asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the European Commission in respect of privatisation of the English and Welsh water authorities.

My Department has had discussions and has corresponded with the Commission at different times about water privatisation.

I thank the Minister for that non-reply. Will the Department take notice of counsel's opinion sought by the Commission at the back end of last year on the last privatisation proposal, when great concern was shown about the competent authority that was to be in control? From that, it was clearly shown that the privatisation proposals could well put at risk people in the United Kingdom. It would be very ironic if we were brought before the European Court of Justice—as possibly we might—on this question as well as about our beaches and polluted rivers.

The new proposals for the National Rivers Authority mean that the NRA will be the competent authority for various EEC directives. That means that the new body will remain a public body. I hope that there will be no further problems such as those experienced last year.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. I remind him that in March 1986 the Department produced a paper on water and sewerage law. Do the Government intend to introduce water abstraction licensing before, during or after privatisation? I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend will let the House know the answer to that at the earliest possible opportunity.

I think that I shall be able to help my hon. Friend tomorrow. I regret that I am unable to preempt the publication of the document, which we hope will be tomorrow. That point will be fully assessed in that document. There will then be time during the summer for full representations to be made and for consultations to take place.

Has the Minister investigated the possibility of legal proceedings being instituted against the privatised water authorities if they fail to comply with EEC directive 76/160 on those beaches which have been designated as such? Is it true that water authorities are already being taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to comply with that directive?

Discussions sponsored by the Commission produced recommendations for improvements in bathing waters. We have responded to that bathing water directive, and currently some £70 million is being spent each year by the water authorities on improvement programmes.

Does the Minister recall that I wrote on 22 December last year to the then Minister, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), about a difference of opinion between Commissioner Stanley Clinton Davis and the Minister about competent authorities? Why have I not had a reply to that letter despite six months of repeated requests and written questions, especially when the Government have spent more than £1·5 million on advisers about water privatisation? Taking that waste of public money into consideration, is it not an outrage that the Minister cannot write a letter back to me?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government were unable to reply to his letter while they were considering their position. Now that we have the NRA as the competent authority, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will he receiving a reply first thing tomorrow morning.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the details of the implementation of the proposed community charge in England and Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the details of the proposed community charge.

Considerable thought has been given to the operation and implementation of the community charge. Following the consultative paper, detailed proposals were placed in the Library on 15 December 1986.

The Government recognised during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill that the phasing in of the charge would lead to considerably increased costs. Now that the Minister has announced that he intends to phase in the charge in England, will he advise us what extra assistance he proposes to give to the English and Welsh local authorities?

No decision has been taken on transitional arrangements in England. The position is as stated in the Green Paper. When the Government have come to a conclusion about the details of the transitional arrangements, a statement will be made.

As there is no easy or universally popular way of raising billions of pounds for local services, does my right hon. Friend accept that we must at last implement our election promise, grasp the nettle of rates reform and get on with it straight away?

Yes, Sir. I can assure my hon. Friend that a Bill will be brought before the House. If the House would like to sit through August and September, we could probably deal with it then. It might be kinder to bring the Bill hack before the House when it returns after the summer recess.

Did not the Cabinet Committee, under the Prime Minister, decide yesterday to change the Government's policy and to phase in the implementation of the poll tax? Is that not a change to the original idea as it was to apply in Scotland, England and Wales? Does it not show that the Government themselves are as divided as their Back Benchers and that it would be better to make a U-turn now and give up the idea of a poll tax?

I admit that I have an advantage over the hon. Gentleman, in that I was at yesterday's meeting and he was not. His problem is not to be solved by reading press reports of the meeting. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the reports in The Times and The Daily Telegraph, which he will find are mutually contradictory. Perhaps the best approach is to wait until the Government make an announcement. I repeat that the Government's proposals for England and Wales were set out in the Green Paper that was published about 18 months ago. When the Government have completed their consideration of the detail of the transitional arrangements on the basis of the Green Paper, we shall tell the world.

Now that my right hon. Friend and the Government appear to have decided that the impact of the poll tax will be so serious that its introduction has to be phased, will he give further consideration to the possibility of including within his proposals that account be taken of the ability to pay?

