To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications he has received from private sector companies for the urban regeneration grant.

More than 30 schemes have been discussed with the Department. Thirteen are being appraised.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What further information does he have about this important new initiative, especially in terms of value for money, jobs and investment in the private sector?

A good example is the Round Oak scheme in Dudley, which, for a grant of £3·25 million, has generated four times that figure from the private sector by way of investment. It will also generate more than 1,000 new jobs.

When the poll tax doubles the average rate burden in the inner-city area of Lambeth, will the Secretary of State consider urban regeneration grants for private companies to compensate for the lack of purchasing power among their customers?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that urban regeneration grant is already available to people in Lambeth, especially to private developers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are long delays in processing urban regeneration grants and that that is causing a great deal of dismay in the property industry, which is doing its best to regenerate inner-urban areas?

We are always looking at ways of simplifying the grant procedure and cutting out as much red tape and bureaucracy as we possibly can. We have to strike a fine balance between cutting out red tape and being the guardians of taxpayers' money.

Is it not true that, one year after this power was put on the statute book, not a penny of urban regeneration grant has been spent—no expenditure has been incurred by the Government? Is that not indicative of the shambles of the Government's inner-city policy? Is it not because of this incompetence on the part of the Department of the Environment that the Prime Minister is now talking about taking these policy matters out of its hands altogether?

I am glad to have this opportunity of welcoming the hon. Gentleman back after his recent illness. However, having said those nice things, I must tell him that he is absolutely wrong. The new scheme was introduced in April this year and had attendant publicity.

It became an Act a year ago.

Of course, but it was introduced only in April this year, and, to a certain extent, it was overtaken by a certain event called the general election. The publicity for it was subsumed during that period for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. Subsequently, we have resuscitated the publicity and the scheme has attracted a considerable number of applications.

The Government have not spent a penny yet.

I answered that when answering the supplementary question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to change the system of repairs and maintenance of council properties.

We have no plans to make major changes. It remains every council's duty to keep its housing in good repair.

I am disappointed to hear that, because many council tenants in my constituency have to wait a long time for repairs, and when they are done they often turn out to be inadequate and unprofessional. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that my constituents should have to suffer hardship and inconvenience so that a Labour council can hang on to its DLO and give it the extra business that was previously done by private tradesmen?

I believe that there is a problem in Bolton, and I do not have that only on the authority of my hon. Friend, although that would, of course, be enough. The council has also noticed that something is wrong and has commissioned a special survey on the quality of repair and maintenance. I hope that that will help, but I can only echo what my hon. Friend has said. Doubtless the council will be stimulated by the reforms that we are proposing to bring a more competitive regime into tendering for this kind of work.

Given that the appalling problems of disrepair and maintenance in the private sector are far worse than those in the public sector, and that there is also a problem in the public sector, why do the Government not put some public investment back into the public and private sectors to improve housing in this country?

It may have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that 100 per cent. of receipts can be used by the councils to which the question relates for capitalised repairs. That is a route that councils such as Bolton should follow. Bolton council should consider their rents, because they are below the north-west regional average and well below the national average.

While the Housing Bill is going through its stages in the House, will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of well-organised tenants' associations being given powers to look after their own maintenance and financial delegation, in the same way as those powers are being given by the Education Reform Bill to governing bodies?

That suggestion is very positive. The right of tenants' choice that we are putting forward will give them exactly that kind of capacity. They will be able to organise secondary co-operatives, for example, to do exactly that sort of work. That is one of the attractions of the proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to reduce the levels of nitrate and nitrite pollution in Britain's rivers.

I am considering a number of initiatives for strengthening and extending water pollution controls and expect to make a statement on the Government's policies in the near future. In due course the National Rivers Authority will be responsible for maintaining river water quality.

I do not accept the Secretary of State's last remark about this being a technical point. It is about the quality of drinking water and this question is about river quality. Will the Secretary of State confirm that over the past few years river quality in Britain has deteriorated because of pollution from sewage, animal slurry and nitrates and nitrites, mainly from agriculture? As well as getting into drinking water and being linked to stomach cancer, these pollutants flow via the rivers into the North sea, over-fertilise the photo plankton, de-oxygenate the North sea and create conditions in which fish cannot live. Will he act on the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment and on the recommendation in the final draft declaration of the recent North sea conference of Ministers, to which he was a signatory, to declare nitrate protection zones, or is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still holding up that declaration?

