To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms failed to pay their business rates last year; what was the total amount involved; and if he will make a statement.

This information is not available. However, by 31 March this year, charging authorities in England had collected 93 per cent. of their estimated non-domestic rate income for 1990–91 based on returns submitted up to mid-June.

As 900 firms per week are going broke, is it not clear that many of them will not have paid their business rates? Yet, to my knowledge, no one has been hounded or gaoled for that. Working people, on the other hand, are expected to pay the poll tax, and if they do not they are hounded and gaoled. Mr. Norman Laws, a pensioner, is in gaol now in the north of England for that reason. That is a disgrace. The Government are not even-handed—they operate double standards. Will the Minister consider releasing people who have been gaoled for non-payment of the poll tax or, better still, will the Government scrap the poll tax immediately and declare an amnesty for everyone involved in a situation of the Government's own making?

No, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be less non-payment if a better lead had been given by Members of the House? Is it not a national scandal that law makers should become law breakers, and should not Members of the House who have not paid the community charge be disowned by their Front Bench?

Of course. Business ratepayers are still liable for what they have not paid, and councils are still pursuing late payers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when an announcement will be made on the successful bids for city challenge.

I intend to announce the successful authorities by the end of July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enthusiasm for city challenge in Wolverhampton, and the growing feeling of optimism and anticipation, with the hope that ours may be one of the 10 successful bids? That would benefit especially the deprived area of Low Hill, in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if city challenge is to be truly successful and achieve our aims we cannot simply leave it to local politicians, but there must be a partnership of the private sector, the voluntary sector and—most important of all—the people who live in communities such as Low Hill, who best know what they wish to receive from city challenge, and what benefits we can give them?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. City challenge has evoked a remarkable response from local authorities. We are sure that in the bids that we shall begin to evaluate in the next few days an effective partnership will be demonstrated between the public and private sectors and the views of local people.

The Secretary of State will realise that there will be unsuccessful bids—probably five of them. Those five local authorities will have spent a great deal of money and resources on planning officers and treasury officials to work up their bids. Will the Secretary of State compensate such authorities for the money that they have lost? There are winners as well as losers in city bingo—or rather, city challenge.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that, if one has a competition, there tend to be losers, but there is no compulsion at all on local authorities to enter this competition. They are perfectly free not to do so if they wish.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be over-persuaded by the obvious charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). May I draw to his attention the enthusiasm of my own city of Nottingham and the welcome that his colleagues from this House and the other place received only recently when the city clearly demonstrated precisely the partnership between local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors that the Government seek. I hope that Nottingham will be high on my right hon. Friend's agenda.

My hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I say that, in a charm competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), he has certain obvious disadvantages. However, both my hon. Friends come high on the list of those who are successful advocates of their own areas, and I am grateful to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advantage he has taken of the expertise of Dr. Nigel Downing to make safe from pollution the coral reef areas of Qaru, U Al Maradem, and Kubbar; what help he has given to Dr. Nigel Downing in getting him to the atolls; and what were the results of the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and Dr. Downing and the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 30 April.

The hon. Gentleman was present when I met Dr. Downing and he knows that we fully support the contribution that United Kingdom environmental science, including Dr. Downing, can make in addressing the level of environmental damage in the Gulf. To that end, we have helped Dr. Downing with local contacts and travel arrangements to the Gulf and I am glad to say that he is now taking advantage of travel, sponsored by my Department, on board one of the regular Ministry of Defence flights to Al Jubayl and will leave for the Gulf this Friday.

What close logistical field support can Dr. Downing expect from the Department of Environment through its contacts with the Ministry of Defence?

I am glad to say that we have already given Dr. Downing much help. I am ensuring that our embassies in the region are informed of his visit. They will, of course, consider what extra help they and the remaining British forces in the area can provide.

I congratulate the Government on their action in protecting coral reefs, and particularly on their recent seizure of 4 tonnes of coral originating in the Philippines. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to protect coral reefs, wherever they occur in the world, and to ensure that coral from the reefs is not imported into the United Kingdom in the form of souvenirs?

