To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the reduction of lead in the atmosphere over Britain since 1985.

The report by the Warren Spring laboratory on airborne lead concentrations in the United Kingdom 1984–88 shows a decrease from 408 nanogrammes of lead per cubic meter of air (ng/m³) in 1985 to 190 ng/m³ in 1988—that is a decrease of 53 per cent.

May I be the first to welcome my hon. Friend to his first Question Time and to say how glad we all are to see that his Trappist vows from his previous job as a Whip have not reduced his customary eloquence'? I am pleased to hear the figures that he cites because they reflect a marvellous performance. Does he agree that that is a first-class demonstration of the effectiveness of the policy of light regulation, combined with price and tax incentives, as a way of protecting the environment? What does he expect to see in the future in this area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind welcome. The figures on airborne lead are, indeed, encouraging, but we continue our efforts to persuade motorists to switch to unleaded fuel. Already the switch to unleaded fuel is preventing 65 tonnes of lead per month from being emitted into the atmosphere. That shows the importance of our continuing campaign. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a first-class example of co-operation between the Government, the trade and the public.

In joining the welcome to the new Minister, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware of his appointment because this week she wrote to me telling me that inquiries about textile matters should be addressed to Mr. Alan Clark, the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, although he was moved from there in the reshuffle before last.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. On his point about advice from the trade, it is true that in certain instances new cars designed to run on unleaded petrol can benefit from small doses of leaded fuel during the running-in period, but that is highly incidental. To clear up any misunderstanding, my Department has just reprinted more copies of the excellent booklet, "Adjust to Unleaded", which I commend to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the public. It will remove any confusion or misunderstanding about the importance of unleaded fuel.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new job, but why have questions been planted by his hon. Friends on the Back Benches only on the issue of lead pollution in the atmosphere when the other pollutants from motor cars are far more significant factors in the pollution of the environment and there has been an increase in them, not a reduction? About 3,000 tonnes of lead and 1,031,000 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide are emitted annually from motor cars, and there has been an increase of 33 per cent. in the amount of carbon dioxide—the major greenhouse gas—emitted by cars in the past 10 years. Two Budgets ago the Government said that they would cut subsidies to company cars, yet 6,000 new cars per day come on to our roads, 50 per cent. of them company cars with Government subsidies. When will the Government switch resources to support public transport and actually reduce emissions of carbon dioxide?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman apparently belittles our campaign to persuade motorists to switch to unleaded fuel. We also have in train measures to reduce other forms of harmful emissions. They will be dealt with by the introduction of catalytic converters, which will greatly reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. I remind the hon. Gentleman that catalytic converters require unleaded fuel.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the powers of local authorities to regulate the holding of acid house parties.

My Department is currently consulting local authorities about the possible need to extend their powers to prevent or control acid house or similar parties. We will consider further action in the light of that consultation.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he is having consultations. Given the genuine danger of death or serious injuries at such parties, particularly when they might move indoors during the winter months, will he try, for the benefit of environmental health officers, to clarify the existing regulations further? Will he also do his best to extend them as the difficulty arises from the fact that the organisers use secrecy to evade anticipation by local authorities, which makes prevention extremely difficult?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I also agree with the chief constable of Surrey who said that uncontrolled parties represent a disaster that is waiting to happen with the possibility of fire risk, blocked exists, blocked roads and so on. At the moment we are consulting local authorities and I have no doubt that we must give them greater guidance on the powers already open to them. It is, of course, for the courts to decide ultimately, but I want to issue that guidance as soon as possible.

If there are so many dangers attached to the possibility of holding acid house parties in this enterprise culture, and if the Minister agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that the consequences could be disastrous, would it not make sense for the Government to get their act together and for the various Departments, including the Department of the Environment, to make it plain to the Secretary of State for Health that, in the event of such a disaster and the need for ambulance crews to get to that disaster, those crews should be paid the money instead of being kept out on the streets?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, was able to hear the wholly convincing answers to that question made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the police intelligence unit in Gravesend, which co-ordinates with local authorities to deter acid house parties such as that suffered in Meopham in September? What hope is there of extending outside Greater London the penalty of imprisonment for those organisers whose actions represent non-compliance with local government licensing of such events?

