To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the environment protection technology scheme will include initiatives promoting recycling.

The EPT scheme supports research into technology, which will lead to higher environmental standards. We have decided to extend it to include aspects of recycling, which is a fundamental part of our policy to conserve resources and minimise pollution.

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply and the news that recycling will feature heavily in the scheme. The Environmental Protection Bill will encourage local councils to become involved in recycling. My hon. Friend is aware of the problems at Lodmoor near Weymouth where methane is leaking from landfill sites because waste disposal was not dealt with properly in years gone by. Both the local council and the county council are planning to spend community charge payers' money on recycling. Will my hon. Friend assure me that proper funding will be provided, particularly in view of the revenue support grant that is available this year?

The Environmental Protection Bill requires waste collection authorities to draw up recycling plans and to report on them. Local authorities will not themselves be required to undertake recycling, and I hope that private sector companies will perform the work that my hon. Friend mentioned. We acknowledge the need to encourage the use of recycled products so that the process can be economical.

Given that many people take the recycling of paper and of glass bottles as a matter of course, will the Government now place emphasis on plastics recycling?

We intend to include in the EPT scheme research into plastics recycling. It is partly a problem of better collection and sorting, but research is needed also into the use of plastic products. We want to put money behind good research that will help to increase the present low percentage of use.

Does my hon. Friend agree that environmental protection must be seen increasingly in an international context? As I understand that the European Environment Agency is looking for a home, will my hon. Friend promote the interests of Portsmouth as its location? Portsmouth has excellent links to the continent through its ferry port and roads, which would make it an ideal base for the agency.

Portsmouth would be a strong candidate, but we have chosen Cambridge as the candidate site that we are promoting to the European Commission. We hope very much that the agency will be sited in this country.

Everyone welcomes any recycling initiative, but does not the Minister acknowledge that there is no substitute for a national recycling plan? Will he have regard to the glut of recycled material collected by local authorities? Does he agree that there are at times more important matters than plain market forces, to consider—such as concern for the environment?

Hasty interference in the market has led to a glut of low-grade waste paper. Subsidies and mandatory recycling in West Germany and in certain American states have led to an oversupply of low-grade waste paper. We are anxious to match that supply with increased demand. The American experience shows that interference before planning has the opposite effect.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that we are very conservation minded in south Devon, and that a large number of voluntary groups are collecting litter and paper. Will he explain what help the Government will give them so that they do not collect paper that nobody wants to use, thereby allowing the cutting down of more trees in the tropical rain forests?

I acknowledge the excellent work on recycling that my hon. Friend does. He refers to the glut of low-grade waste paper. I am aware that three investment schemes are in progress to improve the use of and increase the demand for waste paper. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs to his points.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent survey undertaken by his Department as to the number of homeless people living rough on the streets of London; and if he will make a statement.

The most recent count of rough sleepers in London was carried out last year by the department of psychology at the university of Surrey for the Salvation Army. It reported 753 people sleeping rough on the streets of 17 boroughs.

Is the Minister aware that that is a deplorable reply? A known problem is worsening month by month, and he says that the most recent survey was last year. Does he read the reports of the Salvation Army and the London housing unit, which outline the enormity of the problem? It has been caused directly by the Government—by the lack of low-rent accommodation and the cutting of benefits to those most in need. Instead of the supposed voice of concern, when will we hear from Ministers about real action to end this scandal in London and many other parts of Britain?

Of course, we accept the seriousness of the problem of the number of people sleeping rough. We have already earmarked £250 million to relieve the problem of the homeless, and that will release some hostel space for people sleeping rough. As a matter of urgency, we are considering further steps to solve this serious problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware how much we welcome his appointment and wish him well in his new responsibilities? Does he agree that a vigorous extension of the tenants' incentive scheme, to enable council tenants living in cities to move out and to buy their own home, would enable many homeless people currently living in bed and breakfast accommodation to be rehoused within 12 months? Will he confirm that that scheme will have high priority in his approach to dealing with the problem?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The thrust of our policies is to ensure that, first, new homes are built and, secondly, that they are owned by the people who live in them. We have a multitude of schemes for converting tenancy into ownership. That is a combination that will help to solve this serious problem.

