To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about funding for measures to combat footpath erosion in national parks.

Seventy-five per cent. of national parks approved expenditure is met by the Government through national parks supplementary grant. Aggregate NPSG is based on bids for resources made by each national park for identified national and local priorities, including counter-erosion work and rights of way. Aggregate NPSG for 1990–91 is £9.97 million, an increase of almost 10 per cent. over 1989–90 figures, and over 20 per cent. in real terms since the Government took office in 1979.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am sure that he is well aware of the growing problems of footpath erosion in the Yorkshire dales on mountains such as Whernside, Pen-y-ghent and Ingleborough, in north Wales on Tryfar, and in the Lake District. Will he ensure that there are sufficient funds to protect footpaths from erosion and that we open up far larger areas of the countryside so that the wear and tear can be spread over a greater area, not concentrated on one or two honey spots which people visit at present?

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. There has been adequate funding in this year's public expenditure survey round. Given sufficient funding in the forthcoming PES round, we hope to be able to accommodate maintenance in the districts to which he referred.

Will my hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that in some national parks, footpaths are also used by horse riders and some walkers complain that footpaths get cut up? Will he ensure that there is always money to maintain the paths that horses also use and remind walkers that if it is muddy, they need to wear gumboots?

I am happy to echo the commercial that my hon. Friend has made to the House and confirm—I have a personal interest in the matter—that I consider bridleways to be as important as footpaths.

Does not the Minister realise that there is insufficient money to protect footpaths from erosion? Is he aware that footpath erosion results from too many people walking along the same paths? Is not it important to keep access open throughout the national parks? Will he confirm that he does not in any way support landowners in the North Yorkshire national park authority who wish to take away the public's freedom of access and, in so doing, threaten public access throughout the country?

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady and the House that the Government, particularly the Department of the Environment, through the Countryside Commission, are very much in favour of improved access to the countryside, but on authorised routes and recognised footpaths that are legally marked on maps. I know that the hon. Lady would support that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many suggestions he has received for alternatives to the community charge for the raising of local government finance.

We have received a number of such suggestions. However, it is clear that the community charge is the fairest of the options because it is based on the principle that everyone should pay something for the cost of local authority services. No other system makes local government as accountable to the electors.

Is not it remarkable that my hon. Friend has not yet received the Labour party's promised policy paper? Is not it the duty of any party that seriously expects to enter government at some stage to put forward its proposals? The Labour party has plenty to say in criticism of our proposals, but nothing of its own to put forward.

As my hon. Friend says, it is truly remarkable that the Labour party has not come up with an alternative. In its recent policy document it promised to publish that day a background paper setting out its proposals for local government finance. There was no background paper. I suspect that there is no background. The Labour party has no idea what it wishes to do about local government finance and that is why the deafening silence goes on.

Will the Minister take it from me that come the next general election the Labour party will have clearly stated its proposals on the matter—[Interruption.]

Order.

Will the Minister also take it from me that at that time the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) will very much regret his flippancy this afternoon?

The hon. Gentleman is a great optimist. I wish that I could share his optimism. The Labour party has been considering local government finance for 11 years and has been unable to come up with any answers. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should believe that another two years will give the Labour party the breakthrough that it needs. By the next general election, the basic fairness of the community charge will be well understood—certainly its great superiority to the rating system which is favoured by some Opposition Members.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend is robust in defence of the fairness of the community charge, and I hope that he will continue to be so. But in his deliberations will he look closely at the standard community charge and the iniquitous suggestion by some local authorities that it must always be at the two times multiplier?

Of course I will consider my hon. Friend's point. This is an area where the Government wished local government to be local. It is an area where we gave discretion to local authorities to apply multipliers on the standard community charge up to a maximum of two. I regret that not all local authorities took seriously enough the consideration of what multiplier should apply to different classes of people and I am now looking carefully at that.