We shall continue to make whatever contribution we can, within our means, to supporting these very important habitats throughout the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are imposing a surcharge of £20 or more on their community charge payers for the financial year 1991–92 to make up for any non-collection of community charge in the financial year 1990–91.

We do not have precise information on what is being charged this year for the non-collection of community charge last year, but I know of 71 councils which have added £20 or more to this year's charge for non-collection during the current year.

Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the Labour-controlled London borough of Waltham Forest for its imposition of a surcharge of no less than £50·29 on the people of my constituency as a result of its failure to collect a reasonable proportion Of the community charge last year? Will my hon. Friend further condemn the Labour leader of that council and those of his Labour colleagues who publicly announced last year that they would be refusing to pay the community charge, thus heaping an even greater burden on my constituents this year?

Yes, I warmly support what my hon. Friend has said, and I feel sorry for his constituents. The London borough of Waltham Forest is number seven on the list of non-collection. Lambeth is top, Liverpool second, Islington third, Newham fourth, Southampton fifth, Birmingham sixth, and Waltham Forest, seventh. Those are the worst performers in collecting the community charge, and they are all Labour controlled. In a similar case in Wirral, the leader of the council—Councillor Nolan, who advocated non-payment, putting £75 on the community charge bill—was thrown out by the electorate even though she had a majority of 1,000. The next election in Walthamstow will not be for the London borough but for my hon. Friend's seat, and he will benefit from the backlash.

Does the Minister agree that, in a city where existing services are virtually non-existent as a result of industrial disputes, it is especially offensive that residents are having to face extra bills of £70·99 this year because of the council's failure to run services properly or to collect outstanding community charge payments? Is it not disgraceful that people are, in effect, being charged double? How does he intend to ensure that people will not face the same situation with the new local tax?

I fear that across a variety of taxes and charges, those people who are public spirited end up paying for the feckless. We must demand that local authorities take effective action. It is offensive that an additional surcharge has been made in Liverpool. I am sure that the people of Liverpool will find it offensive that, on some vital issues, the Liberals voted with Militant and thus prevented the Labour council from being as effective as it would otherwise have been.

Is there not a certain inevitability that, if senior Labour councillors run around inciting people not to pay their community charge, tax evaders will take advantage of that and consider it respectable not to pay their taxes? Is it not desperately unfair that, as a consequence of the example set by Labour councillors, ordinary law-abiding people have to pick up the tab?

Quite honestly, I put not paying the community charge, and advocating that, on the same moral plane as fare dodging or shoplifting from supermarkets. It amazes me that Labour Members who advocate non-payment are not thrown out of the Labour party by the leadership. Despite all the fuss that is made about the hard left, some Labour Members are still advocating non-payment.

Was it not the Prime Minister who described the poll tax as "uncollectable" and was it not because the Secretary of State and the Minister agreed with him that they decided that the poll tax had to go? Why are the Minister and his colleagues still trying to make political capital out of the difficulties faced by local authorities, especially those in urban areas with highly mobile populations? Why does the Minister not acknowledge the anxieties expressed by the Audit Commission about the problems created for the judicial system and the whole of local government—problems that are intrinsic to the poll tax and are therefore the Government's responsibility? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman be helpful to local government for a change, and begin by abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution rule which carries high administrative costs with virtually no revenue gain?

The hon. Gentleman cannot shuffle off his reticence about his hon. Friend's advocacy of non-payment. He constantly tries to escape from his responsibility not only to denounce that but to lead a campaign within the Labour party to have those people thrown out.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest detailed schedule for the winding up of urban development corporations.

I have no precise timetable. I will consider the situation of each urban development corporation in the light of circumstances.

In view of the Government's stated enthusiasm for democracy in eastern Europe, can we take it that when the UDCs are wound up, democratic forms of government will take over? The Merseyside development corporation has done a moderately fine job in the area. Will it come under the auspices of an elected council, such as the previous Merseyside county council, which, before its demise, had the support of politicians of all parties in the locality?