Is the Minister aware that, in addition to his own Department not carrying out surveys, it took the Home Office six months—from July to December last year—to write to me to explain that it does not collect statistics, except a year or a year and a half in arrears, on the number of young people who are being prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824, for homelessness on the streets of London? Does it not behove his Department and the Home Office to organise the statistical collection of information that I get week after week from barristers at the Horseferry road magistrates court, which is only 300 yd from this building, and from elsewhere in London? The evidence shows that every week more teenagers are being prosecuted for lack of money and for sleeping rough on the streets of London. When will the Minister get the facts?

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman thought the matter through, he would appreciate that facts are difficult to come by because of the nature of the problem. There is no disagreement between the two sides of the House about the seriousness of the matter. There is no question about that. The issue is how we are to solve the problem, and we are urgently applying our minds to that.

What proportion of those people are young people under 18? Could not, and should not, some of that number return to live with their parents?

It seems that a growing number of young people form part of the increasing population who are sleeping rough. It is certainly part of our policy to do as my hon. Friend suggests and encourage them to go home, and among the first things that the voluntary organisations do are to ask them why they left home and to try to persuade them to return.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the deplorable nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider linking grant rates to a definition of affordability of housing based on an agreed percentage of disposable income; and if he will make a statement.

Landlords who provide rented housing with the help of public subsidy are already expected to charge rents within the reach of those in low-paid employment, and are best placed to decide what such rents should be.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but it is wholly inadequate. Last year the Government forced the providers of such public housing—housing associations—to put up their rents by 24 per cent., thus compelling them to abandon the very goals that the right hon. Gentleman has just reiterated. Public housing rents are now forcing people into poverty.

I am not sure that the hon. Lady's propositions are entirely correct. As I believe she knows, the rates of grant for housing association schemes are aimed broadly at enabling housing associations to set rents that comply with the tenants' guarantee. We wish to stand by that guarantee, as do the Housing Corporation and housing associations, so that the accommodation that they provide is within reach of those in low-income employment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the present generous system of housing benefit for those in need, low rents do nothing to help those with housing problems? What is more, do not Labour councils that are engaging in what might be called a rent holiday with the approach of the district council elections care less about housing problems than about gaining votes in those elections?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point: such conduct demonstrates the irresponsibility of some Labour authorities. As my hon. Friend implied, housing benefit covers any increases in rents and, as he knows, we are currently spending more than £5 billion on housing benefits.

The Secretary of State is not only complacent but ill-informed. That is probably why the turnover of Ministers responsible for housing has now reached a rate of more than one a year. Assuming that the present Minister remains in his post for long enough before being evicted, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that housing association rents went up by 24 per cent. last year? No one disputes that figure—except, apparently, the Secretary of State. If the Government really care about housing problems and homelessness, when will they get their act together and adopt a housing policy that delivers homes at prices that people can afford, whether for rent or for sale?

We have been fortunate in having a succession of excellent Ministers responsible for housing, although it would be invidious for me to suggest that each has been better than his or her predecessor. I am sure that my hon. Friend the current Minister is as delighted as I am that we are now set to double the Housing Corporation's programme, and that the money going to the housing associations is to increase twofold over the next three years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who shout loudest for open government are often the last to divulge details of their own policies, particularly when it comes to housing?

It seems that the Opposition are opaque not only about their housing policies but about some of their other policies, particularly those on local government finance. They all wait avidly for the next appearance of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in the television studios so that they can learn something about Opposition policies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to protect the environment from the effects of paint spray cans.

Damage to property by graffiti—whether caused by spray paint or otherwise—is already an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, attracting a possible maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. However, the scourge of graffiti will be removed permanently only when it is brought home to those responsible that their activities are unacceptable. The role of parents and schools in this educative process is clearly of the utmost importance.

The Minister is blaming everyone else. What does he intend to do to prevent the walls in practically every city in Britain being covered by disgusting graffiti? The Minister said nothing about that. First, why does he not introduce a simple law that would prevent paint spray cans being sold to people under 18? Secondly, why does he not introduce a law that would oblige people buying paint spray cans to give their name and address to the shop? The police could then easily trace them when graffiti appeared on walls in the neighbourhood. Simple measures such as that would deter children—it is children, not adults—from doing this. The way to deter them is not by Acts of Parliament.