The hon. Gentleman's question is about nitrate levels in Britain's rivers. Nitrate levels in most rivers have remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. Very few water supplies with raised nitrate levels come from river sources. The hon. Gentleman asked about the progress of the North sea conference, which I chaired last week. I can tell him that we agreed on a substantial reduction in inputs of nutrients, which include nitrates, in those coastal and estuarial waters where nutrients are a serious problem. That means the shallow waters off Denmark and Germany and to some extent off Holland and not, on present evidence, British coastal waters. I am certainly considering whether to create nitrate protection zones and I expect soon to come to a decision.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of the environmental disadvantages of the common agricultural policy? Does he further agree that if farm products were priced at a lower level farmers would no longer find it economically justified to put very large quantities of nitrogen on their crops?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right. I certainly do not think that this is a question with which to put into doubt our membership of the Community, which seems to be what my hon. Friend was doing. As farm incomes decline, I think that the farmer will be tempted to use more nitrates to try to bring about increased production at reduced cost.

Is the legal advice to which the Secretary of State refers any better than that which is usually given to him?

It is all impeccably good.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to publish a report on the London Docklands Development Corporation's work on regeneration of the London Docklands.

The LDDC itself publishes reports on an annual basis. It is required by statute to lay the annual report before Parliament. The reports have shown the enormous success which has been achieved within the London Docklands area.

Is it not the case that, had it not been for the London Docklands Development Corporation, areas of otherwise very poor and derelict land would largely have remained so — thanks to the inactivity of the various councils that were administering them at the time? Does not the success of the LDDC since then point the way towards the regeneration of many other areas of our inner cities?

That is correct, and that is why I was surprised to hear the amazing statement of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) during a debate in the House a few weeks ago to the effect that the massive development in Docklands would have taken place had a Labour Government been in power, which is stretching credulity to breaking point.

Will the Minister ensure that the next LDDC report explains the extraordinary behaviour of the Secretary of State in sacking the vice-chairman of the LDDC, when the main target has gone completely untouched? Will the report explain how it is that 10 weeks ago people such as Mr. Martin Berney could be convicted of the offence of being an unlicensed estate agent in Docklands? Is he aware that the fraud squad is investigating property transactions and sales in Docklands and all sorts of matters which do not feature in the annual report? It does not disclose the sordid money-making schemes or the unaccountability, all of which is the domain of the Secretary of State, who is taking no interest in getting to the bottom of these scandals.

It is grossly unfair of the hon. Gentleman to accuse my right hon. Friend of acting unfairly with regard to the dismissal of the vice-chairman of the LDDC board. The position as the hon. Gentleman may understand, is that information was brought to my right hon. Friend's attention only recently. He acted as he did because we now know that some of the information did not reveal that, subsequent to the vice-chairman's appointment, he had been prosecuted for a number of criminal offences. Prior to his appointment as vice-chairman of the board he was asked about liquidations, but no mention was made of the impending prosecutions. He was prosecuted and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, found guilty and fined. As a result, and because he did not tell the Department or the LDDC board, my right hon. Friend acted as he did. I would have thought that my right hon. Friend would receive the support of the House in his action.

That goes a bit wide of the question.

As to the main objects of the LDDC, will my hon. Friend confirm that a substantial number of those housed within the area were previously on council waiting lists? Does not the amount of private investment, attracted by public investment, serve as a model for the rest of the country?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Some 12,000 new homes have been completed or are under construction. That has lifted the rate of owner-occupation in Docklands from 5 per cent. in 1981 to 29 per cent. in April 1987, and 22 purchasers of homes were former council tenants.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had to his plans for safety netting the poll tax in the metropolitan districts of the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.

We have pointed out, in response to a number of inquiries, that there is nothing new about the principle of a temporary safety net, which has always been part of the Government's proposals. Initial contributions to the safety net reflect resource transfers under the present system, but there will be a phased reduction of these distortions so that they are totally eliminated by 1994.