The UDCs established no new principles that were not built into the new town movement. From the beginning, it was clearly established that when the UDCs made good the deficiencies of largely Labour-run local authorities, the areas concerned would be returned to local democratic control.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the Teesside development corporation which, more than anything else, has been responsible for the transformation from the smokestack industries of the north-east to the high-tech industries of today. Would not the advancements be even greater were it not for the lunatics on Langbaurgh council, who recently turned down a private sector scheme worth £50 million of investment which would have brought 400 jobs to one of the most hard-pressed parts of the region? The Labour council turned the scheme down because it preferred unemployment.

The whole House will be deeply shocked by my hon. Friend's story, but I must support him by saying that the urban development corporation on Teesside will, in the near future, be seen to have given rise to the most exciting rebirth of enterprise and activity on Teesside probably seen in this country this century.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of derelict land still remain in Northumberland and Tyneside which qualify for financial assistance for reclamation.

The derelict land survey of 1988 recorded nearly 3,000 acres of derelict land that were considered to justify reclamation. Financial assistance for the reclamation of derelict land in Northumberland and Tyneside is available through derelict land grant or the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation and it is estimated that since the survey about 900 acres have been reclaimed.

Is the Minister aware that this scheme was running long before the Government's 12-year rule and has been running all those years with moderate success? He may not be aware of the fact, but the last pit heap to the west of Newcastle has now been levelled out. He probably is aware that much of the reclamation of the industrial dereliction in Northumberland and Tyneside has now been virtually completed. Will the Minister direct the resources that have now been released from the projects in those two areas to the cleaning up of the pollution on the beaches in Durham which is still caused by mining extraction?

I understand that the ancestry of the derelict land grant goes back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was at the Department of the Environment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Resources are available for derelict land grant in his constituency. About £4 million is available for spending in Northumberland and Tyneside. On top of that, about £11 million is available for spending through the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation. I will ensure that both know of the specific claim on that grant that has been made in the House this afternoon.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the progress of implementation of the policies of "This Common Inheritance".

We continue to make excellent progress. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Monday that we will publish a full annual progress report later this year.

I welcome the progress that the Government have made and their green words, but is there not a long and large gap between their words and their actions? In "This Common Inheritance" the Government said that one of the greatest environmental problems facing the world was global warming, but three months ago the Select Committee on Energy and this month the House of Lords European Select Committee roundly criticised the Government for their inadequate efforts on energy efficiency. When will the Government's actions match their words?

I am surprised at the churlish attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman. Whatever praise there was was incredibly limp wristed and weak kneed, which is typical of the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman should look to cleaning out his own party's back yard. It beggars belief that any party should try to convince the electorate that it is serious about reducing carbon dioxide levels when it has pledged to scrap the nuclear programme and replace it with coal-fired energy, which would bring about a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide.

Does my hon. Friend recall my vain attempts in Standing Committee to include noise within the ambit of the Environmental Protection Bill? Now that the Department of Transport has at last issued a new document which includes concern about noise, will my hon. Friend do one thing for me? He is presumably aware that his Department part-funds the Airfields Environment Federation. Will he agree to meet its director with me and with a Minister from the Department of Transport 30 that we can try to get to the bottom of the problems which have been caused in the past by interdepartmental wrangling on the problem?

I shall be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any colleague from the Department of Transport whom he may wish me to meet. Obviously, I do not subscribe to the wrangling that takes place between various Departments on environmental issues. The truth is that one can hardly get a razor blade between us.

Given the commitments to the water industry in "This Common Inheritance", will the Minister explain why there has been slippage on every area of investment in the water industry's core services but an increase in spending on management?

The hon. Lady should take this opportunity to recognise that the highest standards which are being achieved are the result of the Government's having established the National Rivers Authority. The fact that the Government privatised the water industry has allowed it to undertake a £28 billion programme. The hon. Lady and the House should be reminded that the last Labour Government savagely cut the amount of money that they gave to the water authorities. Their term in office was an absolute disgrace.

In this context, will the Minister pay tribute to the fine results of South West Water, which were recently announced by its chairman who, through privatisation, has managed to re-energise South West Water by pouring truly massive investment into the infrastructure, particularly in the Bideford area, which had never happened before?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the efforts of South West Water. I repeat the point that I made earlier—that part of the £28 billion now available to be spent during the next 10 years by South West Water is money that certainly could not have been drawn from Her Majesty's Treasury, where such a proposal would have had to take its place in the queue with other competing and serious demands for money for health, education and so on. We have achieved that investment programme by taking the courageous step of privatising the water industry, and it is a success.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.