My hon. Friend is right that proper co-ordination between the police and the local authorities is vital. At the moment we are considering with the Home Office, which is in the lead, the issue of penalties as well as guidance for local authorities. We shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Is it not ironic that the Minister is having to respond positively to a request from a Conservative Back Bencher for the extension of local authorities' powers when the Government of which he is a member have spent the past 10 years trying to undermine the authority of those local authorities in all sorts of ways, including on planning and licensing matters?

We have consistently tried to support and to strengthen responsible local government action and to deter irresponsible local government action. Unlike the previous Labour Government, we believe that the party was over for local authorities in the mid to late 1970s and that they should behave as responsibly and prudently as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much sales of unleaded petrol have increased since the 1988 Budget.

In the month to mid-October, unleaded petrol accounted for nearly 26 per cent. of the market. Demand has increased more than 250-fold since March 1988 when uptake stood at less than 0·1 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is extremely good progress, which has been partly brought on by this year's excellent Budget changes? How many more cars could be converted to take unleaded fuel?

We estimate that there are still about 9 million cars on the road which are not run on unleaded fuel and could do so with minor adjustment or in some cases with no adjustment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Gedling only three garages were selling unleaded petrol at the start of the year, but now virtually every garage in my constituency sells it? Is not that a tribute both to the wisdom of using the market mechanism to achieve this important environmental objective, and to the wisdom, good sense and responsibility of my constituents?

I have heard about my hon. Friend's campaign for unleaded petrol in his constituency and I am glad that he has succeeded. Throughout the country, unleaded fuel is available in about 80 per cent. of petrol stations.

We all welcome the large number of people who have transferred to unleaded petrol, but will the Minister accept that the price cut was an effective weapon in persuading them? If so, has he considered the possibility of persuading the Chancellor to introduce similar incentives to encourage people to buy ozone-friendly household goods such as furniture polish?

Further tax changes are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. Lady is right to point to the success of the price difference of about 12p between leaded and unleaded petrol. The average motorist, who travels about 10,000 miles per year, will save £40 a year by using unleaded petrol, which is much more than the cost of adjusting the car.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the assured tenancy and shorthold tenancy schemes.

The new schemes have been in operation for less than a year, but there are already encouraging signs—for example, more than £350 million has been invested in business expansion scheme companies letting homes on assured tenancies.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that in the short term the new scheme is unlikely to do a lot to help young people who come into London looking for low-cost digs and end up sleeping on the streets? Is he aware of what happened in Sweden, where there were similar problems of a shortage of accommodation for young people? A conscious decision was taken to make new property coming on to the market entirely free from restrictions. That has produced a flood of accommodation and, therefore, the Swedes have solved the problem without Government intervention or spending.

I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimism about the effect of the changes that the Government have already made. In particular, I hope that she will join me in publicising the extent to which last Session's Act, the Housing Act 1988, has made it easier for people to let rooms in their houses. Under the Act, the charge is purely a matter of agreement between the parties and when the lodger shares accommodation with the owner, the owner no longer needs a court order for repossession.

Does the Minister accept that the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is the opposite of the truth? No matter how much deregulation the Government bring into the rented housing market, the problems related to the expansion in that market lie elsewhere, as he well knows. How many additional units of rented accommodation does he expect to come on to the market in the next 12 months?

The business expansion scheme investment to which I referred could provide 6,000 to 7,000 extra properties. We are prepared to look at a range of initiatives to improve conditions in the housing market, unlike the hon. Gentleman and his party who are interested only in turning back the clock.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many private owners of empty property are still put off renting it because they have heard the scare stories about people losing accommodation in the past due to the regulations brought in by Socialist Governments? Could we do more to publicise the excellent changes that we have made to the housing regulations to get so many empty properties back on the market?

I am certainly looking at the possibilities of giving additional publicity to the changes that have been made. It is a sad fact, as my hon. Friend so correctly points out, that the Opposition's only contribution to the debate has been an irresponsible one.

Given the decline of 500,000 homes for rent in the private rented sector since 1980, and given that the rate of decline in that sector has accelerated in the 1980s, can the Government explain why their policy has failed so consistently and has accelerated the decline? If not, will the Minister take a walk round to just opposite Downing street and talk to the Shelter workers and the people sleeping rough there, who will tell him what I have been telling him in the House for more than two years?

