asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities about his Department's document on the environment entitled "UK 2000."

We have received 22 letters from local authorities and one from a local authority association.

I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that local authorities have been among the first to welcome the initiative for tidying up Britain. I am sure also that the House will congratulate my hon. Friend on putting up £750,000 of Government money to help fund the scheme and welcome the fact that business has responded with a further £400,000, but, under the present financial restrictions placed on local government, will it be able to come in with its share of funding of a scheme which, if it is not based on plural funding, will probably not succeed?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The initiative has got off to a good start with £400,000 coming from the private sector before any appeal has been launched, which bodes well for the future. Local authorities already carry an enormous burden of work in this area. I agree that they should be seeking co-operative schemes with the private and voluntary sectors and that "UK 2000" is a good way of doing that. They are already taking advantage of the increased provision that we have made for training with the help of the Keep Britain Tidy Group.

Since some demolition work may be involved in "UK 2000" projects, will the Minister look at ways of tightening up the safety laws governing demolition when asbestos dust is present in view of the Appeal Court's ruling yesterday showing loopholes in the law?

I saw the reports this morning, which I think deal with matters under the health and safety at work legislation and potential defects in that. I shall discuss that matter with my hon. Friend who is responsible for those matters.

As one of the objectives of "UK 2000" is to green our cities, will my hon. Friend confirm that with imagination physical improvement can be brought about, particularly in our inner city areas, at relatively little cost? Will he encourage competitions to find schemes which will contribute to that objective and cost relatively little?

My hon. Friend is right. The combination of private sector money, local authority skills and volunteers can often do a great deal with little funding. My hon. Friend also makes the point that "UK 2000" goes much wider than a litter initiative. It is the first time that the seven principal voluntary organisations, ranging from Friends of the Earth to the Civic Trust, have sat down together to try to work out a strategy to cover schemes such as the rehabilitation of Tynemouth station.

Does the Minister recognise that much of the untidiness in Britain has been caused directly by other Government policies? Why have the Government cut 10 per cent. in real terms from the grant for refuse collection? I see the Secretary of State smiling. Perhaps he will explain why in April this year, as Secretary of State for Transport, he issued a circular saying that all litter bins should be removed from all trunk road laybys. How did that policy contribute to tidying up Britain?

It is well known that the existence of those litter bins often turned out to be a source of fly tipping and dumping, making the situation worse. The truth, as the hon. Gentleman should know, because, unhappily for him, he has been stuck in his present job for a long time—

Listen to who is talking.

I shall be delighted to remain in my job for several years more. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that if the worst and most inefficient local authorities came up just to the average on litter collection, more than that 10 per cent. could be saved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of vandalism and graffiti to local authority buildings and those for which his Department has responsibility during 1985; and if he will make a statement.

No central statistics are held by my Department on the cost of damage caused by vandalism and graffiti to local authority and Government buildings.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, even if there is no central information, the problem is considerable? Is he aware that a number of existing techniques could be used to great effect? Is he satisfied that the local authorities which might be able to benefit by the use of those techniques even know about them, and does he think that his Department could have a role to play in disseminating that sort of information?

I am not satisfied that all the techniques are well known to local authorities, but I understand that a firm in my hon. Friend's constituency called Graffiti Management Ltd. is keen to evaluate existing ways of removing graffiti and to test new ones. I wish it success.

Will the Minister accept evidence from constituencies such as mine that the incidence of vandalism, on council estates in particular, can be substantially reduced by effective neighbourhood watch schemes? If that is so, is it not monstrous that some local authorities should deliberately obstruct the development of those schemes? Will he encourage them to see the error of their ways?

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that some Labour authorities are refusing to remove certain graffiti, on the ground that it is sexist or racist? More seriously, will my hon. Friend confirm that the more people who buy flats in local authority owned blocks, the more pride they will have in their own environment and, furthermore, the more that tenants become involved in the government of their own environment the greater respect they will have for the common parts, such as the lift or the staircase?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that Camden council, for example, discriminates against certain sorts of graffiti. A ratepayer telephoned recently to ask for the removal of the slogan, "Kilroy was here." He was told that it would not be possible to have that removed. He then inquired further and was told that if the graffiti had said, "Kilroy was queer" the council would remove it.

Does the Minister recall that on 24 November his Department issued a press release announcing certain improvement grants to tackle graffiti and other matters? Is he aware that a grant of £105,000 was in that package for Wandsworth Plain estate in Wandsworth? Was he aware when the press release was issued that Wandsworth council had already disposed of that estate?