The introduction of competition into local authority services has produced demonstrable gains in efficiency and value for money, and I am actively considering ways of extending the range of services subject to compulsory competitive tendering.

Instead of wasting resources on compulsory competitive tendering, which denies those citizens who are affected the right to democratic accountability through their local councillors, why does the Department of the Environment not spend resources on protecting and helping local authorities by checking the list of banking institutions that it sends to every local authority and finding out about banks such as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which appears on the current list issued by the Department of the Environment? The Department encouraged local authorities to invest in shabby concerns without knowing anything about them at all, which has resulted in the loss of millions of pounds invested by local authorities on the advice of the Minister's Department. Why does he not do something about that instead of helping seedy contractors to reduce the standard of democracy?

The compulsory competitive tendering process has produced enormous gains for consumers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's citizens charter will do even more. My Department issues no list of such banks. As the hon. Gentleman should know, a list is issued by the Bank of England. I have carefully looked at the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made in points of order yesterday and there is no truth in them.

Is it not ironic that the Government's policy on compulsory competitive tendering for council services, which was fought so hard by the Labour party, should now be the only policy that is saving the ruling Labour group on Liverpool council from the terrible mess into which it has got both itself and the city?

We are delighted at the Labour party's late conversion to the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering.

When do the Government intend to introduce quality into contracted-out services? So far, they have targeted only the number, size and value of contracts —quality of services has not been targeted. Before there is any extension of compulsory competitive tendering, will the Government ask Birmingham univeristy to study the quality of services provided as a result of compulsory competitive tendering? We need good-quality services for all the people who depend on local governent services.

Quality is one of local authorities' considerations in setting the criteria in awarding contracts. It is entirely up to them to set the standards of quality, and I repeat that my right hon. Friend's citizens charter will deal with that issue afresh.

Is not it strange that a decision that in the private sector is a matter of fact—that it is more efficient and beneficial to employ people in house rather than to bring in outside contractors—has for the Opposition become an ideological obsession? Until they are seen to be acting in the interests of the users rather than of those working in local government, do not they forfeit any right to be considered an alternative Government?

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition are split down the middle on the issue—sometimes they find it convenient to support the idea, but sometimes they find it convenient to rail against it. They have no solution of their own, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy towards the public rented sector.

Our policy is set out in chapter 7 of the Department of the Environment's 1991 annual report—Cm. 1508.

Why should so many people be denied adequate rented accommodation? I think that hon. Members probably receive more letters about housing and the need to be rehoused than on any other subject, so why should people be penalised because they cannot afford to buy and because the chance of getting a council house is now so remote? When Ministers go home in their chauffeur-driven cars—usually to one of their palatial homes—do they notice, two or three minutes from here, people living in squalor on the streets? They are some of the victims of the Government's housing policy.

On the second point, the hon. Gentleman should know that more progress in helping people who sleep rough in London has been made in the past six months than in the whole history of the capital city. As for homeless people, I note with interest that there are 74 homeless households in Walsall in temporary accommodation, but that Walsall has 989 empty dwellings.

How high will council rents in my constituency have to rise to compensate for the disastrous decision made by the Labour-controlled council in Bury to invest all its resources—about £6·5 million—in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Is not that decision an appalling indictment of the Labour leadership in Bury, and are my constituents not entitled to know why it occurred because it has ruined the chances of good services in my constituency for years to come?

Of course, one sympathises with the charge payers in my hon. Friend's constituency, but the responsibility clearly rests with the local government leaders who took such a decision.

When answering this question it will be appropriate for the Minister to remember that today there is a major lobby of Parliament by homeless people following the sleep-out night earlier this week. It is also appropriate for him to remember the Duke of Edinburgh's report which said that about 1·7 million to 1·9 million homes have been lost from the rented sector—about half of them from the public sector—in the past 10 or 11 years. Will the Minister give a more definitive answer to the question, because the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), explicitly expressed the view that councils should no longer provide housing. Does the Minister agree? How soon does he envisage council house provision coming to an end?