I share the hon. Gentleman's views about what is clearly a disgusting habit, but he is being uncharacteristically unfair when he says that we are hot doing anything about it. I have heard some of his suggestions before. I do not believe that they would be all that effective. They would be extremely difficult to enforce, particularly the taking of names and addresses. That would place an unduly onerous burden on shopkeepers. Many thousands of paint spray cans are sold for legitimate use every year. It is doubtful whether offenders could be tracked down. The House should acknowledge that the Department of the Environment is spending a sizeable amount of money, through its estate action programme, on helping to combat graffiti on rundown council estates. Under the urban programme, we are spending more than £500,000 on anti-graffiti and anti-vandalism projects.

Will my hon. Friend consider using his good offices to persuade the manufacturers of paint spray cans to institute a recycling system? That would be much better than the Romanian idea put across by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

I am happy to confirm that we are approaching those companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to change the rules of local connection in the Government's review of the homelessness legislation.

We are committed to discussing with local authority associations a thorough overhaul of the "rules" of local connection. It is for local authorities to put forward their views on the most appropriate arrangements.

I hardly dare ask whether the Minister is aware that, whatever rule changes are made with regard to local connection, they will be insignificant compared with the need for a massive public sector housebuilding programme throughout Britain. When the Minister goes to the Strand and sees people living in cardboard boxes, he will understand the reality of the past 10 years of running down the housebuilding programme. There are millions of bricks in stock, thousands of building workers ready to be employed and millions of homeless people. One does not need to be a Pythagoras to put the three together.

The hon. Gentleman and I have been sparring over coal matters for many years. He seems to be as wrong about this subject as he is about coal. A massive increase in funds is going through the Housing Corporation to housing associations. That will double the rate of build by those associations during the next two years. The hon. Gentleman is right that shelter must be provided. That is precisely what the Government are doing by means of a panoply of policies that affect both the private and the public sector. As those policies affect the private as well as the public sector, the hon. Gentleman ignores them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is sufficient housing accommodation in London to accommodate 10 times the number of homeless people there? The long-term homeless have turned their back on society. Young offenders should be the responsibility of their parents, not of this Government. The Government have done quite enough for the homeless. I hope that they will spend no more money on them.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the problem of homelessness goes much deeper than Opposition Members seem to imply. It has to do, for instance, with the relationship between parents and their children, as my hon. Friend said. It is also an international problem; one of the countries in which it is rife is Denmark. The problem has been in existence for years. I was involved 25 years ago in the setting up of Crisis at Christmas, so homelessness has been with us for a long time. It is a great problem and it will be a great challenge to solve it.

Is the Minister aware that homelessness goes no deeper than the fact that there are not enough homes at affordable prices for people who desperately need them? One does not need a degree in housing administration to work that out. Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that in the mid-1970s local authorities in London were building about 25,000 units of accommodation a year, whereas last year they built fewer than 2,000? That is the problem of homelessness: the homes are not being built.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised, perhaps, to know that one of the first things that I did in my new job was to go out to see the problem on the streets, as he might have expected of me. Part of the homelessness problem has been caused by the tremendous mismanagement by councils of their estates throughout the country, which has resulted in uninhabitable properties being empty. That is one of the reasons why we are spending £250 million to upgrade those properties—that is a contribution to solving the homelessness problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision concerning the appeal by Thomas Brown of Whinfield farm, Pennington, regarding the revocation by Cumbria county council of his waste disposal licence, lodged in summer 1988.

Written representations have been completed on this appeal, lodged on 16 September 1988, and an official from the Department will make a site visit on 20 February. The Secretary of State hopes to be able to determine the appeal once he has received the site visit report.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having taken a personal interest in this matter since I tabled the question. I am sure that he will agree, if only in private, that it is not only unsatisfactory, but an utter disgrace that it has taken 18 months for the Department to arrange a routine site inspection on a routine appeal. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity provided by this question, and by others tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to look at the appeals procedure, which is the weakest part of the planning process?

I am prepared to go further than my hon. Friend expects me to, in that I am prepared to say publicly that I think the delay wholly unacceptable. I am grateful to him for drawing this matter to my attention. There is certainly enormous pressure on staff time, but, as a result of my hon. Friend drawing this matter to my attention, I shall ensure that the process is speeded up.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the staffing and resources of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, mainly from hon. Members and from, or on behalf of, local authorities.

