To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed unified development plans; and if he will make a statement.

The arrangements for the preparation of unitary development plans, including my right hon. Friend's strategic guidance, are well advanced. Responses are still being received to the draft strategic guidance for Greater Manchester.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is much better if planning decisions are made locally whenever possible, and that the Government's record is much better than that of the Labour Government in this respect? Does he also agree that when unified development plans are in place there should be far fewer appeals to the Secretary of State?

Unitary development plans should certainly improve matters further, and I expect them to lead to a much greater say for local people in the taking of planning decisions.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that local plans have particular significance for towns of historic importance—of which Shrewsbury is one, being among the top dozen on the Department's list of towns of specific importance? Shrewsbury, like the city of Durham is surrounded on three sides by a river and thus has particular planning difficulties, so the inspectors' recommendations to my right hon. Friend in respect of local plans are particularly important and should receive far greater credence.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of historic towns such as Shrewsbury. The local plan provides the framework for giving local people a greater say in these matters. The sooner all local planning authorities make progress in the preparation of these plans, the greater their voice will be.

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

On Monday.

Has the Minister seen the letter sent to Members of Parliament by Gordon Jones and the chairmen of nine other water authorities? If so, does he agree that water has deteriorated under their stewardship? They have never fought for the industry, and now they are saying that it would be better off privatised. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that they have a vested interest in privatisation, and should he not ask them to resign, given that they have not looked after the industry?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the excellent and impartial briefing that the water authority chairmen issued for the Report stage of the Water Bill. The fact emerges clearly from that, as I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, that maladministration by the Labour Government is primarily responsible for the wretched condition of some rivers, including those in her area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of their incompetent management of the economy the Labour Government drastically cut investment in the water industry and in sewage treatment? Does he agree that the better way to get cleaner rivers, better beaches and new sewers is to denationalise the industry and release it from Treasury control?

I entirely agree. It is a tragedy that we are having such a problem cleaning up the legacy of Socialism, which is to be equated with pollution on every occasion.

Can the Secretary of State explain why, despite the massive amount of Government propaganda and his undoubtedly brilliant persuasion, the overwhelm-ing majority of people in this country wholly reject the irrelevant, stupid nonsense of water privatisation?

I am afraid it is true that the matter has been handled neither well nor accurately by the Opposition.

When my right hon. Friend met the chairmen, did he draw comparisons between the way in which the French independent water companies have raised the standards of water in their country and the sad performance of water companies and authorities in this country?

It is not without interest that France—which, under its present Administration, is not loath to nationalise—has set its face against interfering with the highly successful performance of its privatised water industry.

When the Secretary of State met the chairmen, did he discuss spending on advertising? Does he agree that it is wrong for the chairmen of publicly owned water authorities to refuse to say how much public money has been spent on selling the Government's privatisation policies? Do not the paying public have a right to know? Or does the Secretary of State think that, in anticipation, of privatisation the appointees concerned should stop behaving like public servants and start behaving like the Government's political lackeys?

No, I do not agree. The water industry has every right to publicise its achievements and its wares and to make clear to the House what it believes to be the best way of achieving the increase in standards and efficiency that the country wants. It is strange that the hon. Lady should whinge and twinge because a publicly owned industry does not agree with her very foolish policies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the availability of marginal land for housing.

The allocation of land for housing is primarily a matter for local planning authorities. However, authorities are encouraged to make maximum use of derelict or underused land in urban areas, and only last month we announced proposals by which local authorities in rural areas could permit low-cost housing for local needs to be built on land where planning permission for housing would not normally be granted.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Bristol it is almost impossible for a young couple on average or below average earnings to obtain any form of housing in or near the city? Does he agree that removing any possible planning obstacle to the development of difficult and therefore probably low-cost land would help the housing problems in our cities?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the authorities in Bristol and elsewhere will study closely our recent announcement, which should go a considerable way towards alleviating the problem.

Is the Minister aware that under his proposals he is trying to persuade the local authority in Stockport to find more land for housing than the local authority wants? Is he aware that between my constituency in Manchester and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) a considerable area is currently used for golf courses or poor quality farm land? That area constitutes an ideal breathing space between the cities of Manchester and Stockport. Will he ensure that permission is not granted for building on that land, which would deny many people access to land on which they enjoy walking?

All applications for planning permission on that land and elsewhere should be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the circumstances of the case. That is the basis on which they will be dealt with.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is no need to take marginal land or green field sites for housing when there are more than 80,000 acres of vacant and under-used public land on the registers? Those registers are eight years old. Although the Government keep saying that they want to do more, the registers continue to grow and more land will continue to come on to them unless my hon. and learned Friend does something about selling the vacant, derelict or dormant public land.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to ignore the substantial amount of land that has been taken off the register. We are making substantial progress. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the opportunities that exist, which are being rapidly exploited.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the homeless persons legislation to give local authorities a duty to make accommodation available for people under the age of 18 years who are homeless.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to combat homelessness.

My review of the homelessness legislation is not yet complete. I will announce the result as soon as I am ready to announce my conclusions, but it would be premature to speculate on whether any changes are to be made to the legislation.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the vicious circle confronting young people in London? They cannot get jobs because they have no homes, and they cannot get homes because they have no jobs. They end up—to use a phrase with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar—"skippering", or sleeping rough. Given that the Government have billions of pounds to spare, will the Secretary of State assure the House that on completing his review he will address head-on the problem of youth homelessness in London? Will he ensure that positive measures are taken to address the present appalling position so that many of the young homeless in our capital are housed later this year and in the future?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should do nothing to tempt young people to leave home, particularly when they do not have a home of their own to which to go. That is half the problem that we already face, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would exacerbate it. Over the past year, an additional £74 million has been made available to local authorities to deal with the most acute problems of homelessness, together with approval of £40 million additional housing association capital receipts to be spent on schemes focused on helping homeless families. That is a major contribution, despite the fact that there are still far too many empty council houses which could be used.

Is not the increase in homelessness a direct result of Government policies, as manifested by high interest rates, which lead to mortgage defaults and repossessions? Is it not due also to the Government's failure to allow local authorities to build houses for rent, which less well-off families so urgently need?

The percentage of households rendered homeless as a result of mortgage arrears is declining, from 10 per cent. of those for whom local authorities accepted responsibility to find accommodation in the third quarter of 1987 to 7 per cent. in the third quarter of 1988. That does not bear out the hon. Gentleman's allegation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to make housing available to those under age 18 would encourage the break-up of families and lead to a serious situation in which young people would be encouraged to leave home and come to the capital looking for accommodation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There would be some encouragement for young people to leave home in the mistaken belief that it might be a way of jumping the queue for council housing. I hope that young people will not think that. I equally concede, as would my hon. Friend, that there are a number of genuinely homeless people who cannot return home, and it is those whom we should seek to help.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it costs £180 per week to house a homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in my constituency, yet there are areas of derelict land—often in local authority ownership—and builders with low-cost housing schemes which together could provide accommodation for young homeless families at a lower cost per week than that of bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will my right hon. Friend's Department be favourably disposed towards planning applications and, in particular, to appeals in relation to schemes of that nature?

I have tried to take further measures to help in that kind of situation, with the announcement in February that local authorities can give planning consents for low-cost housing for local people as well as meeting their general housing provision obligations. That does not have to he in the most rural areas. It is one of the many routes already available whereby local authorities can secure extra housing provision, at the capital expense often of the private sector or of the Housing Corporation. I urge them to use it.

Why has the Minister created such an acute shortage of low-cost accommodation in Britain?

I do not believe that I have created any such shortage. I believe that the shortage of housing resulting from a very restrictive planning policy pursued by many local authorities in the south of England has contributed to it. If there were enough houses for everyone, it would be possible for everyone to be housed, but in a housing shortage low-income families are inevitably last in the queue.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received to include specific vacant sites of under one acre on the land registers.

Since 1985 to the end of February 1989, requests have been received for registration and disposal in respect of a total of 225 sites, of which 46 were for the registration of sites smaller than one acre in size.

In 1988, the amount of land on the land registers decreased by 6,175 acres.

I welcome the information given by my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the position regarding land would be clearer if all sites under one acre were included on the register and a supplementary register were kept of privately owned land, bearing in mind that the present register is for publicly owned land only?

Under the present arrangements, the figures reflect that there has been considerable success in the removal of all land, public and private, from the register. The Ordnance Survey 1988 survey shows a further reduction of 4,199 acres of vacant land, a significant improvement on the previous year. That demonstrates that the policy is very successful.