The Government have made it absolutely clear that they look to the housing association movement to provide new affordable homes to rent. They expect local authorities to devote their resources to improving and modernising their stock, and local authorities are now spending twice as much in real terms on improving their stock as they did 10 years ago. That seems a sensible division of responsibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities would have been capped in 1991–92 if the £15 million limit on expenditure had not been in force.

We now announce our capping criteria in advance. The result is that most councils take care to set budgets which will not be capped. Had capping applied this year to councils with budgets under £15 million, many of them, I am sure, would have set lower budgets than they did, to the benefit of community charge payers.

Is it not good news for hundreds of thousands of community charge payers that the abolition of the £15 million limit on expenditure will force many councils to exercise proper restraint on their future expenditure? Can my hon. Friend quantify the harm already done to community charge payers?

On my hon. Friend's first point, he may have seen in the case of his own local authority the effect beginning to operate last year. Thamesdown district council set a budget of £15·06 million, just above the capping threshold. The increase was 7·7 per cent. I cannot help thinking that the increase was so moderate only because the council was just coming into the capping criteria at that point.

Will the Minister tell us what he expects local authorities that have been prudent in the past and will fall under the capping regulations next year to do about their services? Does he expect them to cut their services so that there can be no local economic generation? In areas that are dependent on jobs in tourism, such as the area that I represent, what advice would the Minister give a local authority that has been prudent in the past and which has set decent budgets, but which, under the new regulations, faces massive local unemployment?

An authority that has been prudent for many years will not be capped because we will not cap below the standard spending assessment.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the good effects for my constituents in Norwich of the capping of their overspending council and the resulting reduction in their bills? Will he seek an urgent meeting with the leader of Labour-controlled Norwich city council to point out the anger of my constituents about the politically biased and possibly illegal letters that she is sending out, which are distorting the effects of Government policy and concealing the imprudence of Norwich city council?

I want to help my hon. Friend. If he absolutely insists that I meet the leader of Norwich city council, I suppose that I could be prevailed on to do so. My hon. Friend speaks loudly and clearly for his constituents. He is worried about the community charge burden that they have to bear. Those on Norwich city council are apparently indifferent to that matter and the Labour party is apparently flatly opposed to helping the community charge payer.

Despite the smart Alec answers from the Minister, is not it a fact that the result not only of capping, but of the vast amounts being taken away from local councils—the total runs into hundreds of millions of pounds—is that beggars are being forced on to the streets and homelessness is created? We have a Minister who apparently treads on bodies when he comes out of the opera. The things that have come about under this Government had not existed for years previously. People are on the streets and, as a nation, not only as a Government, we should all feel deeply ashamed.

The hon. Gentleman is deeply incredible and the whole House will have found what he said laughable. His first contention was that money had been taken away from local authorities. I remind him that the districts about which we are talking had the amount that the Government thought it appropriate for them to spend increased last year by 28 per cent.—vastly ahead of inflation. There can be no complaint that they have been underfunded.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to his consultation paper on the reform of local government.

The Department has received more than 1,700 responses to the recent consultation paper on the structure of local government in England and some 750 responses to the consultation paper on the council tax.

Has the Minister received an all-party response from the Tory-controlled city of Derby, which wants to be a unitary authority and which would like to see the abolition of the county council? Has he received in addition an all-party response from the Labour-controlled South Derbyshire district council, which wants to be a unitary authority and which wishes to see the abolition of the county council? Will my hon. Friend ignore what is certain to come—the response from Derbyshire county council? The only people who wish to see that retained are the members of it. Will he kindly get on with the reform and the abolition of the said county council as quickly as possible?

It is well known that there is antipathy between the county council and the districts in Derbyshire. I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw that to the attention of what we hope will be the local government commission, which will have the responsibility for listening to the important voices in the community. I am sure that my hon. Friend's voice will be heard loudly and clearly.

How many responses reflected the view that this is now the most overcentralised country in the free world? Will the Government accept that the tendency must soon be to shift power from the centre, rather than seek to accumulate ever more?