Does the Minister deny that the Conservative Opposition leader in Birmingham, Councillor Hales, has sent what he describes as a rocket to the Secretary of State for turning the safety net in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands into a surcharge? Will the Minister and his Department cease their vendetta once and for all against the city of Birmingham? The west midlands has been a soft touch long enough for the Government.

The hon. Gentleman is being a little slower than normal on the uptake. On 1 April 1987 my right hon. Friend first declared what the safety net was to be in Birmingham, on 1986–87 figures. The exemplification shows that the safety net was £65. The present exemplification shows that it will be £63. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of what Conservative Members have been saying for a long time — the resource equalisation process is extremely unfair. We are committed to removing that unfairness over a four-year period. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is unfair and must be removed.

:Dark: Has my hon. Friend's master yet to reply to Councillor Hales, the Conservative leader on the city council, who talked about his sense of incredulity and outrage at the way that Birmingham is being treated? Does he think that a man of that stature would say such things unless they were true? Why is Birmingham to be penalised when it has been penalised already? Why change one unjust tax for what is possibly an even more unfair tax?

I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I think that he has completely missed the point. We are removing an unjust system, resource equalisation, but we shall phase it out over a four-year period. I cannot answer for those who did not realise that that would happen when the information was provided in a parliamentary answer in April to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of installing water meters in every household.

There are no current plans to install water meters in every household. Ultimately it will be up to each water undertaker to decide whether investment in more widespread metering is worth while. The proposed compulsory metering trials will help to estimate the sorts of costs involved.

Given that in the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill the Minister has obviously decided that the initial costs will not fall solely on consumers, as money will come from central Government, will he assure us that if universal metering is adopted there will be central Government help so that the burden does not fall on the water consumers?

The hon. Gentleman raised two points. With regard to the latter, no water authority has proposals at present for universal metering. In response to his other point, he is correct to state that a proportion — approximately 50 per cent.—of the metering trial costs will be paid for by the Government. Spread across all customers in England and Wales, the metering trials will add approximately 5p a year for four years to the average householder's bill for water and sewerage. We hope that savings will offset that.

Would not the gradual introduction of metering into water charging be consistent with the general principle of charging that the Government are now extending to local government? Does my hon. Friend have any estimates of the relative advantages of adopting that route as opposed to the present route, which is based on rateable value?

The whole purpose of developing the specific compulsory metering trials is to identify across socio-economic groups the effect of water metering and how effective that would be as a basis for charging in future. My hon. Friend will agree that it is important that we await the outcome of the scientific evidence and detailed analysis of consumption figures based on the trials before we reach any specific assessment of future charging methods.

Is the Minister fully aware that with gas and electricity — the nearest analogous industries to water—80 per cent. of the costs vary with consumption, but with water only 10 per cent. of the cost varies with consumption, the remainder being capital? Therefore, what relationship can water metering possibly have with controlling consumption?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in other industries standing chargs cover the overhead and fixed costs. We are concerned about metering the consumption and we believe that it would be a far more accurate guide to measure and update consumption figures to assess whether water metering is the best way to move forward. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am aware that the Welsh Water authority is concerned about that. It has very high overhead and infrastructural costs. It is looking carefully at a form of charging that does not take into account the extent of unit consumption that other water authorities are considering.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be possible to start by introducing compulsory metering in new houses?

The simple answer is 'yes'. For that reason we have introduced an amendment to be considered during the latter stages of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill currently in Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is being undertaken on alternative methods of charging for water if rates are abolished.

I understand that the water industry is currently studying a number of options for charging for water services once domestic rateable values are abolished, and I expect to receive its conclusions shortly.

Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State said on 21 October this year in the House, is he still considering the possibility of introducing a tap tax? Is he aware that when a window tax was introduced in 1697 it resulted in many people having to brick up their windows and that eventually the tax was abolished in 1851? Is he as concerned as I am at the social implications, expecially for the elderly, of introducing such a tax?

There is no intention whatsoever of introducing a tap tax. However, it is important that water authorities look in detail at all the options on tariffs and charging for the future. Obviously, that covers a wide range of issues from flat-rate charges to metering. It is highly unlikely, if not improbable in the extreme, that there could be an accurate form of charging in the future that is based on the number of taps in premises, not least because there could be two taps for hot and cold water in one bath, but one tap for both in another.

