asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he now has any proposals to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are indeed considering suggestions —including the amendment Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)— for improving some aspects of the Act.

In view of the unanimity demonstrated by all interested parties that some loopholes and abuses in existing legislation should be closed, including that which relates to the three months consultation period, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will introduce legislation this autumn?

I am not sure whether I can give an assurance in quite the terms requested by my hon. Friend. We are considering suggestions sympathetically.

Does the Minister agree that support for the amendment Bill, which the Government blocked last Friday, is informed and broad-ranging? If the Minister cannot give an assurance that a Bill will be introduced in the autumn, will he undertake to introduce a Bill as urgently as possible, and certainly before late 1985?

I have had useful discussions with the hon. Member about the technical difficulties involved in drafting the Bill. We are considering the hon. Gentleman's suggestions sympathetically.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the level of compensation under management agreements is not sustainable? When he reviews the financial guidelines, will he consider eliminating all elements of subsidy in compensation, because subsidy is not the creation of wealth, merely its transfer?

I have already said that we shall in due course review the financial guidelines. My hon. Friend's suggestion, with others, will be considered.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that among the deficiencies which the Government intend to remedy is, first, that the Act deals only with parts of the countryside and not the whole countryside; secondly, that it has driven away some voluntary conservation acts in the countryside, and, thirdly, that it does not protect sites of special scientific interest? Does he accept that the report in The Observer last Sunday is correct? Will he invite Opposition parties other than the Labour party to join his discussions before the matter is finally dealt with in Government legislation?

The discussions to which I referred were with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Ms. Hardy) and were to do with his amendment Bill, which deals particularly with SSSIs. I should be delighted to talk to the hon. Gentleman about these matters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although this small but important amendment is essential, the majority of SSSIs are in good hands, looked after lovingly by their owners and are in no danger?

I agree that a large part of the threatened habitat is in good hands and being looked after, but some worrying features of damage remain. That is what we are considering.

What has the Minister learnt from Halvergate?

I have learnt not to give assurances to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) without much more care. I hope that I shall not make that mistake again. We have all learnt that we must have a new and more integrated regime on the Norfolk Broads, so that we do not continue having absurd arguments.

When my hon. Friend considers the workings of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, will he consider how greater access to the countryside can be secured for the many people who want to use it for recreation, in a way that is compatible with the rights and interests of agriculture?

We await with interest the report of the Common Lands Forum—the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) knows all about that, because he is vice president of a society that forms part of it — and we shall want to re-examine these areas next year when we have seen the report. The footpath network remains the backbone of access to the countryside and it must be protected.

Will the Minister recognise the urgency of the problem? Has he seen the report of Friends of The Earth, which points out that during the past three years 133 sites of special scientific interest have been either damaged or completely destroyed, and that most of the damage results from intensive agricultural activities? In the past weeks we have seen many examples, such as the Halvergate marshes, which show that the damage is gathering momentum. Will he recognise the urgency of the matter? Does he agree that that shows that the Act is not working as everyone hoped it would, and that we must press on with the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, about which my right hon. and hon. Friends and others have been talking to him?

I saw the figure to which die hon. Gentleman referred, which is why I was hesitant in agreeing entirely that the position was fairly satisfactory. For those reasons we are seeking to strengthen the Act further, if we can do so properly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the outcome of the recent European discussions on atmospheric pollution and acid rain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement in the light of the recent conference of Environmental Ministers in Munich.

Both the Munich air pollution conference and the Environment Council in Luxembourg revealed a common will by European Governments to make further progress on air pollution control. That is a very satisfactory outcome.

Does my hon. Friend agree that insufficient emphasis was placed on the impact of nitrogen emissions as a major contribution to atmospheric pollution, especially as Britain has kept its level of nitrogen emissions constant, while some European countries have increased their levels by 50 per cent.?

My hon. Friend is right, in that in approaching the acidification problem it is no good considering only sulphate. We must also include nitrogen emissions. Although the figures are not completely reliable, it is true that there does not appear to have been an increase in nitrogen emissions from this country for the past 10 years. For the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, the Government have given a broad welcome to the European Commission's approach on vehicle exhaust controls, which would meet a large part of the problem.