I am all for having local accountability and for local responsibility in local government, so I find it very hard to understand why the Opposition wish to take power from local people and give it to yet another tier of government which they laughingly call regional government.

Has my hon. Friend received, and would he be prepared to receive, any submissions relating to how local authorities make their financial investment decisions? Is he aware of the considerable anger and distress in my constituency this morning as my constituents woke up to find that they had lost £6·5 million because of a decision to invest in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which councils make those decisions must come into question? Will he again state the status of the document which was sent out and which did not give any approval to the BCCI in terms of its probity but merely required local authorities to look to their laurels and therefore accept responsibility for their investments?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can understand his constituents' concern about this matter. Of course, financial decisions are entirely the responsibility of the treasurer of the council. I confirm that we do not issue a list of preferred investments. We give absolutely no advice on that matter; it is entirely for the council.

The Government have made clear their preference for single-tier local authorities. Does the Minister therefore agree that one of the great advantages of single tier local authorities is that they would provide the space in which one could create regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions to which the House could then devolve some of its functions?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the desirability of unitary authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet representatives of the North West Water company to discuss the programme to clean up the Mersey beaches and rivers in the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend and I maintain regular contacts with the North West Water company about progress on the clean up of bathing waters and rivers.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the massive plans involving billions of pounds over 10 years to clean up the Mersey basin and its attendant rivers. Is my hon. Friend aware of the efforts that are being made by the North West Water company to invest in sewage plants on the north-west coast to clean up the Blackpool beaches, Southport and Formby? Does my hon. Friend agree that that can be achieved only by a privatised company borrowing in the marketplace and doing what the public sector neglected to do for years?

I not only agree with my hon. Friend but I am very anxious to join him in his praise of the Mersey basin campaign. Since its formation in the early 1980s, an overall improvement in water quality has taken place throughout the whole basin area. About £400 million is being spent by North West Water in major schemes at Southport, St. Anne's, the Fylde coast, Morecambe arid Barrow to bring more bathing waters into compliance by 1995. The water company has recently announced a preferred option for the Fylde coast scheme to provide full secondary level treatment. I hope that that scheme will go ahead.

When the Minister meets the chairman of North West Water, will he chastise him for his greed and for the massive pay rise that he has awarded himself since privatisation, when constituents such as mine have been waiting years for investment in proper drinking water and sewerage schemes? Is not it an absolute scandal that the Minister is prepared to meet the gentleman who, the day after hiking up water charges, announced at a press conference a huge pay increase for himself and fellow directors?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already publicly criticised the wage increases to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I agree with him. The Government's policy on the pay of directors is that salaries should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate. The Government believe also that it is essential that pay at all levels reflects the economic facts of life and the importance of beating inflation. Directors need to exercise both leadership and restraint in the rate at which salary levels are increased.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that far more is being done now than was ever done in the past to clear up pollution, such as that at Eagles brook, which flows from my hon. Friend's constituency to mine and then to the Mersey? Does he agree that that shows the strength of the Government's anti-pollution legislation?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. The money that is now available to the North West Water company, like all the other privatised water companies, is sufficient to enable it to embark on a massive investment programme which will last to the end of the decade and will result in water of a higher quality in this country than anywhere in the rest of Europe.

When the Minister meets the chairman or any of the directors of North West Water or of any of the other water companies of England and Wales, will he take steps to do something about the salary rises that he is so willing to condemn? May I suggest that he knocks £10 off their salaries whenever there is a pollution incident in any part of the Mersey or anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Is it not a disgrace that after 12 years of Tory rule the country still fails to meet the European Community's water quality standards?

The hon. Gentleman completely and utterly ruined his question, which was obviously prepared prior to the substantive answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am afraid that his hon. Friend stole his thunder. Perhaps my response was not what the hon. Gentleman had expected. In response to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he should ask himself, "Who invented the National Rivers Authority?" We did. Who invented Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution? We did. Who invented the drinking water inspectorate? We did. Why does not the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to praise the Prime Minister and the Government for the initiative that was taken on Monday to set up the strongest regulatory body in the whole of Europe?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had to the launch of his countryside stewardship scheme.

