To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas of environmental policy currently within the responsibility of the Commission of the European Community which it is his policy to seek to return to the responsibility of nation states alone.

As agreed at the Lisbon European Council, the Commission and the Council will be working urgently on the procedures and practical steps necessary to implement the principle of subsidiarity and will report to the next European Council in Edinburgh. We shall he looking closely at environmental policy in the context of this work.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposals that he has just described are causing great dismay among all environmental organisations which, having seen us finally—under the impact of European directives—get rid of the tag of being the dirty man of Europe which the Government gave to us, are now seeing the Government, under the cloak of subsidiarity, planning to celebrate the British presidency of the Commission by trying to reinstate it?

This country is not and never has been the dirty man of Europe. We have frequently and habitually taken the lead in persuading the rest of the Community to adopt high environmental standards and we have at the moment the best record in the Community for implementing European legislation. Subsidiarity does not mean and will not mean any weakening in our resolve to achieve the highest environmental standards.

As article 130R of the Maastricht treaty appears to me, probably wrongly, to cover almost all the activities of my right hon. and learned Friend's Department and to transfer all our independence, will my right hon. and learned Friend assist the House in its educational process by publishing a list in the Library of those functions of his Department which he believes are still its exclusive territory?

I shall give the most careful and earnest attention to my hon. Friend's request. I suspect that he will find an analysis that the effect of the Maastricht agreement is rather less fundamental in the respect than appears to him at first sight.

Who in this country supports the Secretary of State's moves to wreck the EC treaty on drinking and bathing waters? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman under pressure from the newly privatised water companies, which recently donated so much to Conservative party funds? Having always dragged their feet on environmental protection, the Government have created the situation in which people have to look to Europe for the environmental protection that the Government have failed to deliver.

The hon. Lady's capacity for rewriting history is unlimited. Her question is riddled with misapprehensions. The only people who were concerned about subsidiarity and who needed to look to the European Community to protect our environment were those who wanted a Labour Government elected on 9 April. They knew that they could have no hope of improving environmental standards at the hands of a Labour Government. Fortunately, this country was spared that prospect.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some of the worst pollution ever known is to be found in the vicinity of the M3 and Winchester bypass? That issue touches not only on transport, for which my right hon. and learned Friend does not have a mandate, but the pollution caused by delay in finalising that much sought-after motorway. In wresting other parts of environmental policy away from the Commission, could not my right hon. and learned Friend return motorway policy to our national Government?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern and those of his constituents, which he consistently seeks so assiduously to represent. We have complied with every relevant aspect of European law in respect of the M3. It was the subject of numerous public inquiries, which took into account to the fullest extent all environmental issues. I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend's point.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on urban waste management.

The Government will maintain tough controls on those who produce, handle, treat or dispose of waste, to minimise any detrimental impact on local communities.

More than half the non-fossil fuel offset capacity is used for waste incineration, which has been shown to account for at least one quarter of United Kingdom dioxin emissions. Does the Minister agree that dioxin is an extremely dangerous chemical, whose effects on the human body pass down generations? How can he justify the Government subsidising dioxin production in that way, and the proposal to build an incinerator at Bidston between Wallasey and Birkenhead in the same locality as 100 residential streets?

The proposal to build the incinerator to which the hon. Lady refers may be the subject of a planning appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, so I cannot comment on it. Before Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution consents to any emissions into the atmosphere, it will need to satisfy itself that any and all incinerators, wherever they may be, are safe and that emissions are tightly controlled.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—who is not only a decent chap but a well-known Euro-sceptic and also a lawyer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Even worse."]—that under article 130R of the treaty that will bring about European union, European institutions will require competence over protecting human health? In future, therefore, such questions will be better answered in Strasbourg than in the House.

My right hon. and learned Friend made it very clear where the Government stand on subsidiarity when he answered the original question, and I have nothing to add.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on the progress of the city challenge programme in Deptford.

