To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the role played by the Government at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.

I refer the hon. Members to the full statement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The successful outcome of the conference, and the constructive role played by the United Kingdom in securing that outcome have been widely welcomed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many scientists take the view that the United Nations convention on climate change and the United Kingdom and European Community commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 are insufficient to prevent serious global warming? Does the Secretary of State agree with those scientists? If so, will the Government use their presidency of the EC to secure tighter commitments in that area?

I have no doubt that some scientists take the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He is right to identify the considerable scientific uncertainty that exists in that regard. That is why we place great emphasis on the importance of keeping our commitments under review. They will, indeed, be reviewed and if there is greater scientific unanimity either way, or greater technological information that we can take into account, we shall not hesitate to amend and revise them in the light of that review.

I welcomed the announcement made by the Prime Minister before he went to Rio that he would recycle empty bottles from Downing street by taking them to a bottle bank. Doubtless that will make a significant contribution to the energy-saving commitments given by the Government in Rio. But will the Secretary of State reverse his advice to local authorities that he will give no more supplementary credit approvals for kerbside collections so that local authorities can do the same as the Prime Minister and encourage more people to save glass?

If the hon. Gentleman examines the details, he will find that local authorities have adequate resources to fulfil their environmental obligations, and the best local authorities are discharging those obligations very effectively.

The attitude of the United States Administration to the Rio conference is to be regretted, but will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the United Kingdom Government played a part in bringing the United States Administration forward in that respect? In particular, what developments took place at Rio with regard to safeguarding tropical rain forests?

We certainly played a part in reaching a position that enabled the United States to sign the climate change convention. As the United States is responsible for 25 per cent. of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, it was essential that it signed up to that treaty. The United States took a different view about the biodiversity treaty, but it has agreed to take part in the processes under that treaty. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be possible for the United States to sign up to that convention in due course. After very protracted negotiations we were able to reach an agreement on forests—not a convention as we had hoped, but an agreement that holds open the possibility of moving towards a convention. We shall vigorously pursue the possibilities of reviewing the agreement in that way.

I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that Zaire has two thirds of the world's tropical rain forests. How will any arrangements secure the future of those forests, bearing in mind the pressure on that poor country to use its resources to improve its position and that of its people?

I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of the agreement, which sets out in full provisions that will enable progress to be made in Zaire and in other countries and encourage countries to engage in the proper management of their forests, while recognising that it would be foolish to suggest that not a single tree should be cut down and that such countries will not wish to make use of those resources. It is important that we develop a way in which sustainable use can be made of those resources, and that is the objective of the forestry agreement.

Whatever reservations there may be about the Rio summit, may I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on the signing of the two conventions on biodiversity and climate change? In order to keep up the momentum, will he give an assurance that, during Britain's European presidency—which falls to us from 1 July—we will immediately set about negotiation of the protocols to the conventions and take the lead in ensuring that they are both ratified quickly, and will now sign a like-minded countries' declaration on climate change?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can go one better than he suggests. In his statement to the House on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would write to the other countries in the European Community and to the other G7 countries proposing a follow-up to the conventions that were signed at Rio. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government in general will continue to take a lead in these matters.

Will the Secretary of State say clearly what the Prime Minister failed to say on Monday—that the Government will accept the target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 as a clear commitment with no strings attached? Will he acknowledge that if the Government had accepted that target—for which we have been arguing for many years—earlier, more progress could have been made in combating global warming and indeed in strengthening the hand of the British Government in their negotiations?

No. I entirely reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. I do not think that there is any foundation for it at all. When we revised our commitment just a few weeks ago and committed ourselves to bringing down emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, we made it clear that we would do that if other countries took similar action. It is important to appreciate that this is a global problem which requires a global response. It is as important to secure multilateral, rather then unilateral, action in this matter as it was in respect of disarmament, when the stand taken by Her Majesty's Government proved to be effective, in contrast to the stand urged upon us by the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he proposes to introduce to stimulate the provision of affordable housing for local people in rural areas.

