for education, do not one third of local education authorities face a cash cut in central funding next year? Are not the Government to blame for more stress and slash in education and other council services, and for an increase in council taxes of more than 6 per cent. next year?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, if local authorities succeed in attracting parents to their nursery schools, and therefore parents use cash vouchers to educate their children in local authority schools, not a single local authority will suffer a cash cut in its education SSA next year. We have made special provision so that the increase in education SSA can be passported straight through on top of existing levels of spending.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a letter of 9 December, the clerk of Lancashire county council admitted that the council does not have time to make a judgment on the levels set by the Government? Is he further aware that the council spends its entire time criticising those levels without having properly assessed them?

My hon. Friend is closely attuned to the pulse of Lancashire, and she speaks for a great many ordinary people in Lancashire who know what the local authority gets up to. If I had to listen to the advice of Lancashire county council or my hon. Friend, I would take her advice every day of the week.

Will the Minister confirm that, if Calderdale council had received as much grant per head as Westminster this year, it would not have had to collect a council tax at all and could have given £290 back to each council tax payer? Is he further aware that, if the council had received the same help for education as Westminster, it could have employed another 831 teachers?

I wonder whether the hon. Lady is aware that, if all local authorities had received the same revenue support grant as Islington—together with that for the precepting authorities—it would have been worth £897.61 a head, and the average band D council tax would have been reduced by more than £1,500, making it a negative? In addition, the cost of the revenue support grant nationally would have increased by £27 billion, adding 15p in the pound to the basic rate of income tax. That shows what a thoroughly silly question was asked by the hon. Lady.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities were awarded funding under round 1 of the estates renewal challenge fund. [7859]

Eleven local authorities have been awarded funding in the region of £174 million. This will secure improvements to 19,000 homes on 29 needy estates.

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Is he aware that many people in Norfolk are rejoicing at the news of the list of winning bids in the capital challenge pilot scheme? As well as two excellent schemes in Norwich—one of which is worth £2.5 million and the other nearly £4 million—there are two in my constituency. First, there is the North Lynn gateway scheme—where the go-ahead has been given to environmental improvements to the entrance to a school—and secondly, the Hunstanton regeneration scheme. The latter scheme will be most welcome, as it will regenerate the waterfront and many other parts of the town. Are those not examples of the Government listening to local people and going ahead with environmental improvements to their communities?

It is good news that those environmental improvements are taking place in North Lynn and Hunstanton in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that he, too, will be pleased that there are to be substantial improvements in the 29 needy estates that are in some of the most rundown areas of the country, as well as improvements for tenants in the form of repairs and maintenance.

Does the Minister agree that it is gross hypocrisy to talk about improving conditions on a small number of selected estates when the Budget savagely cut housing investment and, as a result, condemned hundreds of thousands of tenants throughout the country to live in substandard housing? If the Government are really serious about improving housing conditions, why do they not release the £5 billion of capital receipts?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He should applaud transfers of housing that bring about repairs and maintenance for tenants, especially when they take place in the most needy areas. He should make it clear whether he is promising more spending on housing, or saying that cuts should fall elsewhere. If he will not, will he explain how he would go about funding housing? We have made it clear that we want there to be transfers, and all the improvements that they bring, and that we want to bring in private capital alongside public expenditure and so get greater value for money. We have heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman, and that failure is becoming increasingly widely recognised.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to control the level of allowances which local authority councillors award themselves. [7860]

To ensure that local people can see what their council is doing, we have required local authorities to publish annually the amount of allowances paid to each of their councillors.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leader of Leicester city Labour group, aided and abetted by his Labour cronies, and without any proper consultation with the taxpayers of that city, has raised his allowance from £4,000 a year to more than £27,000 a year? What price local democracy under Labour?

My hon. and learned Friend may have noticed that it appears that, earlier this year, there was a 600 per cent. increase in the allowances paid to councillors in Leicester, yet this very morning representatives from Leicester were in the office of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration complaining that they do not have enough money to meet their bills for essential services. It does seem that Leicester ought to look at its priorities.

The Secretary of State will know that, fairly recently, in the name of improving democracy, we in this House voted a substantial increase in our pay. Is it not about time that, to ensure the quality of candidates from all parties that come forward for local government, we pay local councillors a decent rate? Is not that good for local democracy? Is it not harmful that the cheapjacks on the Conservative Back Benches ask questions like that? Does it not undermine local democracy and the real effort being made by Labour councillors up and down this land?

I happen to think that real effort is made by councillors of all sorts, not only Labour councillors up and down this land. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said that."] The hon. Gentleman specified Labour councillors up and down this land, exhibiting the usual bias that he brings to the House. Many of us did not vote for that increase in pay. Furthermore, we are talking about 600 per cent. increases in the allowances paid to councillors who then complain that the taxpayer does not provide them with enough money to carry through services. If councillors ran enabling councils, instead of trying to run everything themselves, they could do the work far more effectively and in a great deal less time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from publishing the amounts of councillors' allowances, local authorities should publish the amount that they have written off to benefit the political friends of councillors?

