To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations on day-time meetings of district authority committees.

No, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that district councils which choose to hold their committee meetings during the day preclude many good people, from all political parties, from standing as local council candidates? Will she consider including in the forthcoming legislation on the conduct of local authority business a provision that such meetings should be held after normal working hours whenever practicable?

Before answering my hon. Friend, I wish to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is undertaking an official visit to China to demonstrate the Government's support for China's efforts in tackling pollution problems and other matters. He cannot, therefore, be here today.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to inform people of the effects on the community charge of profligate local authorities.

I shall take every opportunity to inform voters that profligate spending by local authorities will lead to high community charges.

My right hon. Friend is a considerate man; he is also a very intelligent man. He understands about gearing—in other words, that for every £1 that a local authority increases its expenditure the community charge payer will have to cough up an extra £4. If we look around the country at Labour local authorities and assume that they spend a little over 10 per cent. more than Conservative local authorities, which is highly likely, that will increase the community charge by just over 40 per cent. or almost £100. We know that my right hon. Friend would not want to indulge in low politics as he is a fair man and a Christian, but will he make everyone in this country aware that, although we agree that everybody who is entitled to vote should vote, the cost of voting Labour at next year's local authority elections could be £100 per vote?

My hon. Friend is kind in his remarks, but the facts are clear. If there were a community charge this year, the average in Conservative-controlled authorities would be £196·40 per year and in Labour-controlled authorities £294·40, so there is almost £100 difference.

Has the Minister seen recent reports that the poll tax will result in the transfer of about £800 million from the north to the south? Can he, as a Christian, tell us how it is possible to justify the poorer parts of the country having to transfer wealth to the richer parts?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the reports. The revaluation of the business rate will have the effect of transferring almost £900 million from the south to the north.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any expenditure on protecting egg farmers is not counted as profligacy?

Sometimes when one is moved from one Department to another one has much for which to thank the Almighty.

Will the Minister be good enough today to answer the question that he declined to answer on Monday and say how much money he intends to spend on profligate propaganda publicising the Government's case on the poll tax, including the leaflet published yesterday? How much does he intend to spend on telling the voters of Westminster what was said in the Audit Commission's report, published on 6 December, about the way in which the scandalous sale of cemeteries for 15p has resulted in the electorate of Westminster being faced with a £5·5 million bill to repurchase them?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new job on the Opposition Front Bench. I assure him that the Government will spend no money on propaganda.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what a typical ward sister would pay in (a) rates, (b) community charge and (c) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroomed flat in the London borough of Camden.

A ward sister earning £15,000, living in a flat in Camden worth £70,000 with a rateable value of £300, would pay a rates bill of £635, a community charge of £639, disregarding the transitional safety net, and £2,030 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.

Can I assume that my right hon. Friend will take every opportunity to produce, for the benefit of those citizens unlucky enough to live in boroughs such as Camden, factual information about the effects of the policies of the Labour party if it were ever given the chance to put them into effect?

Yes, the double tax that Labour proposes would cost a ward sister more than £2,000 per year, but it is particularly bad in Camden because Camden's overspending is £637 per adult. If it brought its overspending down to what it needs to spend, it could have a reasonable community charge. The effect on the community charge is serious in a borough which does not seem to be able to bring its spending under control.

How does the Minister expect us to believe that rigged question and fiddled answer when he has completely disregarded the loss to Camden ratepayers of £151 million as a result of the Government's national business tax—a cost to each person in Camden of £824? As he is concentrating on nurses in Camden, perhaps he will tell the House how a nurse earning £15,000 or £20,000 per year can possibly afford the average one-bedroomed flat in Camden which costs more than £100,000. Is he not aware that at the royal free hospital Portakabins are being installed in the car parks because nurses cannot afford to rent or buy homes in the borough as a result of the Government's policies? After their treatment at the hands of the Government and this farrago of fiddled figures and dishonest replies nurses in Camden will treat the Government's answer with nothing but contempt.

rose—

Order. I think that "dishonest" in the context of replies made by a Minister is not a parliamentary expression. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that?