Instead of a tap tax, surely the most sensible method of charging for water would be to charge for the water that has been consumed? What estimates has my hon. Friend had made of the likely fall in total consumption if we were to have universal metering? In other words, how much water is wasted at the moment?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the present rating system is an unsound basis for charging and that it would be far better to move to the obvious method of charging by meter. Water loss differs across the country, as my hon. Friend is aware. However, it is estimated to be anything up to 30 per cent. of the water in the system. Obviously, that is an important issue, which is being tackled with great effectiveness by the water authorities.

Will the Minister confirm that a large amount of money has already been spent by each of the water authorities to pave the way for privatisation and that the cost of that, with which we have not been involved, will be included in the water charges that customers will have to pay in the future?

Any expenditure by the water authorities, including any that involves consultation, as in the exercises that are currently taking place with consumers about the possibility of metering trials, must be costed and brought before the House, and is always open to challenge by audit. The hon. Lady knows that, because it was discussed in Committee. Information on the specific amounts that have been spent on preparation for privatisation is not held centrally, but I understand that some of my hon. Friends have already written to water authorities on that subject.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the alternative is likely to be metered water supplies, it will be of critical importance that cheap meters are available to elderly and poor people? Will he look into that problem, because at the moment the cost of metering is way beyond the reach of the average person?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to test different types of meters during the current trials to ensure that a cheap, efficient and effective meter is eventually in place. Therefore, it is important to test a range of meters, including the present mechanical rotary piston meter, which will be used in the trials and in general metering in the foreseeable future.

Is it not a fact that the only alternative to universal metering —the Minister says that as yet the Government have not made any provisions for universal metering—is an additional poll tax? On water loss, is it not a fact that between 25 and 30 per cent. of the water in the system is going to waste and that that should be arrested? As for alternative charges, will the Minister have regard to the installation and location costs of the meters, the life of the meter and its renewal, the reading and billing of the meters, their maintenance costs, the standing charges for water and sewerage, and a possible standing charge for environmental services? Is the Minister aware that substantial costs are involved in the alternatives to the present system?

I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not hear some of my earlier answers. Had he been listening, he would have heard me confirm that the leakage in the system was too high and that it was being tackled by the water authorities, and that the community charge was certainly not the only alternative to metering. I mentioned that a flat-rate charge was one of many ways being considered by the Water Authorities Association. The hon. Gentleman spoke about a range of important issues to be taken into account on further metering trials. He will be aware that every one is being considered carefully and discussed in great detail during the Committee stage of the Bill.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Severn-Trent water authority; and what subjects will be discussed.

My noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water met the chairman of Severn-Trent water authority on 27 November. My right hon. Friend expects to meet him, with the other water authority chairmen, in January and I intend to visit the authority and some of its operational sites in the new year. No doubt we shall discuss our proposals for a National Rivers Authority and the excellent prospects of the water authorities for privatisation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman, Mr. John Bellak, is both diligent and competent —indeed, one might describe him as a good bloke—and that under his leadership the Severn-Trent water authority looks forward immensely to being in the van of privatisation? When my hon. Friend meets Mr. Bellak, will he tell Mr. Bellak that he will rise even further in our estimation if he brings about the new Cannock sewage works in 1993, if not in 1991?

I shall certainly relay my hon. Friend's latter point to Mr. Bellak when I meet him. I place on record the view of everyone in the water industry and hon. Members on both sides that Mr. Bellak is not only diligent and competent, but has a first-rate management team to support him.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the Severn-Trent water authority, will he discuss the Department of the Environment study No. 23? According to it, nitrate levels are rising in 100 water sources in Anglia and the Severn-Trent area, in 41 out of 125 ground water sources in the Severn-Trent area nitrates already exceed EC directive levels of 50 mls, and 1·8 million people are drinking nitrate polluted water. Will the Minister point out that water metering installations on a compulsory basis will cost more than £2 billion and that it would cost only £200 million to remove nitrates from water?

All water authorities must take important investment decisions to meet both our quota and European directive requirements. I shall certainly discuss with Mr. Bellak the important action that is being taken by his water authority to tackle the nitrate problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from businesses in the north of England concerning his proposals for a unified business rate.

There is an enthusiastic welcome for our proposals, which will restore a fair basis of rating and relieve many businesses from the excesses of high-spending authorities.