The countryside stewardship scheme, which is being run on a pilot basis in England by the Countryside Commission, was launched on 25 June. The closing date for applications for this first year of the scheme is not until 31 October. While it is far too early to assess the response, initial reaction has been very encouraging. In the first week following the launch there were more than 300 serious inquiries from potential applicants and there has also been extensive media interest.

The whole House should welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, because it demonstrates that the widespread support that that announcement received in the press is clearly mirrored by the response from applicants. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this targeted way of sustaining fine and important landscape features is a far better way of achieving the objective and that the use of the carrots that he is advocating, rather than the big-stick bureaucracy, which is precisely the sort of measure that is advocated by the Labour party, is the better way?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House may be interested to know that the Countryside Commission has a target for the first two years of the scheme of between 2,000 and 3,000 agreements that will cover 60,000 to 80,000 hectares.

Will the Secretary of State remind the House how much money the Government are putting into the scheme? Is he satisfied that it is sufficient and that, through the Countryside Commission, it is his Department which is best able to handle the scheme, rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which, in many cases, has more contact with the farmers involved?

There is a commitment of £13 million for the first three years of the scheme. We believe that that is sufficient to prove the value of the experiments that the Countryside Commission has launched. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the relationship between my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I were both present at the launch and are both enthusiasts of the scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the level of financial support for housing associations in the current financial year.

The gross capital expenditure planned by the Housing Corporation this year is £1,588 million—an increase of more than 40 per cent. over last year. Revenue support for housing associations is £85 million and housing associations also receive support from local authority housing association grant, estimated at about £300 million in the current year. All that public sector support is supplemented by substantial loans from the private sector.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Labour councillors in my local authority of Kirklees have complained recently about the increase in the number of homeless, even though they have contributed to that increase by refusing to co-operate with the Housing Corporation because one housing association expressed an interest in the tenants' choice scheme? Has any progress been made following our Adjournment debate? Will he join me in condemning the thoroughly negative attitude of the Labour councillors?

I certainly unreservedly condemn the Labour council in Kirklees for withdrawing its support from the Jephson housing association merely because the housing association responded positively to the Government's initiatives to promote tenants' choice. Labour's determination to force tenants back into the straitjacket of monopoly local authority control is not confined to Kirklees. Only yesterday the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) threatened the tenants of north Hull that, if it were ever given the chance, Labour would overthrow the result of the recent ballot in which the tenants voted to become tenants of a housing action trust. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that he has the full support of the Government in his efforts to champion the interests of tenants in his constituency, efforts which I am glad to say have restarted a dialogue between the Housing Corporation and the borough council.

Is the Minister aware that, once the hot air evaporates, an examination of the agreed Housing Corporation development programme will show that 93 per cent. of the increase in the programme will go to London and the south-east and therefore, by definition, not to the provincial towns and cities? Is he also aware that hardly any housing associations are carrying out rehabilitation work on older properties? Does he realise that all of that will lead to homelessness shifting out into the provincial towns and cities and will do nothing to arrest the decline in the older housing stock in Britain as a whole? What does he intend to do about it? When will he take some action instead of just talking?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has already referred to the huge increase in local authority spending on renovating the existing housing stock. The House will be aware that the Housing Corporation's budget is to double from £1 billion to more than £2 billion in the space of three years. I am glad to say that so successful are the Government's efforts to clear the problem of homelessness that the census that took place on 21 April revealed that only 2,703 people were sleeping rough that night—less than 1/14th of the figure used by the promoters of national sleep-out week. In London the numbers were down to only 1,275—a demonstration of our clear progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the proposed council tax; and if he will make a statement.

The Department has received some 750 responses to the recent consultation paper on the council tax, most of which welcome the new tax in principle. These responses are now being considered.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the overwhelming response, made not only to his Department but made as he travels around the country, is in support of the proposed council tax? Has my hon. Friend been overwhelmed by any clamour for a return to the discredited old rating system, which is what the Labour party proposes?