I will certainly withdraw the word "dishonest", and use the phrase "grossly inaccurate" instead.

I am extremely pleased that the hon. Gentleman has now confirmed that the Labour scheme would produce a figure of £2,000 because he has failed to reply to my letter asking for the information, as has the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It is barefaced cheek for him to come to the House and complain about a reply when he has refused to give the public the facts. He knows perfectly well that any loss that may be thought to come from the business rate will be made up in the needs grant. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand the principle, but the fact is true that the hon. Gentleman has produced a plan in place of rates and community charge which he knows would not work and if put into operation it would saddle every nurse with a bill of £2,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has shown, by its questions today and its plans for local income tax and the double tax, that it has entirely abandoned the south of England and wants to spread the disastrous policies of Camden to the rest of London and devastate people's lives there, too?

My hon. Friend will have noticed that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) tried to deflect the question because he knows that in every case, when the figures come out, the scheme proposed by the Labour party would be demonstrably devastating to Labour-controlled areas because overspending makes them impossible for people to live in.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give (a) the number of bids for transfer of local authority property to another landlord registered under parts IV and V of the Housing Act 1988 and (b) the names and locations of the prospective landlords.

Part IV of the Housing Act 1988 is not yet in force. Powers for the Housing Corporation to approve landlords will be commenced in the new year. Voluntary transfers by local authorities take place under powers in the Housing Act 1985, not part V of the 1988 Act. There are a considerable number of such transfers each year, some of which take place under general consents and are therefore not notified to the Department.

Do we understand that the Conservative party not merely openly and publicly advocates vote rigging but will continue to enshrine it in law? What would the Minister say if other organisations even dreamed of such a thing, as they never would, or if the trade unions carried on in the way the Conservative party does? Why does an abstention mean a yes vote?

If a campaign has been waged and different approaches and different appeals made by housing associations and private landlords put to the tenants as opposed to the local authority, people can vote yes for the move to the housing association, for example. If they say no, they will vote under the tenants' choice to stay with the local authority. That is enshrined in the Act. If by the time campaigning has gone ahead they cannot make up their minds, it would be wrong for those people to destroy the chances of tenants who desperately want and seek that change. The hon. Gentleman's point is an extension of the Labour party's campaign of misinformation, which is similar to the campaign that it ran against the right to buy. It failed then and it will fail again.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if certain councils spent less time churning out propaganda aimed at undermining the Government's housing policies and legislation, and more time dealing with the empty houses that they own, repairing houses and collecting rent, local people would get a far better deal and far better houses?

I agree with all that. If local authorities spent more time turning round the number of empty properties that they have, there would be a net increase of 20,000 houses brought on to the market. It is not only local authorities but certain trade unions, certain members of the Socialist Workers party and certain members of Militant who are peddling this misinformation.

The Minister has correctly told the House that the present transfers are not going ahead under the 1988 Act. He then said that, nevertheless, tenants who vote against transfers will be able to stay with a local authority. That is not the case with transfers that are happening now, and certainly not the case in Torbay, where well over 20 per cent. tenants voted against but if the Minister allows the transfer to go ahead all those tenants, irrespective of how they voted, will be involved in the scheme. How do the Government intend to protect those people's democratic rights?

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to prejudge the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All that I can say today is that we shall shortly be in touch with Torbay council about the matter.

While Labour Members talk about the rights of council tenants, the Government have given council tenants new incentives and opportunities. Can my hon. Friend confirm that we shall continue to do that?

That is the whole point. The Opposition parties—I use the plural advisedly—spend a great deal of time talking about extending benefits to tenants but do nothing, whereas the Government have extended the freedom of choice to those tenants. It has been exercised through the right to buy, which the Opposition do not like to mention because it has been enormously successful. That same freedom will be extended to more and more tenants as the 1988 Act becomes effective.

The Minister's propaganda might be more convincing if he could tell the House that he is prepared to extend that right to the tenants of non-resident private landlords, because we shall do that.