Deptford city challenge is now making good progress. Its recent achievements include the launch of the community safety programme on 13 July, and the schools routeways programme yesterday. We will be reviewing its progress with its action plan towards the end of the year.

I share the Minister's satisfaction with the good start that has been made, especially with regard to training. But does he share the despair that I felt on learning that Siemens Plessey Controls, the flagship private sector partner of Deptford city challenge, has had to issue redundancy notices in respect of two thirds of its staff, including all eight apprentices? What action will he take, along with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—who set up the city challenge scheme—to protect existing manufacturing jobs and training in my constituency?

I am grateful for the kind words about the progress of city challenge with which the hon. Lady began her question. Yesterday, as she knows, I spoke to Dick Liddell, the Siemens Plessey site manager, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has had a meeting with Mr. Beresford of Siemens. He has agreed to help the company to diversify. I also understand that the parent company has agreed to help the subsidiary in Deptford with some of its problems.

In reaching a decision tomorrow about the winners and losers for the next round of city challenge projects, will the Minister take into account the difficulties that have been experienced in the Deptford programme, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock)? Does he acknowledge that the urban programme, which the Government have cut by £121 million since the mid-1980s—they have cut it by £14·5 million this year, and a further £50 million has been cut from specific housing projects—should form the basis of any sensible inner city regeneration policy, rather than city challenge schemes? Such schemes inevitably involve many losers as well as winners and they are taking vital moneys from the urban programme. Will the Minister confirm, at the end of the parliamentary session, that the urban programme will not be cut in the next two years, and will he give a guarantee to that effect as he has guaranteed that city challenge will not be cut next year?

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should speak about city challenge in such terms. The response from local authorities—including those under Labour control—has been most encouraging and my colleagues and I have spent many days over the past month listening to submissions from authorities throughout the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate what proportion of household waste is currently recycled; and if he will make a statement.

We estimate that some 5 per cent. of household waste was recycled in 1990.

Is the Minister confident that the Government's target of 25 per cent. of household waste being recycled by the end of the century is on course? Any progress in that direction is welcome, but does the Minister feel that the Department is doing enough to achieve its target? Will he consider specifically the fact that, although £15 million of supplementary credit approvals are available as hypothecated local expenditure in England and Wales, there is no money north of the border for Scottish local authorities to engage in projects? Some useful joint local authority and private schemes north of the border are failing as a result of the lack of finance.

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's latter point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As for our target generally, yes I am confident that we shall meet it. We have a very good industrial waste recycling record. In the last few years, we have set a target for household waste recycling and we intend to meet it. I am keen on the recycling credits that we have recently introduced. Any group, from the smallest voluntary charity to the largest company, can participate in recycling. All the goods and materials that they prevent from going into landfill will qualify for 50 per cent. of the actual cost of landfill. That literally is cash for trash. I urge people to grab it with enthusiasm.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at least as important as the facilities provided by local authorities is the public attitude towards and awareness of recycling? Will he therefore ensure that there is maximum liaison with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, to ensure that public awareness starts with the very youngest so that this problem can be conquered once and for all?

I am greatly interested in what my hon. Friend says. I congratulate him on his election to the Chairmanship of the Select Committee and I look forward to hearing the advice of his Committee over the next few years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this point. We need to capture public enthusiasm for recycling and let the market take its course. If enough demand is generated to use recycled materials, industry will fill the gap by doing the collection and the recycling. However, recycling has to be led by the consumers. The market will then follow. We must not try to shove and dictate it from the top.

May I encourage the Minister to take up with his opposite number the urgent need for recycling facilities in Northern Ireland?

Yes, I certainly shall. When I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister I visited the Province occasionally. I hope that I shall be able to do so in future. The hon. Gentleman has given me a convenient excuse.