My hon. Friend is correct. Is he aware that business people in my constituency are greatly looking forward to the unified business rate? It will save them the problem each year of facing a Left-wing Labour council's rates increases at some 26 per cent. and threats of higher rate levels. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents are envious of other counties where rates are considerably lower? Is he aware that rates are an important part of a business's on-costs and that the sooner we have a fair system throughout the country and remove power from the commissars in the town halls, the better?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I only hope that some day Opposition Members will understand how right he is.

Does the Minister accept that while there may be a welcome in the north of England for the proposed unified business rate, if he moves north of the border he will find great anxiety, particularly among small businesses, which have already been subjected to three revaluations since 1973? Will he, therefore, look in particular at the proposals and comments made by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, particularly those from Scotland?

That question should really be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

What messages of support for the uniform business rate has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received from our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

I am not aware that any such representations have been made.

While I recognise that business people in Cumbria will pay 20 per cent. less under the unified business rate, is there not a cost? Is it not true that, under the poll tax — the compensating tax; the new rating system in effect—people in Cumbria, particularly west Cumbria, will find that their new rates are double or treble the previous amount? Will not the unified business rate mean that, while rates may be substantially reduced in areas outside the county of Cumbria, we shall lose our cutting edge as a Labour authority with low rating for businesses? Does that not mean that we shall no longer be able to attract business?

I do not agree with that at all. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Cumbria is a low-resource area. It has generally low rateable values, and at present it is being subsidised by the people of Birmingham. Often, poorer people in Birmingham are subsidising richer people in Cumbria. We think that that system is unfair, and that is why we want to do away with it.

Will my hon. Friend tell us whether, once the uniform business rate is in position, there will be any business ratepayer's consultations, as exist at present under the Rates Act 1984?

We have received representations from the Confederation of British Industry on that subject, and we are seriously considering the future role for consultations. We consider it important that there should be continuing consultation between business and local authorities, because so many local authority decisions will affect businesses.

As the alleged enthusiastic welcome for a uniform business rate does not include the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the National Chamber of Trade, the Forum of Private Business Ltd., the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses or the London Chamber of Commerce, all of which bodies oppose it, will the Minister tell us who supports it?

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the position. For example, the CBI has accepted that the new system that we are proposing is a significant improvement on the existing one. Its only quarrel is that it feels that the excess amount by which extra payments have had to be raised from business over the past few years should be removed at a stroke. The proposal has many supporters in business.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while there is concern in my part of the world about the domestic part of the rate reform, businesses — especially in Yorkshire—welcome the unified business rate because it is likely to lead to a reduction of some 20 per cent. in their rates?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Many businesses warmly welcome the prospect of the stability that will result from the new arrangements and the fact that it will not be possible for business rates to go up by more than the rate of inflation. That is one of the great advantages of the new system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision concerning the public inquiry in respect of planning applications for the redevelopment of the royal docks.

If the hon. Member is referring to Rosehaugh Stanhope's application for the Royal Albert dock, I announced the decision not to call it in on 19 November.

Irrespective of the merits of any local accommodation, does the Minister agree that that application is of great strategic importance? Can he tell us why his right hon. Friend did not take the advice of the London planning advisory committee to call it in? Is he not aware that, on the three sites, the total building could amount to between £3 billion and £4 billion, with a population of perhaps 10,000 residents, with as many jobs? Does not his leaving the matter to an unelected body appointed by the Secretary of State illustrate the Government's preference for authoritarian, centralised solutions?

Obviously we considered carefully this large and important development. We took into account the views of the London borough of Newham, which approved the development, partly, I think, because there is a considerable amount of social housing proposed in it. In general the development fitted in with the London Docklands development strategy, and it carries forward the development of Docklands, which is generally welcomed in London. That is why we did not think it necessary to call in the application.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received relating to his plans for the establishing of mini urban development corporations; and whether the urban areas such as those on Humberside will be eligible for designation.

I have not yet decided which areas should be designated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the designation of at least part of Humberside as a mini urban development corporation would go some way towards rejuvenating what is in essence one of the last great estuaries in Europe? Would not his agreement to this go a long way towards establishing the point that the Government are interested in the smaller urban areas, which are equally important as large ones? Does not he further agree that a better decision might be reached if the survey of derelict land was not six years out of date?