Because of the great concern throughout Britain at the likely levels of the poll tax next year, when does the Minister intend to announce his alternative to his poll tax? In addition, may we be told when he intends to lay before the House for debate the Government orders spelling out the budgets of councils which he has poll tax-capped? Will he confirm that the delay in making those orders is due to the fact that the Secretary of State has now admitted using information that he received from Tory councillors on Calderdale, Derbyshire and Haringey councils in fixing their authorities' budgets? When does the Minister intend to bring forward his alternative to his poll tax?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. We are not bringing forward an alternative to the community charge: we are looking at any anomalies in the system. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement on at least some of those before the summer recess. There has been a judgment today from the Appeal Court and I believe that the way is clear for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to lay before the House the remaining draft orders and, if the House approves them, to make orders stating the final caps for the authorities.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me that my constituents find the community charge perfectly acceptable, but that they do not find acceptable the fact that Labour-controlled Humberside county council used the introduction of the charge to increase its expenditure by about 11.75 per cent. and they will have no early opportunity to oppose that at the ballot box? Moreover, most of the other districts in Humberside benefit from the safety net, but mine do not. Will he consider that in his review of the charge?

I have told my hon. Friend and the House that we will carefully consider any new evidence on the standard spending assessments.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what rights the local community has in the management of the Norfolk Broads; and if he will make a statement on protection of the environment in the Norfolk Broads.

Under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, the development, conservation and management of the Norfolk Broads is the responsibility of the Broads Authority which consists of 35 members, over half of whom represent local authorities. Thus they play their part in all aspects of the management of the Broads. The protection of the Broads environment is a prime objective of the Broads Authority, endorsed by the Government, and its commitment to that has been amply demonstrated since it came into being in April last year.

Is the Minister satisfied with the work of the new Broads Authority in its first year of operation? When can we expect a report on that work? As the Minister has stressed that more than 50 per cent. of the members of the new authority are elected representatives of the local community, is not it a desirable formula to have local people involved in the management of such an important area, and will he commend that formula to similar areas elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's first point and whether we can make available a report for all hon. Members to see.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since the new integrated conservation management approach introduced by the Act came into place this unique national asset has been safeguarded for future generations? Will he join me in paying tribute to the Norfolk people and to the one or two Suffolk people who have played a part in the new structure? Does he agree that if the people living around Strangford lough want to learn about conservation they need look no further than Norfolk?

If this carries on we shall have a twinning arrangement between Strangford lough and my hon. Friend's constituency—which may not be too bad an idea. I am happy to pay tribute to the Broads Authority. My hon. Friend may recall that I had the opportunity to do that in the Standing Committee examining the Environmental Protection Bill.

What have Ministers learnt from the ongoing saga of Halvergate marshes, which featured so much in the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? Have they learnt anything about the management of wetlands?

I think that we have learnt a great deal and that that has transposed itself into legislation which we hope will come forward from the European Community.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of green belt have been lost to urban development in the last seven years; and if he will make a statement.

The total area of approved green belt has more than doubled over the past 11 years; any loss to urban development will have been minute by comparison.

Although I am grateful for the Government's rigour in conserving the green belt, can my hon. Friend assure me that the Department will be equally rigorous in preventing development in conservation areas in the inner cities? For instance, two thirds of Kensington qualifies as a conservation area. Will my hon. Friend provide for inner London the same oases of calm as the green belt provides for suburban areas?

The Government wholly support the concept of conservation areas. Their designation is a matter for local authorities, and whether designations should be more widespread is a subject of a current consultation paper on demolitions, responses to which were due this Monday.

Will the Minister have a word with his Scottish colleagues and make it clear that Mr. Wallace Mercer, that great entrepreneur, should not be given permission to seize part of Edinburgh's green belt for his super-duper stadium? We should remember that Mr. Mercer is interested only in the fast buck and not in the Hearts or Hibs supporters who have got a squalid deal all the way through this sorry tale which is repeatedly mentioned in the Scottish press.

As the hon. Gentleman says, that is not a matter for me. I shall certainly make sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hears what the hon. Gentleman says.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the implementation of compulsory competitive tendering in local government.

Competitive tendering for construction and maintenance work has been compulsory since 1980. It was extended to a range of services, such as cleaning, refuse collection and vehicle maintenance by the Local Government Act 1988. It is being phased in and the first two rounds of competition are complete. The results have been encouraging, and it is clear that competition has done a great deal to improve efficiency and secure better value for money.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that there is no room in the philosophy of either socialism or the free market for waste and that the greatest benefit of competitive tendering is the elimination of waste? On behalf of all those who enjoy the services that are provided by local authorities throughout the country, may I urge him to continue the vigorous programme of competitive tendering that has been undertaken by the Government to ensure maximum value for money for taxpayers and all service users?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Compulsory competitive tendering is a potent weapon in the hands of local authorities to secure high-quality services at the most competitive price.

