asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Liverpool to meet the Liverpool city council.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Liverpool for discussions with Liverpool city councillors.

As part of my regular series of visits to Liverpool, I have arranged to look at housing conditions there on 7 June.

Now that the people of Liverpool have given the Labour party a clear mandate through the ballot box, and as the Government firmly believe in secret ballots, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to put more money on the table, as rightly demanded by Liverpool? Will he bring the Prime Minister with him when he pays his visit—the right hon. Lady has been to Liverpool only once since becoming Prime Minister, and that was following the Toxteth riots—so that she may also see at first hand the problems of Liverpool, particularly in relation to unemployment and the environment?

I think that my right hon. Friend is considering whether to pay a visit to Liverpool, which would include the visit to the garden festival. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I am sure that he, as a good parliamentarian, recognises that there can be no electoral mandate for an unlawful act and that there is no question but that it remains the duty of Liverpool city council to make a lawful budget and a lawful rate. I hope that it will do that, and as swiftly as possibly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the decision of Liverpool city council to defer its budget-making, legal or illegal, until after his visit as a genuine, forward and positive step? Will he assure the people of Liverpool that he will visit the area with no preconceived, rigid position and that he will look at, evaluate and judge the desperate needs of the people of Liverpool? For God's sake, do not go there with any preconceived and rigid ideas.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction recently looked at housing problems in the city and I wish to see them for myself as a background to future housing capital allocations. I must make it clear that my visit has no connection with the council's budget-making and rate-fixing process; there must be no misunderstanding about that. As I said, the council is under a clear legal duty to make a rate, and it should do so without delay.

Will the Minister be coming with an open mind?

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the militants who now run the city of Liverpool that the city's credibility is at stake and that financial institutions cannot be expected to invest in Liverpool city stock unless the council runs its affairs on prudent and law-abiding lines?

The hon. Gentleman should come and live there.

As I said, Liverpool has a clear duty to make an adequate rate, and I hope that the decision overnight not to make an illegal rate next Tuesday is the first step towards an adequate rate. There will, of course, be credit worthiness problems if the city continues without a lawful rate, but there is no reason why Liverpool's behaviour should affect lenders' attitudes towards other authorities which have acted in accordance with the law and good financial practice and have made legal rates.

Does the Minister agree that, despite the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), the people of Liverpool made it clear, by electing only three out of 34 Conservative candidates last Thursday, that they reject the Tory party's philosophy? In view of his more flexible answers to questions, will he agree, to look in a positive way at Liverpool's housing investment programme? May we take it that there is at least some hope that the housing prospects of the people of Liverpool will be bettered as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's new flexibility?

I certainly recognise that the housing problems facing many of the people of Liverpool are extremely difficult. That is why I responded when I was invited by the city council to visit Liverpool to see some of the problem areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that any question of future capital allocations for housing, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), can have only the most marginal impact upon rate support grant and the duty to make a legal rate. That is why I want to make it clear that my visit on 7 June, to which I am looking forward, has nothing to do with the duty to make a legal rate, which rests firmly on the city council.

Will the Secretary of State accept, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, that the Liverpool vote reflected only 19 per cent. support for Government policies and showed clearly that there was no mandate for confrontation and an illegal rate? Given that the Labour vote decreased from that which was obtained last year and that the only party whose vote increased was the Liberal party, which went up to 34 per cent., does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the solution might lie in the direction proposed by the Liberal group in Liverpool, which demands of the Secretary of State a repayment of some of the rate support grant which has been removed and a cancellation of some of the debts that are being paid on housing that no longer exists?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard that I have been in touch with the leader of the Liberal party in Liverpool and had useful exchanges with him. I must reaffirm that, whatever the result of the vote, it cannot possibly amount to any form of sanction for an unlawful rate. I hope that all councillors of all parties in Liverpool will bend their attention to getting the council to fix a proper budget and a lawful rate so the city's affairs can remain under control.

When my right hon. Friend is in Liverpool, will he take the opportunity to travel down the east Lancashire road to Hyndburn, where the results of the local elections last week were far more satisfactory and where even a small percentage—

Order. The question is about Liverpool.

