To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to expand the number of housing co-operatives and other tenant-led initiatives; and what funds he intends to make available to the Housing Corporation to assist these projects.

The Department has increased its grants for the promotion of tenant-led initiatives on local authority estates by more than a third since last year. For the housing association sector, the Housing Corporation will shortly be issuing a comprehensive strategy paper on housing co-operatives and tenant participation. It is for the corporation to decide what funds to make available for those purposes from its promotional grants provision and growing capital programme.

The Minister will be aware that it is now two years since the Government produced their paper "Tenants in the Lead", which calls for significant progress to be made in the development of co-operative housing. Sadly, we have not seen much progress since receiving that publication. That led to the fact that today a new charter for housing co-operatives has been launched in the House of Commons—I know that the Minister is aware of that —which has received the full support of the all-party parliamentary group on housing co-operatives. Do the Government still believe in the development of housing co-operatives? If so, will the Minister meet a deputation from the Time For Action campaign to discuss the development of housing co-operatives?

The short answer would be yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, until recently I was the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on housing co-operatives, a vacancy which the hon. Gentleman now so ably and amply fills. I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the concept of "Tenants in the Lead". We remain deeply committed to the involvement of tenants in the management and, where appropriate, ownership of their homes. I should be happy to meet a deputation involving the hon. Gentleman and the all-party group. The Department is continuing to approve a growing number of tenant management organisations. We are increasing significantly the grant resources that are available for that project this year.

My hon. Friend's commitment to the housing co-operatives is well known. Indeed, as he said, he is a former chairman of the all-party group. What steps will his Department take to ensure that initiatives are not overcome or hidebound by unnecessary bureaucracy?

If my hon. Friend comes across any unnecessary bureaucracy, I hope that he will be the first to bring it to the attention of Ministers. The Department is increasing the number of grants that we give to tenant management organisations. We are approving a significant number of estate management boards, whereby tenants will take over the responsibility for managing their estates. I understand that at its meeting yesterday the Housing Corporation reviewed its own strategy on co-operatives and that it is shortly to publish a paper outlining its future strategy.

The Minister and I have worked closely together on the subject of housing co-operatives, and I should like to share in the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) about the Minister's commitment to that movement, which is well known and appreciated in the House and elsewhere. For the immediate future—while the Minister is still in office—we hope that his support will be translated into rather more tangible assets for the movement than hitherto. Evidence of the bureaucracy that now seems to be strangling the co-operative movement, to which the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred, is now so overpowering that the Minister's commitment must be put to the test to resolve those problems.

I am not sure that I accept the analysis that the process is hidebound by democracy. We need to distinguish between tenant management and tenant ownership co-operatives. Progress on ownership co-operatives has indeed been slow, for a number of reasons. Management co-operatives, however, have made extremely good progress. I envisage tenant management co-operatives as the first step towards tenant ownership co-operatives. I envisage a continuous process from consultation to management and thence to ownership, and I believe that an unstoppable momentum is building up.

Are not the best tenant-led initiatives those that allow tenants a greater say in their own destinies, leading possibly to increased owner-occupation? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing the rents-to-mortgages scheme on a national scale?

As my hon. Friend will know, two pilot schemes are now under way, in Milton Keynes and Basildon. The initial analysis of those schemes is positive, and when the Government have completed that analysis we shall indeed consider extending the scheme nationwide.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions his Department has had with local authorities and housing associations in relation to outstanding demand for sheltered housing.

My Department has discussions with local authorities and the housing association movement throughout the year, covering a wide range of housing issues, including sheltered housing.

Does the Minister accept that there is still a widespread shortage of sheltered housing, especially affordable housing for elderly people to rent? Will he give greater priority to that provision, and also ensure that more emphasis is placed on the need for housing to be provided in areas that elderly people know, rather than several miles away at the other end of town? It is important for old people to continue to live in the areas that they know.