I do not have the detailed information on that. However, one thing is certain: the quality of the Wandsworth Plain estate is much higher than it has ever been.

Does my hon. Friend have any information to suggest that there has been an improvement in either the grammar or the spelling of graffiti since the Government came to office? In particular, can he draw any distinctions between graffiti in Labour education authority and Conservative education authority areas?

We shall have to consider seriously making inquiries and gathering statistics on that. Ultimately it depends on the quality of the local education authority.

When will the Minister raise his standards above that of the graffiti artist? Bearing in mind how much money is spent on things such as early warning systems and so on, how much money are the Government spending to find a simple antidote to the aerosol can and the felt tipped pen which disfigure so much of our public property and public transport, and much of which is abusive in racial and sexist terms to the general public? What are the Government spending on that which is an affront to many right-minded people?

When looking around the country, particularly in Southampton, some of the most offensive graffiti just says, 'Militant." As I understand it, that is something that Labour Members are prepared to support.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met members of the Nature Conservancy Council to discuss marine nature reserves.

I met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council and council members at their 100th meeting in Peterborough on 2 December. The council expressed its pleasure at the designation by my right hon. Friend on 21 November of the first marine nature reserve at Lundy.

Now that the first marine nature reserve has been designated around Lundy, has my hon. Friend any plans for further designations? When considering any possible further reserves, will he ensure that the livelihood of fishermen is one of the factors taken seriously into account?

Yes, Sir. The chairman of the NCC has written to me about Skomer, and there are about five more reserves in the pipeline. Time was taken in negotiating the first marine nature reserve largely because we tried to reassure the local fishermen. Now that Lundy has been established and we have shown that reserves can be established without endangering fishermen's livelihoods, I hope that we shall be able to proceed faster and perhaps with fewer suspicions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that time was taken to produce the first marine nature reserve because there was full consultation with recreation, fishing and other interests? Now that the pattern has been established, more reserves will be designated much more quickly.

My hon. Friend has a record of distinguished service on the NCC council. I agree that it has been worth proceeding slowly and carefully. That having been done, I hope that we can accelerate progress.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the Green Paper on reform of common land legislation.

Yes Sir; as soon as possible.

What proportion of common land does the Secretary of State think is likely to be deregistered when the Government introduce legislation on this matter?

A consultation paper will be published early in the new year and legislation will follow as soon as it is possible for the Government to find time to bring it forward. I can assure the hon. Lady that the legislation will be high in our programme, but I cannot speak for the Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulty that has been experienced by commoners this year in evicting hippy convoys from common land? Will he ensure that at least one section of the Green Paper deals with this problem, which may be a recurring one, especially in my constituency?

I am aware of these problems because I have such a common in my constituency. I think that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the action taken under the Public Order Act 1986 to deal with the problem. I hope that that action will be satisfactory.

Is the Secretary of State aware that over 30 years ago a Royal Commission said that when dealing with common land, the ownership of the soil, the boundaries of the land and the common rights should be on the public record? Past legislation has failed grossly to meet those criteria, especially in respect of ownership. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any new legislation will include provisions to enable the public to check the ownership of common land claimed by individuals?

Under the chairmanship of the Countryside Commission, the Common Land Forum has produced a nearly unanimous report on what new legislation should contain. That is such an achievement that the House would be wise not to suggest deviations from what is recommended, without good reason. I hope that the consultative paper will be met with the same nearly unanimous reception.

When does the Secretary of State intend to publish the consultative paper? Secondly, will he be more explicit about when he expects to be able to draw conclusions from it? I think that there is accord on both sides of the House that the work of the Common Land Forum—covering the views of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and all the amenity bodies—is a worthy basis for legislation, and we expect early proposals from the Government.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I have said that we hope to publish the consultative paper early in the new year. It has not been possible to do that before the House rises for the Christmas recess. Consultation will take place for several months and we look forward to hearing what the public think. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance to discuss local government finance and the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement.

The Secretary of State and I have no proposals to meet the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance to discuss further the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement.

Will the Minister admit that the Secretary of State and his predecessors have been breaking the law since 1980, because of political interference in the drafting of that legislation, which was urged by Tory local authority associations to enable those authorities to increase rents and to make profits on housing revenue accounts that could be deducted from their total expenditure so that they could obtain extra grant? Was not that political interference with the legislation, which has made the Government behave illegally for the past seven years, a scandal?