Is there not now in Liverpool a clear and broad consensus in favour of a settlement of the city's problems, which goes right across the churches and voluntary bodies, as well as the political parties? I recognise the need for a legal rate to be fixed at some point and as soon as possible, but should not the problems of the city be resolved by negotiation between the Secretary of State and the city council and not by allowing the problems of the city to slide into chaos? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the appalling difficulties that the people of Liverpool now face will become unimaginably worse if the city is allowed to slide into bankruptcy? I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet the leaders of the Liverpool city council and if I and my hon. Friends can be of any assistance in those discussions—[Laughter]—we shall be ready to help to find a solution to the problem. What I find saddening about this exchange is the pathetic laughter from the Conservative Benches about Liverpool's problems.

I wish to put on record—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not object to this—that he and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have throughout been entirely firm in their view that it is the city council's duty to make a lawful rate. I am grateful to him for his offer to use his good offices if that becomes necessary. I said on the day after the election that my door remains open.

But is the right hon. Gentleman's mind?

I am ready to meet the city councillors again if they wish to meet me. As I have already said, I hope that the decision on Tuesday not to press ahead with an unlawful budget and an inadequate rate is a sign that there may now be a growing wish on the part of the citizens of Liverpool not to go down that road. If that is so, it can only be welcomed.

Question No. 2, Mr. Banks.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order later.

It is the same every time.

Order.

rose—

Order. I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) to make the comment he wished to make earlier.

Thank you, Sir. Further to the totally unacceptable reply of the Secretary of State, I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

I apologise to the hon. Member for cutting him down so quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is in a position to estimate the additional block grant which will be payable to London boroughs and joint boards in the event of the abolition of the Greater London council.

No, Sir. The level of London's block grant after abolition will depend on the spending decisions of the authorities which take on responsibilities from the GLC.

Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that is most unlikely that the figures bandied about by the Government are in any way acceptable to the Opposition—or even obtainable, given the pathetic record of the Secretary of State, who reorganised the area health authorities, and the fact that the savings he claimed never appeared? How can we have any faith in the statements made by the shambles on the Government Front Bench?

The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric was not a sensible question. Obviously, the policy will deliver savings. That is part of the reason why the policy is being opposed by vested interests, perhaps those represented by the hon. Gentleman, who do not want those savings to be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering granting any extra funds for the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England.

I have no plans to increase the grant-in-aid of £52 million allocated to the commission for this financial year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will grants be available only for listed structures? Will my hon. Friend's Department, or the new commission, be responsible for the designation of listed structures? What will happen to applications for grant that were already in the pipeline on 1 April when the commission took over its task, such as Hythe pier in my constituency?

I cannot give a specific answer to the constituency case affecting my hon. Friend, but I undertake to look into that point. I understand that he has referred to an unlisted building. No money is available from the commission for unlisted buildings. I am confident that the commission has been staffed by experienced people from my Department. The necessary expertise to fulfil its functions has been given to the commission. My hon. Friend might need to take up some aspects of his question direct with the commission.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, given the fact that no extra grants will be available to it, the commission will be able to cope with the compensation payable after the illegal Stonehenge pop festival? Will my hon. Friend give every possible support to encourage the commission and the National Trust to persuade people that the festival is illegal?

I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantees, because that is primarily a matter for the Home Office. I know that my hon. Friend raised this matter with the Home Office on a previous occasion. The benefit of the new commission is that it can handle cases more efficiently and effectively. The commission has the necessary expertise, and my hon. Friend should direct his attention to that body.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received a proposal from the metropolitan county councils for a meeting to discuss the Coopers and Lybrand report concerning the implications of abolishing the metropolitan county councils.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received a proposal from the metropolitan county councils for a meeting to discuss the Coopers and Lybrand report concerning the implications of abolishing the metropolitan county councils.

Yes, and I have agreed to meet the leaders of the six metropolitan counties again.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he make a comparative statement about the extensive study carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, which he admitted was an independent study, and the study prepared by Price Waterhouse and Co. in great haste for the six metropolitan districts prior to the election on 3 May?