Is the Minister aware that many of those small plots of land are covered with litter? Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to inspect every one of those sites, taking with him a little bag and the Prime Minister? Then he can bag it and bin it and stick her in it.

The hon. Gentleman makes his own contribution to the amount of rubbish by the speeches that he makes in the Chamber. I do not imagine that he is making a very good job of setting an example in his own constituency as he certainly makes a significant contribution to the rubbish here.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of home starts by housing associations at the latest date for which figures are available; and what is the level expected to be reached as a result of the increase in funding for the Housing Corporation announced in last year's Autumn Statement.

A total of 14,651 approvals had been given by the Housing Corporation in the current financial year up to the end of February. In 1991–92 the corporation expects to approve more than 32,000 homes for rent and sale.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given are ample proof of the housing associations' ability to provide affordable housing for those in need? Does he accept that the huge increase in public funding provided to the Housing Corporation, coupled with private finance and the management skills within the housing associations is enabling those housing associations to achieve an impact on local provision which has not been emulated by many local authorities?

The figures show that the gross provision for the Housing Corporation programme was £1,328 million for 1991–92—an 80 per cent. increase on the original provision for the current financial year. That has since been increased by a further £40 million because of greater than expected capital receipts. That is a massive expansion. I agree with my hon. Friend that it should make a very great contribution, particularly as it is possible to target it on the areas of greatest need.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in areas of low values or high costs housing associations are having difficulty making private finance work and that the only way in which they can make it work is by reducing standards?

The areas of greatest need are not the areas of lowest cost. When I said that it is important to target finance, I had in mind the comments made by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, that the main problem of shortage of rented houses arises in the south-east and London. That seems to tie up very nicely.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his housing associations policy, which is reaching the village communities that we are anxious to preserve in rural constituencies. Will he confirm that private finance was introduced in a new way to the housing scene under the Housing Act 1988? Is he aware that locally politicians are anxious to promote new concepts of private finance, which they opposed when the Housing Bill was before the House, and that a scurrilous and dishonest campaign is being led by the Democrats in Wiltshire?

The latter, including the adjectives, would not surprise me in the least. I confirm that we hope that by 1991–92, about 80 per cent. of schemes will be mixed funded. Total public provision will not only be increased by 80 per cent. it will be greatly enhanced by whatever private finance can be attracted to swell it still further. This is by far the best way to obtain value for money. I hope that all authorities—even Liberal, Democratic or whatever they are called—will realise the importance of these new measures.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the housing investment programme allocation to Leicester city council for 1989–90.

Leicester city council has been given a housing investment programme allocation of £8,555 million for 1989–90. It plans to add £43 million to this from capital receipts, most of which will be spent on improving and repairing the council's housing stock.

Is the Minister aware that that is a reduction in real terms of 26 per cent. in the allocation for the current year and will cause the gravest problems to the council's renewal strategy programme for private housing? Does he appreciate that there are 10,000 applications on the housing list representing 25,000 people? Does he accept that this disgraceful gutting of the council's housing programme yet again is unacceptable and intolerable?

I am sorry to have to argue again with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He chooses to ignore the amount of money—£43 million—drawn in by the local authority in capital receipts under the exercise of the right to buy, which is Government policy. He also chooses to ignore that amount of estate action funding that has been made available. It is only recently that Leicester city council has been prepared to work in partnership with the Department on that scheme. The hon. and learned Gentleman further chooses to ignore the fact that the council could increase right-to-buy sales and thus draw in further capital receipts. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be interested only in council housing and does not recognise that the substantial increase that we have given the Housing Corporation will enable more housing associations in Leicester to build more houses for those on low pay.

If the Minister will cool down, I am sure that he will recognise that in my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) there is a specific problem with Boot houses, which were built more that 60 years ago and have been found to have serious structural faults. As the Minister knows, Leicester city council has a demolition and rebuilding programme. Without doubt, leaving all political comments aside, it will experience severe problems. Will the Minister give a guarantee that, in specific and agreed circumstances, if a programme such as the demolition and rebuilding of Boot houses is placed in jeopardy he will be prepared to consider each case and, if necessary, allow increased additional expenditure?

I am prepared to look at the problems with Boot houses in Leicester. I have already had one meeting in Leicester with Leicester city council. I am sympathetic to the problems the council faces with Boot houses and I have already made it clear that we would assist, wherever possible, with the additional private finance that the council is trying to secure. I understand that it is being successful in that regard. I still believe that, with the flexibility of the estate action programme, it is possible to help with the renewal programme in that part of Leicester. If the city council wishes to talk to me again with the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends, I am only too happy to meet it.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that Labour-controlled Leicester city council has the worst record for reletting council homes in the whole of the east midlands?

I can confirm that.

The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it.

My hon. Friend seemingly knows more about Leicester than does the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose constituency is in the city. What my hon. Friend has said is not fantasy or fiction, but fact. Leicester has the highest percentage of void stock. The total is 1,220, which is in excess of the number of homeless people registered in the whole county.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he proposes to give to local authorities intending to devolve power to neighbour-hood councils.

My guidance is to embrace the high aspirations, but to avoid the chaotic practice of Tower Hamlets.

I welcome the Minister's statement about neighbourhood councils, as he accepts clearly that they are a progressive way to devolve power to the local communities. As the Minister knows, the rules about proportionality in the Local Government and Housing Bill may affect neighbourhood councils and he has said that he may take some action. Can he say what action he will take to ensure that the Bill does not conflict with the desire to devolve power?

We are discussing the matter with local authority associations and have concluded that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have powers under the Bill to make such regulations as are needed to enable neighbourhood councils to operate on a different basis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to encourage the neighbourhood councils in Tower Hamlets to organise themselves so that we know how much they are spending and whose money it is.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Tower Hamlets thought that nothing could be worse than the old-fashioned carthorse of Labour control that had done so much damage to Tower Hamlets for so many years? But they were wrong. When the Liberals took control and introduced the neighbourhood councils, the people realised that the Liberals could be worse than the Labour party.

There is a major difficulty about helping Tower Hamlets at pesent because the council cannot tell us with any certainty about the financial pickle it is in. Until we know how big the pickle is, it is difficult to give advice.

Is the Minister saying that all parish councils, town councils and community councils mirror Tower Hamlets? Will he apologise to the local authorities associations, which he says he has met on this very issue, because there are a number of local authorities that we believe are doing a splendid job? The Minister should agree and appreciate the work that those authorities are doing. He should not assume that such councils mirror the scurrilous information he has been given by his colleagues.

The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the question, which is about neighbourhood councils and not parish councils, of which I am thoroughly in favour and of which there are many in my constituency. The technical expression "neighbourhood councils" refers to councils such as those in Bethnal Green, Bow, Globe Town, Isle of Dogs, Poplar, Stepney and Wapping. The hon. Gentleman should read the question before he asks one of his own.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last reviewed the guidelines for granting costs against planning authorities when his Department gives planning permission on appeal.

A thoroughgoing review preceded the issue, in February 1987, of the current guidance in circular 2 of that year. The practical operation of the guidance is kept under continuing review.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the present guidelines may give too much leeway to Government inspectors? Will he note that appellate costs are too often given against a council when permission is granted on appeal and that they often completely overlook important planning considerations and negate the proper functions of the planning authority?

If that were so, the councils concerned would have a remedy by way of judicial review. My hon. Friend will be aware that in two recent and important cases my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made what will undoubtedly turn out to be substantial awards of costs against developers. I assure my hon. Friend that the policy is applied in an even-handed manner.

Not many moments ago, a Conservative Member congratulated the Secretary of State; I reckon he is useless, and I mean that. I should like my local authority to become involved in planning for housing. Are the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water and Planning aware that we have not built any new properties in Ashfield since 1979, when that lot over there came into power? It would be nice to be able to use planning procedures to build for the youngsters who queue up at my surgery on Saturday morning and who cannot get properties in which to live. The Secretary of State ought to be ashamed of himself.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer his local planning authority to the Government's policies, including those announced last month, which will give it ample scope to make proper provision for land for development to provide houses for the very people to whom he has referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much untreated raw sewage is poured into the sea each year.

About 14 per cent. of the sewage from England and Wales is discharged to the sea where it is treated through the disinfecting actions of salt water, sunlight and waves which together break down the bacteria as effectively as inland treatment. That is why the Royal Commission on environmental pollution concluded in its 10th report that with well-designed sewage outfalls, discharge of sewage to the sea was not only acceptable but environmentally preferable in many cases to alternative means of disposal.