In the past 12 years there has been an 86 per cent. increase in the provision of sheltered housing, which now accounts for some 2.5 per cent. of housing stock. It is true that, because of demographic change, we shall need to make appropriate housing provision for frail and elderly people, but I am not persuaded that sheltered housing is the only option: many people will prefer to remain in their own homes, where the necessary adaptations can be made and the necessary support can be given. To obtain more information on the subject, we have commissioned a study from Ernst and Young, which we hope to publish in July this year. That study will shed more light on the range, quality and quantity of accommodation that the elderly need.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the shortage of sheltered housing and other forms of low-cost accommodation in my constituency and elsewhere in the southern counties. Although the housing association movement has made important and valuable progress, it still cannot meet all the demands. My hon. Friend may also know that, in my constituency and elsewhere, there is all-party support for a continuing role for efficient local authorities, working effectively with the private sector, in the building and refurbishment of low-cost housing. Will he consider the matter urgently?

The Housing Corporation continues to allocate a substantial share of its resources to sheltered housing: this year, about £130 million is being made available for that purpose. We envisage an enabling role for local authorities; certainly, it is their responsibility to ensure that there is adequate provision in their areas for elderly people in housing need. They may wish to discharge that responsibility in a number of ways—for instance, working with housing associations, using their planning powers and building under licence. It is up to them to use the totality of the resources at their disposal to meet the social challenge outlined by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the new towns commission to discuss the release of land for low-cost housing.

I have no plans for such a meeting.

Is the Minister aware of a specific aspect of the housing problem in the Wrekin, which is well recognised by all concerned, including the council, the housing associations and the churches? Nearly all the housing land is owned by the new towns commission, which cannot release it at less than its full market value.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that the new towns commission has already agreed in principle to release 5 hectares of land next year in Telford at less than market value which will facilitate the provision of 200 units of low-cost housing. The real issue with housing in Telford and elsewhere is the problem that millions of tenants and owner-occupiers would face as a result of the savage cuts in take-home pay that people of all income levels would suffer if the Labour party came to power. The swinging increases in tax and national insurance—the central plank of the Opposition's programme—would force millions of households, who at present can afford to pay for their own housing and to stand on their own feet, into the humiliating dependence of subsided accommodation. There would be an explosion in demand for low-cost housing that no amount of land released could possibly satisfy.

Order. I hope that Ministers will answer the questions today that are asked rather than the ones that are not asked.

While the Minister is examining low-cost housing, may I refer him to a case with which he will be familiar: the attempt some years ago by my constituents to acquire low-cost housing in Marina and Pomeroy close, who are now caught in the legal crossfire between Coventry city council and my hon. Friend's regional officials. May I ask my hon. Friend to bang a few heads together and sort out this mess?

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in drawing this matter to my attention. The Department will do everything possible to ensure that his constituents are properly looked after. I hope that the same level of co-operation and commitment is forthcoming from the council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide funds to ensure that there is adequate support for necessary environmental projects in the South Yorkshire coalfield area.

The Government are already making a major contribution to the area by providing substantial resources to clear away the dereliction, improve the environment and create the conditions for a strong and viable economy.

As the Minister knows, I have pressed for, and I greatly welcome, central support for the regeneration of this area. Is he aware that anxiety continues about that share of expenditure which is a local authority responsibility? Will he ensure that neither lack of RECHAR money nor excessive central pressure or excessive limitations on local spending will in any way imperil this desirable and necessary achievement?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put that question. As he knows, I have specific responsibility for the Dearne valley. I am anxious to do whatever I can to help to regenerate the area—as I know he is. We have made a number of representations to Commissioner Millan on this subject, particularly with regard to the RECHAR programme. We cannot for the life of us understand why the money cannot be released under the present terms and conditions. Somebody has to say that, and I am saying it now. Discussions will continue between the Government and the European Commission on this specific item. I hope that we can find a way to solve the problem.

Is not it clear that the problem with the RECHAR programme is that Commissioner Millan has unilaterally changed the rules on additionality and his interpretation of them and that he now proposes to act in a quite different way from the way in which all his predecessors have behaved? Is not it time that this matter was settled by agreement or referred to the European Court?

It is for that precise reason that I chose to answer the substantive question in the way that I did. I believe that Commissioner Millan has changed the rules unilaterally. I resent that. It means that this money is not available. The terms and conditions that are attached to programmes such as this have been in existence for a long time. The fact that there are people in the Dearne valley who are frustrated by this change of direction by Commissioner Millan is a disgrace.