I welcome a debate on those issues at a place and time of the hon. Gentleman's choosing. There has already been one major debate on the subject, when we debated the Lords amendment. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I extracted from him confirmation that he would publicly denounce leaflets or information classified as misleading or misinformation. He will be pleased to learn that I shall be writing to him this week giving examples of leaflets sent to tenants which are clearly misleading. I hope to extract from the hon. Gentleman the public denouncement of them that he promised just a few weeks ago.

Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to the highly misleading and downright dishonest document on the Housing Act 1988 published by Ealing council and the meetings at which tenants were told that if they voted to join a housing association their rents would be doubled and they would have no rights? The BBC did not correct that misinformation in its "Panorama" programme and has not made it clear that any secure tenant wishing to remain with the council can always do so. Will my hon. Friend make that clear?

I confess that I have not incorporated in the package that I am sending to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) this week the Ealing propaganda to which my hon. Friend refers. Perhaps I will save that for next week. We could keep up the campaign on a weekly basis.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the south-east region is placed in the synthetic index of regional problems in the EEC.

The synthetic index of regional problems in the European Community, attached to the Commission's third periodic report, ranks areas of England on a county basis. Counties within the south-east region of England lie between 66th and 127th position on the index.

It may come as no surprise that because the Government have engineered a north-south divide our northern regions do not favourably compare with others in the index. Will the Minister explain why the so-called prosperous south of England also does not favourably compare in the synthetic index of regional problems? For example, 16 German regions are ahead of the English south-east region, and the highest placed in the index is the Greater London region. Will the Minister explain why that is so? Is our country's economic recovery less good than the Government would have us believe?

The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the fact that his own county ranks high in the order of priorities and will be covered. At the Department, we have strenuously supported the case for that. The index to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his substantive question will not be used after 1 January 1989. It appears that the European Commission accepts that the statistical basis is flawed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and I can continue this discussion in correspondence or he can visit the Department. However, we maintain that the basis of the index is flawed, and we have pointed that out to the Commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of pollution into the North sea from rivers and estuaries comes from Great Britain.

In the order of 20 per cent., according to the quality status report prepared for the second North sea conference held in November last year.

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that figure. Does not her answer disprove once and for all the allegation that Britain is the dirty man of Europe? Is it not true that German rivers contribute 50 per cent. of known pollution? Will my hon. Friend tell the House what further plans there are to reduce Great Britain's proportion even below 20 per cent.?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the clear contrast. I agree that 50 per cent. of the riverborne contaminants found in the North sea are borne from rivers at the eastern end of the North sea. Nevertheless, following on from the North sea conference in London least year, which was hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we are bringing forward a clear plan of action for continuing to improve the North sea. We have produced a "red list" of the 26 substances most damaging to our waterways and in addition to our participation in the scientific task force we are moving towards ending incineration and dumping at sea.

The Minister has made some valuable contributions in terms of the Government's concern, but will she acknowledge that 20 per cent. is no cause for complacency and that the reason why the Germans, in particular, have such a high rate of pollution is that they have a river which taps the whole continent rather than just these islands? The Government's record on the North sea will be worth defending only when specific regulations are brought before the House to ban the substances that the Minister has in mind and action is taken on them.

The hon. Gentleman makes some reasonable points. At last week's meeting of the North sea scientific task force Britain was the only country in the North sea to bring forward specific programmes for monitoring, regulating and providing models of the North sea. Similarly, with the "red list", Britain is the first country to have published a list of substances that we hope to see reduced by 50 per cent. by 1995.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Thames estuary is the cleanest metropolitan estuary in the world? Will she also confirm that she will not rest on those laurels but will continue to pursue the polluters of the Thames and other rivers, particularly through the courts?

The Thames is probably the cleanest metropolitan waterway in the world. About £300 million has been spent on cleaning it up and more than 100 different species are to be found there. However, there is no room for complacency and it is essential that we continue with our programmes to clean up waterways and to protect the North sea. That is why we are committed to a precautionary approach and to a rigorous approach to the implementation of these policies.