I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed reply. I realise that this matter falls within the ambit of the Scottish Office, but it also has general environmental interest, given the outfall area. Will he note that Highland regional council is currently backing a limited water sewage water treatment scheme locally, which is opposed by Ross and Cromarty and Inverness district councils and which has not so far been the subject of an environmental impact assessment? The Secretary of State for Scotland has refused to call it in. As the Prime Minister now poses as the green goddess, will the Secretary of State for the Environment invoke her name to encourage the Scottish Office to take a more responsible line, given the possible pollutant effects of the scheme?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would like to make the general point, however, that the best environmental option might well be to put the sewage out through a long sea outfall. That is what the experts recommend in many cases.

I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend that I see no chance whatever of persuading my electors in north Wales to accept that answer. The plain fact is that sewage is being washed back on to our beaches, and we want to know how the new Water Bill will improve matters.

I agree that there are many completely inadequate short sea outfalls, many of them dating from the Victorian era. That is why we have a major programme to extend outfalls to between 2 and 3 km out to sea so that the disinfecting action of the sea has time to act on the effluent before it can float back to the beach.

Does the Secretary of State realise that if he gives answers like that, people will not believe for one moment that the Government have any commitment to green solutions or to dealing with problems of pollution? Will he note, in particular, the opposition in Lancashire to the proposed extension of the Rossall sewage outfall near Fleetwood, to which there is overwhelming opposition and will he say that he is not prepared to let the North West water authority's proposal go ahead?

Without reference to that particular application, which is before me at the moment, let me say something serious to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Let me tell him that the alternative is inland sewage treatment works, which produce sludge which must be disposed of either in fertilisers, or by dumping on land or at sea or by incineration. This involves the discharge of high concentrations of bacteria in the area of the seaside resort although such works are difficult to site at seaside resorts. Disinfection is a possibility, but so far there is little experience of its use and there is concern about its possible effect on the marine biota. If the hon. Gentleman does not want a long sea outfall in any particular case, will he say which alternative he wants, where he would site that alternative sewage works and how strongly he would defend the destruction of molluscs, animals and fish in the sea due to the disinfection? He must be a little more scientific and a little less shambolic.

Is it not a little inconsistent—but also rather typical of certain people—to complain on the one hand about poor water quality and sewage on beaches and in the next breath to complain about the higher water charges that are necessary to clean up the mess left by years of under-investment by the public sector water authorities?

With regard to that sort of doublespeak, I have a leaked letter from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall quote a sentence from it. It says:

"Major increases, many in excess of 30 per cent., are being imposed on 12 million consumers who are being obliged to pay substantial additional costs as a direct consequence of privatisation."

That is not the case. The major environmental improvements requested by the Opposition are the cause of the increases in water charges. The hon. Member for Copeland knows that, and he should withdraw his offensive remark.

As the Secretary of state has now admitted that large amounts of untreated domestic sewage flow into the seas around Britian, will he tell us whether the Prime Minister was confused in her interview on the BBC "Nature" programme, when she said that no untreated sewage went into the sea around Britian? If she was not, had she again been wrongly briefed?

Was the hon. Gentleman confused when he wrote to the Prime Minister and said that the cost of environmental pollution could be put down to privatisation? When he withdraws that comment, I shall answer his question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the number of beaches which do not conform to European Economic Community standards; and if he will make a statement.

We have received a number of representations about bathing water quality. As I announced on 22 February we are making good progress in cleaning up our bathing waters—two thirds of which now meet European Community standards, compared with 55 per cent. in 1987. We are the only member state in the Community to be developing a programme for achieving full compliance.

Although recently there have been some long overdue improvements to bathing waters, is it not clear that the Government have been complacent for too long? The Government should remember that there are many floating voters who expect the water around the coast to be at least to the standard of the average European country. However, some 300 million tonnes of raw sewage a day are being pumped into the coastal areas around Britain, in addition to the dumped toxic chemicals. That is an untenable position. If the Government are turning green instead of blue, it is about time that they did something about the problem. After all, it is not an issue to be sniffed at.

Before the hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of complacency, he should reflect on the fact that the Community's bathing water directive was promulgated in 1975, when it gave two years for the designation of bathing waters. However, when the Opposition left Government in 1979 not a single bathing water had been designated.

Will my hon. Friend consider the beaches at Dover and Deal? Will he in particular—[Interruption.]

Who did the hon. Gentleman's research?

Order.

Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the beach at Deal has problems because the Opposition, when in power, did little to improve it, especially when a Labour Member was representing that constituency? Now that a Conservative Member represents that constitutency, will my hon. Friend consider the representations of that Member and ensure that the beach at Deal is improved in the near future? [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has done very well.

I am sure that my hon. Friend has made his representations to the Southern water authority. Substantially more money is being made available for the improvement of bathing waters and more still will be made available when the industry is in the private sector.

Will the Minister confirm that in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) he misled the House by saying that the British Government are the only ones who have presented a plan to Brussels for the improvement of the bathing beaches of Britain, because, up until yesterday afternoon, the Commission informed me that it was expecting a plan from the British Government by the middle of March, but that it had not received it? Furthermore water authority officials have been told not to speak about investment programmes for the beaches, as I found out when I telephoned the Welsh water authority last week.

When the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard tomorrow he will find that he has accused me of saying something quite different from what I said.

Can my hon. and learned Friend tell me how we stand in the European clean beach league and how much progress we have made since the Labour Government cut sewage disposal expenditure by 50 per cent.?

I wish that I could tell my hon. Friend how much progress we have made, but as they did not designate any beaches or keep any records it is impossible to make such a comparison. Our position in relation to other European countries is improving substantially and the pace will quicken when the industry is in the private sector.

Does the Minister accept that none of our south-coast beaches will conform to EEC standards if the lindane in the container that has sunk in the English Channel leaks into the sea? To what extent are the beaches and the marine environment at risk from the accident? What action have the Government taken to deal with the threat? Has there been a dispute between the French and British Governments over it? Where was the ship going before it sank and why were those deadly cancer-causing chemicals being transported? What was their intended use? Will he follow the Japanese and Swedish example by banning the use of lindane in Britain?

I do not see how banning the use of lindane in Britain would have had any effect on what happened in the Channel the other day. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the French authorities are doing their best to recover that cargo and I hope that he will join me in wishing them all success.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is ridiculous for Opposition Members to complain about the present state of the water industry and then to argue that there should be no change in that industry? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that all the Labour party complaints underline the case for privatisation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has been wandering round the country pointing at various dirty rivers as though to suggest that that in some way undermines the case for privatisation; but it makes the case for privatisation. That is the way in which we shall gain the extra resources necessary to achieve the improvements in our water environment that we all want to see.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average percentage increase in water rates in 1989–90.

The estimated increase in all water and sewerage charges is likely to be about 11 per cent.

How can the Minister pretend that privatisation will not cost the consumer more money when West Kent has put up its rates by 42 per cent. and has informed its consumers that 21 per cent. of that rise is due to the possible cost of privatisation and will have no effect on the improvement of the quality of the services or the water?

I have looked carefully at West Kent's figures and most of the increase to which the hon.

Gentleman refers is the result of ownership and accounting changes, which could take place at any time. The proposals in the Water Bill will put in place an entirely new system of regulating prices. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see the prices of such companies controlled he should join me to ensure that the legislation is on the statute book as soon as possible.

Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that in respect of the charges being made by the West Kent water authority—which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) has no locus to represent —he will make sure that next year it is not able to put on 42 per cent. on the basis that it must pay—I appreciate that it will have to do so—for the EC regulations?

I assure my hon. Friend that in assessing any price rise which may be applied for by the West Kent company next year, we shall be able to take into account its increase this year, and we shall certainly do so.

Does the Minister appreciate that the need to make profits will be the overriding issue and that that must be borne in mind when considering the level of water rates? Does he further appreciate that it is unfair that the standing charge proportion of the water rate should have been increased so disproportionately that in some cases it has made it more difficult for low-income households to pay their water bills?

The Director General of Water Services will be able to look into all such matters when the Water Bill becomes law. Will the hon. Lady join me in ensuring that it is on the statute book at the earliest possible moment?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further measures to ensure that planning authorities reach decisions more quickly.

There is considerable scope within the existing system for planning authorities to reach decisions more quickly. In the longer term, our proposals for streamlining the system should make it easier for them to reach speedy decisions.