In view of the targets set in the Government's White Paper "This Common Inheritance", does not the Minister feel that the Government should give a higher profile to waste recycling? The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the shortage of capital to get schemes off the ground. What he said is mirrored in every local authority. Does not the Minister believe that the Government should provide local authorities with capital to get these schemes going? When do the Government intend to give waste recycling a higher profile?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware of the facts. The Government have given waste recycling a very high profile. We set ourselves a high target in "This Common Inheritance." We have allocated £15 million in supplementary credit approvals for this year. We have launched the recycling credit scheme. By 1 August, all local authorities will have to produce their recycling plans. That, as well as the initiatives we have taken to heighten the importance of recycling, means that we shall meet our target. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that the only way to bring about recycling is to throw money at local councils. I want to capture the tremendous enthusiasm of ordinary people, and among the business community, for waste recycling.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the total in local authority housing capital receipt funds for England.

It is currently estimated that English local authorities held about £0·8 billion of usable capital receipts at the end of March 1992. In addition, authorities are estimated to hold over £5 billion of capital receipts which have been set aside as provision to meet credit liabilities. Housing receipts are not separately identifiable.

But the Minister is dodging the issue. Does he have any sympathy at all for the tens of thousands of families who do not have their own homes and who are squeezed into the houses of relatives or friends? In my constituency, and in many others, there are examples of young parents sleeping with their babies on the floors of parlours and living rooms—and in garages, in some cases. Even worse, some young women are being advised to get pregnant in order to get a house. When will the Minister release all these billions of pounds of funds and enable local authorities to build council houses?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman listened to the first part of my answer. I made it quite clear that £0·8 billion of usable capital receipts were available at the end of March 1992. Last year, local authorities spent only 67 per cent. of the receipts that they were entitled to use. Before the hon. Gentleman develops his case for the use of further receipts that have been set aside, he should make sure that local authorities already spend the receipts that they are entitled to spend.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who said that the Treasury rules for capital receipts were correct and sensible?

Yes, indeed. I was only disappointed that that sensible statement by the shadow Chancellor was not swiftly endorsed by the rest of the Opposition Front Bench. We look forward with interest to seeing how the Labour party's economic policies develop with a new leader.

Does the Minister remember the promises made by Tory Ministers that when council homes were sold, the money raised would be spent on building new homes? How does he explain that in Bradford 12,000 council homes have been sold, yet not a new council house has been built in the past seven years because of a shortage of cash? Why is he not doing more to release the funds that have been locked up for years to enable people to have the new homes that they desperately need?

Bradford city council has been spending substantial sums of money on modernising and improving its existing stock. The new provision needed by people in Bradford is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, provided by housing associations, the budget for which is increasing substantially from £1 billion two years ago to £2 billion in two years' time. It is sensible to ask local authorties to concentrate their energy and money on improving their stock and to look to the housing associations, which make the nominations to the local authorities, to provide the new social housing that the country needs.

Is it not the case that the sale of council houses and the receipts that come from them are still providing valuable housing stock? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no restriction upon local authorities to try to rescind some of their outstanding debts by the use of their capital receipts?

That is a valid point. The total debt of local authorities is £44 billion a year. Servicing that debt costs each adult in this country £140 a year. There are strong arguments for reducing that debt and the burden on ratepayers.

Given that the £6 billion in capital receipts already exists—it does not have to be raised through taxation or borrowing—that there are many local authorities such as mine in Barking and Dagenham that are desperate to spend their money on meeting an urgent housing need and that there is no one in the housing world or construction industry who would not dearly like to see the money released to provide a stimulus to the industry, what common sense explanation can the Minister offer for the Government's policy? Will he use language that will be understood by the homeless in my constituency and elsewhere?

For a start, there is the comon sense of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The hon. Gentleman must understand that the same money cannot be spent twice. When a local authority uses its receipts to redeem debt and reduce its borrowing, it enables my Department to increase the borrowing of another local authority that does not have those receipts. The same money cannot be spent twice without pushing up taxes or interest rates.

Does the Minister agree that it is rather sad that councils such as Colchester and Tendring in my constituency do not do more to help themselves by transferring their housing to housing associations and releasing the capital to repay their debt so that they can invest more in housing?