Is there any prospect of the Government adopting for their own responsibilities the safe practices that they now require local government to pursue? If he cares to read the Official Report of the debate on electricity privatisation he will see that if the rules that his Department is seeking to impose on local government were to apply to central Government some occupants of the Treasury would face surcharge or imprisonment.

We are always looking for new areas in which to introduce the benefits of open competition. I regret that the Labour party is apparently seeking to undermine that by withdrawing the requirement that competition should be compulsory. We are on the side of the charge payer and against the empire builders in some local authorities.

Can my hon. Friend report on the position in Humberside? Can he confirm that he has had to issue a section 13 notice because that county council, in flagrant disregard of the charge payers in the county, is failing to operate the competitive tendering requirements of our policy?

Yes, Sir. Humberside has been issued with a section 13 notice because of apparent anti-competitive behaviour during the tendering round. The council is now required formally to account for its actions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has further sanction powers that he will not hesitate to implement if the evidence warrants it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's draft consultation document on issues of planning policy guidance on the considerations relevant to new and redeveloped stadiums for Football League clubs will be issued.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes soon to issue a draft planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation matters, and it will also deal with all-seater Football League stadiums.

I do not know whether I should be thankful for that laid-back reply. Now that the Under-Secretary of State has been stripped by the Home Office of most of his football responsibilities, at least we cannot blame him for not setting up the Football Licensing Authority. As he has extra time on his hands, will he at least get to grips with his remaining responsibilities and give clear guidance to the football clubs on the safety standards laid down by Lord Justice Taylor? It is clear that the clubs are much more anxious than the Government to implement Taylor's proposals.

That clear guidance has been given and as soon as the Football Licensing Authority has been established, the guidance will be reinforced.

Although everyone associated with football regrets the delay in implementing the proposals and setting up the licensing authority, does my hon. Friend agree that it is better that we get such matters right and that the right people are appointed to the authority? Does he accept that, in any event, the interim recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor's report have already been implemented by most clubs?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend's second point. Several clubs have taken positive action to pursue the recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's interim report. I shall pass the comments that my hon. Friend made in the first part of his question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Does the Minister agree that if all 92 clubs in the Football League are to have the stadiums that their spectators deserve, some imagination will have to be shown by those who propose developments and more particularly by the local authorities to which such proposals are addressed?

Yes, I agree completely. It is precisely for that reason that relevant paragraphs will be included in the planning policy guidance note that will be issued shortly.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Liverpool, one of the clubs which participated in the match at Hillsborough where the tragedy that gave rise to the Taylor report took place has endorsed the concept of all-seater stadiums. Does my hon. Friend agree that the remarks of Lord Justice Taylor and the policy of the Government have been endorsed by the behaviour of the crowds at the World Cup, who were mainly in all-seater stadiums? There have been almost no incidents in the grounds.

I agree completely with my hon. Friend.

Is not it 15 months since 95 people were killed at Hillsborough, one year since the legislation went through the House and three months since cash was promised in the Budget? Yet the whole system of improving grounds has been held up by the bureaucracy at the Minister's Department and at the Home Office. The two Departments simply cannot agree on the chairman of the committee and the setting up of the Football Licensing Authority. Since then we have had the riots at Bournemouth. The four years laid down for putting seats in stadiums has been eaten away and soon there will be only three years left. The whole scheme is in danger of being postponed and further accidents may take place because the Home Office and the Department of the Environment cannot get their act together.

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If he had listened to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my reply he would have learnt that many clubs have been responsible and moved ahead with the recommendations in their own right.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he will be making to UEFA concerning the behaviour of England fans at the World Cup.

I have agreed with the president of UEFA that it would be unwise of the Government to take a view on the return of English clubs to European competitions until we are able to assess the behaviour of English supporters in the 1989–90 domestic season and throughout the World Cup. I will provide my assessment to UEFA as soon as possible.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the vast majority of English fans at the World Cup who, together with their Scottish and Irish friends, have behaved extremely well? Does he agree that although the Italian police perhaps stepped beyond the bounds on several occasions, they have shown the value of dealing with trouble well away from the ground? Will the Minister make representations to UEFA that it is far better to identify troublemakers and deal with them severely, in whichever country they are caught, than to penalise the whole of English football by keeping it out of international competition?