In the case of the RECHAR programme, is not it a question of additionality? Although other countries have agreed with Bruce Millan on additionality, is not it a fact that this country's Treasury will not agree to it?

The difficulty is that whether or not the issue of additionality is resolved in the near future does not alter the fact that the terms and conditions attached to such assistance from the European regional development fund or any other form of European support have existed for a long time. The local authorities in the Dearne valley have explained that they are frustrated because the money cannot be released. I am saying that it can be released if Commissioner Millan accepts and agrees to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the working of the litter provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The Government's litter legislation gives ordinary citizens the right to take action in the courts if public land is not kept clear of litter. Most local authorities and others under the new litter duty have responded well. But if they neglect the duties, local people can now do something about it.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelmsford borough council on fully embracing the powers given to it under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and urge other local authorities to follow its example? Is he aware that since appointing two litter wardens three months ago the council has apprehended 50 litter offenders and had six successful prosecutions against those dumping litter? Does my hon. Friend agree that that, combined with the council's educational programme, will ensure that the battle against the litter lout is waged effectively by Chelmsford borough council?

I should like my hon. Friend to convey to Chelmsford borough council that I believe that it has set a fine example of what local authorities can and should do now that we have given them those powers. As hardly any of the measures catalogued by my hon. Friend cost money, I wish that some Labour councils would follow Tory Chelmsford's example and stop bellyaching about shortage of cash.

Does the Minister recall that a few years ago the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), went to St. James's park with a bag and one of her Secretaries of State to pick up litter and had a great photo opportunity? When walking around London now, things are even worse. I have a suggestion: the right hon. Member for Finchley will finish work when the election is called; take her on permanently and let Lady Porter carry the bag.

No one is more qualified to talk about rubbish than the hon. Gentleman. I ask him and the House to be patient and wait for a report which is to be published shortly by the Tidy Britain Group. It will show, in contrast to what the hon. Gentleman suggested, that London is a cleaner place as a result of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 .

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has met representatives of the CBI to discuss the Environment Business Forum.

I warmly welcome the Confederation of British Industry's decision to launch the Environment Business Forum. I was pleased to participate in its launch at last November's CBI annual conference. It is in line with the concept of a "Green Club" which I floated in my Shell lecture at the Royal Society of Arts last May.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiatives that he has taken. Will he note that industry is getting its act together environmentally? Banks are increasingly questioning environmental liabilities when making lending assessments, insurance companies are making matters more difficult when assessing insurance risks if the environment is not taken into account and many companies are carrying out green audits. Will my right hon. Friend encourage industry's efforts to ensure that the environment is cleaned up?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I am grateful to John Collins and his advisory committee which presides over examining options for industry and commerce to put to the Government to improve environmental performance. It is having a profound effect on the thinking of British companies.

Does the Secretary of State agree that too many British inventions involving clean technology have been started in Britain but have been developed and manufactured abroad, to the extent that we now have to import eight times more than we export? Who does the Secretary of State blame for that? Does he blame British industry or does he accept the blame on behalf of the Government, who have done neither British industry nor the environment any favours by their failure to implement strict, clear and the best possible environmental standards?

No; the blame lies firmly and squarely with the Labour party, whose high-taxation policy starved the enterprise culture of the opportunity to invest. It nationalised large parts of our industrial economy and denied them the opportunity to compete effectively in the world economy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that British industry is at the forefront of eco-auditing, to the extent that, under British standard 5750, Britain is the first country to introduce a voluntary system of eco-labeling for companies? Will he recommend to British industry the example of Pilkington, which already carries out eco-auditing on a departmental basis not only for environmental reasons but for reasons of efficiency and higher profit?

Pilkington is a first-class company, but the significance of the CBI initiative is that it is opening its club to companies that comprehensively observe environmental standards, which is a considerable step forward. My hon. Friend will know that the Government were at the forefront of pressing the Commission to introduce an European eco-labeling scheme. We were delighted that it was agreed at the last Council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement about homelessness in Leicester.