My hon. Friend is right. He will have read in the manifesto that we remain committed to large-scale voluntary transfer. That is an option which many local authorities have endorsed, hut, sadly, so far no Labour authorities. It offers benefits to tenants when they transfer. It offers benefits to the local authority in terms of debt redemption and it enables the new housing association that is set up to make faster progress because the local authority can plough back part of the receipts from the sales. It is an important part of Conservative housing policy which I wish to see developed over the next few years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his priorities for the EC presidency.

As president of the Environment Council, I intend to pursue three main themes—prompt and energetic follow-up to the Rio Earth summit, the integration of environmental considerations into all areas of Community policy, and proper implementation and enforcement of European environmental legislation throughout the Community. I shall pursue the application of the principle of subsidiarity to Community action. I shall continue to press for the early establishment of the European environment agency, but part of our strategy in Europe is to give a strong lead through domestic action.

As a first step, will the new and long overdue integrated environmental agency give a cast-iron guarantee, as other EC member states have, that our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be cut to the 1990 level by the year 2000, even if the American Government do not agree to do so?

The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. He needs to take into account the recent communique agreed at Munich by the Group of Seven countries, inviting other countries to join them in ratifying the climate change convention by the end of 1993. That convention was agreed at Rio, very significantly as a result of the efforts of the United Kingdom, so we can fairly claim to be in the lead on this matter.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity of his presidency to ensure that European directives on the environment are equally implemented and enforced throughout the Community to prevent what sometimes happens at the moment, whereby one or two of our partners make grand promises about what they will do but fail to live up to them in practice?

I shall indeed. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The one definition of subsidiarity to which I do not subscribe is the one which suggests that individual member states should be entitled to pick and choose whether to implement and enforce legislation which has been agreed at Community level. Where legislation has been agreed, it should be applied consistently across the Community.

The Secretary of State said that two of his priorities are to follow up the Rio summit and to secure the implementation and enforcement of European Community environmental legislation, with the inspectorate and the new agency, which we welcome. Does he accept that, as Rio made abundantly clear, environmentalism and nationalism do not go well together? The logic of what he said, with which the House will agree, is that during its presidency the United Kingdom should ensure not only that other countries comply with environmental legislation but that we do so ourselves and do not, as we did on the first day of this month, put off a court case before the European Court to save embarrassment about our failure to comply with the laws with which we say that we agree?

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the application to postpone the hearing was a joint application by the United Kingdom and the Commission. As he is so interested in enforcement—I welcome his interest—I would have expected him to give the Government some credit for being the only Government in the Community—with the exception of Portugal, to which most of the legislation does not apply—against which the court has not passed an adverse environmental judgment.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's domestic initiative, but will he turn his attention to another domestic issue—the correspondence between his Department and the Bletchley Park Trust? Would not that site, which is of enormous historic importance and is under threat, be a worthwhile monument to the British presidency of the European Community, and will he at least give an undertaking that he will ensure that there will be no demolition of an area which is of considerable significance to everyone who served this country and those who gave their lives in the second world war?

I am sure that all relevant aspects of that site will be taken into account and given full and proper weight in the relevant decision-making process.

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the creation of an environmental protection agency, which has been long awaited and long supported by my party but which the Government explicitly rejected when we raised it during the passage of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We are very pleased and hope to get the legislation through in the current Session, but will the Minister state categorically that, irrespective of an American commitment to meet the Rio declaration, we will stabilise our carbon dioxide emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for my announcement about the agency. I expect the announcement to be widely welcomed. As for the climate change convention which was agreed at Rio, the United States has declared that it intends to take early action to discharge its obligation under that convention and that it will call a meeting later this year to discuss the matter. Of course we attach great importance to the early ratification of the convention and we shall seek to encourage others to join us in ratifying it at an early date. We shall discharge our obligations under the treaty to the full.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much local councils spend on average for each person in the country.