I beg my hon. Friend to await details. The details for Scotland, where there will be a safety net, are well known. We have not yet come to a final decision on the arrangements for England and Wales. They might be different, because arrangements and problems in the three countries are different. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will take account of ability to pay by the system of rebates and the uprating of benefits, with a taper, between 100 and 20 per cent. for those who will be required to pay who are on low incomes.

Will the Secretary of State say which of the two press reports to which he has referred is correct? Did either of them take into account Cabinet discussion on the amount of money that will have to be found to administer the rating system and the poll tax at the same time, and whether local government will be remunerated in a way that will take account of the chaos that will ensue, especially in the implementation and administration of housing benefits?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can hold me responsible for confirming or denying reports in newspapers. I merely point to the contradictory nature of various reports that I saw. I repeat to him that when the Government have come to a conclusion about the transitional arrangements they will make clear what those arrangements are. The point that the hon. Gentleman raised about the cost of administration will arise at that time, not now.

When my right hon. Friend considers the details of his proposals, will he also consider the effects on home owners of paying rates based on the capital value of their homes, as proposed by Labour Members during the general election, and how much more that proposal, if implemented, would cost people?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A movement to capital values would be extremely damaging for those who are now paying far more than their fair share of the bills for local government. However, he was slightly wrong in one respect. The Labour party fought the district elections on 7 May on a movement to capital values and briefed its candidates that that was party policy, but when we came to the general election, Labour Members changed their minds. The Leader of the Opposition changed the plans on about Wobbly Thursday, when he was obviously the one who was wobbling most.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying that he wanted to introduce the poll tax in one go? Are not the implications of phasing that, for several years, poll tax and rates will be levied on every household simultaneously, and that each household will thus receive several bills each year? Is it not also the case that the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing a different system for Scotland from that proposed for England and Wales? How can he shrug off the impact of all this bureaucracy on the 7·1 million families receiving housing benefit, and the millions of others receiving other benefits related to housing costs? Finally, how can the Government describe their proposals as simpler, more efficient, fairer and easier to understand than the rates? Is not what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing an absolute bureacratic nightmare?

It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on retaining his seat on the Front Bench, and on dealing with his subject. My team on the Government Front Bench are more than usually delighted that we have him there, because he always asks too many questions, and they are usually pretty silly ones—as on this occasion.

It is 56·1 per cent.

I take the hon. Gentleman's correction. It has gone up. It is going up all the time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the proportion of the employees of contractors working for each of the London Docklands and Merseyside Development Corporations that live (a) in the development corporation area, (b) in one of the boroughs that partly fall within the development corporation area and (c) in the local travel-to-work area.

The information is not held in the form requested. However 85 per cent. of the Merseyside Development Corporation's contracts were let to local firms in 1986–87. I think it reasonable to assume that these local firms employ mainly local people.

Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, does the Minister accept that the positive proposals that have been made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should not have been thwarted by his Department, that guidelines should be developed to ensure that local labour is used for inner-city regeneration plans, otherwise not only will local democracy be bypassed but local needs and the local communities will be bypassed? Just as the initiatives of his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) failed after the riots in 1982, does the Minister not accept that his proposals may seem largely irrelevant and will end up as window dressing?

It is not a question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster being thwarted by any individual or Government Department. It is simply that the European Community directives make it clear that to ensure equal conditions of competition for public works it is not permitted to introduce contractual processes that promote the employment prospects of the residents of inner cities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the London Docklands Development Corporation has been a major success story in revitalising that part of London? Will he remind the House of the number of jobs and homes that have been created there since the LDDC was formed?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The LDDC has been a huge success, though much of its work still remains to be done. It will become even more successful. As for employment prospects, to date 10,000 jobs have been created.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are prepared to put EEC directives in front of the interests of the people of the inner city of Liverpool and of those who live in other inner-city areas? If the Government are really serious about dealing with the inner cities, they must be concerned about creating employment for the people who live in them, including areas such as Liverpool 8, Liverpool 6 and Liverpool 5, where large numbers of young people who require work are out of work. If the Government are serious about it, why do they not say to the EEC, as the Prime Minister has said to it on other occasions, that our interests are more important than those of the EEC?