We have taken a series of measures since 1988 to boost supply of low-cost housing in rural areas to enable local people to stay in the areas where they have grown up. We have substantially increased public resources, through the Housing Corporation, for new investment by housing associations. In addition, the Housing Corporation and local authority special rural programmes should together provide around 3,400 units this year. New planning guidance permits development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.

I welcome the current initiatives, but does my hon. Friend accept that the continuing lack of affordable housing in a constituency such as mine severely restricts the choice in housing that the Government are seeking to promote? Will he look for new ways of bringing together the public and private sectors, including housing associations, housing trusts, building societies and local councils, to promote joint schemes that can provide local housing for local people at rents and prices that local people can afford?

I recognise the pressures in my hon. Friend's constituency. He brings to the problems his experience as a former Housing Minister in Scotland, where he pioneered a number of innovative housing measures. On the subject of his own constituency, he will know that, last year, we were able to approve two schemes at Sillington lane, Poushot and at Nether street in Bromham and, this year, an additional scheme at East Grafton. My hon. Friend is right. If real progress is to be made, the co-operation of landowners, housing associations, planners and housing committees, as well as the private sector, will be needed. I am determined to make further progress in that direction.

Does the Minister agree that housing provision in rural areas might be improved if absentee landlords such as the Marquess of Lothian and the Earl of Ancram let out some of their huge country mansions to homeless people?

My responsibilities stop at the border. The Scottish dimension of politics continues to fox me, so I shall not enter into any local Scottish debates in the Chamber this afternoon.

Does my hon. Friend recall that just before the last general election the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a sensible guidance circular to authorities which pointed out that where large settlements or village developments were to take place it was essential to take into consideration the wishes of the people in the locality? Can he confirm that under the new regime that will be rigorously applied?

My hon. Friend refers to planning policy guidance note No. 3, which was issued shortly before the election. It indeed states the Government's policy on new settlements and villages. I reaffirm that where a local authority proposes such developments it must take account of local opinion and ensure that any proposal is with the grain rather than against it.

Is not it a matter of some shame that, 13 years after the Government embarked on their absurd housing policy, Government-appointed bodies as well as Conservative local authorities in rural areas condemn them for failing to meet the need for affordable housing? Is not it a fact that in Devizes, the constituency of the hon. Gentleman who asked the question, many Government-owned houses have been lying empty for many years? Why does not the Minister transfer those houses to local authorities and housing associations? Why does he not recognise the Government's failure to deliver affordable properties for rent or purchase, especially in the rural villages of England and around London where there is the problem of the commuter belt? Why does he not use resources, especially from capital receipts from the sale of council houses, which are still unused?

I do not accept the analysis to which we have just listened. There are 2 million more homes than there were in 1979. There are more homes per 1,000 population than in 1979. The Housing Corporation programme is increasing dramatically. Its output this year is some 54,000 homes—about three times the level of two or three years ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the prospects for contracting out the functions of his Department.

Yes. The Department undertook a full examination in 1990 of the prospects for market-testing functions, leading to possible contracting-out. Those prospects have been reviewed by officials, with private-sector assistance, in developing a programme for market-testing in response to the "Competing For Quality" White Paper, and will be continually reassessed.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that it would be a great feather in the cap of the Secretary of State for the Environment if, instead of looking for new premises elsewhere in London or anywhere else, he set about winding up the whole of his Department? That would be a wonderful example to Whitehall. As housing is now well on the way to returning to the private sector, as the new town corporation is already being wound up, water is already in private hands, and as the countryside would be better looked after by the National Trust or the Country Gentlemen's Association, there is little excuse for carting the enormous Department of the Environment all the way down the river to Canary Wharf.

I know that we are having a particularly tough public spending round this year, but I cannot believe that the Treasury is suborning the likes of my hon. Friend to propose the wholesale closure of Departments. So I can only presume that her question was a freelance bid for a couple of lines in the Matthew Parris column.