The primary responsibility for dealing with homelessness in Leicester rests with Leicester city council.

The Minister is aware that hundreds of families in Leicester are homeless. Does he agree that one way in which the council can help to alleviate their hardship, stress and suffering is to spend the money that it has received from the sale of council houses—a total of £10.4 million? Does he accept that that is one way in which the homelessness crisis, created by the Government's callous policy, will be solved?

Maintaining restrictions on the freedom of local authorities to spend capital receipts allows the Government to increase the borrowing power of local authorities whose housing needs are greater. That is why Leicester council has been treated so extraordinarily well in its housing investment programme allocation for 1992–93, which has increased by 8 per cent. to almost £20 million. That is well above the average for the region and is in addition to another £11 million of housing association funds for its area next year and £5 million of estate action money to tackle the worst estates.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of planning applications this year have been accompanied by environmental assessments as required by EC directive 85/337.

The environmental impact assessment directive applies to certain types of projects that are likely to have significant environmental effects. About 200 planning applications a year are subject to environmental assessment. This represents approximately one in 3,000 of all planning applications in the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, by agreeing the directive, the Government are not saying that the European Environment Commissioner can dictate planning decisions but formalising best planning practice, as the directive gives the public full information about the environmental impact of major projects and helps local planning authorities to determine what conditions to put on planning consents?

I accept my hon. Friend's analysis. The Government are serious about their environmental stewardship. We are second to none in the thoroughness with which we consider major projects and have an excellent record on implementing European environmental measures. It would be wrong for anyone to suggest that that was not true.

When I asked the Attorney-General on Monday why the Government were not acting on Sunday trading—because they say that the European Community has not yet said whether Sunday trading is in breach of European law—and why they were not acting to enforce the environmental impact assessment directive, even though the European Commission had said that certain transport schemes were in breach of European law, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred me to the Secretary of State for the Environment. As the Secretary of State has just returned from a meeting with the Commissioner in Brussels, will the bulldozers be called off Twyford down and will the Government obey Brussels's interpretation of the law and ensure that we do not rip up our countryside in breach of a law that we signed?

My right hon. Friend had a friendly and constructive discussion with the Commissioner. The Government believe that these issues can be resolved without recourse to the European Court of Justice and that is our objective. In the meantime, we do not wish to be drawn into a public argument on the matter.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the writ of Mr. Ripa di Meana runs in Italy as well as this country? If not, will he bring to the attention of the honourable gentleman—or whatever he cares to call himself—the principle of subsidiarity and tell him that we are far better able to organise our own environmental affairs than the Greeks, the Italians, the Spaniards, the French and the host of other European nations which he seems to leave alone?

I understand that other countries have been prosecuted by the European Court of Justice more intensively than this country. As I said at the beginning, our record on environmental stewardship is among the best in Europe and I am convinced that it is higher than that of Italy.

Is it not a fact that the purpose of environmental assessments is to protect the standard of living and the quality of life of people affected by planning decisions? Therefore, is not it incumbent on the Government to ensure that environmental assessments are attached to planning applications, or are the Government reneging on the question of the quality of life being attached to planning applications, as they have reneged on so many other subjects?

The hon. Gentleman may know that the matter was discussed at some length during the Committee proceedings on the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. As he may also know, certain planning applications must be accompanied by environmental impact assessments and there is provision in the legislation to extend the categories that are so qualified if we so wish. I believe that at the moment the balance is right. The objective is to inform decision makers about the environmental impact of a planning application if they decide to go ahead. We achieved the right balance by insisting on such assessments where they are relevant but without encumbering the planning system by insisting on them in cases where they are not.

I thank my hon. Friend for that fair and balanced answer. Does he agree that in a country—especially in the south—which is congested and which has a diminishing supply of undeveloped land the environmental impact assessments are very important? Now that the more hysterical newspaper articles attacking the respectable Commissioner, mainly because he was Italian, have subsided, will my hon. Friend confirm that the environmental impact assessments are extremely important to the Government and that the Government are fully committed to implementing them?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I believe that we were doing much of what the Commission wants us to do before the directive came into affect.