There is a dichotomy in the hon. Gentleman's proposal and the stance adopted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in his substantive supplementary question to No. 1 on the Order Paper. We cannot have it both ways. Both the Department of the Environment and other Government Departments are anxious to encourage the use of local labour, but the hon. Gentleman is aware, more than most, of the difficulties that can be experienced through lack of skill shortages in the construction industry. The hon. Gentleman is an expert in that area. It is as clear to me as it will be to him that it might be extremely difficult to provide the necessary skills within a certain area to match the vacancies to which he refers. That problem can be resolved only through the Manpower Services Commission and the Construction Industry Training Board. Through those two bodies, we are taking steps to put that right.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a sad reflection on modern local government that part of the reason for the success of the London docklands scheme was that it was able to bypass local government?

That is undoubtedly true. If we were to examine carefully what would have happened if the LDDC had not been created for London docklands, we should find that the significant success that was referred to in earlier questions could not have been achieved.

Despite more than £150 million of public money having been spent on London docklands, unemployment there has risen, no ordinary local person is able to afford to buy a house there, no homes are available to rent and the homeless on the edge of docklands are being evicted by the Liberal council in Tower Hamlets. It is no good the Minister blaming Brussels for his failure. The fault lies with the Government, who have confused development opportunities for land with development opportunities for people. It is about time that they had an inner-city development strategy that helped people, not property developers.

The hon. Gentleman knows well that there is an affordable homes policy within the London docklands area which I should have thought he would pursue. I should love to hear him say to the people who are living in those affordable homes what he has just said to us, because I think that his comment was an insult to them. It must also be made clear that the urban development corporation created those affordable homes and that 45 per cent. of all occupiers of new homes on LDDC sites come from the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to increase the availability of specifically low-cost rented housing, public and private.

We are aiming to increase the overall supply of rented housing, some of which will be available to those on lower incomes. In addition, we are giving local authorities new powers to grant-aid private rented housing and enabling housing associations to combine public and private finance.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the proposition that in many parts of the country there is a dire social need for more low-cost rented housing and that although the Government's initiative on reactivating the private sector is welcome, unless there is an appreciable Treasury input low-cost rented housing will not become available?

One of the most hopeful developments is the application of private money to meet the needs of housing associations. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the other side of supply is getting the houses built. If we oppose the building of all housing in high pressure areas, we may be in some difficulty.

Will the Minister talk to his right hon. and learned Friend who is responsible for the inner cities and who, to his credit, visited the centre of Leeds and south Leeds last week? If he does, he will find that the Leeds, South council has done an excellent job over the years. However, the particular problem that we face, and about which I should like to get something done, is that we have had to knock down some flats that were built only 20 years ago. We shall also have to knock down some duo slab and other housing—[Interruption.]—

Order.

If I had wanted to make a political point I should have said that they were built under Conservative control. It is no good telling us about increasing the amount of low-cost housing, because we need to replace the housing that has been knocked down. Will the Minister do something to help us to do that?

Several interesting schemes are coming forward in Leeds at the moment, for example, the Hillcrest scheme. The council is willing to consider bringing in private sector money and is talking to housing associations and so forth. Such schemes are interesting and we shall do our best to carry them forward.

I applaud the manifesto commitment to encourage responsible private sector capital to build new houses for rent, but does my hon. Friend not agree that hundreds of thousands of houses that are in the ownership and management of local authorities are empty at the moment and that they should be brought into beneficial use forthwith?

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that sentiment has been expressed many times by Ministers speaking at the Dispatch Box. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is, and must be, part of that purpose to bring back into use large numbers of empty houses in the private sector. That is the purpose of our proposals for freeing the rented sector.

I should like to agree with the first part of the Minister's first answer, in that the housing that needs to be built for low rent in high-pressure areas must be supported by hon. Members from all parties, which has not been the case in the past.

The hon. Gentleman is right to make the distinction between cost and price. Some of the cheaply built houses of the past—built under both Labour and Conservative Administrations—have been a catastrophic part of our inheritance. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be a major achievement if we could apply some of the large resources that are available in the City to housing associations for building low-cost housing. I believe that we are not far apart on the importance of that.

I agree with my hon. Friend completely about the housing programme, but is he aware that it means much more money will have to be poured into the Housing Corporation, which will assist the housing associations to take over this sector? Will not my hon. Friend eventually have to face the fact that a complete review of the Rent Acts, stretching back to the 1950s, is about due?