Although there is an argument for hastening slowly in this important area so as not to spend public money unnecessarily, what swift and cost-effective measures has my hon. Friend's Department in mind, and will take, when there is scientific consensus on this important matter?

The most important efforts must go into designing combustion processes for motor cars in terms of the lean burn engine, and into the pressurised fluidised-bed and other combustion methods for power stations, which will deal with the problem at source. That way we shall not have to try to sweep up the damage afterwards.

Do "European discussions" also include the most recent meeting of the Paris commission and its recommendation on the implementation of ALATA in relation to nuclear discharges? Is the Minister aware that within Cumbria some people remain worried because BNFL intends to take 10 years to implement that recommendation and the commission wants a far earlier implementation of it? Will he seek to require that?

That is far outside the scope of the conferences on air pollution. The fact that the British Government were able to sign the recent Paris commission declaration, should be, and I think, is, welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will not be panicked by the implementation of controversial catalyst systems as are now required in Germany into introducing measures to clean up car exhaust emissions? Will he try to ensure that there is firm evidence that the motor car is the prime source of pollutants in acid rain?

The catalytic convertor seems to be a bad solution. The properly designed lean burn engine is a much better solution.

Does the Minister appreciate the damage being done to Britain by our failure to sign the Ottawa — now presumably the Munich — declaration, which calls for a 30 per cent. reduction in air emissions by 1993? Why will the Government not sign that document, in view of their repeated declarations that there have been reductions in SO₂, and why cannot Britain join its EC colleagues, the Scandinavian countries, the Soviet Union and even Bulgaria in trying to clear our atmosphere?

I must disillusion the hon. Gentleman about the Soviet Union, which has not signed the agreement. It said that it would strive to reduce trans-boundary fluxes by 30 per cent., which is a very different matter. For the additional 10 per cent. of gain over what we have already gained since 1980, £600 million does not appear to us to be cost-effective.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with structure plan reviews; and if he will make a statement.

It is for county planning authorities to review their structure plans and to submit proposals for alteration when they consider it appropriate. A number of authorities have submitted alterations or replacement plans following review, and at present 10 such proposals are with my Department.

Does my hon. Friend understand the concern felt for the green belt by people in my constituency and county, which is mentioned in the review proposals of other authorities? Will he give us an early assurance about our green belt, preferably by approving our structure plan review?

I am aware of the anxieties that my hon. Friend has expressed over several months, and I am considering the report of the panel, which conducted a public examination in March. There will thereafter be an opportunity for objections. In the recent green belt circular we reaffirmed the fact that the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to green belts, and the circular gives further advice on the establishment of long-term green belt boundaries in local plans. I hope to report to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Is there anything in the structure plans concerning water authorities? Is the Minister aware that people in many parts of the country are receiving no water, but get no rebate on their water bills? Is that not monstrous, especially since the Government cancelled plans for a national water grid system?

That has nothing to do with structure plans. Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House earlier this week he would have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction discussing that matter in answer to a private notice question.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.

Hear, hear.

Do the reviews take place purely on a county-by-county basis, or against the backcloth of a regional master plan that is being updated?

I echo the sentiments of all hon. Members by saying that we warmly welcome my hon. Friend back to these Benches. I am considering urgently several structure plans, and the master plan and structure plans are closely integrated. I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxieties about Berkshire, which he has discussed with me and with hon. Members for neighbouring constituencies.

When the Minister discusses such matters with county councils, will he bear in mind that many of them must radically review and change their structure plans? Is he aware, for instance—

I was a councillor for 18 years. He has not even been a parish councillor.

Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not interrupt from a sedentary position. If he rises and wishes to ask a question, he may be called, but he will not be called while he mutters from a sedentary position.

Is the Minister aware that the Somerset structure plan is based on a predicted job increase of 12,000 and that recent figures show that we are nowhere near that target? Indeed, there may be a net loss of jobs at this point in the plan period, which will require a radical restructuring of the entire plan.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the alliance on such matters, would understand what structure plans are about. He is completely wide of the mark, as usual.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received to publish the responses to White Paper, Cmnd. 9063, "Streamlining the Cities"; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of such requests, but I remain of the view that it is for those who sent in responses to the White Paper to decide whether to publish them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the organisations which responded made it clear that they wished their responses to be made available to Members of Parliament and to the public, including the Liverpool Council for Voluntary Studies, which wrote to him on 9 May, and the Merseyside Unemployment Centre, which wrote to him on 12 May? Should not the responses be fully published before his produces his White Paper in the autumn?