The difference is that the Price Waterhouse study—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has examined this carefully—was based on the studies and information provided by a number of district councils which will succeed to the various functions that will devolve upon them under the abolition Act. Those councils are much better placed than any firm of independent accountants, however distinguished, to know what the savings will be, and to make the decisions, because they will be responsible for running those services. They have pointed out that there will be significant savings because of the rationalisation of the structure of local government in metropolitan areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Coopers and Lybrand has a reasonable reputation for offering advice on how to eliminate waste, inefficiency and duplication, and that that was not the job that it was asked to do by the metropolitan counties?

As I said when the report was published, its study can only be as good as the assumptions upon which it was based. Its report was frank enough to say that. We now have a more up-to-date report based on more realistic assumptions from the districts. I prefer to place my faith in that. I believe that it is a good deal more realistic.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Price Waterhouse claim based on studying Greater Manchester and the findings of one district council there, which were then spread over the other nine, is not necessarily the best way to study the proposed abolition of the metropolitan counties?

I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but as yet these figures can only be broad orders of magnitude. Until the districts have access to the detailed information which at present lies locked in the files of the metropolitan counties, they cannot give more accurate estimates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the purposes of the Bill that we shall be discussing later today is to unlock that information, to make available the more accurate estimates that everyone is seeking.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the massive propaganda campaign mounted at ratepayers' expense by the Greater Manchester council, there is still widespread popular support for his proposal to abolish it and that that support can only be further enhanced when the Government deal in detail with the criticisms made by the Coopers and Lybrand report?

I am well aware of the substantial support in the north-west for the ending of the Greater Manchester council, as I discovered during a recent visit to a number of district authorities in that area. Yes, of course, the case will be greatly strengthened when, with the benefit of the information that we obtain, we shall be able to answer with a great deal more force the charges that have been made. against us.

If the Secretary of State— [Interruption.] There is still half an hour left. This document, of about 18 pages, shows how much faith the Secretary of State has to chuck around. It was prepared by six Tory councils — two of which, since the May elections, have withdrawn from its conclusions, leaving four Tory councils — after an in-depth study in four working days and circulated two days before the elections. If that is the extent of his faith in the investigative abilities of Price Waterhouse, when will the right hon. Gentleman produce some estimates of how much he intends to save by the abolition of the metropolitan counties?

I hope that I shall have an opportunity to say something on that subject during the course of this afternoon's events.

When my right hon. Friend digests the findings of these various accountants' reports, perhaps he will also remember that the men, as it were, at the coal face—the borough treasurers of some of the London boroughs—estimate savings in excess of £200 million as a result of the abolition of the GLC.

My hon. Friend is right. Those two accountants' report referred only to the metropolitan counties. The savings to be achieved in Greater London are of course additional to that, and although those figures include some policy savings as well as efficiency and rationalisation savings, I have no doubt that they will form part of the agreement. We must make them better known.

Is not the truth that there is no comparison in the quality of the independent study undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand over many months and that of Price Waterhouse, conducted in 11 days, including Easter, based on information provided by Tory councils and essentially a put-up job in a desperate attempt to garner a few votes before the local elections? If the Secretary of State is so confident about Price Waterhouse's conclusions, why, 11 months after he and the Conservative party first made the claim, have they not provided any details of their claim that £120 million will be saved by the abolition of these councils?

Because he does not know.

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), we may have an opportunity to debate these matters later in the day. The fact that I have made repeatedly clear is that, until lower tier councils have full access to cost and other information available to the upper tier councils about the services to be devolved upon them, it is not possible for them, my officials or anybody else to make a detailed estimate of what the savings will be. With each report it becomes more and more certain that there will be substantial savings and that this will redound to the benefit of ratepayers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement with regard to assistance given by his Department to Basildon district council concerning the removal of asbestos from certain council-owned dwellings.