Once again, the Minister and Conservative Members have proved that they are wholly complacent about the pollution that this country puts into the North sea. Of course, river discharges into the North sea from Britain are only 20 per cent. But the river Mersey, which is the most polluted river basin in Western Europe, goes into the Irish sea, which they have not mentioned. Three hundred million gallons of sewage are discharged every day into Britain's coastal waters. Twenty per cent. of the flow from sewage pipelines is composed of contamined industrial effluent. We dump 200,000 tonnes of liquid industrial contaminated—

Order. The North sea, please.

It is the North sea. Two hundred thousand tonnes go into the North sea. Will the Minister confirm that Britain is the only country dumping massive amounts of sewage sludge into the North sea? Thirty per cent. of Britain's contaminated, poisonous sewage sludge is dumped into the North sea. When will the Government stop that? The Minister will go down in history as one of Britain's great poisoners.

I fear that that was an example of air pollution. As a party, we believe in action not words and we believe in action based on sound, scientific evidence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned sewage sludge. It is important to point out that sewage sludge is what remains after the treatment of sewage. One has to find the best practical environmental option. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer to have the sewage sludge spread over the land around his constituency. Our view, is that, where it is the best practical environmental option, it is permissible to dump it, so long as it is strictly licensed and strictly monitored.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's commitment to cleaning up the five great estuaries in the North sea is evidenced by the fact that by 1990 £600 million will have been committed in capital works by various water authorities? Does she further agree that in the river Humber oxygen concentration has increased in the past few years from under 45 per cent. to more than 65 per cent.? Does she also agree that the situation will improve because £70 million has been committed by the water authority there to further improvements? Is that not progress and, if not, what is?

I most appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend is so well informed on this matter and about the very good progress that we have made, which means that 90 per cent. of our rivers and waterways are of good or fair quality, as compared with a European average of 75 per cent. We have further to go and we are committed to do all that we can to ensure that we maintain the standards of our rivers and waterways.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Thames water authority; and what matters were discussed.

I met the chairman of Thames and other water authority chairmen on Monday 5 December. We discussed the excellent progress that the water authorities are making towards privatisation.

Will the Minister arrange to meet the chairman of the Thames water authority again to discuss with him the authority's considerable land holdings? Will he ask the chairman to investigate why a number of completions of land sales that were imminent were withdrawn by the authority and the land subsequently sold to Wimpey and other developers? Will he also consider whether it is right for a public undertaking such as Thames water authority to be involved in exclusive private discussions with individual developers to whom it then decides to sell a particular piece of land? Does not the Minister think that we need a public statement on all the land holdings of the Thames water authority, their valuation and the method of their disposal?

In common with all other public bodies, the water authorities are required to obtain the best market price for any land holdings of which they dispose. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to suggest that the best market price has not been obtained, I should be grateful if he would draw it to my attention. All assets, including land holdings, will be fully valued in the prospectuses of the companies when they are offered for sale.

When my hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of Thames water authority, did he congratulate him on improving customer services and reducing debt and operating costs?

Not, I confess, on 5 December, but I have done so on previous occasions.

Will the Minister acknowledge, as his advisers Professor Littlechild and Mr. Kinnersley have acknowledged, that it will be developers who will be most interested in buying into the privatised water industry and that, because they will control the water and sewerage infrastructure, the planning process is bound to be weakened?

I do not accept that for one moment. The planning process will continue to apply in its full rigour to land disposed of by the authorities.

Rather than waste too much time discussing all this rubbish with the Thames water authority, will my hon. and learned Friend find a little time to discuss with the Anglian water authority, where he will find the greatest possible enthusiasm—

Order. I am sure that it is true of lots of authorities, but the question is about Thames water authority.

I shall certainly do that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's assessment is absolutely accurate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Housing and Local Government Bill.

Early in the new year.

In drafting the new Bill, will the Minister take the opportunity to ensure that the voting procedure for the transfer of council houses in the Housing Act 1988 is amended to ensure that the dead do not count in the vote? In the vote in Torbay a woman who had been dead for two years but whose name was still on the electoral register was counted as being in favour of the transfer of the council property. Will the Minister also take the opportunity today to inform us that, because of such irregularities, the transfer of the Torbay housing stock will not be allowed to go ahead?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred to the decision on the transfer, and that decision will he made known. As regards the hon. Lady's second request, I shall make no such proposals.