It would be without precedent for the Government to make available to the public or to hon. Members, other than by placing lists in the Library, the detailed responses which have been sent in by a very large number of organisations. A great many organisations have made their responses available to hon. Members, and there is no reason why others which wish hon. Members to see what they have said should not do the same.

While condemning the £6 million of ratepayers' money which Mr. Livingstone has squandered on a specious PR campaign, may I ask my right hon. Friend now to spell out loudly, clearly and continually the advantages in the demolition of an expensive and insensitive tier of bureaucracy?

The whole Government will spell out the advantages of the abolition of the upper tier authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend noted the speech that I made in Islington last Friday and the speech that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made in the City on the same day. We intend to sustain this campaign.

Is the Minister aware that a great number of disabled people at present employed by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils fear for their jobs? Is he further aware that they place no credence on the Minister's statement that he will leave the matter to the bodies that take over, because that does not give them a guarantee of employment, but merely represents a further abrogation by the Government of their responsibilities?

I hope that all those who are concerned about the future of their jobs—including the disabled, for whom we have much sympathy —. with these authorities will bring pressure to bear on their employers and trade unions to lift their futile embargo on discussions about the future of this policy. We are making arrangements in the paving Bill for a staff commission, but such a commission can be effective only if the trade unions are prepared to talk to it and to co-operate. At the moment there is no sign of that co-operation.

Will my right hon. Friend give a little more information about the nature of the parliamentary document that he intends to submit in the coming weeks to deal with this issue? How does he react to the latest suggestion of Alan Greengross and his colleagues at County hall?

My right hon. Friencls and I have discussed Mr. Greengross's proposals. We have had to make it clear that the Government's policy does not envisage the kind of arrangements that Mr. Greengross is putting forward. The document, which I hope to publish before the House rises, will consist essentially of summary description of the destination of the various functions of the GLC and the metropolitan councils. It will be seen from that that the great majority of those functions will be devolved to the local democratic authorities, the borough councils in London and the district councils in the metropolitan areas.

Did the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" contain any proposals for placing restraints on the spending powers of the GLC or the metropolitan authorities? If not, does the right hon. Gentleman have any proposals for public consultation of any such proposals before he comes with them to this House or another place?

The threats that have been made by some of the upper tier authorities to engage in what I have heard described as a scorched earth policy have made it necessary, to protect the interests of successor authorities and their ratepayers, for us to take steps to prevent the abuse of these powers. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the detailed amendments, which will be tabled later today in another place.

Has my right hon. Friend received any requests, in connection with streamlining local government or anything else, that he should continue to treat Liverpool no differently from any other local authority? Is he aware that more public money and attention have been devoted to that area in recent years than to anywhere else, and that the only result has been ever more whining and whingeing from the Left-wing commissars there? Is he further aware that the rest of the country's ratepayers and taxpayers are fed up with it?

My hon. Friend will have taken comfort from what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, which was that Liverpool remains subject to exactly the same rules as every other local authority in England. As my right hon. Friend said, there are no concessions to Liverpool on GREA, targets, block grant, penalties or disregards. The same rules apply to Liverpool as apply to all other authorities.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the signal that appears to have been sent to moderate Labour leaders and to moderate councils throughout the land is that the Government will give way to intimidation, blackmail, bludgeoning and threats of riots? Does he accept that every offer that he has made under the housing investment programme and the inner city partnership programme was on offer from the beginning, and that all that has happened is that ratepayers in Liverpool have lost about £2 million, the sum that has had to be borrowed from other services, as a result of the confrontation?

I hope that the leaders and councillors in other town and city halls will not be bamboozled by Councillor Hatton's rhetoric. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, for there has been nothing accorded to Liverpool that could not have been perfectly well discussed within the partnership arrangements and the inner city partnership programme, the arrangements of which are exactly the same as those that apply to the other six partnership authorities. I accept that Liverpool has serious inner city problems, and the urban policy is there to help with those problems. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that nothing has been agreed with Liverpool, despite all the rhetoric that is coming from the Liverpool city hall, which could not have been negotiated in the ordinary course of events.