The White Paper draws attention to the fact that planning delays can increase costs for individuals and companies, but it does not go into details on why local planning authorities should be more efficient and streamlined under district development plans than under the existing local plans. Can my hon. and learned Friend explain?

We shall substantially reduce the delays associated with the preparation and approval of structure plan by attaching greater weight to the local plan. We shall ensure that local people have a greater say and that there will be greater certainty in the process, and I hope that that will lead to fewer appeals.

The Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talk about streamlining and speeding up the machinery. Is it not a fact that for several years the Government have been cutting local authority expenditure on manpower and that that must result in fewer planning officers and civil engineers, who are essential for considering planning applications? Is it not a fact that if there are fewer personnel to process applications, the machinery will be slower?

If local authorities, including those in Manchester, spent their money on more appropriate purposes than those on which they in fact spend it, they would have ample resources to devote to making the planning system work more efficiently.

Does the Minister agree that it is equally important for local authorities to be coaxed by the Government into providing wider consultation with local residents on planning matters and giving them more time in which to register their approval or objections? Is he aware that far too many rapacious and greedy developers, such as Charles Church in my area and in the home counties, are, unlike decent developers, appealing automatically and putting in another application at the same time? Is he further aware that when the appeal is carried in their favour they make supernormal, huge profits in building socially useful housing such as luxury apartments costing £300,000 each? When shall we get a greater balance between the interests of local residents and decent developers?

The way to achieve the best balance is to have as many local plans in place as possible. That is my advice to my hon. Friend, and I hope he will make sure that his local planning authority acts accordingly.

Will the Minister agree that it is time for planning legislation to be reviewed in view of the fact that many planning authorities are compelled—for example, by high unemployment and general deprivation, particularly in inner cities—to reduce their planning levels to the point where they must concede that a development that may not be in the interests of good planning is nevertheless required for commercial development and the provision of jobs? Will he further agree that it is time that the trend that planning is following was arrested in the interests of the long-term planning of our towns and cities?

We have been reviewing the planning system. We announced the results in our White Paper in January.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rate increase for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

It looks as though domestic rates are likely to rise by an average of 8 or 9 per cent., but the London borough of Ealing has agreed a rise of 32 per cent.

Is it not preposterous that the London borough of Ealing should have proposed a rate rise of 32 per cent. this year, having passed a rise of 65 per cent. no more than two years ago? The current increase is accompanied by £12 million cuts in essential services such as street cleansing, refuse collection and the opening of borough libraries while there have been increases in the gay and lesbian staff unit. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been no refuse collections in some parts of my constituency since before Christmas? Is not that a disgraceful indictment of the borough in which the leader of the Labour party lives?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the residents of the borough in which we both live have shown their feelings about the rate rises by an 18 per cent. swing in a by-election to elect a Conservative rather than a Socialist. I have to tell my hon. Friend, though, that the London borough of Ealing is not the worst. Brighton has put up its rates by 57 per cent., although Conservative-controlled Hove next door has cut its rate by 100 per cent. and is not levying a rate at all.

Will the Minister tell us what the rate increase for Westminster is? Will he also tell us what he would say about a Labour-controlled local authority that sold off its cemeteries for 15p, that was gambling on the stock market and that was totally corrupt and inefficient? What would St. Gummer say about that?

The rate increase in Westminster is 10 per cent. as against 32 per cent. in Ealing. If I lived in Westminster, the services and the quality of the services that I got would be very much better than those in the London borough of Ealing, where they are very bad indeed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Wandsworth the rates are still the lowest in inner London? Does he agree that much of that is due to the fact that Wandsworth has led the way in competitive tendering? When the services have gone out to the private sector there have been savings of 33 per cent.; even when they have stayed in-house there have been savings of some 25 per cent.

The Audit Commission certainly supports my hon. Friend. I am interested to see that the effect of competitive tendering is spreading everywhere. When I met Councillor Bookbinder in Derbyshire, he admitted that the effect of competitive tendering, which he was against and which he had a whole committee to try to stop, was already bringing down the costs of his services, much to the dislike of NALGO and NUPE.

Is the Minister aware that if Calderdale, a hung council, had back the rate support grant that has been taken off it since 1979, it would have been able to have a nil rate rise this year?

I am aware that Calderdale has put up its rate in a disgraceful manner, and that it did so with the support of the Liberals who ran their usual operation, which was to pretend that they were against the rate rise but then not to vote on it—and therefore enable the Labour party to get it through. That is the sort of thing the Liberals go in for.

Would my right hon. Friend care to put himself in the position of a ratepayer in Langbaurgh? When the rate demand fell on the doormat this week the ratepayers found that their district authority had the highest rate in England and that their town councils were charging them 2p in the pound. Is he aware that in Cleveland county we have the highest rate poundage on top of that, at 299p in the pound—21p in the pound higher than any other county? Does he agree that when we have a change of control in Cleveland after the council elections in May the people in that area will have a much fairer deal?

The only person who is in favour of Cleveland county council is Mr. Bookbinder, the leader of Derbyshire county council. Because Cleveland's rate rises have been so great, it has pushed him off the top of the list, where he has been for some time. Cleveland has replaced Derbyshire as the highest-rated county in England. My hon. Friend will note that the higher the rates, the more likely the council is to be run by Labour, and that on average it costs a person £100 a year more to live under a Labour council than under a Conservative council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in his efforts to replace chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators.

By the end of this year, European manufacturers of domestic refrigerators and freezers expect to reduce by 45 per cent. the CFC content of their products controlled by the Montreal protocol. New replacements for the CFCs, both as refrigerants and in the insulating foam, have been identified and should be commercially available early in the 1990s, subject to the satisfactory completion of toxicological testing and environmental evaluation. HCFC-22, which is much less damaging than the protocol CFCs, is already widely used in commercial and industrial refrigeration.

I thank the Secretary of State for his very informative reply. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of imposing a requirement that the CFC package on refrigerators that are currently on sale should be detachable? Does his Department intend to give any financial assistance to local authorities to enable them to prepare and build disposal facilities for CFC elements that come from refrigerators?

Recycling the coolant in the motors of refrigerators and the foam in their doors is very complex. It will probably be better to concentrate our efforts on producing substitutes, so that we may stop using these substances in the first place. But a lot of research is still going on; I do not think that we have yet come to a definite answer.

I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 7, line 23, at end insert—'

or relating to any land to which this section applies'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 116, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—

`or relating to any land to which this section applies'.

No. 110, in page 7, line 42, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

`(aa) to preserve and maintain public rights of access to areas of woodland, mountain, moor, heath, down, cliff, water areas including reservoirs, or foreshore and other places of natural beauty.'.

No. 117, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'and'.

No. 118, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—

`or of any other land to which this section applies'.

No. 121, in page 8, line 24, at end insert—

'with the exception of access on foot by the public to the land'.

No. 119, in page 8, line 26, at end insert—

'(6A) This section applies to any land which was owned before the transfer date by a water authority.'.

The amendments open up an important area of the Bill and I hope that we shall be able to make some progress in our discussions.

The amendments are to clause 7, which relates to:

"General environmental and recreational duties"

and which has caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all acknowledge that it is important to get this part of the Bill right. When we discussed this matter in Committee, the Minister for Water and Planning gave us many assurances and said that we were worrying unduly about the restrictions on access that might come about as a result of the Bill. He told us that all was well and that there was no need for us to worry. He did not convince us then and he did not completely convince himself, because since our discussions in Committee—not that long ago—the hon. and learned Gentleman has reconsidered the issue.

I do not want to anticipate later debates, but we welcome the Minister's change of heart, as shown by some of the amendments that he is introducing, particularly Government amendment No. 57 on the rights to roam. We raised that issue in Committee and he told us not to worry, but I am glad that he has accepted that there were problems with the Bill as originally drafted.

I am sure that the hon. Lady will recall that during our discussions of these matters in Committee I said that I would keep an open mind and would listen to the argument and that if I was persuaded by the argument I would act accordingly.

I repeat that I welcome the Minister's amendments. I hope that we shall be able to persuade him to go a little further and that he will be able to reassure us about some of our other concerns about access.

Three main problems still exist with clause 7. The first concerns the weakness of the phraseology in the Bill, in particular the phrase

"have regard to the desirability of"

in clause 7. We are still convinced that that phrase does not afford proper protection for the recreational rights now enjoyed by many people.

