asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the comparative amount of Government support in per capita terms enjoyed by ratepayers (a) in the north of England and (b) in the south of England.

Government support to local authorities, in the form of aggregate Exchequer grant per capita, in 1986–87 amounted to £222 in the south of England and to £307 in the north, about 40 per cent. higher. The corresponding figure for the midlands is £243.

With figures like these, why the clamour from the Socialist town halls of the north, such as Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, that they are being robbed of their birthright? Is it to cover up for their over-indulgence? Does my right hon. Friend have an addition to make to the Government's "must get the message across" list?

Yes. It is clear from the figures that under the rate support grant system the Government continue to give substantially higher sums of money to those in the north. This is one aspect of the north-south divide and a fact that is not generally recognised. For example, looking at RSG alone, in the last years of the Labour Administration the north got 28 per cent. more than the south. Now, under this Government, the north gets 50 per cent. per head more than the south.

Now that the Secretary of State is getting out of the frying pan, will he tell the House whether he truly believes that there should be no Government control over rates? If so, does he think that his successor will share his belief?

The rates policy that I have pursued and set out in my Green Paper is very clear. I have made it clear that the system of local government finance needs a complete and absolute overhaul. I have put my proposals on the table. We await proposals from other parties.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures make it all the more disgraceful that Darlington borough council has not only increased the rates by 21 per cent. but has increased its spending by 21 per cent.? What does he have to say to a council which puts water slides before jobs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The total budgets of local authorities for next year show an increase of over 8 per cent., the inevitable consequence of which must be higher rate increases. The point that I have demonstrated in the grants is that substantial sums of money flow to local authorities, disproportionately in favour of the north.

Is the Minister not being a little dishonest when he tries to draw a simple analysis between the north and the south? I remind him that the north was the home of the industrial revolution. Consequently, it was left with the legacy of all the rubbish and old buildings that had to be replaced. Is that not why the north needs extra money?

I have made it clear that I do not begrudge this flow of money, and in fact the rate support grant system achieves that aim. On top of that, we have introduced an urban aid programme, which again is principally directed to the towns and cities of the north.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some counties in the south, espcially Gloucestershire, with which I am most familiar, funds that have been reallocated this year have not been distributed by the Liberal-Labour pact which is now in power in Gloucestershire? Does he agree that that distorts many of these figures?

I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. Wherever a Liberal-Labour pact gets into power, things go wrong.

I wish the Secretary of State well, whatever the future holds for him later this afternoon. From our point of view, although we have had a few disagreements with him, we think that whoever replaces him is likely to be worse, especially if it is his right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), or even worse his right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley).

The hon. Gentleman, who knows better than most the complexities of the rate support grant system, will know why grant varies from authority to authority. We are trying to devise a system to reward those authorities which give good value for money to their ratepayers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environmnt when he last met representatives of the voluntary organisations in Greater London and the metropolitan counties to discuss funding arrangements under the Local Government Act 1985.

My right hon. Friend last met representatives of voluntary organisations to discuss the effects of abolition on 24 March. There are no plans at present for a further meeting.

When will the money which the GLC allocated for forward funding be returned to the boroughs as a result of that being declared unlawful by the House of Lords?

That is a matter for the London Residuary Body, not the Government.

Why, in the borough of Southwark, although there was one urban programme grant to the Silwood estate, for which we are grateful, was the total urban programme cut by half this year from about £200,000 to about £100,000? Although boroughs such as mine in south London are clearly deprived, why do they not qualify for any of the more important statuses under the urban programme as programme partnership authorities? Is it not about time that we looked again at the urban programme and the funding of urban areas, which clearly does not always meet the needs of the most deprived parts of our inner cities?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that one of the inner city initiatives, under my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, was set up in the London borough of Southwark with extra resources of about £1 million behind it. We shall consider Southwark's urban programme. I do not think that it has applied under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 for assistance to industry, to which it is entitled, and that is something that I shall also be pursuing with the borough.