What will the Minister do about those representations? Vacancies are running at about 20 per cent. across professional grades; there is low morale and poor recruitment; and about 32 staff, compared with Holland's 1,000, are dealing with air pollution. So how does the Minister expect us to believe that the Government are serious about tackling pollution?

It was the Government's idea to set up the inspectorate in the first place and we are very proud of that. The inspectorate of pollution is a powerful agency, set up by us and staffed by talented and highly dedicated people who are committed to ensuring better protection of the environment. It is very sad that the hon. Gentleman should seek to devalue the currency of that. It is true that there are vacancies now, but as I told the first sitting of the Standing Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill yesterday, whatever resources HMIP needs to do its job it will have.

Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the chairman of the National Rivers Authority?

Yes, I have on this specific matter, and we shall have to consider them under the Environmental Protection Bill.

Will the Minister expand on his statement in Committee yesterday that whatever resources HMIP requires in future will be available? Will he confirm that that has been cleared with the Treasury, and will the same resources be allocated to local authorities, which under part I of the Bill, will share responsibility with HMIP?

The recruitment of local authority staff is not the responsibility of the Department of the Environment or any other Department. Several local authorities would have much to say if we were so to interfere. I think that the hon. Lady prepared her supplementary question prior to hearing my substantive answer to the question on the Order Paper. I clearly said that HMIP will be given whatever resources it needs to do its job.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that noise is one of the problems being considered under the Environmental Protection Bill? Will he further confirm that the Department of Transport appears heavily to have censored the content of the Bill, and will he take this opportunity, if I am wrong, to deny that it has insisted that aircraft noise be excluded from consideration?

It is true that we have set up a committee to study noise and that we shall consider certain aspects of noise pollution under the Environmental Protection Bill. The Department of Transport is reviewing aircraft noise. Whether it will be involved in considerations prior to the White Paper is another matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest initiatives to publicise the introduction of the poll tax.

A public information campaign is currently taking place. It is designed to ensure that as many as possible of the 10 million people who could be helped through the payment of community charge benefit, and of the 6 million people who could be helped through the provision of transitional relief, know whether they need to apply in order to receive such help.

Is the Minister aware that no matter how much the Department spends on television advertisements, such as the pensioner telling her dog "Flash" about so-called community charge benefit, the reality is that 1 million people in Scotland are not paying the poll tax? They are likely to be joined in April by millions more in England and Wales [HON. MEMBERS: "Including Labour Members?"] Yes, including more than 30 of my hon. Friends. The Minister may think that the battle ended last Thursday with the containment of a few Tory rebels, but, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "He ain't seen nothing yet."

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully reflect on what he has just said. He is in a position of authority by virtue of his membership of this honourable House. Will he reflect on the fact that by his action his constituents will have to pay a higher community charge so that he and his cronies can have a free ride?

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a press release from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) which mentions up to 30 Labour Members of Parliament joining a mass non-payment campaign? Will he accept that those of us who have always been agnostic about the community charge have never suggested that we support non-payment? We fully represent and recognise Parliament's standing in passing laws. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that any campaign to encourage the non-payment of taxes can only be in the worst interests of this country and, above all, can only reflect badly on the Labour party?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The privilege of membership of this mother of Parliaments confers on us not only rights and privileges but also duties and responsibilities. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) sets a very bad example to the country in seeking to urge others not to pay as well as saying that he will not himself pay the community charge. It is, however, very much a matter for the Labour party, and I urge the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and his colleagues to join me in condemning the hon. Gentleman.

I do not think that we will have any difficulty in defeating the poll tax at the ballot box.

I greatly regret that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not take this early opportunity of criticising his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East and of making it clear that his hon. Friend would get no support from him.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many well-conducted councils face a tremendously above-average increase in the community charge? After this first year, will he please go into the whole question of the grant formula to see whether councils can be more fairly treated?

I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) is an effective lobbyist on behalf of his area and the Warwickshire county council. I reiterate that we shall look at any new evidence that he seeks to adduce as to why the standard spending asessment in Warwickshire does not reflect the county's actual needs, but I remind him that nationally the total of the SSAs is 11 per cent. above the equivalent total for grant-related expenditures in the coming year and the external finance goes up by 8.5 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to tackle the problem of homelessness.