The Minister was to abolish elections in the metropolitan counties and in London to prevent Kever Coombes and Ken Livingstone from having an extra year in office. He is now to abolish elections to enable them to have an extra year in office. Which course does he think is the less democratic?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. The elections are being abolished because it is without precedent to hold elections for councils that have less than a year to run.

Can my right hon. Friend estimate how many county council employees are engaged on propaganda programmes, and can he say what they should really be doing with their time?

This is a classic example of where many authorities — the GLC and the Greater Manchester council are perhaps the worst examples—appear to have no functions left except to campaign expensively for their own useless survival. I think that in so doing they are making the case for their abolition.

How can the Secretary of State make claims about better administration and the saving of money by abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties when he refuses to publish the evidence or any financial analysis? May I remind him that his own reorganisation of the NHS has resulted in an increase in administrators of 2,300, as a consequence of which administrators now form a higher percentage of those employed in the Health Service than previously? That is an unenviable record.

I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the terms of the amendments to be tabled later today in another place. Although the first part of his question is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, the hon. Gentleman will find if he examines the figures closely—

They are in Hansard.

—that the administrative costs of the NHS as a proportion of total spending have fallen steadily in recent years.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order afterwards. To do so now would take time from questions. Later—

I shall now take the point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my supplementary question the Secretary of State seemed to say that the number of administrators employed in the Health Service had gone down—

Order. We are in a difficulty here. This Question Time has dealt with environmental matters, which have nothing to do with the Health Service. Because of the limitation of time, I should not wish to go back to a matter that has nothing to do with this Question Time, but as the Secretary of State said this, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The argument was about reorganisation of services, and the Secretary of State implied that the reorganisation of the Health Service had resulted in fewer staff being employed. That is wrong, as an answer by the Prime Minister on 3 July showed.

rose—

Order. We cannot have any further extension of Question Time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Cannot the House be protected from Opposition spokesmen, from the Leader downwards, who seek to prolong the arguments of Question Time by making spurious points of order?

Order. That could go for the whole House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for environmental standards, such as lead levels in the air, of the timing of the introduction of lead-free petrol in the United Kingdom.

Next year's 60 per cent. reduction in petrol-lead will enable us to meet the relevant European Community standard for air with ease. The introduction of lead-free petrol, by 1989 at the latest, will of course produce further improvements.

The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his lead in introducing lead-free petrol. Will he assure the House that if this country is able to introduce lead-free petrol before 1989 we shall do so and not wait for the rest of the European Community?

Britain's approach was vindicated at the last Council of Minister's meeting. For the first time, all the countries of the European Community agreed to the introduction of lead-free petrol. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. The answer to the latter part of his question is yes, Sir.

Does the Under-Secretary of State recall that about two years ago the Government decided to conduct an inquiry into lead pollution in certain urban areas, including Manchester? Is the Department now able to make a statement on the inquiry's conclusions and findings concerning damage caused to children?

My constituency was included in the inquiry. National and European surveys show that there is no measureable impact on the health of children from the low levels of lead in this country, but that is not to say that it is not a sensible policy to diminish the risk of any such damage. That is what we are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet reached a conclusion on whether he intends to take action with regard to section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972.

My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a conclusion on this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the continued misuse of section 142 of the Local Government Act is costing Basildon and GLC ratepayers thousands of pounds? Is he further aware that during the local district elections the Basildon district council launched a scurrilous propaganda campaign, which included a misquotation of the Minister for Housing and Construction and the misuse of a picture of Torvill and Dean? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is too expensive at the moment to pursue the matter through the courts?

I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will pursue with the district auditor, and through the courts, that instance, which he has drawn to the attention of the House in an early-day motion. Of course, ratepayers have every right to object to having to pay for propaganda with partisan distortions with which they profoundly disagree. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has this matter under active review.