Will the Under-Secretary clarify the Government's intentions with respect to the Secretary of State's letter of 20 March 1986 about the proposed rate-capping of the arrangements to fund voluntary organisations in London? Would it not be scandalous, and further undermine the Government's commitments in the House of Lords and elsewhere to the voluntary organisations, if the already inadequate level of funding under the Richmond scheme were to be held by that draconian use of the Local Government Act 1985? In that connection, will the Government also clarify their intentions on funding for voluntary organisations in the metropolitan areas?

There seems to have been some genuine misunderstanding about this. Earlier this year the London boroughs decided to have a budget of £27 million. We have made it clear that we have no plans to reduce that figure, and the Government have an open mind on next year's budget.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the highest and lowest levels of natural background radiation within the United Kingdom; how the former compares with acceptable international standards of safety from radiation; and if he will make a statement.

Excluding the contribution from the daughter products of radon in dwellings, which varies very widely, the radiation doses from natural background range from about 0·9 mSv per year to 1·5 mSv per year. Including the contribution from radon, a typical range is from 1 to 10 mSv per year. For artificial sources of radiation, the internationally recommended dose limit for exposure of members of the public over many years is 1 mSv per year.

Does my on Friend agree that those figures show that there is a wide variation in levels of natural radiation? Can we then conclude that there is much still to be identified and measured when it comes to judging radiation levels, and that we should not add to man-made levels of radiation if we can possibly avoid it?

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. On average, exposure to people from industrial sources is a good deal less than 1 per cent. of annual exposure. That puts the thing into perspective. The great majority of radiation comes from natural cosmic radiation, rocks and so on.

Is not the belching filth that comes out of Britain's coal-fired power stations for more damaging to the environment, and particularly to the Lake District, than any radiation? Is it not time that we took our gloves off in the argument over the impact on the environment of nuclear or coal-fired power?

I am not sure that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman about "any radiation", but he is right to remind us that there are problems of pollution with any major form of power generation. It is probably true that the most intractable of all long-term environmental problems will be carbon dioxide and the heating of the atmosphere.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his original answer was extremely erudite but totally incomprehensible to all hon. Members with the exception of the few who have had a very good education in that sphere? Is it not therefore important to evolve a meaningful form of language that brings home to people exactly what we are talking about?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is also vital to have the data available so that those who have had the education to which my hon. Friend referred can interpret it properly. It is difficult to simplify things a lot without confusing the issue further. However, in order to help my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and, indeed, myself, we have prepared a comparative table of sources of radiation which has been made available in the Library of the House and, I think, in the Vote Office.

The Minister has told the House that, according to international bodies, the acceptable level is 1mSv a year. If so, why has the legally enforceable level in this country been set by the most recent ionising regulations at 5mSv a year? Why do America and West Germany have levels that are 20 times more stringent than those in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman has made the mistake of believing everything in that "Panorama" programme. I have to say that in almost every critical respect that programme was wrong. The methods by which we calculate safe dose limits in this country are different from those in the United States and Germany. Ours are tighter than those in Germany, and equivalent to those in the United States. The issue is so important that I am providing every hon. Member with a briefing note on that programme, which contained many mistakes.

My hon. Friend will be aware that this morning there was a leak from the Cap de la Hague waste treatment plant near Cherbourg. That is a matter of concern to my constituents and to others on the south coast because there have been other incidents in the past. As a result of that leak was there any emission into the atmosphere, and what precautions are the Government taking to keep everybody informed?

I can reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents. My officials and officials of the Radiochemical Inspectorate have been in touch with their opposite numbers in France. There was no leakage of radiation from the building concerned and, therefore, no impact on the outside environment in France, let alone in the United Kingdom.

When the Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, (Mr. Cook) about the "Panorama" programme, was he saying—this is important—that the standards of radiation measurement in the United Kingdom are higher than they are in Germany or in the United States of America?