In consultation with local authority associations and voluntary organisations, we are now taking forward the proposals that my right hon. Friend set out in his statement of 15 November, following our review of the homelessness legislation.

Following the exchanges this afternoon, does not the Minister agree that this issue is now a national scandal? It is not just a London problem but is to be found throughout the cities and towns of our country, including my own area of Manchester and Salford? Will his Department initiate a census and report back to the House within one month on the size of the problem and how to deal with it?

This is not just a problem in London or the other cities in the United Kingdom, it is an international problem—many countries suffer from the same phenomenon at present.

As my hon. Friend said in answer to an earlier question, one of the main causes of homelessness is the apparent shortage of rented accommodation, especially in London. Does he recall that last year the Environment Select Committee made it clear that Labour-controlled housing authorities were keeping properties empty for inordinate periods? That is grossly inefficient. What are my hon. Friend and his colleagues doing to ensure that those authorities make better use of their housing stock, thereby reducing homelessness in the capital?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have launched many programmes that have that effect. The estate action programme is a highly imaginative scheme which the Government introduced to ensure that, in particular, Labour-controlled council property is put to far better use than it has been recently. I agree with my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Minister aware that many voluntary organisations catering for the homeless are desperately short of money? How much of the £2 million will be distributed to the north-west of England, where we have a great homelessness problem, or is the Minister leaving it entirely to voluntary organisations to sort the matter out?

No. The Government will be deeply involved in the allocation of the funds. We may use the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux as a means of co-ordinating part of the distribution of the funds. The Government are taking an intense interest in the allocation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that anyone in his right mind has much sympathy with people who are homeless? Over the past few weeks, and especially last Thursday, the Birmingham Evening Mail ran 48 pages of job advertisements. All those jobs were available for people who wanted them. People who have the good jobs that are advertised in the Birmingham Evening Mail can afford a home. Let us not think that anyone who is homeless is deprived by the Government—often such people do not want to work and do not want to thrive.

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. It must be said, however, that one of the features of those who are roofless and sleeping rough is, of course, that they find it difficult to get jobs.

Of course.

My hon. Friend says, "Of course." That is one reason why the problem is unacceptable. Many of these people are children, and our first advice to them is, therefore, to go back to their parents.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ban the importation of all polychlorinated biphenyls.

I have no plans to ban the importation of all polychlorinated biphenyl waste. To do so would be environmentally irresponsible when we have facilities for safe disposal and effective notification and monitoring controls. But the Environmental Protection Bill contains powers to restrict, and if necessary to ban, imports of waste—including PCB waste—where there are risks of pollution or harm to human health.

Given that the Government are moving towards banning transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for tabling an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill to prevent toxic waste and PCBs coming to Britain from developed countries?

We have argued within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Community that, by and large, developed countries—the OECD members—should deal with their own toxic waste. We must limit the amount of movement of toxic waste between countries. I do not think that it would be right to press for a ban. If I did that, I would be a Secretary of State whose decisions had led to illegal dumping at sea and on African beaches.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmental pollution does not recognise national frontiers? We would like industrial waste, especially toxic waste, disposed of in the country of origin. Nevertheless, because Britain has at its disposal plant that is capable of handling such waste safely, we have a moral duty to the rest of the world to accept it, and that is totally in keeping with our lead on green matters internationally.

We have first-class technology, as my hon. Friend says, for dealing with toxic waste. The House probably recognises that the overwhelming majority of waste that we deal with is produced in this country; only about 5 per cent. of it comes from abroad. That is a far smaller proportion than in many other countries.

Will the Secretary of State condemn the practice of Rechem International—the chemical company that imports PCBs—of issuing writs like confetti against anyone who criticises it, thus stifling any possibility of public debate? Fourteen writs have been issued. I must admit a vested interest; I am one of the 14 people being sued. Will not the Minister accept that what he has said is wrong? There are plans for increasing the amount of imports. Will he confirm that between October 1988 and August 1989, 6,700 tonnes of toxic waste came into the country, that Rechem is increasing its capacity for incinerating toxic waste and PCBs from 82,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes and that the Government are allowing one shipload of toxic waste and PCBs a week into the country? The Government are ministering purposely over the trade in poison to mask the balance of payments deficit in manufactured goods.

Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards that is average nonsense. I do not want to come between the hon. Gentleman and his solicitors or anybody else's solicitors. The figures that I gave earlier are correct. Only about 5 per cent. of the waste that is dealt with in this country comes from abroad. We have pressed internationally to limit as much as possible the movement of toxic waste. We will continue to press home that initiative.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns.

The date of my next meeting with the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns has not yet been fixed.

When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns, will he remind him that the commission made an exceptionally successful investment in properties of which it is now disposing in new towns, from which the taxpayer is being paid a handsome return? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Treasury to see whether it is possible to establish from the proceeds of the sales a charitable fund of a very small amount per annum, the percentage to be agreed, to provide community projects in the new towns concerned?

The commission already has power under statute to make contributions to local charities and other voluntary organisations. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the extent of those contributions. I shall be happy to raise that matter at my next meeting with the chairman of the commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the capital investment required to meet European Community directives on water standards.

We have notified the Commission of the £1·8 billion that water undertakers in England and Wales will be spending over the next five years to remedy current situations of non-compliance with the EC drinking water directive.

Why is it taking European court action against the British Government to force the pace in bringing British water supplies up to recommended European standards? Is it not disgraceful that levels of aluminium, lead and other substances above European standards are daily being ingested by millions of people in Britain? As a lead pipe replacement programme would solve the lead problem, is the Minister encouraging his housing colleagues to reverse their present policy of reducing finance for such a project as part of a general scheme to bring British water supplies up to European standards?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned lead. In fact, our national standards are more stringent than that required under the European directive. He also mentioned aluminium, where the directive standard is aesthetic rather than for health reasons because water containing aluminium can appear cloudy even though it is safe to drink. We have drawn up a comprehensive and fully funded programme of compliance and agreed it with the water service companies

Mr. Richard Holt.

Favouritism.

It is not favouritism, it is compassion.

My hon. Friend may be aware that at lunchtime today I had the privilege of hosting a table of parliamentary guests from Belgium, who are in this country to discuss water because of the excellence of our supplies. They said that Brussels does not have a single water purification plant. In view of that, before the EEC starts telling us what to do with our water, it should get its own house in order.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We understand that the Commission has begun infraction proceedings against virtually every other member state. Even if we do appear before the European Court for an alleged breach of the drinking water directive, it will be our first case. I remind my hon. Friend that 68 other breaches of environmental directives by other member states have already come to court. Instead of being the dirty man of Europe, we have one of the best programmes and records of compliance of any country in Europe.

Is not London water recycled six or seven times? That may go down well with some people—possibly because it is time that people in the city had a pure water supply. Is not that a basic right? Is it not something that the Government should consider with real intent as these basic issues will arise time and again? It is a rip off.

London water is entirely safe to drink, even if it has been recycled through the hon. Gentleman. The Water Act 1989, by placing those companies in the private sector, has given them access to additional investment finance, while setting rigorous independent scrutiny by regulations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the announcement of allocations to local authorities for their housing investment programmes in 1990–91.

Very few representations have been received. While some have been critical, others have welcomed the doubling of HIP allocations in 1990–91 and the better targeting of those resources.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, during progress on last year's Local Government Housing Bill, I made several representations about the specific problems in the urban areas of Taunton Deane. We are grateful for the recognition of those problems in next year's allocations. We also note that the inner cities again receive the lion's share of the new money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) pointed out, Labour councils do not always use their resources effectively. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, do his best to ensure that those Labour councils fill their empty council homes, collect rent and rate arrears and work constructively with the private sector to meet housing need?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his appreciation of the increased HIP allocation for Taunton Deane. It has almst quadrupled for next year and it shows the effectiveness of our new system of targeting. My hon. Friend was right to express frustration at the way that many Labour authorities use the large sums of money that the Government make available to them. I hope that more of them will heed his points and get better value for money.