In considering the conduct of local authorities, which we expect to be included in the Housing and Local Government Bill, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that in appointing people to statutory planning boards, such as the national park boards, district or county councils should pick people who live in the area? Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who are subject to the planning controls of the Peak national park are fed up with the appointment of people from the city of Derby, who have no contact whatever with the national parks? Might not one way round that be to include a clause providing that at least 50 per cent. of those appointed to a planning board must live in the area?

I know that that problem arises. I have not yet considered the matter, but now that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention I shall certainly do so in view of the Bill.

Before the Government publish the Housing and Local Government Bill, will the Minister ensure that information about the proposed housing subsidies will be published so that local authorities can make their calculations? Without the details it is difficult for them to assess how the arrangements will work, particularly in relation to rent levels.

I think that in the second part of his question the hon. Gentleman was referring to the economic development powers, as they are what is discussed in the Bill. It will certainly be on the agenda, and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is able to obtain all the necessary information when the Bill is published.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress by local planning authorities in drawing up, entering into public consultation and implementing statutory local plans (a) generally and (b) in the outer London boroughs.

In terms of population, about 65 per cent. of London and about 20 per cent of the rest of England are covered by adopted local plans, with a further 10 to 15 per cent covered by draft plans. Thirteen of the 19 outer London boroughs have complete coverage of adopted or deposited local plans. I hope that the planning policy guidance note published on 30 November will accelerate the preparation and adoption of local plans elsewhere.

I thank my hon. Friend for his detailed reply. I accept that the borough of Barnet has published its draft local plan and is now conducting the statutory six months of public consultation, but can my hon. Friend give an assurance that local planning authorities can turn down planning applications that they deem out of scale and character with neighbouring buildings?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. Those matters are set out in detail in paragraph 22 of the planning policy guidance note.

Will the Minister take up urgently with his colleagues at the Department of Transport key issues such as the motorway proposals now overshadowing much of outer west London? Adequate performance of the fine-grain detail of planning in statutory local plans is being completely overshadowed by major proposals for capital infrastructure investment affecting the lives of entire communities.

Obviously some matters—the hon. Gentleman has referred to them—must be dealt with by means of a national or regional strategy, but many others must be dealt with locally. There is considerable demand from local residents that their own local councils resolve such matters.

On local plans for outer London, will my hon. Friend take careful note that it is against the wishes of the public that their leafy roads in outer London should gradually be turned into blocks of six, eight and 12 flats? Will such public feeling be reflected in decisions on planning appeals?

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. It is one of the reasons why the new planning policy guidance note contains express reference to allowing local authorities to include in their local plans references to policies on densities for new housing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit Leicester to discuss with the local council the housing waiting list.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Leicester. However, I was there on 6 December and I discussed a number of housing topics with the council.

As the Minister was in Leicester so recently, he will know that there are currently 10,500 people on the housing waiting list in Leicester and that last year the city council did not build a single new council house. That contrasts with the position 10 years ago when it used to build an average of 1,000 new houses a year. Does the Minister realise that the appalling statistics are a direct result of the Government's miserable housing policies? When will the Minister return to the people of Leicester the £15,274,000·18 stolen by the Government from the council's housing allocation grant? Will the Minister confirm that if the money was given to the city council—it is its rightful property—it would considerably ease the housing crisis in Leicester?

The hon. Gentleman's point was not specifically touched on by the Labour councillors I met on my official visit. Perhaps I told them rather too quickly that the amount of money they had received in capital receipts had ensured that there was a gradual increase in the total spend in the public sector housing market. Perhaps that is why the matter was not raised. I am glad to have the opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman of that fact. I also made the point that, wherever possible, the Department had given additional resources over and above the council's allocation at the beginning of the year. That is especially appropriate for estate action. I was asking the council to spend a darn sight more money from its resources, together with ours, to deliver new building through housing assocations, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, form the thrust of the Government's new housing policy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists are often fiction, based on expectations rather than need? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) would do better trying to persuade Leicester council to use its resources more efficiently rather than indulge in political posturing?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The local authority in Leicester could do more in turning round its empty properties on various estates. It acknowledged that it has taken far too long in the past, and that process has speeded up. I am glad to see that, but there is still considerable room for improvement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he is proposing to ensure that unleaded petrol is made more widely available.