The measurements are the same. We are talking about safety levels. I am advised that although they are differently calibrated or put together, the effective protection levels for the population in Britain are tighter than they are in Germany and equivalent to those in the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received and from what bodies concerning the proposal to sell off whole council estates or parts of estates to private developers.

My right hon. Friend has received many representations on this general issue. They have come from organisations representing interested parties, from individual Members of this House, and from members of the public.

Does the Minister appreciate that the proposals are causing particular anxiety among tenants because of the threat of eviction? Does the Minister recognise that as time goes on developers will invariably choose the better sites? What is happening about waiting lists, tranfer lists and the homeless? What assurances can the Minister give about these sensitive issues?

Some tenants have been unnecessarily alarmed by the literature put through their doors during the recent local government elections campaign. Much of that literature was not factually correct. Under the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers tenants will enjoy a high measure of protection, on all fours with the protection that council tenants receive when councils move their tenants from one council property to another, and similar to the protection that private tenants get when private landlords move their tenants from one place to another with the approval of the courts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members fully support the proposals because they will end the often inhuman and remote management by housing authorities and lead to much better management in the private sector?

I believe that the private sector, and, perhaps, new institutional forms of management can provide a lot. It is interesting that a substantial number of Labour-controlled local authorities are seeking to involve the private sector in the interests of the people who live in their areas.

Will the Minister confirm, or deny, recent reports in the press about a speech that he made that he intends to allow council housing not only to be sold off against residents' wishes, but to force such property to be sold by councils against the wishes of the councils?

The best thing that I can do is to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the speech so that he can see exactly what I said. I can sum up exactly the feeling and sentiment of my speech by quoting one sentence, in which I said:

"The Government's goal is to recreate in our cities a diverse and socially welcome pattern of different types of housing available for rent which will match and complement the diversity and richness of our owner-occupied stock."

Was not my hon. Friend too mealy-mouthed in his response to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)? Is my hon. Friend aware of the unscrupulous propaganda circulated in my constituency during the recent local government elections by the Labour party in Manchester about the threats that the Government were holding over the heads of tenants in my constituency and stating that it was an absolute fact that when the Housing and Planning Bill went through they would be evicted? Perhaps my hon. Friend should beef up his answer in response to my intervention.

I can see that I need some training in this approach from my hon. Friend. He will be aware of the letter that I wrote to him a day or so ago condemning in clear and unequivocal terms the leaflets that were put through so many doors in Manchester. However, in my characteristically, I hope, subfusc and reasonable approach when answering questions, I was seeking to say that we should put the recent local elections behind us with the scaremongering leaflets that were circulated during those local elections. Let us tell tenants in public sector stock, particularly elderly tenants, exactly what the facts and the truth are. That is so important in politics.

Does the Minister accept that the best way to add to the diversity and choice of housing is to allow local authorities and housing associations to continue with the task of building homes for rent, on which the Minister and his Department have been screwing them down for the last seven years? If he wants to assure tenants about houses being sold off to the private sector, should he not give to tenants the same veto on sales to the private sector as he has promised tenants in respect of the privatisation of management? Will he give that assurance and change the Housing and Planning Bill in another place?

The hon. Gentleman, who served on the Standing Committee on the Housing and Planning Bill, will be well aware of the considerable assurances that I have given during the examination of the Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is a London Member, is, to a great extent, playing the wrong tune over new building. In London and our other great cities we should be finding ways of bringing back into use the scandalously large number of empty council houses and flats to house the people who need that accommodation.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread support for the case to break up centralised, monolithic and remote local authority housing management? Will he be taking practical steps to encourage the development of housing co-operatives, housing associations and neighbourhood housing trusts rather than taking the easy option of simply selling the estates off into the private sector?

On some occasions the option which might be appropriate could well be selling off part, not necessarily all, of the accommodation on an estate. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) that a variety of ways of breaking up monolithic tenures would be very appropriate, especially if they are the sorts of tenures which the people who live in those flats and houses want. That is why we need a radical re-examination of our policies towards rented housing in the public and private sectors.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the numbers of houses in Coventry unfit for human habitation, substandard or requiring major repairs.