As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), the changes about which she has asked have been in force for less than a year. One cannot reverse long-seated trends in as short a time as that. When will the hon. Gentleman join us in looking at new initiatives to deal with the problem rather than adopting this negative attitude? The changes that his party would introduce, if it were ever returned to Government, would undoubtedly aggravate the problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of his recent discussions with representatives of the local authorities on the introduction of his recently announced amendments to the community charge arrangements.

Officials are discussing operational aspects of the community charge transitional relief scheme with the local authority associations. In addition, individual local authorities have been invited to make representations. In the light of the response from local government a paper setting out full details of the scheme will be issued shortly.

If Labour's control of Lancashire county council results in its exceeding his spending limits for next year while Conservative-controlled Fylde spends within its limits, would the county's action deny pensioners and other vulnerable groups the full benefit of the package of measures that he has just described?

My hon. Friend raises a serious problem —that of the prudent district council and the spendthrift Labour county council, but I give him this pledge. I shall bring regulations before the House prescribing the form of the bill and that bill will make it absolutely clear to every chargepayer which council is the overspender.

As the Minister visits Bradford with the frequency of a revolving door, does he agree that it would be a disgrace if my constituents living on the Lower Grange estate had to pay the poll tax before Bradford council kept its promise to build new homes for rent on that estate? In the unlikely event of question No. 80 being reached, will the Minister give a commitment to agree to the grant so that those houses for rent can be built before he introduces his poll tax charges?

The poor hon. Gentleman! To continue the revolving door analogy, whereas in Bradford the Conservatives are well on the way in, he is well on the way out.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most helpful transitional arrangement that he can discuss to overcome the despair of community charge payers in counties such as Avon is community charge capping?

I would greatly regret having to do that, but we shall not hesitate to cap overspending councils.

Does the Minister agree with Mr. Roy Thomason, the Tory chairman of the Association of District Councils, that his notional average poll tax figure will lead to "false expectations"? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertake to revise that figure upwards when the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement concedes, as he must, that his inflation forecast was too low? If the Government persist in using the bogus figure, does he agree that the so-called safety net will not save many people from paying more than the £3 extra once the poll tax arrangements take effect?

The hon. Gentleman quotes Mr. Thomason out of context. The real victims of the fact that Labour councils generally overspend will be those unfortunate charge payers who live in those local authority areas, who are having false expectations thrust on them by spendthrift Labour councils.

My hon. Friend will know that Cleveland has some of the highest rates in the country. When considering the arrangements, will he examine the possibility of putting law into practice so that the recommendations of the Audit Commission, which in Cleveland has identified savings of £307,000 in the highways department alone, will have the backing of law and will not be flouted by the Labour-controlled Cleveland county council?

My hon. Friend, with characteristic accuracy, has identified a serious problem. The independent Audit Commission has recognised that in addition to the savings that my hon. Friend has mentioned there exists for local government a savings potential of £900 million of which only £350 million has so far been brought into effect. That is the challenge presently facing Labour local government.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about what provisions for access to the countryside will be included in the proposed green Bill.

The Government have stated their intention to legislate on a wide range of environmental issues as soon as parliamentary time allows, but it would be premature at this stage to confirm detailed proposals for the forthcoming Session.

I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. He will agree that may people enjoy walking as a leisure activity. However, over the past 20 years opportunities to get out into the countryside have been reduced because of house building, motorway extensions and other such matters. We need far more land to which people can gain access. Will the Government give careful consideration to including in the green Bill a walkers' charter which will allow people to have access to all mountain and moorland without having to go through the present complicated procedures?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I welcome what he says and recognise that access to the countryside is an important recreational pursuit. We have asked the rights of way review committee to examine certain proposals that the hon. Gentleman has discussed with my colleagues in the Department. They will report by the end of the year and we hope to take the matter forward. I also welcome initiatives that are being taken by the Countryside Commission to try to draw together the sometimes conflicting interests of land owners and land users.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the man on the Clapham omnibus has no more reason for walking around the average farm than the average farmer has for walking around the back garden of No. 879 Tottenham Court road?

I touched on the very point that concerns my hon. Friend when I said that occasionally there can be conflicting interests between land owners and land users That is precisely why I welcome the initiative taken by the Countryside Commission in relation to the setting up of local liaison groups to reconcile the differences between the two. Conciliation and not confrontation is by far the best way to resolve the dispute over rights of way.