I, too, recognise that the overwhelming majority of English supporters have gone to Italy to enjoy a festival of football and have behaved admirably.

Is not it the case that a number of the measures that my hon. Friend fought for with the Italian authorities in relation to Sardinia, particularly the bans on alcohol near the ground, and the ferry bans, have been particularly effective as was his work with the football intelligence unit in identifying hooligans before they reached Sardinia? Is not it a disgrace that my hon. Friend's efforts on behalf of this country are constantly being undermined by yesterday's Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who has failed to have the good grace to welcome all the efforts that my hon. Friend has made, the majority of which, in the first stage of the competition, were entirely successful?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The Government have always taken the view that it is important to be pro-active and to work closely with the Italian authorities to put in place as many layers of deterrence against hooliganism as possible. We have been working hard for more than 14 months and have joined the Italian authorities in more than 120 measures to deter the hooligan element. I deeply regret that a tiny minority is still intent on hooliganism and continues to cause trouble. However, we shall continue throughout the rest of the World Cup to work closely with the Italian authorities, as we have done to date, to make sure that any measures required to stamp out hooliganism have the full backing and support of this Government.

Millions of peace-loving fans want to see England back in European football. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what he has done, but will he confirm that he intends to play vigorously on their side to get English football back into Europe?

I have made it absolutely clear to the House that the overwhelming majority of football supporters have behaved well during the World Cup and I shall make it clear to UEFA that where there have been incidents of violence involving English supporters, a comprehensive report—based on police evidence and my officials' reports, not on newspaper headlines—will form part of the full report which goes to UEFA at the end of the World Cup.

Is my hon. Friend really able to assure UEFA that British football management is sufficiently determined to meet hooliganism with touch discipline? If the Football League can relegate Swindon town from division 1 to division 3 because of the behaviour of a couple of crooks, why did it not demote Leeds united from division 1 to division 4 because of the criminal behaviour of 200 hooligans who laid waste a number of seaside towns?

My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly. I have no doubt that the Football League will pay due attention to it.

May I advise the Minister that this afternoon I have requested a meeting with the president of UEFAH—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to make sure that he fully understands that the Minister's policies lie in ruins, as we predicted, and to assure him that the Minister's increasingly frenzied utterances, particularly about innocent people who have been deported without trial, have no support on the Opposition Benches or among responsible people? What steps has the Minister taken to tell the Italian authorities that to round up and deport people, some of whom were tourists, miles away from the scene of the incident, is a disgrace and that every citizen is entitled to defend himself and his reputation under Italian, English and European law? [Interruption.] May I say to the Minister—[Interruption.]—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not make a statement.

May I ask the Minister to follow the policy on which we have supported him—that guilty people should be prosecuted and dealt with, but that innocent people should be presumed not guilty rather than being rounded up as they have been? [Interruption.] It was clear that Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Order. This is Question Time, and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to be brief.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when I started this question, it was quite a short question.

No.

Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to make his final comments brief.

That is my intention, Mr. Speaker.

When the right hon. Gentleman studies the record, he will see that he has echoed the pleas of the louts who comprise football's effluent tendency. The Government stand shoulder to shoulder with all decent people in this country who condemn the criminally motivated minority of so-called England fans. I remain firm in my support for the tough, swift and effective policing that has undoubtedly contained incidents which could have escalated to levels that we have seen all too often in the past.

rose—

No.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new tenancies he expects will be created by private landlords during 1990–91.

There are clear signs of increased activity in the residential letting market following the Housing Act 1988. I want to speed up this revival of the private rented sector.

Why does the Minister not admit that recent legislation has totally failed to provide rented accommodation for people who desperately need it because they cannot afford to buy? There is no evidence whatever that such accommodation is being provided in the private market. Given the current crisis in the Housing Corporation, and as interest rates continue high, why do not Ministers allow local authorities to start building houses again and providing the accommodation that is so desperately needed? Why should those desperately in need of accommodation be penalised because of the selfishness and dogma of Tory Ministers?