My Department took account of Basildon council's problems with asbestos when the housing investment programme allocations for the current year were being decided.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the real concern felt by many people in my constituency, and people in Basildon, about the removal of asbestos? Will he encourage the council to use some of its extra HIP allocation of two thirds of a million pounds to ensure the removal of asbestos, as the cost is estimated to be about a third of a million pounds?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The allocation this year is some £887,000 higher than for last year and the estimated cost of removing the asbestos from the heating systems is £340,000. It should be within the council's ability to tackle this problem, but I understand the concern that this has generated among the tenants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost to water authorities of conforming to the revised standards of nitrate pollution of water supplies which come into effect in 1985; and if he will make a statement.

In order to meet in full the European Community directive, which comes into force on 15 July next year, up to £50 million in capital outlay and some £5 million per annum in operational expenditure. However, as my hon. Friend knows, the directive permits derogations and I expect the actual cost to be substantially less.

As the substantial extra expenditure, which will put up water rates further, is the direct consequence of a substantial, dramatic and uncontrolled increase in the use of nitrate fertilisers, is it not deplorable that the Ministry of Agriculture's advisory service has sent a circular to dairy farmers urging them to use even more nitrate fertilisers? Does not my hon. Friend's Department have a special duty to argue for a cut in the use of nitrate fertilisers, in the interests of public health and as a means of keeping down water rates?

My hon. Friend has taken a characteristically tenacious interest in this subject. He will know that in the autumn the important provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 come into operation, which will give the Government extra powers to control nitrate pollution. I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the document to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I shall then write to him.

On the problem of pollution of water supplies by excess acidity in reservoirs and lakes, what progress has been made with the proposals which the Minister's Department made for a three-year investigation into this problem?

Modest progress.

I am sure that the House will congratulate the Northumbria water authority on obtaining an export order from Gibraltar, but can my hon. Friend say, in view of the excessive costs for water ratepayers, what consultations he is having with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to introducing a water rate rebate system similar to that for ordinary ratepayers?

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) drew the attention of the House, in the early hours of this morning, to the export order won by the Northumbria water authority; and I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that authority. As to rebates for water rates, I am not proposing to have any such discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the Minister appreciate that most of this nitrate pollution is caused by the over-use of nitrogenous fertilisers? If the Minister is not prepared to enter into discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he have discussions with the Treasury about putting a tax on nitrogenous fertilisers, to try to make the farmers use it more efficiently and effectively?

I have told the House that I am prepared to discuss this with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these discussions are continuing, and it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to issue a code of good agricultural practice on this subject in the autumn of this year. That code will apply itself specifically to the problem of nitrates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the list of responses to Cmnd. 9063 placed in the Library was accurately prepared by his Department.

Yes, Sir, although it is a matter of judgment as to what might be classed as a major national organisation.

Will the Minister confirm from figures that he placed in the Library that 91, people are in favour of abolishing the GLC and that 117,400 people are not in favour of its abolition? Is there not some doubt about those 91, as I have an example of an inaccuracy in the Minister's published list? The Wildfowl Trust is included, but I have a letter from that organisation saying that it has made no response. How can hon. Members rely upon the published list? Will the Minister put full details of the consultation in the Library so that they can be scrutinised properly by hon. Members?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in suggesting that not all of the money spent on the campaign has been wasted, as thousands of people have responded to it. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, this is the second major mistake that he has found. He has found two slips in the list so far and we shall check it again.

Will my hon. Friend bear carefully in mind the distinction between those who somehow seek no change in the present arrangements and those who seek major changes in the continuing concept of directly elected authorities?

I understand the range of different criticisms. My hon. Friend has simplified the matter by lumping them together.

Is the Minister aware that last week Labour strengthened its position on the five councils in the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear by winning 87 of the 113 seats? Is he further aware that the leader of the Tory group on Sunderland borough council lost her seat? Is that not the strongest possible response from the people of Tyne and Wear to the Minister's proposals?

The hon. Gentleman may have been aware that the Government somewhat strengthened their position at the previous election, when they put the matter in the Conservative manifesto.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 23,000 people are employed by the GLC and that there are forms for them to sign to the right and left of the entrance lobby in County Hall and that many employees have done so?

It would be quite interesting to work out in terms of the number of letters written to us how much has been spent by the GLC. I believe that it has been an expensive exercise.