The Minister must understand that his hon. Friend has a serious point. Agencies have proliferated, work has been shed and ministerial workloads reduced —at what point will Ministers share the experience of redundancy, which is affecting the rest of the country?

The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed that the Department has one Minister fewer than it did before the general election, dealing with the same effective workload.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services.

The Government have recently announced proposals for tendering housing management functions and we are considering the responses to the consultation paper "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services". My only sadness is that I do not have the pleasure of responding to what I suspect was an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to wind me up.

Whereas competitive tendering is bringing its successes, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the non-competitive practices still employed by some Labour-controlled local authorities, who are seeking to preserve themselves in overstaffed departments, rather than getting on with the job of repairing roads, mending schools and cleaning the streets effectively and efficiently, which is what local residents want?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall consult about the fairness of the terms of the local authority tendering process because we are determined that tendering should be properly conducted in the interests of the charge payer and the council tax payer next year. We wish to encourage high-quality services, properly managed, delivered at an economic price and that is the purpose of having a level playing field. As I said originally, we shall also consider extensions where we think that that makes sense.

Does the Minister still hold the view that compulsory competitive tendering guarantees quality of service and, if so, how does he justify it? Will he ensure that all future contracting documents under the compulsory competitive tendering system include a quality of service paragraph? Will that apply to contracts for refuse collection, catering, school cleaning, recreation facilities and so on?

It is good practice to include quality clauses. I am pleased that independent research has not shown any deterioration in quality as a result of competitive tendering—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes, the evidence is there. When properly conducted it could improve quality, because it gives people management control over quality and a right of redress if things go wrong. We want quality services at a sensible price, which is what competitive tendering can deliver.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the amount of additional housing that will be required in (a) Devon and (b) the south-west by the year 2010.

None at the present. We expect to publish, next year, regional planning guidance which will set out the broad scale and distribution of housing provision to be made in development plans in the south-west for a 15-year period.

The Earth summit highlighted the problem of over-population and its effect on the environment, and that problem exists in Devon, where the population has increased more and more, not because of an absence of family planning, but simply because successive structure plans have allowed too much housing there. Will the Minister confirm that, in the new Devon structure plan, which is under review, he will not impose more houses on the area just because his officials want him to do so but will do what the local district councils want? Will he also ensure that, if there are any new housing developments, it is the infrastructure that counts and that too many houses are not built, disregarding—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask his question and not make statements.

Housing provision for Devon from 1989 to 2001 was discussed, as my hon. Friend knows, at an examination in public held earlier this year. I shall carefully consider the report of the panel conducting the examination in public and all representations and objections, including my hon. Friend's, before making a decision on the amount of housing provision for Devon until 2001.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take account of the costs of implementing the recommendations of the Howe inquiry into residential staff in relation to pay, training and development, in the revenue support grant settlement for local authorities in 1993–94.

The cost of those new burdens, which the Government accept local authorities necessarily face, including any costs that may arise from the recommendations of the Howe inquiry, will be taken into account when decisions are taken on the revenue support grant settlement for 1993–94.

I should like to be able to welcome that statement, but, unfortunately, the Minister was unable to say whether those resources will be fully met. Does he agree with me and most other people who are concerned about residential care—whether of children, the mentally disabled or the elderly—that those residents must be looked after with the highest quality of care and that that can be given only by highly motivated and properly trained professionals? Does he not also recognise that it is time that the Government put their money where their mouth is and instead of just talking about community care, gave local councils the cash to provide it?

I note what the hon. Lady says. She is probably aware that such detailed matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I can tell her that the settlement will reflect both the need for local authority spending and, importantly, what council tax payers and the country as a whole can afford.

Will the Under-Secretary tell us why the provisional grant settlement has been deferred from July until the autumn? When will the community as a whole be told how much it will receive in grants and allocations from the Department of Social Security so that it can plan ahead? That information is necessary to make community care a reality and to allow authorities to do the essential job of putting the ground work in place and so ensure that the most vulnerable in society do not suffer because of the row between his Department, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury about how much money should be made available.