In each area, local councils are planning to spend on average £2,000 per adult this year in England.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that local government spending is now running at £43 billion per year, which gives the Government a legitimate and vital interest in controlling that expenditure? Is he aware that every citizen of Ealing has a debt of £2,000 around his or her neck left by the last Labour council, which increased rates by 65 per cent. in 1987 and trebled them in three years? Is not that typical of the Labour party in control of local government, and is it not awful?

My hon. Friend makes some powerful points. He is right to say that Labour councils often overspend and over-borrow and leave people up to their necks in debt. Around the country there is an average of more than £1,000 of debt for every adult as a result of borrowing plans, often by Labour authorities. My hon. Friend is right that revenue expenditure is now running at high levels. If one adds capital expenditure, the figure is even bigger, as I said in answer to the main question. Contrary to the opinion expressed by the Opposition, it also shows that there is a great deal of choice and discretion for local authorities in deciding how to spend those huge sums in the interests of local taxpayers.

Is the Minister aware that his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was almost contemptibly arrogant and irresponsible? Does he not accept that the overwhelming proportion of local government spending is in pursuit of the statutory obligations and duties placed on local authorities, and that only a very small proportion of local government spending is left to the liberty of the individual council? Would it not be more responsible for Ministers to persuade their hon. Friends that it is unreasonable to try to suggest that all local government spending is profligate?

My hon. Friend was not suggesting that. There are many fine Conservative-controlled councils spending well and wisely on good services for their local communities, but there are still profligate local authorities, sponsored by the Labour party and, yes, it is necessary for someone to stand up for the taxpayers in those areas. My reply was far from arrogant. I believe in local government and I want it to have choice and discretion, which is why we vote so much money for it to exercise that discretion.

Does my hon. Friend recall that during the changeover period from the rating system to the community charge, many local authorities used the time to increase expenditure faster than the rate of inflation? In the change from the community charge system to the new council tax system, will my hon. Friend use his capping powers combined with an RPI minus X formula to protect ratepayers and charge payers from the kind of chicanery that they endured three years ago?

Fortunately my right hon. and learned Friend has more extensive powers, and I am afraid that we shall have to use them if councils are irresponsible. However, I am hopeful that many councils will not be irresponsible next year and I am glad that there are more Tory councils as a result of recent local elections. That means that we shall have more sensible councils spending at prudent levels and providing their chargepayers and council taxpayers with very good value for money. It is interesting to note that most Tory authorities spend below the permitted levels and come in with much lower taxes than do Labour councils.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made by UK Nirex Ltd. in establishing a storage or disposal route for radioactive waste since 1982.

After widespread public consultations, Nirex is concentrating its investigations on an area adjacent to the British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield. The company is carrying out detailed geological investigations and is refining its design concept for the facility. I understand that Nirex expects to submit an application for planning permission before the end of 1993.

As Nirex has ignored public protests and, in my opinion, has disregarded technical difficulties in its search for a site on which to dump its nuclear waste, would not it be wise for the Government to consider postponing the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, which has no way of dealing with the waste that is created?

No, that raises entirely different issues. All the questions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will, of course, be considered with great care at any planning inquiry following the planning application that Nirex is expected to submit.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about compliance with the EC bathing water directive.

Compliance has improved from 51 per cent. in 1986 to 76 per cent. last year. A £2 billion programme of improvements is under way to bring virtually all identified bathing waters up to standard by 1995.

With respect, is not the Minister being rather complacent? Can he confirm that the Government pressured the European Commission into postponing the hearing about British beaches, which would have coincided with the commencement of the British presidency of the Commission? Was not that simply because the Government wished to avoid the embarrassment of occupying the Commision presidency while avoiding the Commission's directives on bathing waters?

It is the hon. Gentleman who is avoiding the point. However, he cannot avoid the fact that we have a £2,000 million investment programme which will bring most of our beaches up to standard by 1995. The Commission has accepted that it would not be possible to accelerate that enormous programme further. The Opposition must make up their minds what they want. Do they wish to compain about the speed with which the progamme is being implemented or about the size of water bills? We are paying through our water bills, but most people want their beaches to be cleaned up—and rightly so.