The Minister must know that the Countryside Commission and people throughout the country are desperately worried that some of our most beautiful land will be disposed of after water privatisation. What does he intend to do to protect our rights to use that land?

I reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. We went to enormous lengths to introduce into the Water Act 1989 powers to ensure de facto access to water authority land. Water authorities have an excellent record for providing for that kind of public access and the Act has carried forward and improved those duties.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that far from our country being covered in housing as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested, 87 per cent. of the south-east of England is still green land or green belt, and the percentage in other parts of the country is much greater? The Conservative party is doing all in its power to preserve that situation.

I welcome the opportunity to confirm that since the Government came to power in 1979, the extent of the green belt has more than doubled, and this is widely welcomed. I give my assurance that the Government are committed to continue to protect public access to the countryside, through any means possible, but principally through rights of way.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress was made towards the adoption of a Communitywide eco-labelling system at the meeting of Ministers on 19 September.

I am pleased to say that the Environment Council on 19 September asked the Commission to bring forward proposals for a Communitywide scheme of eco-labelling as soon as possible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some danger that in their rush to appear environment friendly, retailers are either over general or misrepresenting in their labelling, as manifested by a sign that I saw outside a garage in Southwold in Suffolk when I was on my holiday, which said, "Environmentally free food for sale"? Given that we need accurate information, can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government will take the view that we need specific rather than general information, and that it should be substantiated by fact, and that the Government will not continue their opposition to the inclusion of food and drink in the system of European Communitywide eco-labelling?

As the hon. Gentleman will concede, the consumer can move forward the environment cause far more effectively in many ways than regulation is able to do, although regulation also has its part to play. We put out a consultation document in the summer, and we are looking at the responses to that. We have also suggested, which I am sure is right, that we should have an eco-labelling scheme on a Communitywide basis, particularly with the single market in 1992. It is important to protect people from the rip-offs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As to whether food and drink should be included, there are, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, initiatives covering organic food. In the next few weeks, we shall be discussing whether we should go beyond that.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that while it would be a good idea to get European agreement on an environmental labelling scheme, there is nothing to prevent the Government from introducing one here as early as possible, along the lines of those in West Germany and Canada? Is it not essential to do something along these lines quickly? Otherwise, consumers will continue to be conned by bogus green claims.

I agree with both the points that the hon. Lady has made. We want to get ahead with the scheme, but if we can have a Europewide scheme, so much the better. We need to deal with bogus schemes. There are some criticisms made of the German scheme—for example, that it does not take matters from cradle to grave—but it has set the pace in many ways.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any official engagements he has between the present time and the end of November with environmental groups.

I regularly meet a wide variety of environmental groups. My next such meeting will be with the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on 16 November.

Has the Secretary of State considered meeting CAND—Caithness Against Nuclear Dumping —an environmentally conscious group? Will he take congnisance of the fact that yesterday, the people of Caithness voted three to one against nuclear waste being stored at Dounreay, thereby ensuring that the people, the district council and the regional council all come out on the same side of the argument? Will he take a more positive attitude than that of Nirex and recognise that the views of the people are ultimately the most important aspect of this debate?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland meets many groups, that he has met many of the individuals referred to by the hon. Lady, and that he has given them effective and robust answers.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announced willingness to meet a considerable range of environmental groups. Does he agree that his critical role is to ensure that the environmental option is considered in each and every decision, rather than that it should invariably be the option adopted when sometimes other issues will overtake that issue and so make it better for it not to be adopted?

That was an interesting question, which I am still following as best I can. I think that my hon. Friend was making the reasonable point that we must be increasingly aware of the environmental impact of every decision that we make both as a Government and as individual consumers. To that extent it is obvious that a sensible environment policy does not stop at the front door of the Department of the Environment. It affects all Government Departments, and that is something to which we shall be drawing attention in our White Paper next year.

How does the Secretary of State react to criticisms from environment groups about the Government's reaction to the conference in Holland on global warming? Other European countries are willing to accept target limits for a reduction in emissions from cars, factories and power stations but the British Government, along with the United States, have refused to join other European countries in dealing with the matter. Does this not give the claim that the Government are leading the campaign on global warming a somewhat bogus front?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question might have been difficult to answer if it had been based on the truth. We accepted emission targets at the Netherlands conference. My hon. Friend the Minister of State played a leading role in brokering a consensus on emission targets at the conference, and he deserves the congratulations of the House rather than uninformed criticism.