There are two problems facing the private rented sector—to that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The first is that, for years, we have undermined the role and function and the self-confidence of the private landlord. The second is that there is a blight hanging over the private rented sector due to the pronouncements of the Labour party, particularly those to the effect that it would sequester private property and again involve itself in rent control and total tenure. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem, perhaps he should have a word with his own Front-Bench spokesmen and get them to remove that blight.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the anti-private-sector policies of Norwich city council and other Labour councils which preside over large council estates with increasing numbers of empty houses will serve only to increase the number of homeless people in my constituency and others?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Housing authorities throughout the country, particularly Labour housing authorities, are sitting on 100,000 vacant council houses. Because of the points that I made in answer to the first question, there has been little incentive for potential private landlords to bring the 600,000 vacant properties on to the market. At the very least, as a priority, we must get our existing housing stock properly used.

While one wishes to see a considerable increase in the supply of rental property, does the Minister consider that more needs to be done than just removing rent controls? Has he considered the experience in Northern Ireland, where there has been no rent control whatever on new-build properties since 1956, without producing any increase in supply? Does he agree that other measures are necessary to increase the supply of property?

Yes, Sir. I am giving serious consideration to what other measures need to be introduced in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For instance, it should be made easier for people, especially elderly people, to let property. I am having discussions about whether we could use housing associations on a contract basis to manage some properties for elderly landlords. There is also the question whether the law is moving swiftly enough. There are plans as from next April to make it much easier for landlords to have their contracts applied. That is extremely important. We are considering other measures to do exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests and to make the private rented sector much more effective than it has been in the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings he estimates could be made throughout local government by the introduction of competitive tendering and other efficiency measures.

Earlier this month the Audit Commission identified possible savings in local government of £1,328 million, of which about 50 per cent. has been achieved. Competitive tendering has been a powerful element in reducing those costs, but clearly there are very large savings still to be made.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that failure to implement competitive tendering is a fraud on the community charge payer, that local authorities that are not implementing competitive tendering properly are probably pandering to the interests of local trade unions, which are totally opposed to the interests of local residents and will mean a higher community charge?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Compulsory competitive tendering is an indispensable mechanism for ensuring high-quality services at lower cost. It is a matter of regret, although hardly surprising, that the Labour party is therefore against it.

If the Minister is serious about savings for local authorities through greater efficiency, will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Energy about the pricing policy of British Gas? Is he aware that yesterday the finance committee of Coventry city council decided to turn up the heat in 14 schools and old people's homes and open the windows to use an extra 56,000 therms of gas before November so as to qualify for a £30,000 lower bill from British Gas? What is the point in the Prime Minister, across the water this morning, giving £5 million to combat global warming when we in Coventry have to burn more gas to save money?

Energy pricing is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but it is clear that privatisation of the electricity industry will be a powerful factor in controlling energy costs in the future.

Does my hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

Order.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy on competitive tendering is very good? Will he consider the implementation, particularly by Middlesbrough council, which seeks to find a way around almost everything when it comes to competitive tendering? It recently awarded a contract for security services to a company which it set up with one of its councillors on the board, which did not have employees, against a proper tender submitted by a recognised and long-standing security firm? At the end of the day the tender was a small amount in favour of the newly-formed company, as can happen with a system in which only the chairman of the committee opens the tenders. Is not it time, therefore, for the Government to ensure that at least one person from the opposition can be on the tender committee when the documents are opened?

The 1988 Act gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sanction powers against local authorities that have apparently acted anti-competitively. If my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has evidence, he should submit it and I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of officials and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Does the Minister accept that there was more than a little hypocrisy surrounding the answers given by Ministers about financial efficiency and local government? Financial efficiency in local government is acres and years ahead of the Government, given the over-run and overspend in the Ministry of Defence. If such overspending were translated into local government, councillors would be surcharged, as they have been in Lambeth, and would end up in gaol. It is time that the Government accepted the restrictions that they place on local government.

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman seeks to overlook the undoubted examples of waste and extravagance among local authorities. Compulsory competitive tendering is necessary, and I should be more interested in the hon. Gentleman's attitude to that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the city action teams.

City team actions exist to make the most from the Government's substantial programmes for inner-city areas. They encourage co-operation between central and local government and between business and the voluntary sector so as to bring regeneration to inner cities and to benefit their residents.

Does my hon. Friend agree that city action teams play a vital role in the Government's £4 billion programme to revitalise the inner cities while Labour's candy floss document, "Looking to the Future", contains not a section and barely a word about inner cities? Does not that tell us something about Labour's commitment to the inner cities, compared with the Government's record?