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

There has been widespread support for the introduction of the council tax on 1 April 1993, as we propose.

It is difficult to believe the Minister. Is he aware that the Scots will be paying a surcharge on the council tax over and above their English equivalents and that young, first-time buyers in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen will end up paying more council tax than the Secretary of State for the Environment who is one of the wealthiest members of the Cabinet? Why does the Minister ignore the warnings of local council finance departments and professional organisations that the tax is a bureaucratic nightmare riddled with unfairnesses and that, like the poll tax, it is unworkable?

The people of Scotland are paying a surcharge now on the community charge. It was announced today that Strathclyde's community charge is to rise by 35 per cent. because people have not paid. That is because the party that the hon. Gentleman represents urged them not to do so. When the people did not pay and had run up debts that they could ill afford the Scottish National party walked away, leaving them with accumulated debts and the law-abiding citizens to pick up the tab. The Scottish National party was not alone—some Scottish Members of Parliament from the Labour party were also involved, in particular the hon. Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), all of whom advocated non-payment. That is now being added to the bills of law-abiding people in Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity of the introduction of the council tax to reconsider the proposals of the borough of Beverley, supported by 25 to 30 other districts, concerning the unfair nature of the revenue grants system which will underpin the system of local taxation—indeed, it would underpin any system of local taxation? If he is not prepared to consider those proposals, why not?

My hon. Friend always speaks up well for the interests of his constituents and his local authority. I believe that there was a productive meeting with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I continue to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) that it is appropriate that the way in which we distribute grants to districts should reflect the social conditions in each place. Certain services provided by districts—for example, those involving environmental health, the administration of housing benefit and the supply of housing to the homeless—are more expensive to provide in areas of social deprivation, so we must measure differences in social deprivation between one place and another.

Does the Minister now regret his failure to abolish the 20 per cent. contribution rule, and his rejection of our offer to help get rid of the poll tax this year rather than letting it drag on until next year or the year after? Why has he failed to resolve the legal difficulties now confronting local authorities trying to collect what the Prime Minister described as the virtually uncollectable poll tax? Can it really be true that, on top of the £14 billion already down the drain, he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are thinking of throwing yet more taxpayers' money at the poll tax problem? Does he not recall that the last time that this was tried the consumer faced a 2½p hike in VAT? Is that really what is in store for us again?

The hon. Gentleman's last suggestion is a product of the collective imagination of himself and The Guardian—so far as those two can be dissociated from one another; they seem almost synonymous. The Government have made it clear that if we need to legislate to put right the matter of computer evidence in magistrates courts, we shall do so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering that now.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on resisting any suggestion of a return to the rating system, which would penalise the one third of households in this country occupied by single adults? Whenever the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) repeats the figure of £14 billion, will my hon. Friend point out to him that a substantial chunk of that money is for rebates, which—unless we are to hear another revelation from the Labour party—a Labour Government—God forbid—would continue?

The figure of £14 billion, as my hon. Friend does well to remind us, is very silly. First, it cannot be computed—one cannot make the figures add up to that sum. Even if one could, the money has been paid to people to help them pay their community charge; it has gone into local services. If the Labour party is saying that it would contribute less than that to local services, it must stand up and tell us so. My hon. Friend is right that to return to a rating system, as the Labour party wishes to do, and to say that large households full of wage earners should pay the same as a single widow is a disgraceful proposition. Only the Labour party—only a party that had learnt nothing in recent years—could possibly advocate it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require the annual publication of details of chemical emissions into the environment.

As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 20 December, monitoring information about releases to the environment must be placed in public registers as soon as it is received or obtained, which in some cases will be at more frequent intervals than annually. In addition, for 1992 and future years, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be required to publish aggregate totals of releases from the data that it receives in respect of processes subject to integrated pollution control. My Department will issue a consultation paper on this proposal soon.

May I welcome the news that the Minister has just given? On Merseyside, there is considerable concern that following a recent chemical leak, 28 people had to receive hospital attention and treatment. Does the Minister agree that the American model, in which disclosures are forced by law and in which companies—some operating in this country—with plants there have to have far more stringent control means that the populations living in areas in which there are chemical factories are better protected? We should introduce such a model into our legislation.