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments. He knows that it is in the general interests of local government and central Government that next year services, not least the provision of care in the community to which reference has been made, and the introduction of the new tax should go through as smoothly as possible. The Government are determined that that will be so and that is why we have announced that the decision will be made in the autumn.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce provisions revising the legislation governing the water industry.

The enhanced powers of the Director General of Water Services to monitor performance by water companies and to foster competition, will be brought into effect on 1 July. New powers for the director general to decide various types of dispute between customers and companies will be brought into effect on 1 September.

The Minister's response will be extremely welcome in my constituency of Woodspring and throughout Bristol. Is my hon. Friend aware that the proportion of the water industry's profits that now goes to shareholders is lower than the amount of interest that was returned to the Government when the industry was in public hands? The privatisation of water has been vindicated on the ground not only of environmental stewardship, but of pure economics.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Moreover, as we said in yesterday's debate, the water companies are investing twice as much in the infrastructure as they have made in profits. That is a pretty good record, which is not matched by many other companies in this country.

Does the Minister admit that it is a great pity that the Government did not take the opportunity presented by the recent legislation, which introduces the powers to which he referred, to prevent water companies from introducing compulsory metering? In virtually all cases where meters are installed, those customers, who have no choice about metering, have found that their bills have shot up well above those that are based on the rateable value of customers' houses. If he admits that mistake, we will give him every assistance in passing a quick Bill to prevent compulsory water metering.

The hon. Gentleman misses the point, as did his hon. Friends yesterday. The fact is that the water companies are providing a service to the public that has to be paid for somehow. We have three powerful watchdogs—the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services and the drinking water inspectorate—which act as regulators to the industry. As we have set up those regulators, it is best to let them get on with their job and not, as politicians, try to interfere with their decisions.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave anxiety in the south-west about the water bills that have been sent out by South West Water? Has he any proposals, following the controlled experiment on the Isle of Wight, to recommend or introduce widespread water metering, at least to make certain that high consumers of water pay for the service? The burden should not be transferred to single pensioners living alone who are receiving excessive bills based on water rates.

There has had to be tremendous investment in the infrastructure in the south-west to comply with EC directives and improve the quality of bathing waters around the coast. That has cost a considerable amount, which has had to be paid for by consumers in the area. However, we intend shortly to issue a consultation paper on all aspects of water conservation and how it may be used, distributed and stored. Obviously, water metering will be one of the options canvassed in that consultation paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to reduce the risks of toxic emissions and spillages at Shell and ICI plants at Merseyside.

When part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is fully implemented, all the plant operated by Shell and ICI on Merseyside will have to comply with the requirements of the Act, and this will represent a significant improvement in the regulatory control of all emissions.

The Minister will be aware of the appalling record of both those companies in relation to pollution through spillages and emissions. One of the companies has been fined six times and the other five times. Whatever the Government feel about the regulatory bodies, it appears that they are having no effect on those companies' disregard for pollution in that area. Is the Minister aware that there are many dangerous practices in some of their plants, about which the community is very concerned? As I have requested previously, will he make the reports of the Health and Safety Executive available in the Library so that we can see what its findings were?

There have been some incidents at the Shell and ICI plants at Runcorn, but, in all fairness, the hon. Gentleman should point out the huge size of the plants and the complicated processes that take place there. The new regulatory regime which has come into force in this country, which is operated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—integrated pollution control—is revolutionary. It is the first of its kind in Europe and the HMIP is looking into all aspects of the processes operated on Merseyside. They will all come under integrated pollution control. The hon. Gentleman will see that, in time, it will have considerable benefits for all people on Merseyside.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account the Office of Water Services takes in its regulation activities of the amount of investment by water companies.