Coventry provides its assessment of stock condition as part of its annual housing investment programme return.

Considering that the Minister has recently visited Coventry, South-East, is he not aware that the appalling figure of over 20,000 houses represents almost one in six of all private and public houses in the city of Coventry? Is it not true that the cuts of almost £100 million in the past seven years in rate support grant for Coventry has meant that for five years the Labour council has not had the money to start to build a single council family house? Does he accept that the thousands of families who live in those houses in Coventry, apart from welcoming the resignation of his Government, could do with an injection of capital for the building of decent houses for people and providing proper jobs for workers?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned cuts, but the figure for expenditure on housing by Coventry was £13·4 million in 1982–83 and £19·8 million in 1985–86. Therefore, there have not been dramatic reductions in capital investment on housing by Coventry. I very much welcome the initiatives that Coventry is now at last beginning to take to interest the private sector in helping to tackle some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek to speed up the sale of council houses and flats within Leicester.

I understand that over 4,000 flats and houses have been sold under the right to buy in Leicester, but only 13 flats had been sold at the end of December 1985.

Is that not a shocking indictment of the Labour-controlled Leicester city council? It just does not care. In fact, it has sold only 12 flats and 4,300 council houses and there are still 34,400 council houses and flats left ready to be sold with 700 people waiting to buy them. Will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to give the people of Leicester the opportunity of owning something that should belong to them and not to the dreadful Labour-controlled council?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that Leicester, like other councils — for example, Manchester and Nottingham — is paying so little attention to the aspirations of the people who live in its area. I wish that the controlling Labour group on Leicester city council had watched the recent Labour party political broadcast on television, which was a great paean of praise for home ownership and showed a welcome conversion to our policies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak Park Planning Board.

No, Sir. We have already provided for statutory district council representation on the board in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Since the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country where planning is undertaken without directly elected representatives being involved in final decisions, why should those of my constituents who live in the Peak park put up with this undemocratic treatment?

Twelve local authorities are involved in the administration of the Peak district park, and direct elections would be impractical in those circumstances. Two thirds of the members are appointed by the councils. I expect that they would be capable of representing the interests of the Peak park. We recognise the advantages of choosing members with local knowledge and experience when we appoint them from the Department.

Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a strong case for improving the representation of people from Greater Manchester and Sheffield, who use the Peak park at weekends and at other times for recreation? There is considerable resentment in those areas over the fact that in recent years their representation on the Peak Park Planning Board has been reduced.

Locally elected people from the wards in the Peak park could represent the interests to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

The Minister will be aware of my great anxiety about the planning procedures in south Cumbria, which incorporates the Lake District Special Planning Board. The Minister may also be aware that the Peak park——

Order. The question relates to the Peak park.

This relates to the principle, Mr. Speaker.

That is a different matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector housing starts are planned for 1986–87; and how this figure compares with 1978–79.

My Department does not forecast housing starts or completions in the public or private sector.

Will the Minister confirm that, nevertheless, there has been a significant fall in public sector housing starts during the lifetime of the Government, that in many inner cities no public sector houses are being built and that several million people cannot afford, for reasons of low income or unemployment, to buy in the private market? Among them are hundreds of thousands of people who are badly housed and overcrowded, and the Government's housing policy offers them no hope.

That is exactly what the Labour party said before we started the process of council house sales, never mind the present position The balance of new build has switched between 1979 and now, nowhere more successfully than in Wandsworth, which has done a marvellous job. By selling properties, Wandsworth was able to spend last year about £58 million—the biggest housing investment programme in London—and this has allowed it to spend more on maintaining and repairing its council house stock than any Labour or alliance-controlled council in London.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way to curb homelessness is through the maximum use of existing housing stock? The number of houses left empty, not for two, four or six months, but for a year, is a scar on the face of a caring society and an indictment of many Labour-controlled housing authorities. Does he agree with the proposition that the answer to homelessness might be for councils to give house keys to people on their waiting lists who are do-it-yourself experts and who could renovate the houses in exchange for a compensatory rent-free period?