Most certainly I am not aware of anyone except the Labour party who wants to go back to the rating system. It would be bad enough if the Labour party merely proposed a return to the rating system, but it proposes a bureaucratic nightmare in which each property would have to be revalued four times over. What little chance people had of understanding the rating system would be blown apart by an even more complicated system. One suspects that the Labour party has struggiled to design a system that the public cannot possibly understand because it hopes in that way to avoid the electoral consequences of proposing such an absurd tax.

What calculation has the Minister made of the impact on the likely level of the council tax and, indeed, the level of the poll tax in the intervening period, of the failure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Does not the fact that many local authorities now face the prospect of serious loss mean that millions of poll tax payers will suffer as a consequence of the regulatory failure over which the Government have presided? Is not it typical that the Government should now be trying to blame local authorities when they have done no more than act in accordance with the list prepared by the Bank of England and sent out by the Minister's Department to every local authority? That revised list was published and sent out on 21 June and it clearly includes the name of BCCI. Why will not the Minister face up to the part that he has played and the responsibility that his Department must bear in this whole unhappy episode?

First, it is not possible to make any estimate of what anybody has lost, because we do not know. We have no idea of the outcome of this particular bank crash for any local authority. On the question of responsibility, I must say that it might be reasonable to argue that an average person might not realise that an authorised institution, which is accredited under the Banking Act 1987, might crash. However, for local authority treasurers to say that they did not understand the difference between some sort of guarantee—that is now being claimed—and the fact that BCCI happened to be an authorised institution under the Banking Act 1987 is astounding.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the new council tax will, rightly, have reserve rate-capping powers? In that context will he bear in mind the appalling position of the Labour-controlled Wyre Forest district council, which at present is not only spending 58 per cent. above its standard spending assessment, but has such a bloated recreation programme that one museum is subsidised to the extent of £7 per visit? Given that that council is proposing this year to increase its expenditure again by 18 per cent. will my hon. Friend invoke his rate-capping powers against that council as quickly as possible?

What my hon. Friend tells me appals and worries me very much. What I think will worry my hon. Friend's constituents when the election comes around is that the Labour party will campaign on there being no restraint whatever on local authority spending or on the bills that will be charged to local people. I believe that that Labour party proposal will be deeply unpopular with the electorate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to distribute the income from the non-domestic rates under the new council tax; and if he will make a statement.

We are currently considering the options, and will make clear our conclusions in due course.

Is it not a fact that the whole position regarding local taxes is becoming a complete dog's dinner? Will the Minister apply himself to the question of non-domestic ratepayers, who could account for between 25 and 26 per cent. of the bill of local authorities?

I hope that I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. We are not proposing changes to the national non-domestic rate system in general and we have made that perfectly clear in our consultation document. The hon. Gentleman asked about the means by which the income from non-domestic rates would he distributed between local authorities. That is a complicated and technical matter and it would be worth while to spend some time thinking the implications through before making any announcement.

Will my hon. Friend think again about the way in which non-domestic rates' income is no longer linked to the local authority area. Many of my local business men, particularly in the hotel sector and the leisure industry, would like to think that their business rates will pay the high costs that their local authority must face to subsidise and supply the facilities for people coming on holiday to the wonderful beaches of Weymouth, Swanage and other resorts in Dorset.

I understand that some business men would like a strong linkage between themselves and local authorities, and that might be provided by the tax base. Business in general welcomes enormously the fact that business rates increase from year to year by only the rate of inflation and not by the rate at which local authorities increase their spending. That means that, in the first year of the uniform business rate, business paid £1 billion less than it would have done under the old system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings he has held in the last year with representatives of UK Nirex to discuss the disposal of nuclear waste; and what is the date of the next such meeting.

My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of Nirex and no date has been arranged for such a meeting.

Given the great interest that exists on that subject—not only in the highlands and islands of Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom—can the Minister confirm or deny a recent newspaper report, which said that Tom McInerney, the managing director of Nirex, would make a clear statement on 18 July that Sellafield would be the chosen option for the disposal of low-level and intermediate waste?

I am sorry to say that I can neither confirm nor deny it. As I said at the last Question Time when I was being drawn on those issues, it is a decision entirely for Nirex. However, an announcement will be made before the end of the year.