As the water industry is engaged in a massive capital investment programme estimated to cost £28 billion, the Director General of Water Services, as the independent regulator, has a close interest in ensuring that the investment is carried out on time and in an efficient way.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Once again, it underlines the sheer volume of that investment, which amounts to some £960 per household in the years up to 1996. Does he not think, however, that as most of that investment is directed at water quality, it would be appropriate for the Director General of Water Services to consider whether more should be directed at water efficiency and, specifically, at encouraging investment in metering on a voluntary basis in many parts of the country?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge investment being made in the water industry at present. As a rough rule of thumb, it is £5,000 for every minute. My prime concern is that water companies should maintain adequate supplies to consumers while properly managing water resources efficiently and not damaging the environment. All of us could do more to conserve water, and that is why I shall shortly issue the consultation paper, which will canvass views on water conservation, management and use. Metering will be one of the options considered.

Will the Minister address the issue of compound interest involved in the formula, RPI plus K, in which over and above inflation there is an increase of up to 6.5 per cent. per annum of compound interest in the charge made? Surely that should be levelled out and, although there may be justification for retaining the RPI element, surely K must be brought to an end.

That is a matter for Ian Byatt, the director general of Ofwat. He has recently issued a consultation paper, and he will consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman when undertaking a review of K in the next few years.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, notwithstanding the enormous investment in water supply, there will be a great shortage of water for the foreseeable future in some parts of the country. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need for a national water grid as, I am told, the national water supply is perfectly adequate for our overall needs?

The water companies have a prime duty to ensure that consumers are supplied with adequate amounts of healthy, wholesome water. In the past few years, those companies have developed river transfer schemes and the elements of a grid. However, I caution my hon. Friend when he suggests that we should have a national grid pumping thousands of millions of gallons of water around the country. We should be wary of doing that on the basis of the huge amount of energy that it would consume. My hon. Friend should not jump to the conclusion that all parts of the country have more than adequate water supplies. One of the rivers that is under threat and is very low is in the lake district; it supplies Lake Ullswater, which supplies Haweswater, which supplies Manchester.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to make additional financial resources available for the provision of affordable housing to rent.

We are taking steps to increase supply of low-cost rented housing where it is needed. The Housing Corporation's capital programme for new development by housing associations will rise to more than £2 billion by 1993–94 from £1 billion for 1990–91. Together with associations' use of private investment on a growing scale, that will increase their output financed through the Housing Corporation to more than 51,000 units a year by 1993–94 from 16,900 units in 1990–91. Deregulation of the private rented sector in 1989 has also led to a welcome increase in private letting.

Does the Minister accept that, despite what he says, there is a major shortage of affordable housing for rent and a number of housing problems? Will he tell his Treasury colleagues that now is the time to allow local authorities to use their capital receipts to build houses to rent, which would help to solve some of the housing problems, help the industry and also help to start the economy?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that if one were to allow local authorities to spend their own capital receipts, that would directly reduce the amount of money that my Department could lend to other authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Otherwise, the net total of public expenditure would increase. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an argument for increasing public expenditure on housing, he can do so. But simply allowing local authorities to spend their own capital receipts would reduce the funds available to local authorities on the basis of need. We can make much better progress with the resources that we have. There are 80,000 empty local authority homes; 100,000 flats over shops that we are progressively bringing back into use; and we have fresh initiatives to bring back into use 600,000 empty properties in the private sector. As the Audit Commission recently said, we can do far more to help to meet people's housing needs by making better use of the available resources.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a matter of financial resources? Many local authorities squirrel away large areas of land and wait for money to become available. They will not put them to auction and will not allow anyone else to build low-cost housing for rent. In addition, some local authorities firmly resist allowing the private sector or housing associations entry into the rented market. What can we do to make them release land?

My hon. Friend is right. If he looks at the Audit Commission report published recently, he will see that one recommendation is, indeed, that local authorities should make land available to housing associations. It is inexcusable that local authorities that own land zoned for residential accommodation should sit on it when housing associations can develop it and give the local authority the necessary nominations.

Will the Minister admit that the Government's rules on the use of capital receipts by local authorities are nonsense? Is he not aware of the thousands of young people who are homeless, many of whom sleep on the streets of our native cities? Is he not aware of the tens of thousands of young people who are living at home with their parents waiting for a home that does not exist? Is the message to them from his Government that the Government have no heart and offer them no hope?