The number of petrol stations selling unleaded petrol is increasing rapidly. By the end of the year, it is expected that one in four refuellings will take place at a petrol station at which unleaded petrol is available. Further measures to promote the availability and use of unleaded petrol are co-ordinated by the unleaded petrol group, which I chair.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. May I exhort her not to spare any effort to encourage petroleum companies to make unleaded petrol available as widely as possible? That holds out the greatest scope for individual citizens to make worthwhile and valuable contributions to solving the problem of pollution. Does she agree that the role and responsibility of individual citizens in the battle against pollution cannot be underestimated?

I agree with my hon. Friend. In his area, taking Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester together, the number of petrol stations selling unleaded petrol has risen from four to 43 in the past year. What matters is that individual citizens should realise that lack of availability and financial disadvantage are no longer excuses. Two thirds of cars can use unleaded petrol, possibly with a small alteration, and it is up to citizens to take steps to help the environment and their wallet.

Is it not a fact that a Government Department has been monitoring lead pollution near motorways and busy roads in built-up areas? Is it not also a fact that there is great concern about damage to children? When will the Department publish figures showing the level of lead pollution, which would heighten awareness and encourage people to buy unleaded petrol?

The amount of lead in the air has dropped by half since the maximum amount of lead in petrol was reduced by two thirds in 1985. Although the amount has been reduced, we need to tackle the remaining 80 per cent. of lead in the air that comes from petrol. It is essential for people to realise the damage that lead can cause to children. We are making every effort to spell that out. The information is readily available and the amount of lead in the air is monitored by a number of sources.

I congratulate the Minister on her splendid efforts to encourage companies as well as individuals to alter cars and company vehicles to run on unleaded petrol. I am delighted that this week my hon. Friend has written to all the major companies encouraging them to make that alteration. Will she confirm that the tax differential between leaded and unleaded petrol is among the highest in the European Community?

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I have written to the top 100 companies asking what steps they can take to change their fleets. Our differential is the second highest in the European Community. However, it is important for people to realise that there is already a 6p advantage over four-star petrol. Together with the Department of Trade and Industry we intend to alter the Petrol Marking Order so that the motorist is made immediately aware—because it will be highlighted at the roadside—of the saving he can make if he buys unleaded petrol and of the help that that will provide for the environment.

The use of unleaded fuel is most important if we are to have a healthy environment. It is much too important to leave to market forces. If the Government's boasted uptake of 15 per cent. in all petrol stations is to be achieved by the end of the year, it will still compare unfavourably with the uptake in most other European countries. In West Germany it is 75 per cent. When do the Government intend to make as much money available to deal with this problem as they have made available, through the Department of Health, to overcome the problems that have arisen in the egg market? The Government ought to provide funds immediately for a Government-sponsored national information programme so that citizens are encouraged to buy unleaded petrol.

The uptake of unleaded petrol has increased tenfold in the last year. If we can achieve the same tenfold increase next year, we shall have made good progress. It is essential to work with the petrol industry, the motor manufacturers, the consumers and the motoring organisations and encourage them to spell out in detail the advantages of changing to unleaded petrol. There is already a substantial financial advantage, but it is important that each person should realise what the advantages are. That is why, through the Campaign for Lead Free Air, with which we have worked for many years and have helped to fund, we are determined to ensure that every step is taken to promote the important action that each individual can take.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from increasing the differential, the best way forward is to encourage more car manufacturers to tune cars to run on unleaded petrol, particularly car manufacturers in countries such as Italy and France that refuse to do so because their attitude towards unleaded fuel is way behind ours?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the important contribution he has made to this subject and the steps that I know he has taken to encourage motor manufacturers to take action in this important area. By 1990, all cars will have to be able to take unleaded petrol; we shall all be using it. I have also discussed with manufacturers whether they have been able clearly to identify those cars that are able to take unleaded fuel. Four out of five new cars are able to take unleaded fuel, and 2 million people are driving cars that could run on unleaded fuel. We want to encourage them to take that step.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement concerning the availability of further funds for the repurchase of Smith houses by Leicester city council.