The simple answer is no. Obviously, amendments will be made shortly to the 1980 Act. However, that legislation was introduced at the request of the local authorities—

Tory local authorities—

In 1980, presumably at least one local authority was labour-controlled, even if one needed a magnifying glass to find it. The hon. Gentleman's reaction shows the danger that arises when a Government become over-reasonable in dealing with people.

When my hon. Friend holds his discussions, will he take up the question of rent arrears from council tenants, as the figures are now astronomical? In Middlesbrough, in my rate-capped constituency, £1 million of arrears is an utter disgrace.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If there were a league table, I think that Brent would be even higher, since about 60 per cent. of council house rents and rates are not collected each year. I share my hon. Friend's view, and I am aware that the councils that shout loudest for more money would not need it if they collected the rents and rates due to them.

In the light of yesterday's farcical statement on local government finance, can the Minister say how he will deal with rate-capped authorities? As the Government have now taken responsibility for determining the finances—there was one sentence in yesterday's statement—may we at least have a guarantee that authorities will be considered separately and that each authority's finances will be given due and proper consideration?

I do not think that yesterday's statement was farcical—[Interruption.] A Government of a different hue would not have acted on the information, and that would have been farcical. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about rate-capped authorities. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that the rate-capped authorities would know what their spending limit was, as that would appear on the face of the Bill. We have been seeing people regularly before making up our minds. Indeed, we shall continue to do so until this Friday. There is a longer queue of people wanting to see us than would be found in any dentist's surgery, but in this case they want to take extractions instead of giving them. However, the figures will be on the face of the Bill.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the rating environment would be considerably improved if local authorities confined themselves to their statutory responsibilities, desisted from social engineering, and got rid of unnecessary landholdings?

I have not heard a better or shorter speech in the House today. If Opposition Members adopted that as a new year resolution, the world would be a better place next year.

How can the Minister be surprised that his Department is besieged by people wanting to see him, when he and his ministerial colleagues keep doing daft thinks and keep robbing ratepayers of money? I assure him that his Department's reputation does not ride high in Bradford, which has suffered the second biggest cut in rate support grant of any metropolitan district in the country. Recently we had to take the Department to court, as we again challenged the rate support grant figures.

I shall try to remember at least some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech. He said that more money was needed for Bradford. Bradford football club should get more money, because it is in a higher division. I should like to mention to the hon. Gentleman, in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, that long before the events of yesterday unfolded themselves in the House people were beating a path to see my right hon. Friend and myself, which is a recognition of our reasonableness in dealing with people and the attractiveness of our conversation.

As it has proved necessary to find legislative time to plug a few loopholes in the 1980 legislation, will my hon. Friend consider whether it might make better sense to make use of that time to scrap the present unsatisfactory and unfair system and introduce a fairer and simpler system such as that set out in the Government's Green Paper? May I assure my hon. Friend that such an approach would be extremely welcome in my county of Berkshire, and, I suspect, in many other areas?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I know that throughout the country thousands, indeed millions of people are awaiting the introduction of what we proposed in the Green Paper. Most people want legislation immediately, but they will have to wait a little longer. We have promised that legislation, at the latest, in the first Session of the next Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] Hon. Members may say, "Now", but they must wait. One cannot have all the goodies at once. Father Christmas does not go everywhere in one day.

Why is it that we have just the understudy in today's matinee performance of this Whitehall pantomime? The Minister is now forced to admit that he knew of this fiasco in October. Why has the Secretary of State for the Environment gone through the charade of issuing two more consultation documents on rate support grant without being frank and candid with the House and with the local authority associations about the desperate situation in which he finds himself? Would it not have saved weeks of time, and would it not have eliminated several months of delay, if the Secretary of State had began immediately, as soon as he found out the problem, to discuss solutions with the local authority associations—all of them? Why was the right hon. Gentleman not able to do that? Surely that would be not only the quickest and best way, but the most honest way of resolving the problem?

We are running three plays simultaneously. We have a recycling Bill, a local government Bill—the goodies are coming all the time—and now we have this Bill, so we need a heavier cast. One cannot run all three plays with the same cast. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear yesterday that, if he had come to the House at the end of October when the information came into his hands and said, "We have a problem. We do not know what to do about it," Opposition Members would have been the first to object. Instead, my right hon. Friend had to take careful legal advice, having once been slightly misled by taking the advice of the local authority associations. It would have been a disappointment to hon. Members if we had not taken legal advice before we came to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations have been received from the Irish Government about discharges to the environment from Sellafield.