I outlined in my initial reply the increased resources that are being made available to the Housing Corporation precisely to meet the needs that the hon. Gentleman has identified. If the Labour party wants us to return to the old regime of capital receipts, that would severely damage authorities in the inner cities that benefit from the new regime. Under the old regime, the receipts tended to accrue in areas that did not have the greatest housing need. Those areas with greatest need did not have the right-to-buy receipts. The advantage of the new regime is that it recycles those receipts on the basis of need. I should be astounded if the Labour party wanted to overturn that policy.

I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement of increased funding for the Housing Corporation for 1992–93. Will he assure the House that he will take steps so that the north of England receives an equal share of that money and it is not all spent in the south?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. Recently I met a delegation from the regional equity group and we listened to representations. Because of the increased resources available to the Housing Corporation, all regions are benefiting from an increased allocation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the proposed community charge capping of Cheltenham borough council.

Cheltenham has issued a formal challenge to the cap that my right hon. and learned Friend proposed for it on 14 May. It has proposed an alternative cap, set at the level of its original budget.

I urge the Minister to look closely at the document that Cheltenham council produced. Will he explain to the House how charge capping increases local accountability when it takes away from elected councillors the ability to put into practice the programme on which they were elected and denies the people the high-quality, well-managed services for which they voted?

My colleagues and I will certainly think seriously about all the representations made to us by Cheltenham and other authorities before we come to our conclusions. The hon. Gentleman's wider point must be seen against the background of an overwhelming proportion of local authorities that brought in budgets at or below their ceilings. I congratulate them on that. The Government, unlike the Opposition, believe that we have a responsibility to protect charge payers from high-spending authorities and we continue to carry out that responsibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the estate action programme.

The estate action programme now makes a major contribution to tackling the problems of run-down local authority estates. Resources have increased from £268 million last year to £364 million this year, and I shall shortly be inviting local authorities to submit proposals for new schemes to begin in 1993–94.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on a scheme that has contrived to spend £640 million in the seven years since it was first introduced on 700 schemes spread over 140 local authority areas, and of which he could lay claim to be the progenitor? Will he look at the publicity for the scheme to ensure that it is brought to the attention of other newer local authorities that may have lesser problems than those of the recipients of money so far? At the same time. will he look at the criteria by which schemes are judged, so that those authorities may also lay claim to some of the resources that he plans to make available?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is indeed the case that more than 250,000 homes have been improved under estate action, which has helped to transform the lives of people living on some of our most difficult estates. As I said, I shall shortly be inviting local authorities to bid for the schemes for next year, and I will ensure that information about the estate action programme is widely disseminated.

I welcome the continued development of the estate action programme, but since, as the Minister will be aware, a large part of that programme involves tenant participation, how far has his Department's consideration of tenant participation strategy got and when will the report be published? Clearly, one has a bearing on the other.

We have made some investment in organisations such as the tenant participation advisory service. The proposals that we published last week on competitive tendering for housing management gave tenants for the first time the right to manage, rather than relying on the discretion of a local authority. We are determined to harness tenants associations' energy and enthusiasm as we develop our housing policy. We are keen to see more estate management boards, tenant management organisations and co-operatives taking over responsibility for their estates. That is a theme about which we shall hear a lot during the next four or five years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ensure that full weight is given to local opinion in the forthcoming review of the structure of local government.

Yes. That is most important. Local opinion will be crucial in the local government commission's work programme. I have asked the commission to ensure that there are good arrangements for Members of Parliament to be able to make representations to it on those crucial matters.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that a priority of the local government review is to preserve community identity? In the interests of testing real local opinion, does he agree that in rural areas such as Cambridgeshire it would make sense to start at grass roots, at local parish council level, and work upwards, rather than have something imposed from the county council downwards?

It was clear in the legislation passed last Session that the definition of natural communities was an important task of the commission. That is one of the two guiding principles in making recommendations on a new structure. Parish councils should be prepared to have discussions with county and district councils, which will undoubtedly put proposals to the commission to see how the powers under existing legislation can best be used to ensure that strong parish councils wishing to undertake a role in the new structure can do so.