Will the Secretary of State explain to those Conservative Members sitting behind him that nothing improper has been done by the GLC or metropolitan county councils over the use of section 142? The money has been spent legally. If the numbskulls behind the hon. Gentleman do not understand that, they should start reading the Act. Is the hon. Gentleman aware —I ask him this question just to try to save him and the Secretary of State from making more mistakes—that under section 142 the GLC and other local authorities spend money on advertisements for jobs and on public notices? If the hon. Gentleman makes any changes, those displays will fall foul of them.

The Local Government Act 1972 was drafted at a time when councillors of all parties observed a general convention that ratepayers' money was not to be used for blatant party political propaganda. Because that convention has broken down the Government have had another look at section 142.

When my hon. Friend is examining section 142 and, I hope, section 137 of the Local Government Act, will he take time to examine the use of urban programme funds, which are also misused for party political propaganda, and ensure that money is not given to groups which have political objectives, at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers?

Ministers will, of course, look at any particular instances of abuse of the urban programme that my hon. Friend draws to their attention. His supplementary question raises the point that it is not just section 142 that is at the heart of local authority abuse —there is section 137 and other sections as well. That is why the Government are having a broad review on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that the district auditor would have some difficulty in trying to sustain an argument made by ratepayers about excessive spending on advertisements and so on by local authorities when other public corporations have been doing exactly the same? For example, the National Coal Board has spent more than £2 million already. When it was asked whether that was excessive payment, it said—

Order. It is such a pity. The Minister cannot answer for the National Coal Board.

rose—

Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to give him an opportunity to ask a question. He must not waste his chance.

What I am trying to explain is that on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Order. I am waiting for the question.

I am asking the Minister to consider, when drawing a comparison between public bodies such as local authorities, to take into account the fact that another public corporation—the National Coal Board—has spent more than £2 million on putting out phoney propaganda—which will be paid for by the taxpayers—to try to defeat the strike. That matter must be taken into account.

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman could not see the picture of dismay on the faces of his hon. Friends behind him when he asked his question. Whatever section the NCB used, it was not section 142 of the Local Government Act. I note with interest that, despite the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, miners in Bolsover continue to work.

Is not the Minister's problem the fact that section 142 is permissive legislation? Is not the answer to the problem to support a freedom of information Bill which makes it obligatory to provide information, and which therefore has much less chance of being partisan?

I am not sure that I follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I can give him an assurance that we are scrutinising the legislation at the moment with a view to trying to bring to an end the abuse which I think the hon. Gentleman also condemns.

Does my hon. Friend agree that ratepayers are fed up with the gross abuse and party political propaganda displayed by Labour-controlled councils? Is he aware that in Leicester, for instance, up to £40,000 is being spent on a public relations exercise, at ratepayers' expense, to try to stop rate capping? Have we not had enough of this, and cannot we do something rapidly under section 142?

My hon. Friend articulates a view that is held by many people. The problem is the mischief indulged in by an irresponsible minority, but I assure my hon. Friend that the particular abuses to which he referred are included in the review currently being undertaken within my Department.

As the Minister has a reputation as a liberal, will he resist the authoritarian wing of his party, which is so lacking in confidence in its own policies that it is seeking to crush the opposition and prevent the public from learning the truth about the Government's policies? Is it not time that the Government, instead of searching for the mote in the Labour party's eye, started to perceive the beam in their own eye? Is not the truth that the Government have outrageously abused the conventions relating to partisan political propaganda within the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister's press office, and that if section 142 applied to the Government every member of the Cabinet would by now have been surcharged and disqualified?

Not so long ago the hon. Gentleman was a councillor in the London borough of Islington. If he was frank with himself, he would not tolerate for one moment the propaganda funded by that authority under these sections. Many other people on the Opposition Benches share that view.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the past year opposing the domestic rating system.

I have received many representations which seek the reform or abolition of the domestic rating system. However, after our extensive review, it is clear that there is as yet no generally acceptable alternative.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that rate capping and the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties is no substitute for radical reform of the rating system? Will he go away and think again and bring in proposals for a fundamental reform of the rating system?