Bearing in mind the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), my colleague from the other side of Tyne and Wear, will the Minister reconsider the proposals for local government reorganisation in both the GLC and the provincial metropolitan counties? Will he bear in mind the test case in South Yorkshire, where the issue was democracy in the metropolitan counties, even though the election was for Sheffield district council, when Sheffield's electors overwhelmingly voted for increased support for a Labour-controlled authority, to such an extent that the Tory policy on reorganisation has proved to be so bad for Tories that some of them are considering whether to vote for the alliance?

It must be for the House, based on the mandate of the Government, to organise local authority reform.

Has the Minister any idea what the hundreds of employees who are involved in trying to save the metropolitan councils were doing before the threatened abolition?

They were waiting for their great opportunity.

If the Minister seeks to denigrate that overwhelming majority of people who have made submissions against the Government's proposals, can he explain the original purpose of seeking opinions through consultation? If the Minister dismisses the results of the consultation process, will he take into account the results of elections in the six metropolitan counties last week and the results of public opinion polls in Greater London, showing that a phenomenal 76 per cent. of the Greater London electorate wish to see the GLC preserved?

Among the responses, which were clearly the result of highly organised campaigns in favour of the status quo, there were many useful contributions. The Secretary of State has already made several changes in the original proposals in response to consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses or flats will be started in London in 1984; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79.

During 1978–79, 11,500 local authority dwellings were reported as started within Greater London. My Department has made no estimate for 1984.

Is the Minister aware that nobody will be taken in by that answer? Is he further aware that the dramatic decline in house building since the Government took office means that thousands of people who are increasingly desperate for a decent home cannot afford to buy and are badly housed or homeless as a direct result of the Government's policies?

Council starts in London fell by more than half from 1975 to 1979. Although they continued to fall until 1981, they have risen since then by 70 per cent.

If the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) wishes to rejuvenate the inner cities, would he not do better, rather than concentrating so much on council housing, to encourage those many London councils which own thousands of empty houses to sell them to people who will do them up themselves and thereby bring back into the inner city the capable people which the Bishop of Liverpool regretted had left?

My hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. About 10,000 local authority dwellings in London have been empty for over a year. If they were brought into use they would have a direct application to the problems raised, quite rightly, by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs).

Can the Minister state what share of the new starts in the council housing sector in London is for general housing needs and what share is for sheltered housing accommodation?

Not without notice.

Will my hon. Friend start to dismantle the near monopoly that councils have in rented housing by passing over some of the rented accommodation in London on the winding-up of the GLC either to housing associations or, alternatively, to public companies specially licensed to take on that responsibility?

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that at Thamesmead we have a proposal, along exactly the lines that he has mentioned, to transfer the large estate there to a non-public sector company which will not only run the housing but, I hope, bring to a satisfactory conclusion the development that has begun.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building starts in the public sector; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

About 10,700 public sector dwellings were started in England during the first quarter of this year and 12,900 in the same period of 1979.

Are not those figures scandalous? Do they not show that, despite the fact that we have an aging population of more than 9 million pensioners, many of them crying out for ground floor accommodation, the Government are more concerned with reducing grants to local authorities to stop them building? We have 500,000 building workers on the dole. We have millions of bricks lying in stockpiles. We have elderly people who would like accommodation in bungalows or ground floor flats. Why do the Government not show some compassion and get on with some house building for those elderly people?

I am happy to be able to tell the House that in each of the past four years there has been an increase in the number of housing starts. We are making available more than £3·25 billion in this financial year for investment in the public sector.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the former political agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) exercised his right to buy his council house? Does he not agree that one way of providing homes for those who rightly demand the right to rent would be if the Labour party dropped its mongrel dogmatic objections to the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980?

And now he is on strike.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not only the former agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover who has bought his former council home—

Who was it?

The former agent of the hon. Gentleman.

No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

I am also glad to say that a growing number of miners have bought their homes from the National Coal Board. Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister arrived in Downing street some 1·4 million extra people have become owner-occupiers.

Is the Minister not ashamed of the figures he gave to the House? If he is not, he should be. When will he remove the shackles from local authorities so that they can get on with the job that they were elected to do, that is, to provide proper housing? The Conservative party promised to do that at the 1979 and 1983 general elections. When will the Government provide housing for the elderly and those in need, instead of providing jobs for estate agents?