On the second point, we shall introduce radical proposals on new lets to try to bring back into use existing private housing stock which is empty, and to get new-build private housing for rent. On the first point, my hon. Friend is pessimistic. If we can reorganise the way in which finance for the Housing Corporation is categorised in the national accounts, we will not necessarily have to add to public expenditure, provided that there is real private sector participation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environmnt if he will estimate the number of homes in England and Wales with lead plumbing, and the percentage of the total this represents.

About 9 million properties in England are believed to have lead pipes, and that is about 50 per cent. of the total housing stock. For the figures for Wales, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 1 July by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

Does the Minister understand that, even on his figures, in excess of 10 million people are receiving doses of lead seven times as high as the maximum permitted standard under EC regulations? When my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) raised this important issue and said that lead was unsafe at every level and was a threat to both mental and physical health, the Minister accused my hon. Friend of scaremongering. Is the Minister going to tell me that I am scaremongering, or will he say instead that the Government at last recognise the real need to fund an adequate replacement programme which will see an end to lead piping throughout England and Wales?

I do believe that the hon. Gentleman is scaremongering. The Government commitment is that any area where the lead concentrations exceed 100 microgrammes per litre must be tackled. For that reason, one of the most substantial programmes to reduce those lead levels is in action, with a target date of December 1989 for the completion of the main programme of remedial action at the top of the priority list.

Is the Minister aware that my African grey parrot almost died recently from lead poisoning due to the ingestion of lead from the water supply in Newham? Will he tell the House what this programme will comprise? In view of the dangers to people's health from the ingestion of lead through the water supply system, will he make sufficient funds available to the water authorities, particularly to the Thames water authority and the London borough of Newham, so that all lead piping can be stripped from homes that at present get their water through such pipes?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are two ways to tackle the problem. First, his parrot will be delighted to know that the water undertakers are at present embarked on a pH adjustment of the water in his area and are dosing it with orthophosphate. Secondly, it is the hon. Gentleman's responsibility to handle the problem of lead pipes in his home. He will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that 25,000 grants have been given under the Housing Acts to assist people to tackle that problem in their properties.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents live in properties with lead pipes. as I do? I welcome his intention to have a programme to deal with this. Will he accept a serious point, which is that the greatest danger is when the water has been in the pipes overnight? Does he agree that it is important to let a lot of water run off first thing in the morning before using water?

I think that public education programmes of that sort would be extremely useful for my hon. Friend's constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are to be made available to ensure that adequate drug testing is available at British-hosted sports events.

The Sports Council, which is responsible for funding the drug-testing regime, has allocated £350,000 in the 1987–88 budget for its doping control programme. In addition, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has allocated £6,000, the Scottish Sports Council £18,000 and the Sports Council for Wales £39,000.

As sport is seen as an important way of counteracting the use of drugs in our society, and as commercial sponsorship does not seem to be attracted to the funding of this activity, is the Minister absolutely satisfied that sufficient resources are now available for the programme?

The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a matter of great concern to the Government. That is why, only last week, a two-month review was set up, with Mr. Sebastian Coe assisting. One of the most important matters that will be examined in the review will, of course, be the resources required to implement effective drug control testing throughout the country and throughout sporting activities.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the position of the medical profession in relation to drugs in sport and tell us how he thinks athletes should react to advice from doctors?

Every governing body should have an appropriate code of conduct and a full set of guidelines and procedures on the drugs which enhance performance in its sport. The medical profession must be fully involved in drawing that up and, indeed, be responsible for the implementation of the policy among competitors.

May I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and wish him well on behalf of British sport? As the Sports Council has held a two-year inquiry into these matters, and as the Minister has just told the House that that body is to spend £350,000 on drug investigation, why has he found it necessary to announce a new initiative involving himself and Mr. Coe? Does he intend to supplant or to augment the work of the Sports Council, and what will be the relationship between Sir Arthur Gold's Sports Council Committee and his initiative?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. The work of the inquiry is to augment the outstanding work undertaken by Sir Arthur Gold and the drug abuse advisory group. However. some important matters that needed to be examined lie outside the remit of the Sports Council—for example, trafficking in anabolic steroids.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of collection of the proposed poll tax compared with the present cost of collecting rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his estimates of the percentage cost of collecting a poll tax.

Our preliminary estimate is that the cost per person liable of collecting the community charge may be broadly similar to the cost per person liable of collecting domestic rates.