Leicester city council received additional housing investment programme allocations of £584,000 in 1987–88 and £235,000 in 1988–89, specifically to help it meet its housing defects obligations. For 1989–90 we have set aside £15 million nationally for housing defects, for which individual authorities will be able to make bids. These will, of course, be considered on their merits.

Is the Minister aware that these amounts are totally inadequate? Leicester city council is fulfilling its obligations to protect people who bought their council houses in accordance with Government policy, but the Government are doing precious little to help them. Those who live in the remaining Smith houses in my constituency will share a wretched Christmas along with the thousands of families who cannot get council houses because the Government have taken money away from Leicester city council, which means that it cannot do its job in other respects.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair, and I think that he may have prepared his supplementary question before hearing my answer to his substantive question. Only last month the Department of the Environment gave Leicester city council additional funds to meet the problem of housing defects that the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined.

It is not enough.

It never is for the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will continue to say that it is not enough. All I can say is that there was a redistribution of resources in his region and we responded positively to the case put to us by Leicester city council. The additional HIP allocation, with the council's normal resources, means that the council will be able to help owners who are still awaiting assistance.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit Dorset to discuss public opinion on planning matters.

Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have any plans to do so.

That is a pity. Will my hon. Friend please accept from me that overdevelopment in Dorset is now the overriding concern of many of my constituents and those of my neighbours? Is he aware that there is widespread disillusionment and even a feeling of helplessness at what seems to be an alliance between certain developers, land owners and even certain county councils who favour the seemingly inexorable creep of development? Will he accept, on behalf of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my constituents' thanks for the decision to throw out the Carroll group proposals? Will he reconfirm the answer given to me by his fellow Under-Secretary of State on 20 July that it is definitely not the Government's policy to encourage the development of new towns on existing green belt land?

I am very happy to confirm the last point and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the Carroll decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State upheld green belt policy by overturning a recommendation from the inspector. He was challenged in the High Court but won the case.

Will my hon. Friend do everything that he can to protect the green belt in Dorset and elsewhere in the south of England? When any changes are made to structure plans, will my hon. Friend ensure that control of local planning authorities over planning matters is in no way diminished?

Yes, certainly. Indeed, we want to go further than that. We want to encourage more local planning authorities to draw up their local plans and thereby to have greater control over their own environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue a consultation paper on the permitted days for clay pigeon shooting under the General Development Order 1988.

Before Christmas.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, if the order goes through, hundreds of small clay pigeon clubs will go out of business? If he further aware that they were not consulted and are outraged? Surely this is no way in which to treat a responsible and law-abiding sector of the community. The Government are trying to encourage alternative land uses, so surely it makes no sense to push this policy through in contradiction of that aim.

I am fully aware of the points that my hon. Friend makes and they will be given full weight in the consultation process to which his original question referred.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, if consultations are to go through quickly, he must try to bring in an amending order by, say, 1 March? If he does not, clay pigeon shooting clubs cannot plan their season and many individuals will not be able to use clay pigeon traps to practise in fields. Is he aware that there is a voluntary code of practice, which is approved by his Department, to reduce noise and any form of local inconvenience? He must act very speedily indeed.

I am aware of the code of practice to which my hon. Friend refers. We shall do what we can to reach a speedy conclusion of this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that all beaches meet the standards set by the European Community bathing water directive.

Some 60 per cent. of our bathing waters now meet the mandatory EC standards. Spending programmes for improving the remaining waters are running at £70 million a year, and we are considering the implication of accelerating these programmes to achieve general compliance by 1995.