As my hon. Friend says, it is an extraordinary omission. The period of the last Labour Government was not a good one for inner cities. We are perfectly used to inaction by the Labour party, but to lack even rhetoric and promises about the inner cities is remarkable indeed and certainly contrasts with the £4 billion per year programme of Government aid for inner-city areas. I am pleased to say that that programme is flourishing, helped by the city action teams.

Does the Minister realise that, given the crisis in inner cities and the housing crisis throughout the country, the programme is insignificant and little is happening? Is he aware that the Housing Act 1988, to which the Under-Secretary of State referred, is in tatters without one housing action trust being set up, no voluntary transfers and absolute chaos in the Housing Corporation? Instead of all the talk, will the Government do something about housing and the inner-city crisis?

I must overcome my disappointment that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us his party's policy on inner cities, given that the absence of such a policy has been pointed out. The hon. Gentleman's comments about results under this Government were untrue. He will know that the urban development corporations have attracted £7 billion of private investment, much of which is being spent on housing. City grants, and the predecessors, are supporting 430 projects and leading to the construction of 11,800 homes, among other things. When I say "among other things", I mean 47,000 jobs and a further £1 billion of private sector investment. If the hon. Gentleman does not know what is going on in the inner cities he must be going round blindfolded.

Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever progress is made by city action teams in improving the quality of life for inner-city residents, one of the greatest environmental problems still to be tackled is the war against litter, graffiti and vandalism? Does he agree that we must do all that we can to encourage community initiatives? Will he pay particular tribute to the initiative being taken by the Wolverhampton Express and Star. with its "litter busters" initiative, to try to clean up the black country and to involve young people in that activity?

I welcome campaigns of that sort. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is important to keep sites free from litter and dumping in order to raise the spirit of the area. The Government's actions are directed towards raising the level of economic prosperity so that regeneration will be self-sustaining. There is no point in investing in housing projects or whatever alone—one must raise the general level of prosperity to create a better environment in inner-city areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have made representations to his Department regarding their standard spending assessment.

A large number of local authorities have made representations about their standard spending assessments.

Does the Minister accept that if the standard spending assessment figures given to local authorities are too low, there will be serious implications for poll tax payers because that will force up the poll tax to a high level? Lancashire county council and many other county councils in the north-west, like councils throughout the country, have made representations about their SSAs. Does the Minister accept that when the Secretary of State meets local authority associations later this year he should not only discuss the matter but respond positively by ensuring that an increase in the figures next year so that poll tax levels can be reduced considerably?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always responds positively to propositions. There is too much evidence that high-spending local authorities try to use SSAs as a scapegoat for their inefficiency and extravagance. Certainly, that is true of Burnley and Lancashire. In Burnley, the SSA is 17.5 per cent. higher than its grant-related expenditure equivalent last year, yet spending increased by 25 per cent. That shows that the high community charge in Burnley is fairly and squarely the responsibility of the socialist council and the socialist Lancashire county council.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the citizens and local government officers in Calderdale on collecting the community charge at about the same rate they collected rates in the past? When he looks at SSAs will he take into account areas of special geographic difficulty, such as Calder Valley which has numerous roads which are often affected by bad winters and about which I have approached the Department year after year?

I shall convey my hon. Friend's congratulations to those responsible and I assure him that, as always, we shall listen to his representations carefully.

Does the Minister appreciate that if he does not tell us how many local authorities made representations, a great many of which were Conservative, we shall conclude that he cannot count, which is quite likely to be right? Can he also tell us the answers to the important questions of how many local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, have asked for their SSA to be reassessed because it is too low, and whether or not part of the changes that the Government make to the poll tax will include increasing SSAs to meet the requirements of Conservative and Labour local authorities.

The Government are more interested in the quality of representations than in their number. This year there has been a 10 per cent. increase in SSAs compared with the GRE assessments for last year. That is above the rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the much higher than expected community charges are due not to inadequate SSAs but to the high-spending policies of so many councils.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives he is taking to promote recycling by waste collection authorities.

The Environmental Protection Bill will require waste collection authorities to draw up and publish plans to recycle material in their area. The Bill also gives them a direct financial incentive to recycle waste rather than send waste for disposal.

As an important measure to encourage more recycling, will my hon. Friend consider passing credits from waste disposal authorities to waste collection authorities and also to voluntary bodies if they can come forward with viable schemes for waste recycling?