I understood that the Minister had said that it would cost twice as much to collect the community charge as it does to collect rates under the present system, so I am rather surprised at his answer. However, the Minister is the one who is really responsible for his Department and he therefore gave the right answer to the press—even the Labour press—on this occasion. What proportion of the cost of raising the community charge will be attributable to those who are not on the register through evasion or because the register has been incompletely or incorrectly compiled?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's mystification is that almost twice as many people will pay the community charge as now pay domestic rates. I cannot apportion the cost as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because at the moment we have only very preliminary estimates available.

Does the Minister agree that it is silly to talk about the two systems running side by side, given that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has estimated that the community charge will cost twice as much to administer? What would be percentage increase in costs if the two systems were to be run side by side?

That, too, is a question that cannot possibly be answered at this stage. As my right hon. Friend has said, no final decision has yet been made on that.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that it would be perfectly possible for the Government to go ahead with their proposals regarding a unified business rate and rate support grant, while at the same time looking for an alternative way of raising the balance of local government spending that is more equitable and more cost-effective than the present proposals?

No such alternative has yet been advanced.

Has my hon. and learned Friend yet had the opportunity to discuss with local councils the Government estimates for collection costs? If so, what was their response?

We are engaged in a series of consultations with local councils about the details of enforcing and administering the community charge. Those consultations will continue.

Would it not be cheaper to collect the tax if it was collected from fewer people? Has the Minister seen The Daily Telegraph of today, which says that it will cost the Church of England £4 million if the tax is imposed upon vicarages, and so on? Does the Minister agree that if the Government were to waive the charges on those religious establishments and did not tax prayer and care it would mean that the tax would be cheaper to collect?

The hon. Gentleman leaves aside the fact that one of the principal objectives of the community charge is to restore accountability to local government. The more people who pay the community charge, the more accountable local government will be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should, above all, go for the cheapest system. If that is the case, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman advancing the charms of the window tax.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that whatever the charge and whatever the implications, one of the principal advantages of the community charge over any other form of local taxation, bearing in mind the cost of the community charge, is that in future more people will pay? Consequently, more people will be interested in what happens in local government, and consequently more people will eventually vote, and that must be good for democracy.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we are doing is to restore the link between those who use local services, those who pay for local services and those who vote for those who provide local services. That link has been sadly and deeply eroded by what has happened in local government in the past few years.

As the Government have acknowledged that they failed to register on the electoral roll 5 per cent. of the people who should be eligible to vote, would the Minister care to speculate on how much it would cost to compile a full register for poll tax purposes? Indeed, is there any prospect of compiling such a register?

The hon. Gentleman leaves out of account the fact that the two registers will be complied on a different basis, having different objectives in view. Therefore, any comparison of the kind that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make is totally misconceived.

Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that a cheap system, if it is unfair, is an unacceptable system, and that the prime consideration must be fairness and accountability?

My hon. Fried is absolutely right. It is those two objectives that the community charge will indeed provide.

What has changed since the Minister of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who is now on the Back Benches, told the House that the Government estimated that it would cost at least twice as much to collect the community charge as to collect rates? What has changed since then?

As I made clear earlier, nothing has changed. The fact that twice as many people will pay the community charge as presently pay domestic rates means that the cost per person liable is roughly the same under each system.

Can my hon. and learned Friend tell us how many local authorities have expressed support for the proposed changes?

I do not think that I am in a position to—[Interruption.]—tell my hon. Friend either how many local authorities support the proposal or how many local authorities oppose it. [Interruption.]

Name one.

Order.

The fact of the matter is that the purpose of this reform is to benefit the people whom local authorities serve. It is their interests that we shall he serving by putting these proposals on the statute book.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the enforcement of individual liability for payment of the community charge.

The enforcement procedures for the commuity charge were described in some detail in the document on the operation of the charge, which was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since then further consideration has been given to enforcement procedures, both within Government and in consultation with local authority offices and representatives of the local authority associations.

Can the Minister guarantee that the head of the household will not be liable for the registration of other individuals therein?

The head of the household will be liable severally and jointly for his spouse or the person with whom he lives, but not for his adult children.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that what has changed since his previous incumbent was in office is that there has been a general election, which the Conservatives fought on changing the rating system, and that we received an overwhelming mandate to change the present ridiculous rating system? Will he assure us that that will be done regardless of the Opposition?