As my hon. Friend knows, in the past two or three years there has been the most thorough investigation of alternatives to rates undertaken by any Government since the war. Moreover, as he knows from a written answer, more than half the respondents to the Government's Green Paper on alternatives to rates favoured retention of the rating system. I am well aware that a wide spectrum of opinion would like an alternative, but, as the Select Committee concluded, there is no sign of any acceptable alternative at present. Of course, I never say "never" and a time may come when it will be possible to consider whether some reform would gain general public acceptance.

Does the Secretary of State accept that some domestic ratepayers are bearing more than their fair share of the burden because local authorities are forced to base rate bills on 1973 valuations? If he will not reform the system, will he at least ensure that it is based on up-to-date valuations?

The question of non-domestic revaluation is being considered urgently. That is a major task. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the valuation office would require a large number of extra staff to carry out the valuation and deal with the inevitable spate of appeals. I assure him, however, that the effective date for the non-domestic revaluation will be announced as soon as possible. On domestic revaluation, we intend to issue a consultation paper in due course and I hope that we shall not have to wait too long for that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have studied the problem have considerable sympathy with him in the difficulties that he faces, but that the central inequity of the present system under which two or more wage earners in the same household face the same rate burden as a household with just one wage-earner makes reform essential? Does he appreciate that he might be surprised at the favourable reception that proposals to tackle that central objection would receive?

I note my hon. Friend's reticence about what the proposals might be. Proposals were canvassed at length in the Green Paper and before the Select Committee. The Select Committee acknowledged that there might be a case for local income tax, for instance, but recommended that it should not be introduced unless there was widespread consent to such a change. I detect no such widespread consent.

Having assured the House that the domestic rating system is to be retained, will the Secretary of State consider section 21 of the Local Government Act 1974, which creates anomalies in the rating system, and will he give the problems of the domestic rating system equal status with those of the non-domestic system?

We are aware of the anomalies created by section 21. That will have to be taken into account when revaluation takes place. The fact that non-domestic and domestic revaluations take place at different times is already taken into account in the legislation, which provides for the necessary adjustments to be made.

In view of the inadequacies of the present system, will my right hon. Friend ensure that neither he nor the Conservative party undertakes to reform the rating system unless it is absolutely clear which system is to be introduced?

My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. It is easy for hon. Members in all parts of the House to call for reform. It is a great deal more difficult to know what that reform should be.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant the metropolitan borough of Trafford received from his Department in 1979–80; and how much it will receive in 1984–85 at 1984 prices.

In 1979–80 Trafford received £32·8 million in grants. For 1984–85 it will receive an estimated £24·3 million, in rate support grant. Information on other grants for 1984–85 is not yet available. Figures for the two years are in any event not comparable because of major changes in grant arrangements between 1979–80 and 1984–85.

Does not the massive reduction in grant to the Tory-controlled Trafford authority, which is slavishly following Government policies, compare very oddly with the situation in Liverpool? Is the new money for Liverpool to be taken from inner city authorities? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that his Government's actions will be clearly interpreted as showing that the Government concede nothing to those who acquiesce, and give in only when resistance is shown, as in the case of the city of Liverpool?

Thanks to its excellent Conservative administration, Trafford had a rate increase of 1·9 per cent. last year. Secondly, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the small sum of money which may, if it carries out its rating obligations, be available to Liverpool from urban funds could have been available to the ratepayers months ago if the council had behaved responsibly. The money is not to be subtracted from anywhere else. It comes from the departmental budget.

Can Trafford, or my own local authority, expect to enjoy the preferential treatment given to Liverpool, or do only militant local authorities get additional help?

There is no preferential treatment whatsoever. The only result of the behaviour of Liverpool city council has been that industrial uncertainty has threatened jobs there and the ratepayers have lost money. In the end, the council has been given something which it, or any other local authority, could have got by sensible negotiations months ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will carry out a review of the national mobility scheme for local authority tenants and housing applicants.

The national mobility scheme is a voluntary scheme agreed between most public housing authorities in the United Kingdom and I warmly commend its work in enabling nearly 13,000 households to move to new homes since it began in 1981.