I am aware that the Dail passed a resolution on 3 December calling for the closure of Sellafield. In view of the improvements that have taken place at the plant since 1979, to which the recent safety audit by the Health and Safety Executive has drawn attention, I regard the Dail's resolution as misconceived. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is undertaking a multi-million pound capital programme at Sellafield, which has already reduced discharges to the environment to one sixth of the level in 1979, and further reductions should be achievable in the 1990s.

Now that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Irish Government want the Sellafield reprocessing plant to be closed due to the threat to health, the environment and the fishing industry, what are his views?

That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The Dail is not the Government. He might as well equate the House of Commons with the Government of this country, but I would not expect him to make such a mistake. In fact, 99·8 per cent. of the radioactivity in the Irish sea is natural radiation. Most of the remaining 0·2 per cent. comes from fallout from past nuclear weapons tests. There is no appreciable evidence that the Irish sea has suffered from Sellafield.

When considering the representations on this issue, has my right hon. Friend put them alongside those from other Governments about emissions from coal-fired power stations—for example, concerning acid rain—or about oil leaks caused by extracting oil from the earth? Can he put all these matters together and weigh up the fact that all sources of energy have their hazards? We must not get the impression that any one source of energy is necessarily more dangerous or hazardous than any other.

We seem to be getting a great deal of advice on energy policy from many other countries. It is right that the Government should continue to provide the cheapest energy possible for industrial and domestic consumers compatible with the highest levels of safety and environmental purity.

Is the Minister aware of the concern on the Isle of Man and in Northern Ireland about Sellafield? Does he intend to approve any further nuclear plants that will discharge nuclear waste into the Irish sea? Should not the present recommended safety measures be carried out at Sellafield within the next 12 months? Will he consider the closure of Sellafield?

The right hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that an expert committee commissioned by the Irish Department of Health published a report last month that demonstrates clearly that Sellafield has had no observable environmental impact on the incidence of childhood leukaemia along the east coast of Ireland since the study started in 1977. That is not a British Government but an Irish Government view. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite all the excitement that is sometimes generated about Sellafield, the plant operates comfortably within any known international safety tolerance? Is not nuclear-generated electricity the cheapest in the world? Is not this country now beginning to import it from France?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is time that we took credit for the enormous improvements that have taken place at Sellafield. It now has a very high record on operating safety, as was recently endorsed by the HSE audit. I congratulate Sellafield on behalf of the House on that massive achievement.

While no hon. Member should defend policies concerning past discharges into the Irish sea, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government of the Republic of Ireland what scientific or medical evidence they can provide to support their position and whether they will publish any such evidence?

I congratulate the hon. Member on having the wisdom to ask that question rather than leaving it to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who is responsible for these matters on the Opposition Front Bench. His good sense as a constituency Member with the interest of his constituents at heart and his sound attitude to these matters puts the hon. Member for South Shields right into the shade. We now know where power resides on the Opposition Front Bench and we are very pleased to know it. [Interruption.] I am trying to praise the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the United Kingdom to have reduced sulphur emissions to 70 per cent. of their 1980 level.

By the end of the 1990s, if not before.

Is the Minister aware that more than 200 lakes in Wales are now devoid of fish life due to growing acidification and that a survey in Scotland has shown that a reduction in emissions of more than 50 per cent. is required to abate the acidification level? As the Government's programme will achieve a reduction of only 14 per cent., will the Minister consider a further programme of investment, with particular regard to Aberthaw power station in Wales?

I am well aware of the Welsh situation, but in referring to it the hon. Gentleman reminds us of the other issues involved. A good deal of the Welsh acidification has probably been caused by forestry. The programme announced by the Government will achieve a 14 per cent. reduction in addition to cuts already in train. We shall have achieved a reduction of perhaps 55 per cent. from peak by the mid-1990s. Few countries will have done better than that.

Can my hon. Friend tell us anything about mercury emissions and whether there are any plans for a reclamation programme for the millions of batteries jettisoned by people in this country every year?

That is a serious matter, on which the European Community is preparing a directive. There has been contact with manufacturers in recent years to secure a reduction in the amount of mercury in batteries, but further action may be required.