4.30 pm

The second problem is the need to discover to whom the duties in the clause apply. Will successor companies be included? Amendment No. 119 is aimed at ensuring that the successor companies and any subsidiaries of the new privatised water companies are caught under the obligations that the Bill imposes on water undertakings. The third problem is about charging. Amendment No. 121 deals with that problem and with the pressure on new owners of land to introduce charges even for access on foot: When we discussed these issues in Committee, it was pointed out that the Water Act 1973 put duties on all water authorities and on statutory water companies to make their land available for recreation. Since then some progress has been made; many water authorities have opened up more of their land to the public. Conflicts still arise in some places. For example, the Yorkshire water authority sometimes gives priority to grouse shooters rather than to ramblers. But in general the situation since 1973 has improved and it has been easier to persuade water authorities to open up some of their land.

We pay tribute to those who piloted that measure through the House, including the present Secretary of State for Wales. It is ironic that another Conservative Secretary of State should be sweeping aside that measure, which has worked over the years in the public interest.

The Bill contains two main recreational duties. The first appears in clause 7(2), which states that every relevant body must

"have regard to the desirability of preserving public rights of access to areas of woodland, mountains, moor, heath, down, cliff or foreshore and other places of natural beauty".

When the matter was debated in Committee on 31 January, we interpreted the phrase "public rights of access" to mean just that. But the Minister said that it was wrong for us to conclude that "public rights of access" meant public rights of access, and he said that a wider interpretation covering concessionary routes was necessary or the provision would be an absurdity.

We agreed with the Minister; unless "public rights of access" meant more than simply rights of access, the duty to protect those areas would be meaningless because public rights of access already exist in law and are not in need of special protection. There is agreement on that, it seems.

We are pleased that the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment to end that absurdity. We welcome his move to extend the provision, even though it gives only nominal protection, with the change from "rights of access" to "freedom of access". However, that will be meaningful only if the whole clause has bite and strength. Unfortunately, clause 7 does not have any bite because the duty imposed is only

"to have regard to the desirability of"

preserving for the public any freedom of access. That means that nobody need do more than simply think about whether something is desirable. If the new profit-seeking companies decide that the preservation of access is not desirable or that it in some way conflicts with their enterprise activities, the duty will be meaningless.

The second main recreational duty is to be found in clause 7(3). Under the 1973 Act, public bodies managing land owned by the public were told to do what they could to open up their land to the public. Now, what appears to be a similar duty is being placed on the new private water companies.

It is important to remember, however, that private companies are answerable not to the public but to their shareholders. Their priorities will not be those of a public authority. Clause 7(3) states that the National Rivers Authority, water and sewage undertakers and internal drainage boards have a duty

"to take such steps as are—

(a) reasonably practicable; and

(b) consistent with the purposes of the enactments relating to the functions of that body,

for securing, so long as that body has rights to the use of water or land associated with water, that those rights are exercised so as to ensure that the water or land is made available for recreational purposes and is so made available in the best manner."

Those bodies do not have to open up their land if they consider that it is not reasonably practicable or if they think that it is not consistent with the purposes of the enactments relating to their other functions. We accept that there will have to be operational restrictions and that some will be justified in some uses of some of the land. That is bound to be a small proportion of the land, but there will be nothing that the public can do to ensure that these bodies open up the remainder of their land, whereas under the present system the public can publicly press a public body to open up public land to the public, as is right. The ability to pressurise and to make sure that land is opened up will be reduced in future.

There is an important intrinsic difference between a public landowner and a private landowner. While public landowners do not have a perfect record, they have a far better record than private landowners. We have only to consider the record of the statutory water companies, who were under the same obligation under the 1973 Act, to see that they have not opened up their land in the same way that water authorities did in the past. Therefore, we think that the recreational duties are very weak, and we hope that the Minister will accept our point that they should be strengthened.

That brings me to the second question. To whom do these duties apply? Who, exactly, will have to have regard to the desirability of protecting for the public any freedom of access? That is the main point of disagreement between the two sides of the House. I do not think that we disagree on our objective but only on how to achieve it.

In Committee the Minister stated that the extent to which land could be disposed of free of the duties imposed by clause 7 would be severely limited. That conflicts with the advice and the information given in a letter on 4 January from the Department of the Environment to the chairman of Thames regional recreation and conservation consultative committee, which said:

"These statutory duties will only apply to the plc core business since it would be impossible to justify a blanket extension to subsidiary companies."

That worried my hon. Friends and many organisations outside the House. The Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council and the Youth Hostels Association were so convinced that the Minister was making incorrect statements to the Standing Committee, and that he was misinterpreting the Bill, that they clubbed together and paid for counsel's opinion out of their meagre resources to clarify the legal position. Counsel's opinion stated clearly that the Minister's statement in Committee was wrong. Counsel went on to say—I am sure that the junior Minister has seen this opinion; I know that the Minister of State has—

"The Minister turns out to be wrong to say that it is not possible, merely by disposing of ownership, to free the use of land from the clause 7 duty."

The opinion goes on:

"The Minister speaks as if the clause 7 duty attaches to the land when in reality it does nothing of the sort."

The basic question remains: do the clause 7 recreational duties apply to the land no matter who owns it, or do they apply only to the limited list of relevant bodies defined in the Bill? That is the core of the discussion on this clause.

The purpose of amendment 119 is to ensure that all the duties in the Bill apply to subsidiary bodies. I hope that the Minister will accept that point, because water authorities that are gearing up for privatisation are acting as if the duties will not apply to all the land. I look, for example, to the Yorkshire water authority, which has announced its post-privatisation structure. It intends to split its activities into three divisions, only one of which will be the water undertaker as licensed by the Secretary of State. If the land is owned by either the main holding company or the enterprise division that Yorkshire Water is establishing, which will have a duty to make a profit, that land will escape completely the recreational duties provided for in the Bill. The Minister tells us that the Bill will achieve something that we want it to achieve, but the very clear legal opinion is that it will not.

In a letter of 6 February to Members of Parliament, the Under-Secretary, who will be replying, has made his position clear. I hope that he will accept that amendment No. 119 fulfils the obligations which, in that letter, he spelt out as being necessary. Our amendments make it very clear that clause 7 should be extended so that its provisions will apply to any land owned by the water authority before the transfer date, I hope very much that the Minister will accept that point.

Finally, I want to say a few words about charging, which is the subject of amendment No. 121. Clause 7(5) clearly enables the new owners to introduce charges for public access to open spaces. It says:

"Nothing in this section or the following provisions of this Act shall require recreational facilities made available by a relevant body to be made available free of charge."

The Under-Secretary of State, in his letter, said that he saw no reason to believe that, in practice, access would be made subject to considerations of competition and profit. He said that he found it difficult to envisage circumstances in which the companies would find it sensible or cost-effective to make charges.

However, it is obvious to all of us that, once these private companies are established, their main priority will be to maximise their profits, and they will be under considerable pressure to do so. Therefore, charges will be introduced, and they will be set at a very high level—or at the highest level possible in accordance with the workings of those companies. Obviously, charges cannot be introduced for walking where there are rights of way, or for walking over land where there is a right of access. But most public access to water authority land is not as of right. That is the nub of the debate. In the majority of cases, access is enjoyed only by the permission of the water authority, and it is that access which is under threat and for which charges might be introduced after privatisation.

If the Government have no intention of allowing or encouraging charges to be introduced for rambling I see no reason why they cannot support our amendment No. 121, which states that if charges are to be made for recreation, they should be made

"with the exception of access on foot by the public to the land".

We are talking about large areas of land in areas of outstanding natural beauty which are enjoyed by the public who own it and who have rights of access that have been granted on a concessionary basis by the water authorities. That access is seriously threatened both by the provisions in the Bill which could deny any access and by those that could allow charging.

The new water companies will be operating under considerable pressure to maximise their profits. The access that we have all enjoyed for so long could become a thing of the past if the Bill is enacted unamended. I therefore hope that the Minister and the House will accept our amendments.

I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on amendment No. 119 in particular. I have no pecuniary interest, but I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Association of County Councils. My hon. Friend mentioned several organisations, such as the Ramblers Association. On an all-party basis, the Association of County Councils is worried about what the Government are doing in terms of recreation and conservation as the water authorities are major land owners in this country.

The Association of County Councils is especially concerned about what happened in Committee. It feels that the greatest potential weakness in the draft code proposed by Ministers in Committee was the suggestion that it should apply only to land directly related to water supply and works. I stress the words "directly related". In Committee, the Minister accepted that the vast areas of land currently owned by the water authorities but not used in their core water operations might not be covered by the code, so the water plcs set up by the private companies to manage their non-operational lands will not be covered by the proposed duties in relation to conservation, recreation and public access.