Why does the local government boundary commissioner have to consult the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration when drawing up proposals? Is not that wide open to abuse? For example, Derbyshire is in the first tranche to be investigated under local government, but it is likely to be at the back end when it comes to parliamentary seats. That means that, because of the link between the two, the parliamentary seats will shape the local government provision, rather than the usual practice of local government shaping parliamentary seats.

I do not agree with all the implications behind the hon. Gentleman's question. The purpose of the local government review is to find suitable boundaries and proposals for councils and there can be interaction only if county boundaries are to be changed. All the relevant considerations will be taken into account by the new commission as it goes about its work.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is much local concern about reorganisation and that the principal concern is that there should not simply be a replication of existing councils, with either a small county council or a large, super-district council? Will the Government ensure that the review's function is such that we have an enabling council and that a new civic pride is engendered not only in the ownership of services but in the quality of services?

A sense of belonging and of happiness with the proposals in the local community is important, as I have already said in answer to previous questions. The style and method of operating particular councils will be reviewed by the commission in the light of proposals from the councils in the area and in the light of its thoughts about any other options that should be considered. My hon. Friend will have a full chance to influence the commission, as will other hon. Members, when it reaches their areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the introduction of eco-labels—green labels.

The United Kingdom has strongly supported the development of the European eco-labelling scheme, so I am delighted that the EC regulation is now in place and that arrangements are progressing for launching the scheme towards the end of the year. We shall continue to press the Commission and the other member states to ensure that this timetable is met.

Will the Minister confirm his green credentials by telling us which washing-up liquid he uses? Will he also confirm that some of the other EC states are still dragging their feet in regard to eco-labelling, and that it would have been far better for this country to go ahead on its own?

I shall come clean in a moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the fiscal and industrial consequences for the United Kingdom of decisions reached at the Rio de Janeiro conference.

The impetus for sustainable development resulting from the Earth summit will have significant consequences in many areas of our national life. The Government are committed to reporting regularly on the progress that we make in following up the summit's conclusions.

In the light of that answer, and the attitude of, for example, the United States Government, does the Secretary of State accept that short-term gain might mean long-term ruin—not only for developed countries but, especially, for developing countries?

The hon. Gentleman is right. That lies at the heart of the whole concept of sustainable development, and I welcome his support for the steps that we have taken.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any proposed carbon tax ought to be introduced world wide, rather than imposed on countries such as ours in isolation?

I am sure that my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in such matters, will be much comforted to learn that the European Commission's proposals for a carbon tax include an element of conditionality. His concern is reflected in them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise standard spending assessments to make them a realistic reflection of local needs.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the planned changes to the standard spending assessment calculation for 1993–94.

Standard spending assessments are a realistic reflection of local needs. Discussions with the local authority associations about a few possible changes for 1993–94 began in February. Data from the 1991 census will be incorporated into the assessments as soon as possible, but for most items this will probably be for 1994–95.

The Minister would need the wisdom of Solomon to devise a national system of assessment that fitted all the circumstances even approximately. Does he concede, however, that the SSAs do a particular injustice to such places as Grimsby? First, they make no allowance for unemployment; secondly, they do make allowance for ethnic communities, which do not exist in Grimsby; thirdly, they make allowance for visiting nights, but unfortunately not many tourists come to Grimsby; and, fourthly, the method of assessing debt repayment has been a particular source of grievance. The difference between the Department's calculation and the sum that Grimsby is actually repaying amounts to £30 to £40 per head on the poll tax. Does not all that make a case for a much more realistic SSA?

I am unsurprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments. I pay tribute to him: he asks a good many questions about this subject, and he has asked a good many on this occasion. Let me concentrate on two of them.