Is the Minister aware that his replies have not changed since January, despite the Prime Minister's much-vaunted visit to Norway, and that nothing has been done to take this country into the 30 per cent. club of nations or to incorporate fluidised bed combustion units in our power stations to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, of which 300,000 tonnes continue to fall on the people of Norway every year from our coal-burning power stations?

An excellent article in this week's New Scientist shows a shift in scientific consensus towards nitrogren as being responsible for the damage.

It is tree damage.

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is tree damage. These matters are always changing. Another change since the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked about this in January has been the commitment of £600 million of electricity consumers' money to improve the situation further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publicise the new discounts for council flats under the Housing and Planning Act.

The new discount scale will be brought into operation from 7 January. An information campaign to draw the attention of tenants of flats to the new scale and other changes in the right to buy will be launched early next year.

I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, but can he give a little more detail about the publicity? Will it be sent to all council flat tenants personally, and will those who have already bought their homes be informed of the new discount claw-back periods?

We are doing everything that we possibly can to meet the second of my hon. Friend's requests. As for the first, we shall endeavour, with the co-operation of local authorities, to ensure that every flat dweller in England receives publicity about his or her new rights. I am happy to report that many local authorities, of all political colours, are co-operating freely with us. Only 40,000 of the 1 million public sector houses that have been sold thus far have been flats. We must improve that, and we must improve it fast.

Does the Minister agree that, rather than put out more incentives to sell off council accommodation, it would be better to allow local authorities to spend the estimated £7 billion of accumulated capital receipts from earlier sales of council property? Newham has more than 100 tower blocks, which one could not even give away, let alone sell. People do not want them. We want to build houses and low-rise accommodation. Why will the Minister not let the local authority spend the money that it has in the bank just earning interest?

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is sometimes easy to give away the family silver, but I suspect that it is also quite easy sometimes to give away tower blocks to people who want to develop them. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it. There are 100 tower blocks in his constituency. They are the mistakes that we all made collectively in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The Government believe that one way in which to improve the environment of those tower blocks is to vary the tenure. That is why we are making certain that all tenants know their rights.

Will my hon. Friend consider extending the scheme to enable all council houses that are empty for more than 12 months to be sold on a homesteading basis to people who live in the district, thus giving them the opportunity to improve those houses and the council housing stock?

That is a tempting suggestion. As I speak, there are 115,000 empty publicly owned flats and houses in England.

When can we expect the Minister to extend his generosity to rented housing in the private sector and offer tenants of privately rented flats the discount that he is making available to council tenants?

The Government have a twin track approach to improving the lot of tenants of flats. In the public sector we are giving them a radically increased discount and incentives and, in a Bill which is to be introduced after Christmas, we shall do all that we can to help the condition of tenants in private sector blocks of flats following the recommendations of the committee chaired by Mr. Edward Nugee, QC.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from water authorities about the 1987-88 water rate; and if he will make a statement.

I have now received responses from the chairmen of most authorities. The overall reaction is that the settlement is reasonably fair.

As the external financing limits of water authorities have been increased by some £14 million nationally, why has the provisional figure of £1 million for the South West water authority been withdrawn, with the probable effect of water rate increases of 5 per cent. rather than less than 4 per cent.?

The settlement for the South West water authority allows it an average increase of 9 per cent. in investment, with only average increases in charges of under 6 per cent. It has the highest operation cost rises among those that are planned for next year. If it could hold its operating costs to something near the rate of inflation, it would be able to have higher investment or lower charges, or both.

Nevertheless, the Secretary of State must be aware that some chairmen of water authorities are expressing concern. For example, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) the chairman of Wessex Water says that the large reduction in borrowing imposed by the Government leaves the authority with a dilemma—either to increase charges to a level which the authority regrets, or to postpone capital work to the detriment of present standards of service. Because, since 1978–79, water authority charges have increased by a staggering 143 per cent., is it any wonder that Mr. Anson, Mr. Watts, the Confederation of British Industry and others are expressing concern about the Government's attitude to the water industry?

The hon. Gentleman must know of the massive increase in investment in water, but I question the extent to which that should be described as investment. It is largely a matter of replacing worn-out capacity and renewing the capital stock of the water authorities. It is an overhead and an on-cost which should properly be paid for from charges, which is why the charges have increased. It would be wrong to borrow to replace normal assets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with members of the tobacco industry regarding the sponsorship of sport; and if he will make a statement.

I am now coming to the end of detailed negotiations leading to a new voluntary agreement. I hope to make a statement early in the new year.