Will the Under-Secretary condemn the inhumane operation of the scheme by some councils, including his own, in using it to decant their homeless families into other London boroughs? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, with his own borough of Ealing, according to its criteria, a person's household has to contain a person aged 60, or someone who is taking examinations, if that person is to retain the right to live in the borough, even if he has lived there for 30 years? Will the hon. Gentleman consult Shelter, which has a mass of information about the way in which boroughs are pushing their problems on to other areas?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to the Greater London mobility scheme rather than the national mobility scheme. In the light of recent publicity, I have made some inquiries about the borough of Ealing. In my view, the borough has done nothing that justifies the hon. Gentleman's language. The Greater London mobility scheme is very useful to boroughs such as Brent and Ealing, helping them to meet pressures from those on the waiting list.

As the excellent national mobility scheme can have only a limited effect because of varying regional demands for transfers, is it not true that the best way of maintaining and increasing mobility of labour is to sell far more council houses so that people can move more freely?

There are indeed other ways of securing national mobility, and former council tenants who have bought their homes are now more mobile than they would otherwise have been. There are provisions in the Housing and Building Control Act for a right of exchange for local authority tenants. That would be another useful step.

For those who need to improve their housing conditions and escape from the appalling conditions in which they currently live, would it not be better to increase mobility by increasing significantly—by many millions of pounds — the investment programmes of the local authorities and housing associations in the most hard-hit areas in the country? When will the Government face the fact that the only way to lift hundreds and thousands of people out of homelessness is to increase investment in providing decent alternative housing?

I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman if he would include, in his incitement to invest, reference to investment by the private sector as well as the public sector. Brent has had one of the most generous housing investment programme allocations in London over the past two years, and when we allocate the resources for next year I shall take into account the pressures in Brent which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that mobility would be increased for many hundreds of thousands of single people on house waiting lists, and they could be housed, if more tenants were aware of the right to sublet, which is enshrined in the Housing Act 1980? Will he ensure that all local authorities make their tenants aware of their rights, thereby increasing the supply of rented accommodation?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we have given public sector tenants the right to take in lodgers and, with their landlords' consent, to sublet part of their homes. We have also enabled councils to make homes available for up to one year for people who move into their areas to take up jobs. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said about a fresh publicity initiative to remind people of the generous provisions of the 1980 Act.

Is the Minister aware that there are strong social and economic grounds for having a national statutory mobility scheme? The purpose of mobility is to enable a tenant to move, for job or family reasons, from one part of the country to another. As long as Tory-controlled authorities such as Ealing use the mobility scheme as a means of kicking out their homeless people to much more hard-pressed Labour-controlled inner city boroughs, the scheme is being sabotaged. The Minister's borough is behaving like that.

I utterly reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. In my advice bureau, I see people who are on the Ealing waiting list. Many of them are advantaged by the very scheme which the hon. Gentleman denounced. I cannot join him in his condemnation of Ealing council.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received the report of the Nature Conservancy Council. "Nature Conservation in Great Britain"; and whether he intends to respond to it.

My right hon. Friend welcomed the publication of the Nature Conservancy Council's strategy document "Nature Conservation in Great Britain" as "forthright, realistic and challenging." We are considering the action programmes it contains in the context of the NCC's corporate plan.

Does the Minister agree with his right hon. Friend that, if a minuscule proportion of the money that is devoted to agriculture and forestry were spent on conservation, it would work wonders? What does his Department intend to do to correct the imbalance of funding between agriculture and conservation in favour of conservation?

My Department will continue to work with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see that there is a properly balanced policy in the countryside.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nature Conservancy Council is understaffed and that that was recognised even by the Rayner scrutiny last year? Will he take steps to increase funding to enable the NCC to have more staff to cover its important work?

Almost every suggestion that I hear is for more money. We are examining the NCC's corporate plan and shall discuss it with the council's chairman.

Is the Minister aware of the strong criticism that is directed at his Department by the House of Lords Committee that deals with agriculture and the environment? Does he accept that there will have to be a fundamental change in the agricultural structures programme if our environment is to be properly protected? Will he explain what steps he is taking to ensure that there is a proper and realistic arrangement between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that environmental issues are examined properly?

I have studied the report's conclusions and I do not doubt that when Ministers in my Department and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discuss it, it might be possible to find further improvements.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although we warmly welcome the fact that his Department works closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we still do not know enough about the mechanisms through which that co-operation is achieved, nor do we know how best to carry on the debate to support changes in the agricultural support system? We should be grateful to hear more about those procedures.