That is a possibility. That view was expressed by the Opposition during the Committee stage of the Housing and Planning Bill. It is clearly something to consider. It saddens me that there is so much housing need and so many empty houses and flats, not only in the council, but in the private, sector. It is absurd that we cannot, as men of good will, find a consensus and so bring back much of the empty properties and house more of our people.

Does the Minister agree that, coinciding with the dramatic decline in public sector starts, there has been a continuing increase in homelessness? There are now more homeless families accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hotels than ever before because there are insufficient public sector homes for them. Is it not wasteful of public finance to spend money on bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Is the Minister aware that in Wandsworth, because of the increase in homelessness, there are people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation who should be in public sector housing?

The hon. Gentleman, with his experience in these matters, should look at the large number of empty properties in London boroughs, seek ways with us to bring them back into use, through better management in the public sector, and try to find ways to bring down the absurdly high number of empty private properties to rent, by looking hard at that area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Left-wing local authorities which refuse to enter into imaginative partnership with the private sector for the improvement and renovation of their derelict housing stock are denying their citizens the right to decent housing? What action will he take to force such local authorities to act responsibly and in the interests of the people who live in their cities?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right and my answer is a clear and unequivocal yes. I am happy to report that many Labour authorities, such as Salford and Oldham, have been collaborating and co-operating with better housing for their own tenants and inhabitants. Some councils are not so co-operative, including places such as Manchester, Nottingham, and Leicester—we have heard their names before—and, in particular, Liverpool. I think that the tenants will, in the end, force councils to take action that they should have taken long ago. If they do not do so, we may have to take action.

No matter how much private investment is brought into joint action with public authorities, we need more public investment to deal with the very large number of private dwellings that are in grave need of repair and renovation and could be put to use by housing associations and local authorities if money were available to buy and repair them.

Money is one half of the equation. The other half is the inhibition that so many private landlords feel about improving and bringing back into use their own stock which is being kept empty. If the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward a suggestion and would like a response from us, I say, "By all means put forward your suggestion, but recognise that the expenditure of extra money on the improvement grant system will not necessarily bring back the empties. "If only the Labour party would move a bit on the private rented sector, we would be in business.

Further to the question of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford), will my hon. Friend confirm that he wishes to see the phasing out of bed and breakast accommodation as a means of solving homelessness, on both social and financial grounds?

Yes. It is a method of last resort, to be used only when everything else has failed.

Does the Minister accept that the public, whether owners, tenants or the homeless, rightly condemn the 100,000 empty dwellings in the public sector, and, in many ways, condemn them more than they condemn the 500,000 empty homes in the private sector? If there were genuine good will to do something about the matter, surely the Government would have accepted the Opposition's new clause to the Housing and Planning Bill, which would have allowed people who have been on the waiting list for more than 12 months to take over the tenancy of a property that has been empty for more than six months and was available for letting.

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. It reflects something that I mentioned in a speech yesterday to which he was good enough to listen. I said that councils had

"segregated council tenants on estates and labelled them with a distinctive address and a distinctive architecture. For many, it has not been a social success."

Is the Minister aware that this is often a self-inflicted problem? In Leeds during the past two decades some 10,000 more houses have been demolished than have been built. Given that there is a need for rented accommodation, it is important to present a package of refurbishments for housing association dwellings and public sector starts. Will his statistics reflect that and make the point that we have to get on with housing for rent? We should not be demolishing houses that could be refurbished.

Demolition is rather like putting people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and should be a last resort. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) that we need a greater diversity of provision on our housing estates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the rate of disposal of building land in the inner cities by public bodies.

No, but I believe that better progress is being made since we set up the registers of unused land. Some 38,000 acres have gone from the registers, including since 1984, 4,400 acres of inner city derelict land.