Many people in the sports world will be somewhat disappointed that my hon. Friend has not reached a conclusion with the tobacco companies. At this late hour, will he remember that sport has benefited enormously from the tobacco industry? In further negotiations will he remember that that money will not be easily replaced? Will he give the House a categorical assurance this afternoon that the Government will not go down the road that the Labour party has followed and outlaw tobacco sponsorship in sport?

As I made clear in the House on 21 February, I have always believed that a voluntary agreement is the right way. Indeed, a considerable contribution has been made to sport through sponsorship, although as a proportion of the whole of sport sponsorship the tobacco contribution is declining.

Will the Minister also remember that an increasing number of young children are now smoking and that it is absolutely essential to remove the glamour element of tobacco sponsorship in sport? Does he agree that while it is possible for children to ascribe their smoking habits to television sports programmes which are sponsored by tobacco companies, such sponsorship is not of service to the country?

That is one of the points that we have considered carefully in our negotiations with the tobacco companies. The voluntary system was first adopted in 1972. Now 36 per cent. of men and 32 per cent. of women smoke, compared with 52 per cent. and 41 per cent. in 1972. That is an improvement and it is continuing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that cigarette companies in particular have done an amazing job in supporting the great game of cricket both here and in Australia? Does he further agree that this obsession with doing away with an organisation's support for great games, such as cricket, does those associated with the move no great credit? Does he agree that the sooner we lay off it and concentrate on the real issues the better it will be for all concerned?

When we began the negotiations leading to the new voluntary agreement we began consultations with all interested parties. It is right to say that tobacco sponsorship has made a contribution to cricket, although that contribution is now declining, as it is in other sports.

When will the Minister face up to the fact that, having banned direct tobacco advertising on television, to allow sponsorship of major contests, such as snooker championships, which many young people watch, is a direct incentive to youngsters to start smoking?

As I said earlier, that is one of the points which we have taken into consideration during the negotiations, leading to a voluntary agreement.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the very parties in this House which preach libertarianism stand against people doing what they want to do, for example smoking? Will he assure the House that until the Government or any other organisation can provide sport with the resources currently provided by tobacco companies, he will not take any penal action against the tobacco industry sponsoring what people want to do in sport?

As I have said, and as I made clear as long ago as 21 February, the Conservative party believes that a voluntary agreement is the best way of dealing with sports sponsorship by tobacco companies. Tobacco sponsorship of sport now amounts to just short of £10 million, whereas the overall sponsorship of sports runs at £150 million a year.

While welcoming the fact that the Minister is progressing with a voluntary agreement first started by a previous Labour Government, and declaring an interest in the Howell report on sports sponsorship conducted on behalf of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, may I ask what attention he is giving to sport, and what negotiations he is having with those involved as distinct from the tobacco industry?

As I said, from the beginning we have invited consultation from sport and, of course, from the Tobacco Advisory Council as well as from others. I am perplexed by the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, because he seems to take a different view from that of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the shadow spokesman for health, who said on 21 February:

"It is now and has been since 1982 the policy of the Labour party that we wish to stop the sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies."—[Official Report, 21 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 638.]

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives to his inspectors as to the weight they should give to local representations in respect of planning appeals.

In the light of the Department's published guidance on policy, it is for the inspector to decide, in each case, what weight should be given to matters about which representations are made to him.

Has my hon. Friend seen press reports suggesting that, in the past year or two, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of appeals allowed by local inspectors? Certainly that is confirmed in the borough of Bromley, where, in 1983, 27 per cent. of the appeals were allowed. This year, so far, 46 per cent. of the appeals have been allowed. While I accept the desirability of some sort of appeals system, does my hon. Friend nevertheless not think that, generally speaking, local authorities are the best bodies to judge on planning matters and that to have their decisions overturned to this extent undermines the whole point of planning?

The views of local people and local interests are always given considerable weight in planning matters. Sometimes the publicity given to planning matters gives an incorrect impression. In fact, 98·64 per cent. of local decisions stand.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern that in recent planning appeals insufficient weight has been given to local decisions and that his answers so far will not satisfy my constituents?

I am well aware that my hon. Friend makes strong representations on behalf of his constituents in Berkshire. Local planning authorities and inspectors must, by law, have regard to all material considerations. One of these is, of course, the representations of the local people.