In this, as in every other area, we are making far more information widely available to the public. Information about chemical emissions is being made available by placing monitoring data in public registers. The public registers can be examined free of charge at all reasonable times, and copies of entries can be obtained on payment of reasonable charges. Dangerous occurrences involving the uncontrolled or accidental release of chemicals must be notified to the Health and Safety Commission. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in reference to the instance to which he referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, gave a detailed reply about the actions taken by the Health and Safety Executive on 20 December 1991.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there need be no concern for the Government about the requirements to publish more detail about chemical emissions? Will he take it from me that in my constituency, where we have two oil refineries, two titanium dioxide manufacturers and, shortly, two electricity generating companies, the amount of emissions by those companies is being reduced all the time? The combined cycle gas power stations which will be built by National Power and PowerGen in my constituency will cut sulphur dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide emissions to the benefit of the environment in the whole country, as well as in my constituency.

I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend. He makes the point very well.

Does the Minister agree that under the American model, there have been substantial reductions—90 per cent. in the case of one chemical company, Monsanto—in emissions, as a result of proposals such as those that Labour will introduce after this year's election? Does he agree that the publication of all the information available in the world is not of much use if a Government like his cannot implement legislation such as that relating to nitrates in drinking water?

Let us get that into context. The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the first case brought against the United Kingdom on an environmental issue in the 20 years in which we have been a member of the Community. Many cases have been brought against other states, including cases against almost all other member states in relation to the drinking water directive. In three of the five counts in the court case, compliance has now been achieved. A fourth count relates to legislation in Northern Ireland and it has not delayed the action being taken there to achieve compliance with the directive's standards. On the fifth count, relating to nitrate levels in some parts of England, the United Kingdom is already doing everything practicable to achieve compliance at the earliest practicable date.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to alter the arrangements governing the payment of European regional development funds to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

It is well known that there are differences between the Government and the European Commission concerning interpretation of the additionality requirement. The issue has been subject to extensive discussion. We shall, of course, make an announcement as soon as our differences with the Commission are resolved.

I hope that that gives cause for encouragement. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in those regions which have been identified as in need of additional financial aid because of their social and economic requirements, there is considerable disappointment and, indeed, frustration about the fact that we cannot take up our full allocations? Is he aware, for example, that in Devon and Cornwall there is a shortfall of £7.5 million? In the Plymouth travel-to-work area we have been able to use only £3 million of the £11 million allocated under the RENAVAL programme because of the reduction in the work load of Devonport dockyard. May I impress upon my right hon. Friend the need for urgency to resolve the problem?

I fully understand the concern and care of my hon. Friend in representing his area. I hear what he says. Perhaps it is the Labour party which should bring pressure to bear upon a former Secretary of State for Scotland who is now denying this country the benefit of these funds.

Since European regional aid is supposed to be for additional public expenditure in the regions, why do the Conservative Government prevent regional aid going to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman must know that very substantial increases in assistance have been provided through one Government programme or another to deal with the sort of issues that the matter covers. The Government have expressed the clear view that that has enabled additional funding to flow because we took into account the potential of the ERDF scheme. Anyone who has the slightest doubt about the force of these arguments should remember the eloquence with which they were expressed by Commissioner Millan when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.

While Bruce Millan plays politics in Brussels, it is left to the British Government to give additional resources to coalfield areas. For example, in my constituency alone in the last financial year we received £0.5 million from British Coal Enterprise Ltd., £3 million in land reclamation grants and almost £1 million from the rural development programme. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those valuable resources will be available in the coming year?

No one has fought harder than my hon. Friend to bring resources to deserving areas. I do not think that we should deny Commissioner Millan the opportunity to play politics in Brussels. Certainly there will be no job for him in government in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received to date about the timing of the abolition of the poll tax.

We have received a number of such representations.

Is not the Minister ashamed to be going into the general election campaign telling electors that they will have to suffer the poll tax for another year or more? Would not it be in the interests of all the people to abolish the poll tax immediately and to reimburse local authorities with additional Government grant as a temporary measure until a much fairer system of local government revenue raising is introduced after Labour wins the general election?