A local public sector provision of £3·25 billion does not put shackles on a housing programme. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the Government's record on improvement grants. We provided about £900 million during the last financial year, which is 10 times as much as that given by the previous Labour Government.

Will the Minister confirm that the latest Department of Environment figures show a further drop in house building stocks of 13 per cent. compared with a year ago? Will he further confirm that, despite the drop in house building in the public sector, his Department is preparing a contingency plan for a freeze on all housing capital construction programmes, to begin in July or August, because of the level of local authority spending, mainly on improvement and repair grants, undertaken last year and this year on the advice of his Department? Will he put a stop to these plans for a moratorium on council house spending later this year and fight for the homeless instead of the Treasury?

I give no such confirmation to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the reports of his inspector on the inquiry into the Didcot local plan and an inter-related planning appeal to be published.

I understand that the inspector will submit both reports next week. Publication of the report of the local plan will be a matter for the south Oxfordshire district council within the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1982—Statutory Instrument 555/1982.

On behalf of my constituents I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but does he share my opinion that 10 months—the time since the public inquiry began#x2014is rather a long time for the inquiry to have taken?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety and regret the delay. The inspector has worked solely on the reports for the Didcot structure plan since the end of February. The deployment of inspectors with specialist skills made him most suitable to hold another inquiry at the end of January and the beginning of February. However, I hope that we can speed up the inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to publish any revised consultation papers or proposals relating to Cmnd. 9063 in the light of the responses received to date.

My right hon. Friend set out the majority of our conclusions in the statements made in his speech on Second Reading of the Interim Provisions Bill on 11 April, and in a written answer on 4 May. Further statements will be made as necessary.

Will there be flexibility following consultation?

My right hon. Friend has already made a number of changes, but the answer is yes.

How many of the responses to Cmnd. 9063 did the Minister receive from Conservative bodies or associations which had been encouraged to send them by his colleagues?

They needed no encouragement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses have been received to his Department's consultation paper on disposal facilities on land for low and intermediate level radioactive waste.

I am glad to say that 115 submissions were received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. These are currently being considered, and a summary of the points made will be published alongside the final version of the assessment principles for disposal facilities.

Does the Minister accept that the present non-definition of "as low as reasonably attainable", which is used for the doses of radioactive materials in the atmoshpere, is unsatisfactory? We need a definition in statutory instrument form so that we can debate it properly. When we get the definition right, we should also get the disposal siting right—at least 2 miles from where people live.

I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, which will be considered with the other points made in the Liberal party's submission. I do not think that his point was correct. The ALARA principle, if used toughly, could be more effective in controlling emissions to the environment than would a single number, but that is a subject for debate.

Does my hon. Friend recall that last week a petition signed by 85,000 people from Cleveland was handed to the Prime Minister? For how much longer must the people of Cleveland wait before NIREX puts in an application, the House has an opportunity to debate the matter, and we remove the threat of nuclear waste dumping near large conurbations?

I am well aware of the views of my hon. Friend's constituents, because he has been assiduous in putting them forward. It is for NIREX to bring forward proposals, and I have no new information for my hon. Friend today as to when that will happen.

As ALARA and ALATA relate to sea discharges, does the Minister accept that the people of Cumbria and the people of western Europe and the United States of America all demand lower nuclear discharges to the sea? As to land discharges, would it not be better to have an international initiative and group all land nuclear waste in an island somewhere in the north Atlantic away from major centres of population, so as to ensure that hon. Members need not repeatedly return to the House demanding that nuclear waste is not deposited in their constituencies?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's first point. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows, there are proposals to diminish authorisations. Although the hon. Gentleman's second point sounds attractive, there might be considerable difficulties in the ship-borne passage of waste. However, the idea has been put forward and, I believe, considered.

Does the Minister accept that the level of nuclear waste and its disposal, whether on land or at sea, have great implications for British people that justify not only a debate in the House but a full public inquiry so that all organisations that are worried about radioactive waste can make submissions to the inquiry and we can make a proper decision in the interests of all British people, not just of people in some areas?