When my right hon. Friend meets environment groups, does he find that they share the views of my constituents that he was wise to say that planning considerations should be left to democratically elected local authorities and should find their way to his desk and the desks of his inspectors only as a last resort?

It remains one of my ambitions to take fewer planning decisions myself. I want to see local planning authorities taking decisions as far as possible. Obviously they need to take account of regional and national interests when they are drawing up local plans For example.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the River Soar within the city of Leicester.

No representations have been received specifically concerning the River Soar within the city of Leicester. However, a total of 44 representations have been received as a result of advertisements by Severn Trent Water of applications for time-limited discharge consents for certain sewage treatment works which discharge into the Soar upstream of Leicester. These are to allow the completion of capital improvement schemes to raise effluent quality standards.

Is the Minister aware that the River Soar, which runs through my constituency and our beautiful Abbey park is becoming an eyesore? Does he understand that it is clogged with weeds, mud and filth? Will he as a rower, albeit a cox, appreciate the complaints that have been made by Leicester rowing club, fishermen and boatmen and by the general public about the state of the river? Will he take steps to have it cleaned up now?

As a cox I would have to avoid many floats on the River Soar not least because it is one of our leading cyprinid waters.

What?

I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows all about cyprinid waters. He will inform the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that as a result of this it is recognised to be a fine, pure river and one that has extremely effective coarse fishing that is among the best in Europe, and is designated as such by the European Commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much he intends to increase the fines for dropping litter.

We propose to increase the maximum fine for littering under the Litter Act 1983 from £400 to £1,000. We propose also to allow district and borough councils to operate fixed penalty schemes for littering, similar to that currently operating exclusively in Westminster.

I thank my hon. Friend for the information that he has given the House. I and others, I am sure, will welcome the increase in fines. Does he agree with me that there is no question but that Britain has become a filthy, mucky place where public places are like rubbish tips? The increase in fines is a long overdue measure and we welcome it. Will he consider extending the Westminster scheme in a way that would enable traffic wardens and others to exercise the powers that it provides? In that way we would restrict more thoroughly the activities of litter louts.

Until litter louts can be persuaded to give up their dirty, inconsiderate and unsocial behaviour, the problem will remain. That is precisely why we are introducing legislation that will include very tough proposals to deal with the problem. We are also hoping to replicate the example set by the City of Westminster so that local authorities can appoint litter wardens, who will be responsible for fixed penalty fines.

Are not local authorities concerned about the way in which the Government are tackling the problem? Would it not be much better to enable local authorities to employ people in villages for example who could work with the local people to prevent the dropping of litter and to ensure that the whole area is cleaned? Have not the Government caused part of the problem because they have cut the resources of local authorities so that they have had to sack those who could have done the job?

I wholly reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. I could take her to two local authorities in the north that are both controlled by the Labour party, but where the difference in their efficiency and their attitude towards litter collection is absolutely stark. Unless many local authorities take a different attitude, the position will not improve.

Has my hon. Friend considered the low fines imposed for dropping litter? Is he aware that the heaviest possible measures that the Government might take would be welcomed by the public and would encourage magistrates to impose heavy fines?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that magistrates will take note of the growing public anger about litter when they are considering imposing fines. Paltry fines will send out the wrong message.

Are not the filthy streets and the litter-strewn public places, which are now the daily depressing experience of millions of people, in many ways the most visible evidence of what has gone wrong in Thatcherite Britain? Does the Minister understand that that malaise will not be cured by silly slogans or fiddling with fines? Unless the Government provide real resources so that local authorities can tackle the job, the Minister might as well take his green Bill and bag it and bin it.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that I hope that he remains an Opposition spokesman for a very long time.

As my hon. Friend has explained that some local authorities are not dealing with the litter problem, should there not be a reverse system of fines? Not only the public but local authorities do not fulfil their duties. It is often the case, especially in the south coast resorts, that local authorities do not empty the litter bins. Should there not be a system of fines for local authorities and, perhaps, even a list of the worst offenders?