Is there not a particular problem where a local authority is applying to itself for planning permission in relation to a large development, such as that at Leeds market, in that if it grants permission it disallows local opinion the possibility of objecting to the development thereafter? Why does the Minister not have more regard to calling in such applications rather than simply relying on the local authority to give planning permission to itself?

I am well aware that this point was raised with the Select Committee on the Environment. We are considering the matter, but normally a call-in is applied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in matters of overriding national or regional interest.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the results of his latest discussions about acid rain with his colleagues in the European Council of Environment Ministers.

As the President of the Council, I tabled compromise proposals aimed at securing progress on acid rain. Sadly, some countres found our proposals too onerous for them.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is now not the United Kingdom that is hindering progress on this issue? Which countries are still dragging their feet?

My hon. Friend is right. The Commissioner, Mr. Stanley Davis, made it clear after that Council meeting that Britain, as the presidency, had made genuine efforts to take matters forward. The countries that had most difficulty at the previous Council were Spain and the Republic of Ireland, but several other countries, such as Portugal, also face problems.

Instead of always seeking compromise proposals which preserve Britain's status as one of the major world producers of sulphur dioxide pollutant, why do the Government not implement the recommendations of the report from the Select Committee on the Environment, which was produced more than two years ago?

Because it is the judgment of the Government that to spend so much money in such a short time would produce no benefits worth the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date in constantly harping on about the problems, as he sees it, from the British Government's point of view. Some European countries, including the big polluting countries, such as Spain, have far greater problems.

Will the Minister stop deluding himself into believing that Britain is no longer regarded as the bad neighbour of Europe when it comes to acidic emissions? Will he assure the House that the Government will press ahead with the commitment to retrofit three power stations, beginning next year?

On the latter point, yes. On the former point, if Britain has a worse image than it deserves, which is the truth, it is not a little because of our adversarial system of politics, whereby nearly half the Members here spend their time saying that everything done in this country is wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England in each of the last three years.

In the financial years 1983-84 to 1985-86 respectively, 117,000, 89,000 and 80,000 tenants bought their council homes. Since this Government came to power in 1979, nearly 750,000 council tenants have bought their homes in England. The figure for the entire country has passed 1 million and, this year, right-to-buy applications are running at the highest rate since they reached their peak in 1982–83.

What percentage of the council house stock has been sold to sitting tenants? What is my hon. Friend's assessment of the potential for future sales?

I am not very good at percentages, but 4·5 million council tenants are still living in council flats and houses. Of those, we estimate that about 500,000—perhaps 600,000—still have the resources to buy. Those people being encouraged to exercise their right to buy will take home ownership in Britain to about 75 per cent. by the year 2000.

Why will the Minister not allow local councils to use the cash from home sales, especially in coalmining areas? British Coal will be selling 16,000 houses by auction and by tender in the next few months, almost all of which are inhabited by elderly tenants and pensioners who are too old to get mortgages and who could not take one on at their time of life. Many councils wish to buy those houses, and they have cash in the bank from the sale of council houses. Will he allow them to use that cash to buy those British Coal properties?

I realise the strong feelings on this issue and the anxieties in the coalfield communities about the sale of some of those houses. I am engaged in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and his colleagues in that Department and, through them, with British Coal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that the range of grants aimed at repairing and maintaining houses is sufficient to preserve the housing stock.

Yes, Sir. However, the repair and maintenance of housing is primarily the responsibility of the owners.

Does my hon. Friend accept that without an adequate range of grants some property owners will be unwilling or unable to maintain the standard of their properties? In those circumstances, and with a thought to the maintenance of the standard of the housing stock, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the level and the number of grants are adequate in the national interest, as distinct from the interests of the individual owners?

The Government are well aware of the value of grants available for improvement, repair work and loft installation. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that under this Government over £3,000 million has been spent on home improvement grants, 1 million grants have been given by local authorities since 1979, and 3 million grants have been given under the homes insulation scheme.

Will the Minister confirm that the latest information available to his Department shows that there are over 501,000 dwellings that are fit but lacking basic amenities? Notwithstanding the massive amount of money that has been spent on home improvement, would it not be possible for the Government to say to those 500,000 families, 400,000 of whom are in the private sector, that the fact that they lack a bath, hot and cold water or an inside toilet or washhand basin is an obscenity in the late 1980s? Should we not at least have a crash programme to offer people the installation of basic amenities within at least a couple of years?

It is interesting to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I must point out that the public sector renovations this year are likely to be the highest since 1973, and the inside conditions of houses in this country are the highest in western Europe.