Is not the hon. Gentleman ashamed that he told electors not to pay their community charge bills, and will he now pay the debts of those poor people who listened to his advice before he ran off and left them in the lurch?

Can my hon. Friend confirm that one benefit of the community charge has been the increased accountability to which it has held left-wing councillors? Will he confirm that after the abolition of the community charge, the new council tax will also increase the accountability of left-wing councillors?

I believe that one reason why the community charge was so fiercely fought by the Opposition parties was precisely because it made clear the connection between spending decisions taken locally and the level of tax to be paid locally. Under the council tax as well there will be a direct relationship between what an authority spends and what it has to charge its people. That is an inescapable reality.

Can the Minister confirm that on the issue of taxation the greatest incompetence and the biggest waste of public money are inflicted on the people not by the Opposition but by the party that introduced the poll tax? Will he give an absolute assurance that there will be no last-minute gerrymander to prevent poll tax bills going out before the date of the general election?

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who have both raised this topic this afternoon, seem to be uncommonly rattled that the Government will do something to make our election victory even more certain. As I have said time and again, we have made clear the amounts of money available to local government next year. They are generous amounts and they are what the country can afford. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the waste of resources in local government, he has only to look at the Lambeths, the Haringeys, the Hackneys and the other councils that have become bywords for waste.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further proposals he has to reduce the extent of derelict or disused land in public ownership.

My right hon. Friend is today laying before the House regulations requiring local authorities to maintain and publish registers of their unused and underused land. Other possible measures to reduce the extent of such land in public ownership are also being considered.

1 am sure that everyone—at least all Conservative Members—will welcome the news that registers of derelict and disused land are to be published for the first time. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very sad that nearly 12 years have elapsed since legislation on that issue was first put in place? Is not it about time that further measures deliberately to stimulate the disposal of that land were put to the House?

As my hon. Friend will know, considerable progress has been made in addressing that problem over the past 12 years through derelict land grant, city grant and other measures. None the less, there are about 150,000 acres of vacant land in urban areas, about half of them publicly owned. For that reason, we are looking at what further measures are necessary to make faster progress.

I should start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on being the only Minister who still answer questions in this decrepit old Government. Will he introduce a register, as he is doing in respect of other areas, of Government-owned land and property? I refer, for example, to the 24 houses in Nyland road, Swindon, which have been empty for up to 10 years and the 60 houses that have been empty in RAF Valley, Bryn Trewan estate, which are about to be sold off as a job lot, presumably to depress the housing market while we keep families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. All those properties have been empty and unused, and all are owned by the Government. They are part of the 16 per cent. of the empty housing stock owned by the Government. We have no register, no action, bed-and-breakfast, cardboard city—what a record.

If the hon. Gentleman really wants to do something about empty houses, perhaps he will address his political colleagues in Liverpool, for example, where one in 10 houses are vacant. Perhaps he will talk to his political colleagues in Manchester, Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark. That is where the bulk of the empty houses lie, and that is where he should use his energy to make progress.

When my hon. Friend looks at structure plans, will he take account of empty land that is owned by nationalised industries, local government or any other local authority?

As my hon. Friend will know, it is the purpose of a structure plan to identify appropriate land use for the totality of land in a certain area. We would certainly expect local authorities, be they counties or districts, to identify positive uses for derelict land and to bring it back into use before they come up with proposals to make any encroachment on green-field land or land in the green belt.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made to offer water consumers a choice in how to pay for their water consumption.

The Director General of Water Services is encouraging companies to improve customers' awareness of their right to opt for a meter at their own expense and to deal with difficulties such as the high cost of installation and the unattractive tariffs set by many water companies. The director general's policy on charging for water was set out in "Paying for Water, the way ahead", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that many people, including families in Bradford, are terrified of their water bills as a result of having water meters fixed to their homes? Is he aware also that they are unable to pay their bills and are putting their health and hygiene at risk by unreasonably cutting their use of water? Will he instruct the water companies not to install water meters compulsorily? As a member of a party that proclaims its support for freedom of choice, will he arrange urgently for water consumers to have a real and genuine choice of how they pay for their water in future?