The county of Dorset is excellent at keeping within its spending limits, and it is a debt-free county. It is often felt that, when the Government set the SSA, Dorset is treated unfairly simply because it is a good Tory authority. The community care budget in particular will have to be increased considerably in all counties—especially in counties such as Dorset, which contain large numbers of elderly people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the new SSA for Dorset will be generous, and that an early indication is given of when it will apply?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I sympathise with some of his points. He will have heard my earlier answer on community care: the Government will not make an announcement until the autumn. However, to repeat something that I said a few moments ago, standard spending assessments are calculated according to general principles and are applied in the same way to all authorities. One of the reasons why my hon. Friend's local authority will receive a relatively lower SSA is that, by most measurements of need, it does not have the same degree of need as other areas with higher SSAs.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of county hall, London.

Responsibility for the disposal of county hall rests with the London residuary body. It has entered into an agreement with the Japanese company Shirayama for the sale of the riverside building. An alternative proposal has been received from the London School of Economics. It is the intention that a statement should be made on this proposal in the near future, when it has been fully evaluated.

I am part grateful to the Minister for his reply. May I draw his attention to the all-party early-day motion 259, and ask him whether he is prepared to see an all-party delegation in his office before any further consideration is given to the issue? We should be grateful for that. Is it not a great shame that one of the premier, internationally known academic institutions in this country will possibly be denied access to the building, all parts of which it would use—not just the riverside—whereas a cheapjack, Japanese hotel group would use just the riverside front for a luxury hotel? It is a disgrace.

The Government are well aware of the strong views on this subject on both sides of the argument and will take them fully into account when coming to their conclusion.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that county hall is sold for as large a sum as possible, in order to benefit the people in all 32 London boroughs? Will he make certain that it is so well scrambled into private use that never again can it be commandeered as an autocratic socialist regional bureaucracy?

My hon. Friend has made his point very forcefully. He has shown that there are divided views in the House on this important issue.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to deal with the findings of the Audit Commission in its recent report on rented housing.

The Audit Commission's report "Developing Local Authority Housing Strategies" commented helpfully on national housing policy issues and recommended ways in which local authorities could improve their performance. My announcement to the House on 21 May of proposals to place further emphasis on local authorities' efficiency and effectiveness in allocating housing investment resources, having regard to their developing enabling role as well as their role as direct housing providers, will help us to get best value for money from the full range of resources for special housing going into each area, as recommended by the commission.

Is it not true that the Audit Commission report also said that Government policies were totally inadequate to provide a proper supply of rented housing? Is it not also true that the National Federation of Housing Associations has produced a report which admits that some Government initiatives have produced some extra houses, but which also says that, as the Government insist on a very high level of private capital being included in the provisions, people on low incomes cannot afford those houses because rents have been forced up to such a high level by the Government's policy?

The Audit Commission report focuses mainly on local authorities. Its title is "Developing Local Authority Housing Strategies". It lists a range of measures that local authorities should take to make progress, such as letting their properties faster, evicting squatters and other illegal tenants, giving land to housing associations and bringing in other agencies, particularly housing associations, to help to solve local problems. It made estimates of the national need, ranging from 58,000 to 90,000. I am prepared to meet the Audit Commission and talk through some of the implications of its report which are addressed to central Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to help the public housing sector is to stimulate the private rented sector? Although I welcome everything that the Government have done to that end, I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that very often rents in the private sector are far too high. One way to bring them down and to make them more affordable would be to introduce a housing tax allowance of about the same value as mortgage interest tax relief. When I suggested that to a Treasury Minister earlier this week, it was not ruled out of court. Will my hon. Friend join this lobby to try to persuade the Treasury to consider such a tax allowance which, I am sure, would do a great deal to make private rented accommodation more affordable?

I am interested to hear of the exchange between my hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues in the Treasury. As he rightly says, the question of tax allowances falls to the Treasury rather than to my Department, but we are anxious to get the private rented sector back on its feet. Last year, for the first time in many decades, there were more lettings in the private rented sector than leases falling in, so there are signs that the private rented sector has bottomed out. I am prepared to consider what further measures should be introduced to encourage more people to invest in good-quality accommodation for rent.