Does my hon. Friend accept that while that programme is not just desirable but essential, it is putting impossible burdens on the consumers of some water companies, particularly those of South West Water? Is he aware that, with colleagues from Cornwall and Devon, I had meetings today with the chairman and officers of South West Water, who are very concerned indeed about the financial impact of this capital programme and even more worried about what other measures will be imposed on water companies, not least by the National Rivers Authority, adding to the burden on hard-pressed consumers?

I have considerable sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend makes. In his latter question, he pointed up the trap into which some Opposition Members fall—the trap of automatically calling for ever tougher standards which might not be necessary in every circumstance. We have a huge investment programme, which in the case of the south-west has resulted in some large increases in water bills. However, the south-west is not unique; there are other parts of the country with particular problems, such as those associated with getting rid of nitrates in water and the £4,000 million programme to clean up the Mersey basin. I know that the Director-General of Water Services, Ian Byatt, will be looking at the K factor in his next review. Only through that mechanism may he be able to assist the south-west.

If the Government are so proud of their record, why—having been in power for 13 years—are they in breach of the directives so often? Is the Minister aware of suggestions being made in Brussels that the environment directorate, DG11, should be restructured and perhaps denied the opportunity to take legal action against member states? Will the Minister say clearly whether he supports continuation of the powers of DG11 to take legal action against member states when such action is in the interests of environmental protection throughout Europe?

I will not take lessons from the hon. Lady as her party slashed expenditure on our water industry when it was last in power and seems to gloat at every opportunity when Britain is subject to legal proceedings. Labour Members automatically make the assumption that Britain must be wrong. It is about time they stood up for Britain on occasions.

As our private water companies have access to private capital, we shall comply with the directive, but what evidence does my hon. Friend have that our EC partners are making any real efforts to comply?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. That is why we have continually stressed that it is vital that enforcement of whatever EC directives are agreed is carried out at European level. One of our priorities in our presidency will be to insist that enforcement is even throughout the EC. We shall seek to introduce measures to that effect. We should like to see an inspectorate of inspectorates to carry out that task. Certainly, we do not want any diminution of enforcement or repatriation of enforcement to national authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has available about damage to sites of special scientific interest.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has available about damage to sites of special scientific interest.

The latest available information on damage to SSSIs is contained in the final report of the former Nature Conservancy Council, a copy of which is in the Library. In the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991, of the 3,536 SSSIs in England notified under the 1981 Act, 149 suffered some damage, and of that number 22 suffered damage from which the site could not recover in the short term.

Despite what the Minister has just said, damage appears to be continuing at an alarming rate on sites of special scientific interest. That is borne out in a recent report by Wildlife Link. When will the Minister and the Government cut out the political rhetoric and gesturing and do something positive to protect SSSIs, such as making resources available so that local authorities can revoke planning permission and put a stop to peat extraction on SSSIs?

We have a rich tapestry of protection for the countryside. The SSSI system is designed to identify land of scientific interest and provide a means of protecting such sites. Where we have seen any weakness in that protection, we have taken measures to strengthen it by legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1991 and also by the removal of permitted development rights in respect of temporary uses of land. Later this year we shall produce planning policy guidance notes on nature conservation. All those measures are intended to enhance the SSSI protection system.

Is the Minister aware of a site in my constituency called Ensors pool which is in great danger of being filled and used as a receptor for waste? Will he make a decision? Will he take note of what English Nature says in calling for the site to be classified as an SSSI? Will he ensure that the site is fully protected so that residents in my constituency can enjoy that part of the countryside which should be rightfully theirs? Will the Minister make a statement on that?

The notification of a site as an SSSI signals to the planning authorities the wildlife importance of the site. That is a material factor to be taken into account when considering any planning application that might affect the site. I am sure that that is what will happen with the site to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not be too inflexible about the use of SSSIs? Having alerted the Secretary of State to the problems of an area within an SSSI, it is more sensible to ensure that if a new road scheme or development is to affect a site, the flora and fauna from it will be protected in a different area. In south Dorset most SSSIs are on the sites of abandoned quarries.