Will the Minister confirm that local authority associations have made repeated representations to his Department because the HIP programme has been reduced? Will he also confirm that the reduction during the past 10 years under this Government has meant a reduction in affordable homes and in homes available for the elderly? Even with the increase for 1991, is there not a reduction of more than 25 per cent. on last year because of the way that the housing programme has been manipulated by his Department? When will he give the full facts about the housing investment programme and about the needs and demands of the local authorities that are required to meet the need for affordable housing?

I am sorry to have to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. HIP allocations next year will be more than £2 billion, which is more than double this year's allocation, and total public expenditure on housing capital next year will be more than £4·4 billion, which is 7 per cent. higher than this year's provision.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and what was discussed.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities addressed the ADC national symposium yesterday. He spoke about the revenue support grant settlement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Amber Valley has done extremely well out of the safety net arrangements, for which we are extremely grateful to the areas that have contributed? Does he also agree that if the community charge in Derbyshire generally ends up being higher than the estimates, it will be due solely to the profligacy of Derbyshire county council?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend and I look also for the endorsement of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

But what answer can the Secretary of State give to the Tory chairman of the ADC, who said last week on behalf of the association that the Government's poll tax estimates were artificially low? What answer can he give to poll tax payers in Tory-controlled districts and elsewhere who, when their bills arrive on 1 April, will be outraged to find that they are required to pay much more than the Government have so far let on? What answer can he give to his own hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who know all too well what is in store for their constituents, or does he think that all those people are wrong and only he is right?

I give to those councillors and to others the answer that I gave the House last week—the main determinant in community charge levels next year will be the rate of spending by local authorities. I wonder when the hon. Gentleman will be answering the point put by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities earlier this afternoon. We waited with edge-of-the-seat enthusiasm just now to discover whether the hon. Gentleman would condemn his hon. Friend the free riders of the Militant tendency.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the right-to-buy legislation since 1980.

The 174,000 sales in 1988–89 bring the number of tenants who have exercised their right to buy their homes to more than 1·1 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply. Does he agree that the sale of council houses represents the greatest shift of assets to the individual that the United Kingdom has ever experienced, and would he care to comment on the Labour party's policy? Although the Opposition say that they would maintain the sale of council houses, they will not confirm that they will maintain the discount system. Does my hon. Friend further agree that, without discounts, the sale of council houses would stop and that the Labour party's policy is typical humbug yet again?

My hon. Friend is right on all counts, I think, although the Labour party's policy on the right to buy is a bit of a mystery. It seems that the Opposition have performed a volte face and decided that they now like a policy that they originally attacked, as they attack so many of our policies at their inception. On the other hand, there seems to be no question of the Labour party's giving incentives to buy. Moreover, it would seem from leaks of the Labour party's policy that its new policy on local taxation would give a kick in the teeth to those who have bought their council houses. I do not know what sort of a policy that is.

Is the Minister aware that some Labour Members have always been pleased to support the provision of opportunities for working people to obtain their own homes, either by purchase or by rent? What we find criminal is that the selling-off of existing council houses has not been complemented by the building of new council houses for people who cannot afford to purchase their own homes. Is it not a very one-sided and unfair policy that correctly provides for the majority of people in Scotland and throughout Britain to purchase their own homes but at the same time deprives local authorities of the moneys necessary to provide the homeless and those on low incomes, who have no prospect of purchasing their own homes, with a roof over their heads?

The Government take account of the total housing stock in Britain, and that has been expanding rapidly particularly in recent times. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a massive increase ahead in expenditure in public sector housing by the Housing Corporation and housing associations, which will combine public with private money to build new homes, and that is precisely the way it should go in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet those bidding to host the 1996 Olympic games in Manchester.

I met members of the bid team on 2 October last year to discuss progress on Manchester's Olympic bid and am ready to meet them again at any time. They are well aware of the Government's enthusiastic support for Manchester's bid.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among those who support this bid that the unofficial cricket tour of South Africa may jeopardise Manchester's chances of hosting the Olympics in 1996? Does he agree that that would be most unfair to Manchester? Will he use his considerable influence with the Olympic authorities to promote Manchester's bid for 1996?

I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears will be confirmed. On the contrary, I believe that the bid will be looked at on its merits. Manchester and the north-west of England have a long and illustrious sporting tradition and are well versed in providing for the very best in sport. I am confident that holding the games in Manchester would be a fitting tribute to the centenary of the modern Olympic movement.