Clause 6 places a duty on those private companies— understandably, because they are private companies—to be concerned with economy and with profit-making, but we are dealing with institutions which hitherto have had a public responsibility. Clause 6 conflicts with anything that the code may state. The private companies can say that they have a duty under clause 6 to make a profit and that any code in operation must he secondary to that.

The Association of County Councils is worried because several councils are affected, including national park land in Cumbria, north Yorkshire, Devon, Somerset and the Peak District. In all those areas, water authorities own large amounts of land, some of which is not directly related to their core activities. The Secretary of State has tabled amendments to maintain public access to certain areas in the Lake District and the Elan valley, but they do not go nearly far enough and they neglect and ignore all the other areas to which the public now have access and where conservation is an issue. Such land is not exactly public land, but the public have rights over the land because it is overseen by a responsible public body rather than one designed purely to make a profit for its shareholders.

Is my right hon. Friend fully aware of the Secretary of State's comments yesterday when he made it clear that one of the main objectives of the Bill is the privatisation of the 500,000 acres of land at present owned by the water authorities? My hon. Friend's fears about the future of recreation and access are therefore justified because the lands will obviously be flogged off to make money for the water authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is absolutely right. The clear object of the Bill is to make money for the shareholders because they will face great difficulties with the European Community and the standards of water purity and sea pollution. The only way for this rip-off to take place and for shares to be sold is by selling the land. I mentioned Devon, Somerset and north Yorkshire. Conservative Members should not think that I am talking about Labour-controlled councils because those are all solidly Conservative controlled, but they are worried about the Bill, as is the Association of County Councils.

I do not want to delay the debate because we face the guillotine, but I plead with the Minister to accept amendment No. 119.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to my amendment No. 110 in this series. The amendment draws attention to the necessity

"To preserve and maintain public rights of access to areas of woodland, mountain, moor, heath, down, cliff, water areas including reservoirs, or foreshore and other places of natural beauty."

It is essential that that right should be continued and protection given to those areas after privatisation has taken place, as I fear that it may.

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an anachronism in my constituency, about 10 per cent. of which, under the Bill, is to be flogged off. We have heard that the Elan valley is apparently to be given some protection. I certainly welcome that because it is an improvement on the present position. That area is particularly important because, since the Water Act 1973 and the rights that have been mentioned came into being, there have been developments at Llanwrtyd Wells in my constituency, to which thousands of walkers on international walks have been attracted. Very often, at the weekend, there are 300 or 400 of them using the rights of way in that area. A tourist industry of considerable importance has grown up in this remote area. People from as far away as New Zealand come to walk there and enjoy the Welsh countryside. It is important that they should have continued access to this part of the world. I assume that continued access will be ensured, partly through the Birmingham Corporation Act 1892. The Victorians were far-sighted enough to ensure that people would have the right to enjoy the countryside and fresh air.

We should compare that area with another part of my constituency—the 21,000 acres that the Welsh water authority owns in the Brecon Beacons national park, where there are a number of reservoirs at Talybont, Dolygaer, Pontsticill, Taf Fechan and other places. At present, people have access in those places to go to the foreshore for fishing and other recreational pursuits. There are rights of way through the area, which is on the edge of an area with a population of 1 million people in south Wales—mainly in Glamorgan—who make great use of those access facilities at the weekend for their enjoyment. If subsidiary companies are formed for recreational purposes by, for example, Welsh Water plc, it is absolutely vital that access continues to be allowed to that land.

I am pleased that Government amendments Nos. 61 and 62—I realise that we are not discussing them now—indicate a considerable change of heart on the part of the Government in relation to allowing more access, which I welcome. However, we must also consider charging, and the desirability to have regard, as the Bill puts it——

I entirely sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is he not aware that substantial safeguards on precisely the points that he raises are already built into the Bill?

The Bill contains some safeguards, but we have tabled our amendments because those safeguards are insufficient. That is certainly the view of many people outside the House. There is no doubt that the interpretation of the Bill, after privatisation, will be vital in determining whether people will have ready access to the land. Concern has been expressed by the Countryside Commission, the National Trust and the national parks about such problems. It is to be hoped that the Government will accept the amendments as improvements to their own and ensure cast-iron guarantees of access so that people may continue to enjoy areas that they have previously enjoyed, especially areas of outstanding natural beauty.

I shall press the amendments of my hon. Friends because I am keen to ensure that conflict does not return to the countryside. As a young person I went out walking and climbing from Manchester virtually every Sunday for 10 years. I remember the end of an era when there was considerable conflict between walkers and climbers, and between gamekeepers and water bailiffs. Fortunately, most of that conflict has disappeared from the countryside as a result of access agreements and a more enlightened attitude by water authorities and others.

I still remember when we had lumps of peat thrown at us by one of the water bailiffs who wanted us off the rock climb. I also remember when we were taken off Stockport water authority land on the banks of Kinder Scout simply because we brewed up with a primus stove. I shall not recount to the House all the tricks that we got up to as teenagers in order to get revenge on the water bailiffs and gamekeepers, but certainly some of them had nothing to do with maintaining water purity.

I do not believe that the Government deliberately want to bring back an era of conflict in the countryside, but I warn them that if sufficient people find that their rights of access to the countryside have been diminished, they will fight hard to protect them. I fear that, perhaps as a result of the misdrafting of the Bill, or the Government's failure to put the case clearly, there is much confusion. Many people feel that, as a result of that confusion, and the inaccuracies within the Bill, that conflict may return. It is the duty of the House to ensure that the Bill—however bad —is clear and does not encourage future conflict in the countryside. People's rights of access should be clearly set out.

I am concerned about three major points. First, existing rights should be absolutely guaranteed for the future. Secondly, anything that people have previously enjoyed free of charge should not be charged for. Thirdly, the legislation should encourage the establishment of new rights.

5 pm

There will not be much problem about recorded public rights of way, but in many parts of the country there are many public rights of way which have never been recorded. Although they might be put on the map at some point, on the whole no one has argued about them because they are de facto rights of way—one can see the path clearly—and for 10 or 15 years no one has stopped people using them.

In the Peak district and increasingly in other national parks and in areas within them that are owned by the water authorities there are areas that are subject to access agreements which have played a major part. I want an absolute guarantee from the Minister that all such areas are protected in the legislation, not only in the context of the new water companies but in that of any subsidiary bodies to which they may give rise. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that the Minister claimed in Committee that the new bodies would be bound to protect public rights and that any subsidiary bodies or new companies resulting from changes of ownership of the land would he so bound.

It seems that counsel's opinion suggests that the Minister was wrong, and we need to clarify whether the Minister still believes that his opinion was right and why he thinks that the legal opinion is wrong—if he does. We need a guarantee at the end of the debate that all existing rights will be continued by the water companies in their water activities and in any other use or sale of the land into which they enter.

In order to assist the hon. Gentleman on this specific point, may I tell him that counsel's opinion, to which he referred, said that in certain circumstances the duty might not be effective. These limited and technical circumstances are being considered carefully, but generally speaking, if the undertakers continue to use the land transferred for their functions, the duties will bite in full.

The Minister said that the Government are reviewing the position. Is that an undertaking that if he cannot give us a clear statement today a clear statement will be given to the House of Lords where, if necessary, the Government will table amendments? Would the Minister like to give us that assurance?

I made it clear that, as we have just received counsel's opinion and have listened carefully to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and the Ramblers Association, it is right and proper that we should consider the limited and technical arguments that have been put forward. If we see the need to return to the House and take the matter further, we shall. We do not believe that the position of the Ramblers Association, as set out in its press release, is accurate, but we accept that counsel's opinion referred to specific circumstances which we need to review in detail. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

The Minister has not made it as clear as I should like that he will table an amendment, but I think the gist of his point is that, if necessary, he will. I am sure that the other place will examine it carefully.

The Minister talked about water undertaking activities. The bodies about which I am concerned, such as the Ramblers Association and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, want a guarantee that the duty will apply not only to land retained for water gathering but to land which may be passed on to other bodies. In large areas in the west Pennines, where water gathering was established in the last century, water-gathering activities are no longer particularly economic because of the better use of water and the bigger reservoirs at Hirlmere, Hawes water and Vyrnwy have come into use. Some of those reservoirs might be taken out of use—I know that there are safety arguments, and so on. I am determined that not only the water authorities but any bodies to which they dispose of land will have this duty.

Access must be free. I hope the Minister will make it absolutely clear that there is no intention to charge people who go on foot. I accept the argument for charging for some services such as car parking.