I cannot announce any decisions about mini UDCs today, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Hull is receiving £5 million under the urban programme this year. To date 10 urban development grant projects have been approved, leading to a total investment of £16 million. My hon. Friend mentioned derelict land. Humberside should get £2·5 million in derelict land grants during this year. We recognise its problems, and it is getting a good share of the grants that are available.

While it is clear that urban development corporations and mini urban development corporations will improve the physical fabric of inner urban areas, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to do more to involve the people living in these areas in the regeneration process? Many of my hon. Friends believe that only by involving the people in helping themselves will the urban environment be regenerated.

I have a great deal in common with my hon. Friend on that point. I agree with him. He will be aware of the other instruments that we are using—CATS, the task forces and the many activities under the urban programme — in support of the policy that he and I support. I invite him to go to one or two of the new urban development corporations to see the extent to which the local people who run those UDCs are involving the local community in their very successful activities.

Is it not a fact that the CBI, at its November conference, warned that the Government's inner-city initiatives would fail if they bypassed local councils? Is it not a fact also that urban development corporations and mini urban development corporations are designed to do exactly that?

I put the problems of inner cities higher than the susceptibilities of councils. It may be necessary to bypass councils where they are the problem rather than the solution, but it is more important to help the areas and the people who live in them than to accept the susceptibilities of councils.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the size and scope of the National Rivers Authority.

The period for comments on the consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority has now ended. I expect to make a further announcement on its shape and operations this month.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically helpful reply. However, does he accept that it is important that water authorities restructure themselves as early as possible prior to privatisation? Therefore, it would be helpful to them to receive a comprehensive response when my right hon. Friend makes his announcement.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I want to press on with this very quickly, which is why I hope to give the Government's response before the end of the month. It is very important that we should engage the water authorities in active preparations from the beginning of next year. I hope that the Bill will soon be operating, to enable them to co-operate with us.

Does the Secretary of State accept that he faces a predicament on the staffing of the National Rivers Authority, when the water authority chairmen have told him that he needs 20,000 people, not 2,000 people, if the water industry is to be properly regulated?

I must say that the water authorities have different views about whether they think the physical functions for which the NRA will be responsible should be done by the NRA, the water authorities or contracted out. There are three options, and that is the crucial matter that has to be resolved in my response. Estimates of an enormously bureaucratic NRA are totally wide of the mark. We seek to have the minimum body consistent with its responsibilities, which will be very heavy to discharge.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why his invitation to local authorities to bid for extra housing investment programme allocations in 1987–88 permits the purchase of temporary hostels for the homeless but excludes bids for the purchase of permanent homes for them; and if he will make a statement.

Local authorities' first priority must be to get existing stock into use, for both long-term and short-term use, before they start acquiring more. Meanwhile, it must be right to get families in particular out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and into better short-stay housing.

With £800 million underspent on local authorities' capital expenditure this year, how can the Secretary of State justify a further cut in expenditure next year for housing capital allocations? How is it that on the very day that the recent Autumn Statement was published we had the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing increased provision for housing investment next year, while the Secretary of State announced reductions in housing capital allocation for next year?

The hon. Member should note that capital allocations decline in importance every year. Over half the spending power of housing authorities comes from receipts. Although allocations will be 6 per cent. lower next year, gross spending will be 4 per cent. higher.

On behalf of the people of Fylde I thank my hon. Friend for the additional moneys that I understand he will provide to help local authorities which have a particular burden because of Parkinson frame houses and similar housing problems in this financial year. Does he have plans for a similar helpful response, should that problem recur in the next financial year?

It is certainly a high priority of my right hon. Friend's Department to get this problem out of the way once and for all. If it is possible to make additional allocations within the constraints that we have we shall make them, as we have in the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next hopes to meet the chairman of Nirex; and what matters will be discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of Nirex; and what subjects were discussed.

I have discussions with the chairman of Nirex from time to time, but I have at present no plans to meet him.

Does the Minister recall that in the public presentation to hon. Members the chairman of Nirex and his colleagues explained that public acceptability was one of the criteria for a drilling programme? Will the Minister accept that there is no public acceptability in Scotland or Wales, which are the main targets for the current drilling programme? Will he therefore announce to the House today, in the way that he announced for England on 1 May, that the Nirex drilling programme will not proceed?