My hon. Friend is correct. The present system is deeply unpopular, deeply unfair and deeply unacceptable. It must be rare for a proposal for reform to have been explained in such detail to the electorate as the proposal that we shall put the before the House within the next few months.

If the head of the household is not responsible for including on the poll form the people in the house other than the spouse, will more than one form be delivered to each household in case the householder fills it in and does not include everybody else? If the spouse leaves because of a marital dispute and is not there when the form is filled in, but later returns, as sometimes happens, even in Bootle, how long will the head of household have to put the matter right before he is prosecuted?

So far as the form is concerned—and I may have misunderstood the supplementary question that was asked earlier—the duty will be to enter the names of all adults who are resident in the house. When it comes to liability for payment, the head of the household will not be liable for the payment of the community charge by adult children in the house.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on the Government's own exemplifications of the community charge there will be deep concern in many northern inner-city areas with high-spending Labour councils over the proposed level of community charge that people will face? Will it not be the case that there will be less attempt at avoidance if the size of the tax is reduced? Therefore, will he reconsider the proposal of Sir Keith Joseph to have a 75 per cent. direct education grant, as that is primarily a national and not a local service?

No. I do not think that that would really deal with the problem, which my hon. Friend has rightly identified, posed by high-spending local councils in the north. That problem can be dealt with by voting those councils out of office. The community charge, by restoring accountability to local government, will encourage that process.

Will the Minister explain how the enforcement will work on heads of households in some of our inner cities where the head of the household, because of his religion and cultural upbringing, would not under any circumstances seek a place in a local authority old persons' home for his parents or grandparents but would have them, as his extended family, living with him? How will members of the Asian community, who are saving taxpayers' money, be treated in those circumstances?

The position is quite clear. The charge should be paid by as many adults as possible. Exemptions should be limited, and those in the position to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be liable to the charge in the same way as every other adult.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue advice to local authorities who entered into deferred purchase agreements with merchant banks to delay prescribed expenditure before 22 July 1986; and if he will make a statement.

Advice to local authorities on scoring prescribed expenditure under deferred purchase deals entered into before 23 July 1986 was given in my Department's Circular 5/87.

I thank my hon. Friend for his depressing reply. It shows that Hard-Left Harlow council is yet again surpassing itself in fleecing ratepayers. Not only is its grant-related expenditure 162 per cent. above the norm, but it is spending above the norm. It is the highest rating district—[Interruption.]

Order. Ask a question, please.

I put it to my hon. Friend—

Order. Please do not do that. Ask a question.

The question that I put to my hon. Friend is that, now that the council is embarking on an illegal and shady deal with foreign banks—[Interruption.]

Order. That is an abuse.

It was a question, Mr. Speaker.

In answering my hon. Friend's question, there is good news for him in the answer that I gave to the substantive question. Harlow's £50 million deferred purchase deal is caught by the Local Government Act 1987, I think rather to the surprise of that council.

Why do the Government have two sets of standards for different institutions that engage in rescheduling debts? For instance, why should local authorities—mainly Labour authorities—be hammered into the ground by the Government for entering into arrangements to provide services, while the four top merchant banks have recently been engaged with the Inland Revenue, with the connivance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to offset debt payments of, in the case of Midland bank, about £1 billion? It means that, at the end of the day, the taxpayer will have to find £875 million to bail out Lloyds, Midland, National Westminster, and Barclays banks. Why do the Government have double standards?

The hon. Gentleman's question would probably be much better directed to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who told the House on the Third Reading of the Local Government Bill that clause 1, the deferred purchase measure, should be on the statute book. The official policy of the Labour party then was in favour of outlawing deferred purchase.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation he proposes to direct investment into the inner cities; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans for legislation to direct investment into inner cities. The creation of urban development corporations, together with urban development grant, urban regeneration grant, derelict land grant, and other grant systems provide effective incentives.

I welcome my hon. Friend's measures as far as they go. Does he agree that there is an alignment of ambition and policy simultaneously to generate further private sector investment in inner cities and detract from the attraction of putting private sector investment in areas of over-development, such as in my constituency? Will he have discussions with his colleagues in the Treasury to see whether national taxation policies can be amended to generate further incentives to developers to go into inner cities, and, at the same time, to discourage them from investing in areas of over-development?