I agree that any proposal must be followed by a full public inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear. The subject has been debated in the House, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

In view of the growing opposition to the dumping of waste at Billingham, which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) mentioned, will the Government make clear whether it is their policy that only one site should be considered for the dumping of intermediate level waste?

My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we shall use the procedure of the European environmental impact assessment, even though the directive for it has not yet been passed. That procedure includes provision for a comparison of alternative sites.

Will the Minister confirm that the principle of ALARA refers to sea discharges of nuclear effluent, not to the disposal of nuclear material on land, and is not the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) confusing two entirely different issues?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. One always wishes to help a Member who is confused. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, it is fair to say that although the assessment principles will not be agreed until the autumn, they require my right hon. Friend to review the position. The matter is not closed.

asked the Secretary of the State for the Environment if he will consider adding to the list under class 1 of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972 as No. (vi) a Pharmacy.

No, Sir. Pharmacies are in planning terms no different from other kinds of shops in class I. In any case, the amendment my hon. Friend suggests would not mean that planning permission was needed to use a shop as a pharmacy, unless a material change of use were involved; a change of use of this kind would be unlikely to be material.

Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of the present position is that if a hypermarket in say, Newton Abbot, in my constituency of Teignbridge were to be given planning permission for general shop use it would automatically have permission to use a pharmacy? The effect of that would be that, far from encouraging healthy competition, the rural pharmacies might be forced to close and many people who would benefit from the sort of personal service that a rural pharmacy can give would then be deprived of that service entirely, which would be not only to their detriment but to the detriment of the community as a whole?

I fully understand the concern and the problem facing my hon. Friend in his constituency. I am totally sympathetic to that. However, I have indicated that planning controls over individual kinds of shops or types of goods sold would not be desirable. The availability of pharmacy services is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I am more than happy to act as a catalyst for that, if my hon. Friend so desires.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill since the Second Reading debate on 11 April.

I have received just over 80 representations since the Bill was introduced.

I guarantee that when I ask the Secretary of State what the balance was he will tell me that most of them were against the measures, because in the local elections in my area, as I mentioned earlier—[Interruption.] This is the best evidence possible of what is happening and what people feel about these things. It is how people put their crosses in the ballot boxes that matters. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative Sunderland Echo said:

"As the Prime Minister notched up her fifth year in power, the electorate turned … locally to her political opponents"

I am not sure that I have wholly hoisted on board the obviously important point that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make to the House. I should like to assure him, however, that, despite a number of orchestrated responses that have been got up in campaigns by some authorities, there have been a number of helpful and constructive suggestions, and we are taking them fully into account.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of great regret that Opposition Members constantly ask us to believe that local elections, which should be held on the basis of local government and local opinions, are nothing more than a sounding board for opinions on a quite unrelated matter. Does he not agree that we should interpret local election results on a local basis, and not continually use them to pray in aid for some other issue?

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. Indeed, the fallacy to which he has drawn attention is fed by those electoral pundits who say that if this result were carried over into the national elections the leader of the Opposition would be in No. 10. These things are thoroughly false.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his full summary of the responses made to Cmnd. 9063.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to publish the further report dealing with the views expressed on certain aspects of the proposals in Cmnd. 9063, referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) of 9 April, Official Report, column 75; and if he will make a statement.

The further report was made available on 4 May.

If this legislation must go through, improvident though it may be, not only sacking democratically elected councillors, but perhaps many hundreds of loyal government workers, how much time is the Secretary of State prepared to give to those people for proper consultation and hope for a fair hearing?

I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be as much consultation as those whose views have been sought are prepared to undertake. I reiterate once again my appeal to those local authorities, trade unions and other organisations which have so far refused to engage in proper consultations with my Department. Now that the paving Bill has received its Second Reading, this is the moment to start talking, and I hope that those who have so far refused to do so will now consider that, in the interests of the people who work in the authorities concerned, they should start to talk.

Are not the Government determined that the little business known as democracy should not interfere in any way with their intentions? Will they not go ahead regardless, just as they have done practically every time, using their false majority in the House, because they have lost that majority among the people? Are they not detemined to carry on regardless, while not allowing democracy to interfere in any way?