Transparency in these matters is very important, but what is most important is that, when councils insist on increasing the amount paid to their councillors, they should recognise that those sums are supposed to be honoraria for help, not payments. One of the distinguishing features of local councils is supposed to be that they are run by people who do it while also doing another job.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review minerals planning guidance note 3; and if he will make a statement. [7861]

Minerals planning guidance note 3 was fully reviewed and revised in July 1994. There are currently no plans to revise it again.

Is the Minister aware that there are 15 opencast operations or applications in the north-east corner of Derbyshire, which are ripping its guts out, in addition to historic operations in the area? Should not mineral planning guidance notes take into account the cumulative aspects of the matter? They are supposed to take into account current and future operations, but they take no account of historic operations and they should do so. There should also be an investigation in north-east Derbyshire to establish whether the cumulative aspects of the matter are being taken into account.

That is incorrect. We take the strong view that local authorities, in drawing up plans for their areas, should include the criteria by which they will judge planning applications. They should, if appropriate, include the cumulative effect of such applications. It is entirely the responsibility of Derbyshire county council and the hon. Gentleman's local authority to ensure that applications are processed in the right way.

I accept the need for minerals for construction and road building, but does my hon. Friend accept that the guidelines need to be sufficiently flexible to reflect the changing needs and priorities of certain areas—such as tourism in the Ribble valley—to ensure that the local authority has sufficient protection to be able, in certain circumstances, to turn down certain planning applications from companies in my constituency?

Authorities' local plans should be flexible, so that they can respond to changing circumstances. As my hon. Friend knows, every planning application must be dealt with on its merits, and if the merits—or disbenefits—change, that is a material consideration for the local authority to consider.

Is the Minister aware that the test of environmental acceptability in the revised guidance of which the Secretary of State today boasted is proving a farce because the Coal Industry Act 1994 requires sites to be sold on the best available terms? Does he agree that environmental criteria should be included in "best available terms" and, if they are, can he explain why the ecologically important site of Shilo north in Broxtowe has been sold to RJB Mining in preference to the conservation bid made by that local authority in the interests of the community?

"Best available terms" must necessarily reflect the obligations that any owner has to make environmental improvements or to accept environmental controls over what it does, and the need to take a risk on the likelihood or otherwise of gaining planning permission for any extensions. As there is no presumption in favour of development in green areas, it would be very difficult for such an applicant to prove a case unless the benefits considerably outweighed the environmental disadvantages.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of business rates charged to small companies, partnerships and sole traders. [7862]

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have taken steps to ensure the freezing of the business rate for small businesses for the coming financial year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many villages—such as Pipe Ridware in my constituency—in which small businesses are located will benefit from that? Is it not the case that about £100 million has been made available from the Budget for that purpose? Was my hon. Friend shocked, as I was, that when the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) asked a question earlier, he did not thank my hon. Friend for the £4.5 million capital challenge grant from his Department which will safeguard 1,100 jobs in Burntwood?

Some people are ungracious in the extreme, but my hon. Friend is right. Small businesses in towns and villages are congratulating the Government on the move.

Recognising that the Government have had to take measures to minimise the effect of next year's revaluation on small businesses, and remembering that the legislation that introduced the national business rate was the second part of the Thatcher legislation that launched the ill-fated poll tax, will the Government now admit that that was the worst flagship ever launched and that they should now scrap all that legislation?

That is a bit rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, who, when we were discussing this matter in Committee yesterday, talked about the business rate returning to the local authority setting. I know that he was trying to goad me, but he should recognise the damage that Labour-controlled local authorities have done in the past. Consider previous rates: Camden set a business rate for small businesses of 229.2p; Westminster set a rate of 171p—a dramatic drop; and one of my better-known favourites, Wandsworth, set a rate of 161.1p. We can see in some parts of central London the damage that business rates set by Labour-controlled local authorities did. Shop after shop in Tottenham Court road is shut because of Camden council.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December. [7881]

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.

Has the Prime Minister seen today that another London hospital has shut its doors to emergency patients? At the Victoria geriatric unit in Glasgow, a notice asks staff to think cost-effectively and limit incontinence wipes to two per person. Does the Prime Minister still maintain that the NHS is safe in Tory hands?

Not only is the NHS safe, it is improving its service day by day. What the hon. Lady missed out of her litany were the 70 or so improvements in primary health care announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Lady knows that not only is the health service improving, but resources for the health service are improving both globally and per patient.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December. [7882]

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development some years ago, when inflation was 27 per cent., there was disaster everywhere and the International Monetary Fund had to be called in? Will he contrast those reports with the latest OECD report, which says that this country is set for record economic expansion and more growth than for 30 years, which will benefit the health service and everyone else? Would not all that be put at risk by uncosted Labour promises if the Labour party was ever elected to office—which it will not be?

A few weeks ago, the shadow Chancellor dismissed the economic improvements in this country as propaganda. The OECD report published today shows how inaccurate he is. It says that prospects for achieving sustained output, growth and low inflation are the best for 30 years. The OECD now expects the UK's growth rate next year—and the year after next—to be the highest in the group of industrial nations, easily outstripping Japan, Germany, France and the United States. It also forecasts falling unemployment on the back of that. There is no doubt that it is a glowing report. It is the best OECD report that this country has received for very many years, and it shows the best economic prospects that we have had for very many years.