My estimation is that public acceptability is about the same throughout the United Kingdom, but I would not like to comment on any locality. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to make his representations to the board members of Nirex, because they are carrying out the consultation.

Is the Minister aware that the document published by Nirex caused great alarm to many people, especially the constituents of Southport, and that action groups are now being formed? Will he ensure, when he speaks to the chairman of Nirex, that he emphasises that consultation beforehand might have helped?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman, with his level-headed responsibility, will do his best to reassure his constituents. The consultation document has been published. I cannot see how he can call for consultation on a consultation document.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the chairman of Nirex that it is greatly appreciated that he is fulfilling his undertaking as quickly as possible to consult my constituents and other hon. Members' constituents in north Yorkshire about their strong, valid objections to deposits being made in that region? Furthermore, will he assure me that the intention not to deposit such wastes in a national park will hold equally true for the coastal waters off national parks?

I sometimes think that it would be best if we had 650 supplementary questions on this matter, and then we would all be back where we started.

Does not the controversy surrounding the disposal of radioactive waste demonstrate the Government's foolishness in embarking on yet a further nuclear power station construction programme at a cost of £2 billion? Would it not be more sensible if the Secretary of State got hold of the Secretary of State for Energy and told him what a lunatic idea it is, and got hold of the Prime Minister and got her to offer a site in Dulwich for the nuclear waste that already exists?

I must introduce the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who basically support the disposal of nuclear waste and the programme at Sellafield and elsewhere. I should be delighted to introduce the hon. Members to each other.

Has my right hon. Friend by any chance seen the quite deplorable advertisement in today's Daily Telegraph by an organisation called Greenpeace? It implies that anyone who disagrees with the Government's radioactive waste discharge policy should be entitled to block the discharge, regardless of the consequences at Sellafield. Does he agree that it is quite impossible for any organised, civilised society to proceed on the basis that a bunch of anarchists, who have no regard for either the complexity of the issues with which they are dealing or the consequences of their policy, should decide our nuclear policy?

I regret that I have not seen the advertisement. Perhaps I should say that I am glad I have not seen it, in view of what my hon. Friend said about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation which obliges public or private owners of empty residential property to accept proposals for its use presented by housing associations, community groups or groups of people in housing need.

No, but we are encouraging better use of the existing housing stock in the private sector by our proposals for deregulation in the Housing Bill and in the public sector by allocating resources through Estate Action, the housing associations programme and, more recently, the extra £25 million, which we are targeting on homelessness.

Will the Minister look carefully at the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill, which was launched and sponsored by Shelter, IYSH, the empty property unit, and the empty property campaign just a week ago? Will he seriously consider whether we could amend the Housing Bill during its passage through the House to allow some of the empty property in private and public use to be used for short-term purposes to alleviate existing massive homelessness?

I am sure that all hon. Members will support the intention behind the Bill. I shall certainly look closely at the provisions of the Bill. Some of them do not seem to be practicable, but others may be possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are about as many empty properties as homeless families in London? Will he consider encouraging, or perhaps even compelling, local authorities to sell empty properties to people who are on their waiting lists if such properties have been empty for more than, say, six months?

There is an element of compulsion in the Bill to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred. My hon. Friend mentioned the unacceptably high number of empty properties. There are bound to be some, but it is accurate to say that it is an unacceptably high number of empty properties. At the moment we are still proceeding by means of carrots rather than sticks. That is why we have been offering more allocations to local authorities to get many homes at least back into temporary use. We shall have to consider ideas of the more draconian kind that my hon. Friend mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific encouragement he is proposing to give to housing associations, building societies and other financial institutions to develop shared ownership schemes particularly in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

The provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, designed to make it easier for shared ownership to be entirely privately financed, have just been laid before the House. We take every opportunity to promote shared ownership schemes.

I welcome that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that for young people in my constituency such a scheme offers the only real chance that many of them will ever have of getting their foot on the home ownership ladder? Therefore, will he try to instil a greater sense of urgency and priority into the agencies to which the Government are looking to provide such schemes?

I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend said. To be fair, local authorities and housing associations have made considerable use of the shared ownership route in recent years. On the private sector, I pay tribute to the main building society that has been involved, the Halifax. It has been trying to develop schemes. We could do with many more schemes from the private sector.