I am glad to say that I can give my hon. Friend the comfort that he seeks. We shall introduce powers in the forthcoming legislation which will allow any individual citizen or collection of individuals to take the local authority to court if they are not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in its area and that is precisely what my hon. Friend is asking for.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been initiated this year against companies responsible for pollution; and what is the total of fines imposed.

Information on prosecutions in respect of offences under legislation controlling polluting activity is published annually in the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics and other sources. Comprehensive information for 1989 is not yet available centrally. I understand, however, that since one regulatory agency, the National Rivers Authority, fully assumed its responsibilities on 1 September this year, 53 court cases in relation to pollution offences have been heard and 83 similar cases are pending.

If the principle is that the polluter should pay, does the Minister agree that the fines that have been imposed during the past decade, and the number of prosecutions, have been derisory? Does the Minister agree that it is not right to allow 200 companies to pollute the River Mersey? That is crazy. For example, Shell recently discharged 150 tonnes of crude oil into the River Mersey. Does he agree that his Department should have initiated a public inquiry? The failure to do that showed that, in the face of big companies, although the Department talks green, they haul up the white flag.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. That is why we are toughening up legislation in the forthcoming green Bill and the powers we are giving to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. We are also giving greater powers to local authorities. I am sure that they will assume them responsibly.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have implemented the bulk of the clauses relating to water pollution in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, in sharp contrast to the last Labour Government which introduced the law and did nothing with it?

I could not agree more. If we in the Department of the Environment discover that some gaps remain in the COPA legislation, we hope to close them with the forthcoming Bill.

Is the Minister aware that people on Merseyside felt that the Government's action, or inaction, over the pollution of the River Mersey by an oil spill left a lot to be desired? Should we not congratulate the local government workers who responded immediately to that problem and who probably reduced the effect of what must be the worst environmental problem that Britain has faced since the Secretary of State came into office? I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not make himself available on day one to make a proper assessment of the situation on the Mersey, and I have to agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who said that the oil company ought to pay the maximum amount of money necessary for clearing up the oil spillage for the damage and for the money that has already been spent on cleaning up the Mersey basin.

I would be the first to compliment not only the local authorities—both elected representatives and officers—but the workers, whom I had the opportunity of meeting, who cleaned up the oil spillage caused by the fracture of the pipe owned by Shell. Their.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

From April 1979 to June 1989 almost 1·1 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

What is my hon. and learned Friend's assessment of the potential for future council house sales?

I believe that there is significant potential for an increase in the trend, and we are doing all that we can to encourage that.

What about allowing local authorities, in financial terms, to build council houses? Is it not the case that more people will be homeless this Christmas than at any time since the end of the war? Are not the Minister and the Secretary of State disgusted that so many people should be living in squalid accommodation, homeless—or virtually homeless—in bed-and-breakfast dwellings? That state of affairs arises directly from Government policy.

Planned public spending on housing this year and over the next two years amounts to nearly £13 billion. Of course we are aware of the problems, anti we are mounting a tremendous effort to overcome them.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the figures that he has announced are marvellous news for the country as a whole, as well as for those who purchase their council houses? Is he aware that there are still many thousands of people with applications in the pipeline who are looking forward to purchasing their homes as soon as they can, and that the trend is accelerating in many parts of the country?

My hon. Friend is right. The advantages of home ownership are apparent to a growing number of people, and, as he has said, the trend is increasing.

I have noted the Minister's replies. Will he enlighten the House, however, by telling us how many houses will be built for rent this year? Will he take note of the requests from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, housing associations and Shelter, which have said that there is a shortage of houses for rent? Will he allow local authorities to use their receipts from the sale of council houses to build houses which can be let at an affordable rent, so that the waiting lists can be shortened and homeless people can be accommodated?

Some 2 million additional houses have been built over the past 10 years. The budget of the Housing Corporation, on planned figures, will increase by about 60 per cent. over the next three years, and the resources generally to be made available—as I have just said—amount to some £13 billion over this and the next two years. That will enable a large number of houses to be built to deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what announcements were made during the summer adjournment about the future investment programme of the water industry.

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning anounced a major new capital investment programme over the next 10 years designed to improve our drinking water, to renew sewers and sewage treatment works and to clean up our beaches.