The point that my hon. Friend made in the earlier part of his question is fact and not hypothesis. The tax measure that he proposes would be considered by my colleagues in the Treasury. It is important to stress that we share the same objectives—to increase the leverage of public to private sector investment in the inner cities. We start from a very strong position at the moment, because for every pound of taxpayers' money that is invested in the inner cities through our programmes we are attracting four times that figure from the private sector. We must do all that we can to improve that ratio.

In view of the Minister's reply to the question, will he reconsider the distribution of urban aid to the smaller towns in west Yorkshire, where there is no urban provision whatsoever but where there is a need to arrest the dereliction that is occurring in those small urban areas? Will the Minister review his programme with a view to considering the smaller towns in west Yorkshire?

I am always anxious to review the 57 programme authorities that we have currently identified as being of the highest possible priority. In deciding what areas should be assisted we must look at a synthetic index, which would cover not only such matters as levels of unemployment, dereliction, over-dependence on traditional industries and so on, but many other matters. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to look at a proposal or visit his area, I shall be delighted to respond positively if I can.

Does my hon. Friend agree that investment in the inner cities would be greatly assisted if high-spending local authorities were rate-capped? Will he confirm that a statement will be made next week on the subject, and is he aware of the mounting anticipation in the London borough of Ealing that it will be included?

I understand that we hope to make such an announcement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to set up an urban development corporation for Consett; and if he will make a statement.

I have no such plans.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of the progress that has been made in towns such as Consett due to the dedicated commitment of local authorities to do what they can by working with private industry to rebuild opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman is undermining the local authorities and excluding towns such as Consett from any additional aid. The opportunity for such towns to overcome the appalling social consequences of the large-scale unemployment that has been brought about by the Government's industrial policy is limited. What will he do for such towns that will not come within his inner city policy?

When I visited Derwentside last Friday I was told by business men that the hon. Lady's constituency was extremely grateful for the £10 million that has been spent by the Government on derelict land grant and the £12·5 million worth of factory building by the English Industrial Estates Corporation. As a result, although 3,500 jobs were unfortunately lost when the steelworks closed, 3,300 of those jobs have been replaced since 1980. That is a fantastic performance and it is time that the hon. Lady stopped trying to talk the north down and proclaimed the achievements of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the English water authorities to discuss water privatisation.

On 25 June this year.

Will the Secretary of State accept that his proposals to create a National Rivers Authority, and his arguments so to do, have been completely destroyed by the statement of the chairman of the Thames water authority and the independent report of the economics department of Leicester university? Therefore, will he abandon these ridiculous proposals which are based only on greed and dogma and scrap this privatisation?

No, Sir. The meeting that I had with the water authorities chairmen, to which I referred, was described as friendly and useful. We have now entered into discussions to get the detail right. I believe that all the interests that are concerned with water will welcome the setting up of a National Rivers Authority. If one chairman is out-voted by the other nine, I think that we have endorsement from the water industry that we are on the right lines and that we are finding the right solution.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern about the pollution of our rivers by fish farmers, for whom generous grants may soon be available from the EEC? Before proceeding with the privatisation of the water authorities, will he bear in mind that something ought to be done to regulate fish farming?

It would be a responsibility of the new National Rivers Authority to ensure that the rivers were free from pollution, from whatever source. I have not heard of proposals for regulating fish farmers. We should concentrate on measures to ensure that pollution does not enter our rivers and keep regulation to the minimum.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to relieve homelessness, long housing waiting lists and disrepair in London.

The measures that we set out in our manifesto will help London's housing by reviving the independent rented sector, involving a wider variety of landlords in the provision of housing for rent, and concentrating resources where they are most needed.

The Minister's gabbled reply will be deeply disappointing to the many thousands of Londoners living in inadequate accommodation. When will the Government take effective steps to tackle the rising homelessness in the capital? It is rising by about 20 per cent. per annum. When will the Government curtail the degrading bed and breakfast system and provide a chance for those people on growing waiting lists who are desperate for a flat? When will the Government provide money to help improve the estates that are being run down? Are not the Government's housing policies the problem in London, not the solution?

The hon. Gentleman prepared his speech before he listened to my answer. If he reads my answer, which he may not have been able to hear, he will find that there are practical proposals in the pipeline.