During my right hon. Friend's all too short but positive stewardship in the Department of the Environment, may I ask whether he has seen enough to agree that it is disappointing that more public sector land has not been sold for housing in the inner cities? Does he agree that one of the many reasons for that is that there is not much incentive for builders to build in the inner cities when they are able to build on green field sites in my constituency and elsewhere?

I have issued 107 notices to dispose of surplus land and 25 directions were issued following those. It is disappointing that there are still substantial quantities of unused derelict land in the inner cities, especially in the north. It serves no one's purpose to leave that land derelict. One of the ways in which we can abate the development pressures in the sort of area that my hon. Friend represents is by bringing as much as possible of that land back into active use.

Some of this building land could undoubtedly be used by local authorities to supply the accommodation so desperately required by people who have no accommodation at all. Why does the Minister not recognise this? Is he aware that if the rumours are true he is to be replaced by the present Minister of Transport, a noted Right-wing fanatic? If that is true, those who are in desperate need of housing can give up all hope.

Quite a lot of this derelict land is owned by local authorities, and nearly all of it is owned by statutory authorities. It is a matter of motivating them to dispose of it to bring development forward. Two grants are available, the derelict land grant, which we have increased to £90 million a year, and the urban development grant, which we have increased to £25 million a year. I wish it were possible to educate certain councils to get on with the business of disposing of that land.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dissatisfaction that he has expressed about the rate of progress in selling unused land now on the land registers is shared by those on the Benches behind him? Is he further aware that there is a widespread belief on the Tory Benches that it is wrong, morally, socially and economically, for public bodies to hold on to land for which they have no operational requirement, either today or tomorrow? Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider taking further and specific powers to secure the release of unused land so that it can be put to better use by others?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. He asked about extra powers. We are using the powers available to the Secretary of State for the Environment, but more has to be done. It is morally indefensible to allow land to lie vacant when it could be used for industrial development and for houses.

Is not this problem just a symptom of the Government's abysmal failure on inner city policy in general? By systematically removing financial resources from those authorities which were trying to deal with these problems they have created a situation in which local authorities cannot use the land because they have no money. They do not want to sell it because if they need land later it would cost them a lot more to buy it back. In addition, because the problems of the inner cities are getting worse, land in the hands of private developers is also lying idle because people will not invest until the Government and local authorities start tackling the problems with more vigour.

I reject completely the criticism of the stewardship of myself and my predecessors in relation to the inner cities. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures that I gave earlier of the proportionately greater amount of money that is provided under the rate support grant system to the towns and cities of the north, of the way in which we have trebled the amount of support through the urban programme to the towns and cities, and of the triumphant success of the greatest reclamation of any inner city area in the world—London docklands.

What incentive is there for responsible Conservative-controlled authorities, such as the borough of Macclesfield, to sell land that is surplus to their requirements if they are then unable to spend that money on the sorts of desirable projects that are in the best interests of the people of the area—such as housing for the elderly, young marrieds and single people—because of the limits on the spending of capital receipts? How can my right hon. Friend urge his policy upon such a council when it is against the best interests of that council as it cannot spend the money when it has sold the land?

The amount of cash that is received by local authorities on selling the land remains theirs, and they can use it either to redeem debts—and some £2 billion has been used to do so—or there is a system of cumulative borrowing powers under the capital control system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to improve the arrangements for co-ordinating Government monitoring of radiation levels following the leak from the Chernobyl nuclear power station.

Arrangements for co-ordinating monitoring of radiation levels have been in operation for a number of years and worked effectively after the accident at Chernobyl. My Department will be examining its procedures in the light of recent events to determine whether any changes are desirable.

Does the Minister accept that it does no good to the Government's reputation for co-ordinating any environmental policy if they change their Secretary of State for the Environment three times in three years? On the question of radiation levels, does the Minister accept that we need more progress than we have seen to date on the co-ordination of seven Government Departments and six other agencies, and that so far we have received only a babble of unrelated technical information, rather than plain information for the ordinary person? Does he also accept the figures produced in Nature magazine on 15 May by three employees of the NRPB, which showed that although the increase in radiation in the south of England was only 1 per cent., in the north it was 15 per cent. above average? Should that not be a salutory warning?