It is difficult to give a full description in answer to a question, but I assure my hon. Friend that there are regular meetings of Ministers in the two Departments to discuss these issues.

In view of warnings of pollution damage to the British countryside in the NCC report, including three lochs in Scotland, and fish loss in the English Lake District, how can the Government justify their inactivity over the reduction of air pollution?

There is no such inactivity. We have committed ourselves to further reductions of acidifying pollutants. The hon. Gentleman might have noticed that the Freshwater Biological Association said that there has been no acidification in the lakes in the Lake District that it was measuring.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the siting of motorway service areas in green belts.

The general presumption against development in the green belt is not affected by motorways, and there should continue to be the strongest restraint on development. However, once the decision has been taken to construct a motorway it will from time to time be necessary to consider whether there is a case to provide adequate ancillary services for motorway traffic. If such provision is proposed in the green belt, the case for an exception to policy will have to be argued fully in consultation with the local planning authorities concerned, under the provisions of Department of the Environment circular 7/77.

Will the Government keep particularly in mind the importance of the sanctity of the green belt in making these decisions on the siting of motorway service areas?

We have no general presumption against that, but motorways and motorway service areas do not affect the general presumption against development in the green belt, and there should continue to be the strongest constraint on such development. I am well aware of the problem facing my hon. Friend in his constituency, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport wall be writing to him.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to re-think the Government's proposals for the London green belt, and perhaps change his mind with regard to the breaking up of the 11,000 acres which the Greater London council currently owns in green belt land and giving it to the boroughs and districts, because frankly that does not look as though it is going to work, and it needs to be a unitary authority. The GLC has done a good service in this respect.

I do not accept the latter observation of the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the all-party Select Committee came out against that in its observations. The matter is now under consultation, which the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Does my hon. Friend agree that full use of the M25 will assist the local environment in urban and rural areas. and that an adequate system of motorway service stations on the M25 will save many drivers, perhaps thousands, wandering round green belt areas trying to find food and petrol?

I am sure that my hon. Friend has put matters in the order which interests him most of all. I will certainly draw the comments of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to encourage local authorities to reduce expenditure by putting services out to private contract.

Because of the slow progress made by many local authorities in putting their services to the test of competition, we are considering what measures can be taken to speed up the process and get better value for money.

Is it not a public scandal that over 90 per cent. of all local authorities have not explored the scope for privatisation, despite the dramatic savings that have been made by those that have? Will my hon. Friend now emulate his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and ask local authorities to submit plans to put specific services to the test of competition and to explore the scope for others?

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he is right. Despite estimated annual savings of some £7 million, from 23 contracts let so far for refuse collection and street cleaning, not one of those councils is Labour-controlled. Next week the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy will publish a management guide to contracting out in local government, a project which was part-funded by my Department. I hope that that publication will be widely studied, particularly by Labour-controlled authorities.

Is the Minister aware that the Ashfield district council in my constituency wants to make it clear to him that he should keep his grubby fingers off the refuse collection service in that district? When he talks about reduced expenditure, we all know what that means—disgruntled ratepayers and rubbish all over the streets where the collectors will not go back to pick it up when they have dropped it. The Minister should keep his grubby hands off the Ashfield service.

The hon. Gentleman is not living in the real world. The experience of ratepayers where the local authorities have contracted out services is that there has been an improvement in the service and a substantial reduction in cost. The hon. Gentleman ought to have more concern for his own ratepayers.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the achievements of various London boroughs, particularly Conservative ones, including Wandsworth and other London Conservative-controlled boroughs, and will he take note of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), and put services out to tender?

I have seen the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) and signed by a large number of my right lion. and hon. Friends. The Government are considering what further steps to take to encourage local authorities to put these works out to competitive tender.

Before the Minister goes ahead with compelling local authorities to privatise services, will he, in the name of open government, publish on all occasions the minutes of meetings that he has with the associations of private contractors that deal with these matters? As the public are interested in this, will he also publish the names of Conservative Members who have financial interests in such companies, because I am sure that it is not just my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) who would like to see the dirty fingerprints that will be on these contracts?

That question is unworthy even of the hon. Gentleman.