I want to press the Minister on new rights. I am sure that he is well aware that one of the problems, particularly in the Pennines but also elsewhere, is that the overuse of some footpaths has led to severe problems of erosion. There is a great deal of concern about the Pennine way, some sections of which have to be protected artificially because of the large numbers of people who use them. One of the best ways of protecting paths is to encourage people to use alternatives. By developing access agreements the Peak District national park has enabled people to go to areas such as Kinder Scout, where they can choose where to go rather than follow a specific footpath that might suffer dramatically from erosion.

I want a guarantee that there will be clear powers to ensure that new access agreements can be created on water land in cases in which that would clearly be in the interests of the conservation of footpaths or of an area in general. There must be no charges for such access agreements. All the national parks make the point that the Government have not been overgenerous with their funding, and that there are problems with paying for access agreements. At the moment the Peak district park makes only modest payments, which usually go to local farmers rather than to the water authority or the large landowners. I should not like any restrictions on the development of new access agreements because the new water companies demanded large sums of money.

I want a guarantee that the Minister will introduce clarity and ensure that conflict in the countryside does not arise. I want him to guarantee that existing rights are preserved and that no system of charges will be introduced. There must be a system that will ensure that new and greater access to the areas that are held by the water companies can be opened up.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that the opinion of the Ramblers Association's Queen's counsel firmly stated that the duties imposed in the Bill for recreation and access did not relate to land whoever it was owned by. The opinion was not quite as firm or all-embracing as that, although I agree with the hon. Lady that certain aspects are not properly protected in the Bill. I arranged the meeting between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the Ramblers Association and its QC at which the association expressed its worries.

I thank the Government for responding to the anxieties of the public, especially in areas such as my constituency, which has been mentioned several times, and for tabling amendments to meet some of those concerns.

I support what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said; we want to know that the Bill will protect not only the legal and statutory rights of access but all existing rights that have been agreed on a voluntary or permissive basis by the water authorities, sometimes in a public-spirited way to which I pay tribute. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want people to be charged for access to the national parks or to have little people with machines asking for money for tickets as climbers come down a steep limestone face in the Peak district. There is a case for some areas of the countryside to be freely available—by which I mean, at no charge—to members of the public.

It would greatly help to increase public support for the Bill if Ministers made it clear that these rights and freedoms will be protected. If they are not fully protected by the amendments tabled today, which I welcome—I am pleased that my hon. Friend intervened to say that Ministers are still considering the legal advice that has been given to them—I hope that steps will be taken in another place completely to clarify the issues so that the public do not feel that the Bill removes current rights to access.

As I am sure you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we live in the age of the looter. Public assets which have been accumulated over 100 years due to the foresight of our ancestors are now, in every walk of life—and water is only the latest —being auctioned off to the highest bidder and the proceeds used to fuel the illusion of prosperity. No doubt the perpetrators will be in Bermuda by the time the roof comes in, and the Labour party will then be called in to clear up the mess.

When this subject was raised in Committee, Tory Members became quite agitated when I said that behind the urbane and civilised men and one or two women on the Conservative Benches lay every species of spiv and con man known to civilisation. I know that some Conservative Members care about what happens to the great land assets owned by the water authorities, but they are very few. That must be our conclusion, particularly because only one Conservative Back Bencher has had anything to say on this issue today. Increasingly we are falling to the tender mercies of the estate agents and accountants who clutter up the Conservative Benches.

What is about to happen to the half a million or more acres of some of our most beautiful landscape owned by the water authorities is, I am afraid, a result of the actions of Conservative Members. There have been many references to beautiful landscape in the Peak district national park, in Thirlmere and in Kielder which is within the Northumbrian water authority area close to my constituency. Reference was also made to the Elan valley.

Yesterday the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) entered special pleas for exemption from proposed development for land in or near his constituency. It would be easier to take such pleas seriously if there was a general concern on the Conservative Benches about what might happen. It is a little distasteful to hear Conservative Members asking for exemptions or assurances from Ministers simply for a particular landscape or site which happens to be close to their constituents and their own backyards. We would like to see the measures in clause 7 addressed to all the assets and not just to those where personal concerns are involved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, did you see that excellent "Panorama" programme on Monday evening about the impending privatisation of the water authorities? It contained an interview with a farmer in Thirlmere in the Lake district. He was a water authority tenant who had farmed there all his life, as had his father before him. The father was recovering from cancer and was worried whether the tenancy would survive to be handed on to his son. He was also concerned to know whether the cowsheds on his farm were to be handed over for development and turned into luxury yuppie housing. We may have thought that it was basic enough to get an assurance about this as it must be the easiest case in the world for such an assurance to be forthcoming. However, "Panorama" could not obtain an assurance from North West Water that there were no such plans. That provides a clue about the future and it must be matched against any assurances which we may receive from time to time from the Government Front Bench.

All the signs are that those who are about to buy up the water industry and the land that goes with it consider the assets ripe for looting and can hardly wait to get their hands on it. Clause 7 brings us to the heart of the matter. It is a grudging acknowledgment by the Government that there are assets worth preserving and that there is something worth handing over to our ancestors.

As my Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said from the Opposition Front Bench, and as many hon. Members of all shades of opinion have said, it is pathetically weak to use phrases like "having regard to", "take into account", "desirability" or "reasonably practical". The purpose of the amendment is to mitigate the great damage which we believe will be inflicted on the half million or so acres owned by the water authorities.

5.15 pm

The concern is very widespread. All the members of the Standing Committee were deluged by briefs from every conceivable interest. Only in the past few days, I received a brief from the Council for the Protection of Rural England which states:

"There is no technical justification why the freehold of the half a million acres of land currently owned by the water authorities should be transferred to the new water utility PLCs."

It also states:

"There are currently no effective arrangements in the Bill to safeguard the existing public interests which are currently enshrined in all water authority land under section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Secretary of State's watchdog role over the clause 7 environmental duties is hopelessly inadequate, since he will only be able to intervene on a sporadic and post hoc basis."

That is not a party political broadcast from the Labour party. That is the view of the Council for the Protection of Rural England which enjoys the support of many people who, on most issues, take the opposite view from that of my hon. Friends and I.

The CPRE proposes something more robust than is contained in the amendments. It wants to see all the land presently vested in the water companies handed over to the National Rivers Authority and administered and protected in that way. Our amendments are more modest in the hope that they will extract a generous reply from the Minister.

Amendment No. 121 seeks to exempt from charges access on foot to water authority land. Amendment No. 119 seeks to bring all water authority land within the miserly protection proposed in clauses 7 to 9. We had a discussion in Committee about the code of practice provided for in clause 9, which is supposed to give effect to the good intentions in clause 7. The essential flaw is that the code of practice is completely unenforceable. It is totally advisory and no one need take the blindest bit of notice of it and all the signs are that that is what will happen. The most outrageous flaw—we have pursued the Minister about this—is that the code of practice does not apply to land hived off to subsidiary companies owned by privatised water companies. It will not apply to land which is sold.

We pursued the Minister up hill and down dale over that. He wriggled a great deal, but we eventually extracted one or two points. He said that the code and the good intentions in clause 7 would apply to what he called all "operational land". There is no definition in the Bill of "operational land". We do not know whether that is land on which a sewage station or a reservoir is located. We do not know whether the definition is wider than that. However, we have some clues.

Several weeks ago, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) was told by the Secretary of State for the Environment that 95 per cent. of the Elan valley—88,000 acres—would be regarded as "operational land". If that is so, it is quite encouraging. However, there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that it is so. I suspect, as many of my hon. Friends and people outside this place suspect, that this rather pathetic protection will apply to a damn sight less than 95 per cent. of the 550,000 acres currently owned by the water authorities.

We take note of what the Minister confirmed in Committee—that "operational land" would apply to 95 per cent. of the Elan valley. Other hon. Members have drawn the Minister's attention to the counsel's opinion and no doubt the Minister will want to comment on it. Our amendments are modest and do not do justice to the outrage that is understandably felt about what will happen to parts of our most beautiful landscapes. I commend them to the House.

I shall be brief because we want to hear the Minister's comments on these important amendments before we vote under the guillotine.

Leaving aside the Bill's privatisation aspects, clause 7 and the related provisions, more than any other, have been the subject of lobbying of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. That shows the genuine concern that is felt and why, despite moves made by the Government since the Committee stage, it is necessary to make further amendments. The Minister said that he is considering legal opinion and may make further changes, if he deems that appropriate, when the Bill is considered in another place. I accept the basis on which the Minister gave that assurance, but I hope that he will also be prepared to meet representatives of the organisations that are expressing concern.