In view of the buoyancy of house prices in London, will my hon. Friend reconsider the house price limits that apply to shared ownership schemes and see whether local authority, do-it-yourself shared ownership has been accidentally precluded by the recently published Housing Bill?

I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's question. I draw attention to the new scheme that is being tried out in Tower Hamlets, where the local authority and private developers are putting together self-build schemes. They have rather the same effect and are very interesting.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage reduction in the housing investment programme allocation for 1988–89.

As local authority spending power from capital receipts continues to increase, capital allocations decline in importance. So, while total housing investment programme allocations for 1988–89 will be 6 per cent. lower than for 1987–88, gross provision for local authorities housing capital expenditure will be increased by 4 per cent. to £3,048 million.

:Is the Minister aware that in my local authority area £80 million of capital investment is needed to put council housing back into good repair and that, because the Government have stopped improvement grants, we are in danger of having to pull down very good private stoke?

The hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that we have stopped improvement grants. In real terms, the value and number of improvement grants has increased many times since we came to power in 1979. I emphasise that receipts can be capitalised and used for repairs by local authorities, and local authorities should do that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the houses built in new towns and in the 1950s and 1960s are in relatively poor condition? That is especially true in Skelmersdale new town. Will my hon. Friend put his mind to improving the housing improvement investment programme in that area — specifically for West Lancashire district council?

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but he will understand that there are a number of similar claims on the programme.

Does the Minister recognise that the answer that he gave a few moments ago does not address the problem? Many local authorities cannot give improvement grants or, indeed, accept applications for improvement grants, with the result that many northern terraced houses are decaying and becoming derelict. In the long run that will cost more, because they will have to be pulled down. Even allowing for the extra allocation to which he referred, and taking capital receipts and the housing investment programme allocation into account, is it not time that more money was made available? Should we not allow more capital receipts to be spent to try to solve the problem?

On repairs, there is no limit on the spending of capital receipts. More is now being spent than was the case. For example, the development of enveloping schemes, which are relevant to constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman's, has come on apace in recent years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the locations of the first mini urban development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mini urban development corporations he proposes to create; and when he will announce the location of the first.

I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given by my right hon. Friend earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I express the hope that the announcement will be made soon and that when it comes it will include many parts of the country—not just inner cities but other urban areas? That should be welcomed by local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country because of the success of the development corporations to date.

There is no harm in saying that we have looked not just at the inner cities but at the inner urban areas catalogued in the 57 programme authorities that are our principal responsibilities at the Department of the Environment. I confirm what I said last week, that the announcement will be made before the end of the year.

When he considers these matters, will my hon. Friend consider the participation, not just of the communities and the people in them, but of the smaller firms and institutions, in a phoenix-style partnerships?

My hon. Friend's point about phoenix-style partnerships is valid. We have been approached with applications for urban regeneration grant and urban development grant and for a number of our other grant regimes. The URG and UDG have acted in a catalytic role to attract private developers to make applications to the Department for those grant regimes. Certainly I have no doubt that the grants will play an effective part in the existing UDCs and in the mini UDCs yet to be announced.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy, when the number of houses actually built in a given area represents a substantial increase in the projected figures for that area in the existing county structure plan, to take this into account in his assessment of any structure plan review emanating from the relevant county; and if he will make a statement.

It is already my right hon. Friend's policy, when considering proposals for housing provision in submitted alterations to county structure plans, to take account of all relevant factors, including past building rates, before deciding whether to approve or modify the proposed figures.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he recognise that some of the figures for parts of the county of Dorset, especially the south-east, have been swollen and distorted by appeals? Will my hon. Friend reconfirm his commitment to the green belt, and will he confirm that it is not the Government's policy to scatter new towns over areas such as Dorset? In passing, will my hon. Friend welcome the speech by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in which he referred to the tyranny of developers? That feeling is well understood by many of my constituents.

I unequivocally reaffirm the Government's commitment to the green belt. However, I believe that my hon. Friend will recognise that some of the decisions taken in his area have been welcomed. I repeat that existing figures will be taken into account in the future run of developments. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the interesting and, I believe, positive speech, by the Prince of Wales.