A great many people connected with local government in the areas concerned believe that making local government more local, and returning powers to the local area, is more democratic than having large regional, remote authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to prevent a repetition of the power failure in the Palace of Westminster on 3 November 1983.

The modernisation of mains switchgear has now been completed, and a new transformer installed. This enables the palace to be connected to an independent, reliable, stand-by supply within a few minutes.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in the event of a prolonged national power cut, the emergency systems are adequate to supply the needs of the House?

As a result of the steps that we have now taken, I hope that it will be possible, within about eight minutes of a power failure, to reconnect the sytems within the House and to enable the business of the House to continue. I understand that my hon. Friend visited all the engineering installations in the Palace of Westminster about two months ago as a result of the power failure last November, and I am grateful to him for taking such an interest in this matter.

Is the Minister aware that the best way of ensuring that there are no power cuts in the Palace of Westminster, or anywhere else, is to call upon the chairman of the NCB to stop his pit closure programme, and then the Secretary of State will not have to go on television, as he did in 1972, telling people to clean their teeth in the dark?

The hon. Gentleman has raised much broader issues that my modest responsibilities allow me to reply to. All I can say is that if there is a power failure in the Palace of Westminster we now have an independent generator, which should enable the hon. Gentleman to continue asking Ministers questions, even if the power fails.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate a study on the potential damage inflicted on cathedrals and churches of historic interest by environmental factors.

My Department has supported a number of studies of the effects of air pollution on historic buildings. Proposals for further work are under consideration.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable evidence to show that substantial damage is being inflicted on cathedrals and churches due to vibrations, which are caused, notably, by increasingly heavy lorries? That problem is being made much worse by this Government's policies. Will the hon. Gentleman take this matter very seriously and institute an independent inquiry into it?

Until now the principal research that my Department has been funding has concerned the effects of air pollution on historic buildings. There are new proposals in hand, which include Wells cathedral and Bolsover castle. However, I shall see what research is under way into the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman, and review the matter.

Has not much more damage been done to many churches by modernist clergy?

I think that my hon. Friend must have asked me that question before, because he knows the answer that I should like to give.

Is the Minister conceding that acid rain is damaging many of our historic buildings? If so, will he take a little more action in that regard?

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), that is the principal aim of our research, and we are increasing research in that area. With regard to the Warren Spring report, it is very important to get coverage of information into urban as well as rural areas. The Department is reviewing that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that there is fair competition between the commercial operations of Ordnance Survey and the private sector map publishers; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among private sector map producers about what they believe to be unfair competition from the Ordnance Survey? Can he confirm that an independent review will take place of the joint venture publishing enterprises in which the Ordnance Survey is a partner? Will that independent review take evidence from the private sector map publishers?

I met a delegation of independent map makers, with colleagues in the House, recently—

rose—

Mr. Flannery.

Is it not a fact that the passion for privatisation by this Government—

rose—

Order. I thought that the Minister had finished. I apologise.

The Minister is such a master of the monosyllable that we do not know when he is finished.

I was telling my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that we had recently received a delegation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to publish guidelines on the commercial activities of the Ordnance Survey. I hope that that will help the independent map makers. I have recently asked the director general of the Ordnance Survey to call in outside accountants to examine internal accountancy and management procedures, to ensure that there is no cross-subsidisation between commercial and other activities. I hope that that will help to still the doubts to which my hon. Friend referred.

Will the Minister accept that his constant monosyllabic answers leave the Chamber with the same lack of knowledge that is had before the question was answered? Will the Government's passion for privatisation destroy the Ordnance Survey, which was doing a wonderful job long before this Government came about? In heaven's name, why are they altering the Ordnance Survey, which was acceptable to everybody except those who wanted to make profit out of privatisation?

I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman—who does not like short questions or short answers—missed the recent announcement that there would be no change in the status of the Ordnance Survey. It has done excellent work for many years and will continue to do so for many years. If the hon. Gentleman reads my right hon. Friend's statement on the matter recently, he will be the wiser.