Even at this stage, it is unsatisfactory for the Minister to give just this House and another place assurances about the Government's intentions, because they must also convince others outside. Even if the Minister does not recognise this, there is a credibility gap about the Government's intentions between them and the Ramblers Association, the British Mountaineering Council, the Greater Manchester countryside unit, the CPRE, and the National Trust. I could rattle off the names of organisation after organisation and read out any number of comments from various briefs, including one from anglers. The Minister must convince not only Parliament but those outside who are actively concerned about ensuring that in respect of access to land currently owned by water authorities the status quo will be at least maintained if not improved.

Many more people are concerned about the Government's real intention, having heard of the response made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in yesterday's main debate, when he said that one of the Bill's important objectives is the privatisation of 500,000 acres of land. We have said all along that that was the Bill's fundamental objective, and that the only way in which privatisation will pay is by people making money from the land they can acquire. The Secretary of State let that out of the bag yesterday, underlining that that was the Bill's main objective. Whether or not he did so intentionally, I do not know—but he did it.

The organisations whose fears we are expressing will be even more fearful of the consequences of clause 7 if amendments are not made. If the Government are not prepared to move today, there will be even less time available for dealing with that aspect, because the Bill has only to pass through the other place. I hope that the Government recognise the genuine fears that exist and that they must do something if they are not to lose the confidence of people throughout the country who want to ensure that recreational opportunities—whether for rambling, angling, or whatever—are retained.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are more than happy to meet relevant bodies to discuss the important issues that have been raised. Yesterday, I met representatives of the Sports Council, and a couple of days ago I met the chairmen of all the regional councils for sport and recreation, when we discussed those issues in considerable detail. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning met with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and other representatives of the Ramblers Association. We shall of course continue to consider representations, not least those on recommendations concerning the code of practice, which Ministers can still review.

The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) reflected on my right hon. Friend's comments of yesterday evening, but he should have listened more carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks about land. Most national parks land is, and always has been, in private ownership. Ninety-seven per cent. of the Yorkshire dales national park is in private ownership, and—if one includes 10 per cent. held by the National Trust—88 per cent. of Exmoor is privately owned, yet one does not see that land desecrated and spoilt by undesirable development.

It is an inescapable fact that proper regulation does not require public ownership. If it did, not one acre of land on these islands would be other than in public ownership. With planning controls and the proper regulation that we support and are providing, land can be as well protected in the private sector as in the public. If public bodies do not need land for proper public functions, why should they have it?

The Bill preserves in full, in clause 7(2) and (3), the present obligations of water authorities to have regard to the desirability of preserving public rights of access to land and to put their water and land to the best recreational use. Those are broad and substantial duties, but in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning said that we wanted to consider ways in which they can be further strengthened, clarified and updated. Public access to the water authorities' estates is of great importance because the authorities hold in highland and upland areas much land of great environmental and recreational significance.

We concluded that the general power in clause 180 to vary by order local statutory provision as a consequence of the Bill shall not apply to so much of such provisions as concerns public access and amenity. That is particularly relevant to the Manchester and Birmingham local Acts, and my hon. and learned Friend gave an assurance in Committee that the Government have no intention of using that power to revoke or amend the important provisions of those Acts, which provide for public access to the Elan valley and to parts of the Lake district and Peak district.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Forestry Commission already charges the public for access to some of its land in my constituency, even when they are on foot?

I accept that, and it is vital that the flexibility that exists and has operated well in the past does not change in the future. I shall deal later with the specific subject of charging. My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, because to accept the amendment would be to lose the freedom to make appropriate charges, not least to meet the cost of restocking rivers with fish—an activity requiring much energy, effort and financial expenditure. If charges are necessary for that purpose, there should be no prohibition on their being made in future.

The Ramblers Association and other interested bodies welcomed our assurances, but after further discussion on rights of way, we agreed that it is right that our firm intention should be reflected in the Bill. Some concern has been expressed about clause 7(2), which imposes on the National Rivers Authority and the undertakers the obligation

"to have regard to the desirability of preserving public rights of access"

to water authority land, and about whether that provision should be much clearer about its application to permissive or concessionary routes and, further, to the important and significant right to roam. We concluded that it is important to amend the Bill to embrace all those rights, to ensure that, in future, not just statutory rights of way but permissive or concessionary rights of access and the right to roam are embraced. We achieved that by proposing an amendment to leave out the words "public rights" and insert

"for the public any freedom"

of access to make it explicit that we are preserving for the public freedom of access to the land in question—whether one is considering statutory rights of way, permissive or concessionary rights of access, or the right to roam. I very much hope that the two Government amendments that relate to this debate will be welcomed by both sides of the House.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I shall move on and rapidly cover the other points that were raised.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) raised three significant and important points, and I shall swiftly respond to them.

5.30 pm

The amendments focus on the central features of the general environmental duties concerning conservation, public access and recreation to be imposed on the NRA and the appointed companies. I remind the House of the scope of our proposals. First, they preserve for the privatised industry all the present duties of the public sector. That includes the duty to further conservation and to put its water and land to the best use for recreation. Those duties are supplemented by a duty on the NRA generally to promote conservation and recreation. In addition, all the duties are made enforceable by the Secretary of State who is to take into account how far the companies have complied with the code of practice which we have already published in draft and which represents the fullest expression so far of what good practice in those matters represents. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds for arguing that conservation, access and recreation are inadequately covered in the Bill. The water industry will be subject to fuller and clearer obligations after privatisation. Those obligations are more substantial than those attaching to any other industry in the country in the public or private sector.

In amendments Nos. 115 to 118 the House is asked to apply those duties not only to the performance of functions but to the ownership of land. Amendment No. 119 seeks to extend the duties to any successor owners of the land. Let me begin with the proposals that the duties should attach not only to the performance of functions but to the ownership of any land. The central question is simple. The general environmental duties in the Bill are special ones designed to apply specifically to water industry functions, reflecting their uniquely extensive impact on the environment through the collection and control of water resources, draining operations and pipelaying and sewage activities. The nature of those functions, and not any characteristics of the land in question, requires those obligations. What logic could there be in applying them to the ownership of that land? It would create a quite unparalleled protective regime for land, based not on any special quality or requirement of the land, or any pressures or operations to which it might be subject, but simply because the land happens to be or to have been in the ownership of an appointed company.

Hon. Members can imagine the absurdities to which the amendments would lead. One can readily visualise small patches of urban land of no conservation or amenity value whose use for housing, employment or some other social need was for ever blighted by the need for further conservation and recreation in ways related to the performance of functions that it no longer serves. The general management and use of land outside the special functions of the industry are matters for the planning system to regulate.

The same considerations apply to amendment No. 119 which would extend the duties to any successor owner of the land. As long as the conservation, access and landscape duties apply to the performance of all water industry functions, full and sufficient protection is afforded.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I cannot give way.

The hon. Lady stated that "having regard to" duties are ineffective. That is wrong. Under that duty the water authorities have been opening up access and taking down fences since 1974, and, in any case, the Bill makes the duty fully enforceable by the Secretary of State. It is also irrelevant. Ramblers and climbers are further protected by the duty in clause 7(4) on companies to put their lands to best use for recreation. That is an unqualified duty, not a "have regard to" duty.

The hon. Lady referred to counsel's opinion about transfers to subsidiary companies. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the opinion suggests that in certain circumstances the duty might not be effective. As I mentioned, we are considering the limited and technical arguments in the opinion, and if a technical amendment to the Bill is necessary, we shall table such an amendment, but, generally speaking, if undertakers continue to use any land transferred for their functions, the duties will bite.

Finally, the hon. Lady referred to charging. Nothing in the Bill changes the present position. The provision in clause 7(5) exists simply to make it clear that companies, like water authorities now, can charge for the use of recreational facilities. That must be right, as that flexibility needs to continue. The scare stories put about by Opposition Members are quite wrong. For the most part, the water authorities do not charge but allow people to roam freely on their lands in the highlands and uplands. Quite reasonably, there are often charges for car parks and jetties, but not for ordinary access on foot. Where no specific facilities are provided, the levying of charges has usually been considered unrealistic and impractical. Without the amendment, that sensible and pragmatic position is expected to continue.

I have touched very briefly on the main points raised in the debate. I apologise to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for not giving way, but it gives the Opposition Front Bench the opportunity to respond.