The joke was feeble, the second part of the question was wrong, and the last part in relation to the figures in Nature was roughly right. The hon. Gentleman should read the rest of the article, which says that these background levels are still of trivial proportions.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank the local authority emergency planning officers for all the work that they do in assisting the Government to monitor these levels, particularly their role in the civil emergency sphere?

Let me widen my hon. Friend's question. I should like to pay tribute to those local authority officers, but I should also like to pay tribute to all the people who manned the monitoring stations. According to Murphy's law, such an accident was bound to happen on a bank holiday weekend, but these people did their jobs very well throughout that weekend and subsequently.

In the light of the Minister's courteous phone call to me last Friday, has he been able to check whether on Saturday 26 April or on Sunday 27 April there was any inquiry about graphite fires in reactors to the International Atomic Energy Authority, the CEGB or the AEA emanating from Russian sources?

As behoves any Minister questioned by the hon. Gentleman, I have checked and rechecked the answer that I have given him. I have been unable to find any contact other than the one that I described by Mr. Emerson of the International Atomic Energy Agency on 29 April. After careful checking, I have been unable to find any other contact.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Southwark and many other areas throughout the country are designated nuclear-free zones and that the people of those areas have been subjected to Russian fallout? What is he doing to acquaint the Russians with the fact that we have nuclear-free zones? Furthermore, is he aware of what level of protest, if any, has gone from those zones to the Russians?

Behind my hon. Friend's question lies a serious point, because a number of local authorities under Left-wing Labour control have taken a negative view about civil defence. Contingency plans were not involved in this incident, but they might have to be in a more serious one, if there ever was one; pray God, there will not. Many of those attitudes are extremely irresponsible.

Will the Minister be a little more explicit about the telephone call to which he referred in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? If it is the case that a British official in the International Atomic Energy Agency received an inquiry from Russia on 29 April about how to deal with a graphite fire, why was that information not communicated immediately to the British Government? Would it not have made a major difference to the preparedness of the country and of the emergency services if that potential warning and been acted upon? [Interruption.] If I were a Conservative Member I would not underestimate the genuine concern of the British people about the nature of this incident and the way it has been handled. Is it not extraordinary that the information was not communicated to the Government immediately?

Though no one doubts the heroism and the technical competence that have now been brought to bear by the Russians on this tragedy, if any Government have to answer questions about cover-ups, it is not the British Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue the "Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report" for 1986–87.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government announced to the House on 10 April our intention to seek to place beyond doubt the issues raised over the Secretary of State's powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to determine block grant multipliers. Until the legislation, which we shall shortly introduce to the House, has passed all its stages and received Royal Assent, we have been advised that it would not be appropriate to make any further supplementary reports. The Secretary of State will therefore lay the first supplementary report for 1986–87 before the House for its approval as soon as he is able.

Will the Minister think again about the answer that she has just given to the House and undertake that the Secretary of State will obey the decision of the court, which found that the city of Birmingham had had about £7 million stolen from it, on top of about £508 million in the last five financial years? In short, will the Minister say that the Government will obey the law rather than seek to change it retrospectively?

It is a fact that had Birmingham pursued the court case that it intended to pursue there would have been the most incredible turmoil from 1981 onwards for all authorities, including Birmingham. All that the Government have sought to do is to put matters right within the House to bring about a situation which all authorities, as well as local authority associations and Opposition Members, had always understood to be the case.

When my hon. Friend is considering rate support grant issues, will she pay particular attention to the outstanding record of Suffolk county council in keeping within Government guidelines? Will she also urge her colleagues to give Suffolk county council more favourable treatment under the rate support grant in future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. That is a matter that my right hon. Friend will consider in the next block grant assessments.