My constituency has enjoyed the advantages of a private-enterprise water supply company for the past 150 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the promising prospect of future investment is possible because of the financial framework that the water industry will have after privatisation? Will he confirm that the much brighter future water investment picture contrasts sharply with the savage cuts in investment made by the last Labour Government?

I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. As he will be aware, the 10-year investment programme secures compliance with the regulatory requirements taken into account when setting price limits. It provides a secure framework for achieving service objectives and it will allow the water industry to maintain and extend the operating capability of relevant assets.

Will the Minister confirm that the announcements made in the summer about debt write-off and the so-called green dowry mean that taxpayers will be net losers to the tune of £1·3 billion in the water sell-off? Does this not mean that 10 years of Conservative Government have left the water industry in such a precarious position that the Government have had to provide the largest bribe ever to get the industry off their hands?

The statistics and factors that the hon. Lady brought before the House are not a fair comparison. She will be aware that the Government's 10-year investment programme of £24·6 billion will be a major boon to all customers, not least because they will be aware that only last week the Labour party announced its prospectus estimate of £22 billion. Customers will receive better service, more environmental safeguards and improvements, better sewage treatment facilities and improved bathing water quality. The public would be sold short by the Labour party by £2·6 billion.

When my hon. Friend considers the investment programme of Northumbria water authority, will he bear in mind the almost unanimous opposition of the people of Tyneside to its proposal to build a toxic waste plant at Howdon in the middle of a built-up area? Will he bear in mind that any such proposal should be deleted from the investment programme?

My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on this issue on behalf of his constituents. The Tyne and Wear development corporation refused planning permission for a sewage sludge industrial waste incinerator at Howdon on 11 September. The applicants, Northumbria Water and the International Technology Corporation, have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal of planning permission. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that in the circumstances I cannot comment on the proposal, but I understand fully that it has caused considerable local anxiety. That anxiety has been brought to the attention of the House and of the Ministers responsible, mainly by my hon. Friend's assiduous work.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce further modifications to the poll tax regulations; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have no plans to introduce further legislative changes in the community charge arrangements beyond the announcement made by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place on 11 October.

Does the Minister agree that further modification is needed for people living in sheltered accommodation? If such people still have property, they will be liable for the poll tax in two places, unless the 12-month limit is applied to them. Who will pay the poll tax? Will such people pay twice?

The hon. Gentleman will know that on the standard community charge, we recently announced that local authorities will not only have discretion over which class is subject to which multiplier, but will be able to separate within a class for different types of property. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies with the local authorities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the modifications that he has made to the way in which the community charge will operate will make it a wonderful new system for the elderly and disabled, particularly the blind?

I am very pleased to be able to announce to the House that, following representations that have been made to me by my right hon. and hon. Friends, disabled people will be singled out under the transitional relief arrangements for special treatment and that we have decided that the test should not only be receipt of one of the recognised disability benefits but that it should also include all people who are registered blind.

Can the Minister explain why it is that although the Government have been imposing this iniquitous poll tax on the Scottish people during the last eight months and have been meeting massive resistance from the population, it was only when English Conservative Back Benchers started to squeal about their seats and their majorities that they decided to introduce these panicky changes to the poll tax regulations?

If the hon. Gentleman would give my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the opportunity, I am sure that he would welcome the chance to explain to the hon. Gentleman how well the community charge is going down in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land in England and Wales now has green belt status; and what was the position 10 years ago.

In 1979 there were about 1·8 million acres of approved green belt in England. Today there are around 4·5 million acres. There is no green belt in Wales.

My hon. Friend and the Government generally are to be congratulated on the doubling of the green belt, in contradistinction to the propaganda that I hear outside the House, according to which one would have thought that the amount of green belt was falling instead of increasing. That said, will my hon. Friend look favourably on any application that he receives from Humberside county council for green belt status, particularly against the background of my constituency of Beverley which now resembles a large building site?

I am aware that Humberside county council is discussing the idea with the districts concerned in my hon. Friend's constituency. Subject to the outcome of the discussions, the county council may decide to publish a draft structure plan alteration formally launching the green belt proposal in the spring of next year. My hon. Friend knows that the Department has no formal standing in the matter. I am sure that he appreciates that I cannot express any view at the Dispatch Box today on the merits of the proposal, since that might prejudice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's position, should a structure plan alteration come formally before him for consideration.