Yes, Sir. Under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill, waste collection authorities will receive financial credits for material that they recycle rather than send for disposal. Voluntary bodies and agencies may also receive such financial assistance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can require them to be paid the money if circumstances warrant it. That should be a powerful incentive to local recycling efforts.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country what became of the initiative launched by the Prime Minister under the leadership of Richard Branson?

Who?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the voluntary initiatives on litter, those are still going ahead and are very successful.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Walworth road is in the borough of Southwark. Will he consider giving special assistance to that council to deal with the horrendous piles of waste paper along that road, much of which is entitled "Labour's Alternative to the Community Charge" and appears to have been recycled on a number of occasions already?

I believe that there is a lot of waste and rubbish around Walworth road which has already been recycled fairly extensively and it may be better now to send it for disposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects all British drinking water sources to comply with European requirements for maximum pesticide residue levels.

It is not possible to give a date for full compliance with the standard in the EC drinking water directive for pesticides, because this particular standard is not, in our view, technically achievable by any member state. The trace amounts of pesticide found in a small proportion of United Kingdom drinking water supplies are not regarded by the Government's medical advisers as posing a danger to health. The Government require water companies to carry out regular monitoring for pesticide residues and, where appropriate, to develop the technology for their removal and investigate, with the National Rivers Authority, the case for restricting the use of pesticides in the areas from which they draw water.

Is the Minister aware that reports today state that two thirds of London's drinking water is now contaminated with unacceptable levels of pesticides? What do the Government intend to do about that? Thames Water has until some time in the next century to bring its water up to EC standards. Is that timetable to be altered?

I have already asked for a report on the pesticides identified in Thames Water supplies. However, at this stage I must say that the Government's medical advisers are satisfied that the trace amounts of pesticides revealed by extensive monitoring in the United Kingdom generally do not endanger public health. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in not wishing to scaremonger in any way. For a number of supplies, suitable technology for full-scale treatment to remove pesticides and other trace organic substances will probably not be available for any country anywhere for the next five years.

Is not it an impertinence for folk in Brussels, however eminent, to lay down conditions for the quality of drinking water in the United Kingdom? Ought not it to be a matter for the House and for the Government to determine the quality of our drinking water?

My hon. Friend places me in a difficult position. As he knows, we are a keen, active and positive member of the European Community and we participate actively at European Council meetings of Ministers. I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that the standards that we set on a national basis, which are incorporated in legislation, are higher than and superior to what the European Community directs us to do.

If, as the Minister says, the Government are such a keen and active member of the European Community and are so proud of Britain's record, why is he so active in Brussels in blocking proposals to make it easier to introduce future improvements in standards in the EC directive on drinking water quality? Is not that another sign of the Minister's negative attitude to Brussels and total complacency about drinking water quality?

I am sure that the House will forgive me if I refuse to take lectures from the hon. Lady about anything to do with drinking water when I recall what the Labour Government did when they were last in office, dramatically cutting the money available to the water authorities. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we are leading the way on water initiatives, which have been raised at the meetings of the European Council of Environment Ministers. The hon. Lady, along with her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, seems determined to take every possible opportunity to do the country down and sell it short. That seems to be Labour's new tactic, but I can hardly believe that it would commend itself to the electorate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take immediate steps to ensure that sewage discharged into estuaries around the United Kingdom is treated from the earliest possible date, to ensure immediate re-design of any planned developments including long sea outfalls to incorporate full treatment, and to provide Government finance to meet these commitments.

The Government have already taken steps to require that sewage discharged to estuaries and coastal waters is treated from the earliest possible date. All new developments will incorporate treatment, and arrangements are in hand to establish treatment works at existing outfalls. Because of successful privatisation, the £3 billion required is available without recourse to the Treasury.

The Minister has failed to give the simple reassurance for which my question asked—that sewage outfalls such as that at Lavernock will be treated. They are still at the planning stage, so there is time for the Government to make that change and to show that they mean what they say. There is a suspicion in Europe that the Government do not mean what they say. Those of us who served on the Committee on Water Bill last year also suspect that they do not. Can the Minister tell us that outfalls such as Lavernock will be treated, that the change will be made now, when there is still time, and that the Government mean what they say?

Long sea outfalls which have not yet been started will include treatment. Projects already in hand or not yet started will include treatment at a future date.