Having listened to all the waffle at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, I am afraid that my local authority in Ashfield will suffer another serious reduction in rate support grant for the next financial year. I do not know with whom the Minister can have a word, because apparently the Secretary of State is moving on and I do not know who is taking over. Will the Minister have a word with whoever takes over about releasing the money received from council house sales so that we can provide better services for our people in Ashfield?

Wiser people than I have avoided speculating at this Dispatch Box.

Why does the Minister not come clean about the disreputable nature of the Government's actions? Will she confirm that Birmingham was not pursuing its case, but had won it, and that the Government are now seeking to overturn a decision in Birmingham's favour which was lawfully arrived at in the high court of justice? Will she also confirm that the delay in introducing the Bill is because of major drafting problems, and that the net result of the series of decisions is to deprive Birmingham and other authorities of millions of pounds to which they are entitled, and to create further uncertainty for every local authority in the land?

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that a number of Labour authorities would stand to lose if we were to pursue the course that he has just set out. Birmingham is not likely to lose and, indeed, no authorities are likely to lose. The practice that was followed is commonly understood and has continued during the past few years, and we shall continue to use it. The legislation is simply to achieve what was thought to be the position.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of Sir John Garlick following the fire in Hampton Court palace.

My right hon. Friend has asked Sir John Garlick to complete a thorough inquiry as quickly as possible.

Can my hon. Friend say how long it will take to complete the repairs and reinstatement before reopening the palace completely to the public? What can be done to speed that up, as Hampton Court palace is not only a royal palace of great importance but a major national museum and a highly valued amenity for local people?

My hon. Friend naturally takes a deep interest in Hampton Court palace, which is in his constituency. I can reassure him that all the state apartments are now open to the public, except for the rooms on the south front which were damaged by the fire and those immediately adjacent to them. We hope to reopen the outside area of the south front this weekend, but it is too soon to say when the remaining apartments will be fully restored and reopened.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to privatise local government services following his recent consultations.

It remains our firm intention to introduce legislation to require competition for a range of local authority services as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Now that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the most remarkable savings have been made by privatising local government services, without a loss of standards in those services and with the full approval of the electorate, as was amply demonstrated in the election results of 8 May, will my hon. Friend hasten the time when he plans to introduce legislation to oblige all local authorities to put such services to the competitive test?

I can only repeat what I said in my initial answer, that, without in any way anticipating the contents of the Queen's Speech, if legislative time is available, the Government intend to take further action in this area.

What conclusion does the Minister draw from the large number of formerly Conservative-controlled authorities which reject the privatisation of services, particularly the borough of Trafford, which examined in detail the possibility of privatising refuse collection and decided that it would not make economic sense?

I draw the same conclusion as I draw from the fact that a number of Conservative councils which were at the forefront of privatisation, including Bath, Wandsworth, Westminister, and Merton, did rather well at the local elections, namely, that what controls the swings at modern local government elections is, unfortunately, the national position.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by water authorities in further trials of universal residential metering.

Following consultations on the Watts report. the water industry is developing a coordinated programme of trials.

Bearing in mind the Government's excellent proposals for the abolition of the residential rating system, does my hon. Friend agree that the water authorities should now be giving urgent consideration to the introduction of universal metering as the only viable alternative system?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent question, and I have read and greatly admired his pamphlet on water metering. If domestic rating is abolished, clearly we must replace it with some other basis for charging for the water industry. That could well be via water metering. That is why we need well conducted trials to consider the pros and cons of water metering as a method of charging fairly for water.

Are the Government not aiming to change the whole nature of the water authorities before the metering experiment takes place? Are chairmen of water authorities not informing the elected representatives that their services will no longer be needed because they are to be replaced with a number of full-time executives? The Labour party condemns the loss of the elected representatives of the water authorities. How, and from where, will the Minister choose the full-time executives? Is it not disgraceful, unacceptable and disgusting that the Government will be changing the nature of water authorities before Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the matter and decide its attitude to the water authorities?

The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are no, no, no and no. I cannot see the link between his questions and the question on water metering.