As one third of bathing waters still do not comply with the EEC directive, what action is the Minister taking about raw sewage which is being pumped into seas and which affects tourism, fishing and local people?

I thought that I had answered that question. We are considering ways of accelerating the programme to achieve general compliance with European Community standards by 1995.

Is it not true that all the pollution has occurred while the water authorities have been in the public sector? Will not any price rises in water after privatisation be largely because of the need to clean up that pollution?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Select Committee reported that the problems which we now face are largely due to the cuts in investment by water authorities between the mid-1970s and the early-1980s when the Labour party was in power.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of United Kingdom Nirex; and what matter will be discussed.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the chairman of Nirex.

In the light of that reply, will the Under-Secretary tell us when she expects Nirex to announce the sites that have been selected and the exact method of disposal of the waste? What is her Department doing to ensure that there will be a full debate in the House to enable all hon. Members to express their views on the selected sites and the proposals by Nirex?

We understand that Nirex hopes to bring forward its proposals based on the results of its consultation exercise and technical and geological studies early next year. The Government will then make a final decision after a full public debate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should accelerate the Nirex programme? She will be well aware that for decades we have been storing the waste that Nirex wishes to over-engineer in its disposal and storage, in nuclear power stations throughout the country. We have to get across to the general public the message that there are many places—

Does the hon. Gentleman want it in his constituency?

I have it in my constituency. There are many places where it can be safely stored. Unless we bite the bullet we shall never keep nuclear energy progressing as it ought to be for the good of the environment.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view. He is absolutely right, but uncertainty can cause greater difficulty and problems. The Government are satisfied that safe disposal facilities can be developed, but any facility would have to meet the stringent safety requirements of the authorising and regulatory bodies. I know that my hon. Friend would not want to accelerate those procedures.

In addition to the commitment to a necessary debate in the House, will the Minister confirm that if there are any proposals for new methods of monitored storage of nuclear waste, there will be a wide-ranging public inquiry before any decisions are taken?

My right hon. Friend has given a commitment that when Nirex comes forward with its proposals there will be a public inquiry and widespread public debate. It has been agreed by the Environment Select Committee and the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee that on-site storage is unacceptable because of the higher risk, that disposal is the right approach and it is time that the Government proceeded to deal with the problem.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of Nirex, will he bring to his attention the fact that the Scottish National party in Scotland has been distributing leaflets which give completely misleading information or lies about the proposals that may or may not be made, and that has been causing much unnecessary concern?

Nirex has made efforts to consult very widely and put forward responsible and reasonable information. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend's attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the report of the Association of District Councils called, "Social Rented Housing: Supply and Need", issued in September, a copy of which has been sent to him.

This is an interesting report which we have read carefully.

In view of the revelation that there are now 1·3 million families on council waiting lists, is the Minister at last persuaded of the need for increased provision in the public sector, as urged in the report, or will he emulate the Prime Minister's reaction and dismiss the Association of District Councils as one more institution which has become infected by Socialism?

I am convinced of the need to provide houses at affordable rents, and the Housing Act 1988 is designed to meet that need. This will happen through extension and expansion of the housing association movement. That is precisely why we have been fortunate in securing substantial resources from the Treasury to expand that policy and give a great increase to the Housing Corporation, which eventually will find its way to the housing associations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the major areas of opportunity for protection of the national environment which he expects his Department to pursue over the next 12 months.

We will be taking action both nationally and internationally to protect all aspects of the environment. We are moving forward our policies to revise and refine our waste disposal legislation, to establish an integrated pollution control system, to tacke air pollution by cleaning up power station emissions and promoting lead-free petrol, to invest in research into greenhouse gases and to take a lead on protecting the ozone layer.

On my hon. Friend's final point, would she care to comment on the efforts being made by the major companies in the chemical industry to assist the Government in that endeavour.

The major chemical companies have been investing heavily in research into alternatives to damaging CFCs and halons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he is to host a conference here in March to encourage other countries to sign the Montreal protocol and to raise the limits so that we can look for a reduction of 85 per cent.