Each company is responsible for deciding on its preferred system of charging, subject to the overriding requirement that it does not give undue preference to or unduly discriminate against any class or group of customers. Metering is one obvious way of charging for water services and is the general method in other countries. It is potentially the fairest charging method as customers have some influence on their own bills.

Does the Minister accept that the public would be more willing to pay by any means for their water supply if the Government would act speedily and effectively on the alarming report published this morning by the National Rivers Authority, which indicates clearly and precisely that agriculture is responsible for the biggest source of serious pollution incidents affecting public water supplies? Will he accept that the Department of the Environment has a special responsibility to protect the general public and the water supply against the huge and mighty pressures from agriculture which are always there?

It is because we recognise those responsibilities, not only in relation to agriculture but generally, that privatisation has enabled the water companies to invest some £5,000 a minute, each and every minute between now and the end of the century, on enhancing water quality in this country.

Does the Minister accept that his response on compulsory imposition of metering is unacceptable to ordinary people? In Bradford many people object to the imposition of metering by Yorkshire Water, an organisation which puts private profit before public service. If the Government are really concerned about genuine choice and the citizens charter and all the other public relations paraphernalia, why do they not give citizens a choice and make it their right to have either metering or a general charge?

Water is a facility for which it is right and proper that there should be a payment. Metering is one obvious way of charging for water services because it is generally the method used in other countries and it is a fair method because consumers are then paying only for the water that they use.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with lending institutions concerning repossessions.

Last month, ministerial colleagues and I had a series of meetings with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss the problem of mortgage arrears and repossessions. These resulted in agreement on the measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House on 19 December. I spoke to Mark Boleat, the Director General of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, earlier today on my return from Brussels, and I expect the lending institutions to be in a position to make announcements within the next two to three weeks.

I readily recognise that the agreement has been of great benefit to many home owners who, through no fault of their own, are in fear of repossession, but will my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely critical that Mr. Boleat, on behalf of the lenders, ensures that housing associations are provided with those funds quickly so that they can be seen to be taking over the houses that could have been repossessed and so completely put at rest the minds of those who still live in some fear?

We all sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). He will have welcomed the assurance of the building societies that they will not act against those people who have borrowed money from them, albeit in arrears, who are making a reasonable contribution or whose contributions are covered by income support.

Was not the half-baked scheme announced before Christmas not only too little and too late but a classic case of passing the buck? Has the Secretary of State not just, in effect, confirmed that not a single agreement has yet been concluded under the scheme by any building society or housing association, so that not a single household has yet benefited in the way that was suggested by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East a moment ago? Is it not now clear that the whole sham was, typically, designed to deal with embarrassing headlines rather than with the real and pressing problems faced by thousands of families threatened with the loss of their homes?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was obviously half asleep on Saturday when the Mortgage Corporation announced the first such scheme. The most important help to give to people in those circumstances flows from the fact that interest rates have been cut by 4½per cent. since October so reducing the typical mortgage by an average of £70 a month. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about people having to pay their mortgages would be appalled by the Labour party's proposal to put tax rates up to 59p in the pound.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of the damage caused by acid rain to mountain streams in upland Britain and to trees across the country.

There is clear evidence suggesting that the 40 per cent. reduction in the United Kingdom's sulphur emissions over the past 20 years is helping to bring about a decrease in acidification in some areas. The latest work on trees shows little evidence of widespread acid rain impact.

What does the Minister think of National Power's proposal to switch Pembroke power station to the use of orimulsion fuel? Does he recognise that that will result in a massive increase in sulphur emissions which will mean that Pembroke will be the single largest sulphur emitter in Britain and, as it is sited on the western coast, it is in line to produce the maximum environmental damage? If that proposal goes ahead, will he insist that it is accompanied by flue gas desulphurisation?

To make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, the commitment that has been given to the House and to the country by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy in terms of meeting the large combustion plant directive, actually stands. The Government's commitment to cut emissions from large combustion plants from 1980 levels to 60 per cent. by the year 2003 and to cut NOx by 30 per cent. by 1998, is a target which will be met.