Will the Prime Minister now tell us specifically by what date the European beef ban will be lifted?

I note, first, that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny the OECD report and does not wish to comment on it.

If the Prime Minister wants to ask me questions, I shall be happy to swap roles whenever he wishes to call the general election.

The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not mean the words that he has just said. I must ask him to withdraw them. No hon. Member misleads the House.

No doubt innocently, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation on beef—and not for the first time. The conditions that are necessary for the scientific committee to consider lifting the beef ban depend on actions that we take. That is correct. Among those actions is the selective cull. That is correct. As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman yet again yesterday—not for the first time—the selective cull was delayed because of the extra evidence on maternal transmission and because the over-30-months scheme was larger than anybody had supposed. The position now—

Who are you kidding?

The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition's agriculture spokesman and he is supposed to know. If he does not know, I understand why the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) does not know. We now know who is providing the information that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands. We are now seeking to obtain progressive lifting by means of the certified herd scheme, as we have set out, on more than one occasion, to the right hon. Gentleman.

So the Prime Minister cannot give us a date for lifting the ban. [Interruption.] The Government gave us a date before, they did not honour it and they cannot give us a new one. I have just checked in Hansard, and the Prime Minister specifically said that the date for lifting the ban was in the hands of the British Government. If that is correct, why can he now not give us a date? The answer is that it is not in his hands. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout, but the truth is that BSE is a symbol of the Government—they are incompetent, incapable and can never be trusted.

If the right hon. Gentleman reads what I said a few moments ago, he will understand why his third question is absurd, as was his prepared sound bite. It is no good his trying to fix facts. He cannot fix polls, as we have seen, and he should not try to fix facts.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the question that I put to him almost exactly a year ago about the failure of most computer systems in this country and throughout the world to recognise the year 2000, which will have enormously damaging consequences, not least for British business? Does he accept that, one year on, widespread ignorance of and inaction in response to the problem remain? Will he now give serious consideration to my ten-minute Bill, the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, which would do much to ensure that the computer systems of British businesses will be safe in three years' time?

I shall undertake to ensure that my hon. Friend's ten minute Bill is examined carefully by my right hon. Friends. The underlying problem to which my hon. Friend refers is very serious, and we do not intend to leave it without action.

The Prime Minister can huff and puff as much as he likes, but speak to any farmer in this country and they will say that the BSE fiasco tells us all we need to know about this Government: they dither at home, posture abroad, surrender at the end and blame it all on Europe. Does the Prime Minister realise that the anti-European opinion in his Cabinet, on his Back Benches and overwhelmingly among his candidates throughout the country means that, far from fighting for Britain in Europe in 1997, the Conservatives will become Britain's out-of-Europe party in 1997?

The right hon. Gentleman has a long tradition of being very supportive of the European Union. After all, some time ago he said:

"We want Ministers to make decisions in public and without single nation vetoes".

"not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament"

"our"—

"ideas on Europe are totally illiberal … we want to create a bureaucratic and centralist nightmare".

Is not today's White Paper, to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier, to be welcomed, as it both extends the facilities available to patients and increases the involvement in primary care of health care professionals such as nurses and pharmacists? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that additional resources will be given to the national health service to develop the White Paper proposals?

We have set out a commitment for additional resources over and above inflation for the national health service throughout the next Parliament—a commitment that we have honoured during the past 17 years and which other parties seem unable to match. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of primary care services. The proposals announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will lead to better general practitioner premises, a wider range of services available closer to home, better training for GPs and other staff, expansion of nurse prescribing, more funds for research into primary health, and much else besides. It is a very significant advance in the march towards far better primary health care.

To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to pay an official visit to Wakefield. [7883]

I have no plans to do so.

Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to study the correspondence that I sent him last week concerning my constituent, Mr. Wayne Hood of Wakefield, who was recently sent to prison for four years for the attempted murder of his former foster parent who seriously sexually abused him over a seven-year period during his childhood and adolescence? Bearing in mind the fact that the foster parent has been gaoled for seven years for those serious offences against Mr. Hood and other children in his care, will the Prime Minister support the call for a review of Mr. Hood's sentence? While I do not condone Mr. Hood's actions, has he not been treated very harshly by the courts in view of his background and circumstances?

I have seen the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman sent to me, and I am grateful to him for giving me notice of his question. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's deep interest and concern about this case. I made inquiries, and I understand that an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been lodged. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in those circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to say anything further now. I believe that that is the correct way to pursue the matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss it with me privately, I will be happy to see him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wakefield would not want us to leave this year without congratulating Damon Hill on winning the sports personality of the year award? Would not they be amazed to know that he achieved that without an audience participation unit?

I should like to congratulate Damon Hill on his success. The whole country took a great deal of pleasure in his many wins throughout the year. He is a very deserving winner of that poll. In the spirit of amity at Christmas, I shall not respond to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.