The SSSI system is there to identify and protect land of scientific interest and was set up by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is a framework which works extremely well. Of course we keep the system continuously under review. Owners and occupiers of land must be consulted prior to the designation of any SSSI and that provides a good balance.

Will my hon. Friend consider carefully Brampton wood, which is in the constituency of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister but is also enjoyed by my constituents? It contains sites of special scientific interest and is being sold by the Ministry of Defence. Will my hon. Friend have discussions with Ministers in that Department to ensure that the amenities of my constituents and those of the Prime Minister are duly protected?

My hon. Friend can be assured that any SSSI, in whichever constituency it lies, will be given proper protection.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost to date of introducing, administering and collecting the poll tax, including the cost of Government-initiated relief schemes, broken down by year.

The cost of preparing for the community charge was about £270 million. The cost of administering and collecting the community charge each year has been about £500 million, or between £12 and £15 per charge payer. Relief schemes do not add to overall public expenditure. However, they have ensured that the burden of local taxation has been reduced to 15 per cent. of local government spending.

Will the Minister tell us the whole truth and admit that the Government had squandered more than £14 billion on the poll tax before eventually being forced to admit that it was all a terrible mistake? Does the Minister realise that if local government representatives were guilty of such irresponsible waste of public money they would undoubtedly be surcharged and banned from office for many years? Why not surcharge and ban from office all those Ministers who were responsible for the poll tax?

The hon. Member makes a bogus and entirely false point. He has become something of a phaneromaniac when it comes to the poll tax. You will know, Madam Speaker, that that is someone who has a compulsion to keep picking at something and returning to it. If one leaves it alone, it sometimes gets better—and something better is coming in: it is called the council tax. Above all, the hon. Gentleman is not best placed to ask questions about the costs of administering the poll tax, given his early appearance as a poll tax rebel, which would have encouraged thousands of others to push up the cost of collecting that tax.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of my constituents and many people in this country are thankful to the Government for introducing the relief schemes that have helped to reduce poll tax bills? Were not those relief schemes introduced as a direct response to the incompetence and profligacy of Labour councils throughout the nation?

My hon. Friend is entirely right on both points.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the levels of reduction of carbon dioxide emissions he expects to achieve under current policies.

I refer the hon. Member to the copy of the "Report on UK National Programme for Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions", placed in the Library on 15 May, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves).

On two separate occasions this afternoon, the Government have been given the opportunity to answer this question clearly, but each time they have refused to do so. Will the Government stabilise emissions by the year 2000, regardless of what other countries do—yes or no?

We have made our position clear. We made it clear at Rio, we made it clear in the European Community, and only last week we made it clear in the Munich communiqué. I have nothing to add to that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance is available to local authorities to tackle housing needs in rural areas.

We have taken a series of measures since 1988 to boost the supply of low-cost housing in rural areas through local authorities and housing associations. The Housing Corporation has a clear target for new social housing in villages through its special rural programme under which £80 million has been allocated to rural local authorities for 1991–92 and 1992–93 to produce new low-cost homes. New planning guidance permits the development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.

Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of my local authority, which is not a whingeing socialist local authority always complaining that it has no money for its housing needs? My local authority is working in close association with four housing associations to meet housing needs in our rural area. It has won bids for £4 million in grants for rural housing over three years. Much of that money has been paid to the housing associations because of their past effectiveness and not just because of needs. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that money will be given to local authorities and to housing associations in future because of their past performance and not simply because of needs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad to say that numerous housing associations are active in the Ribble valley. They are doing extremely good work in partnership with the local authority which is delivering well in its enabling role. I am glad to say that almost £2 million is being invested in new rural housing in the Ribble valley this year. That is very good news.

I was especially glad to hear the last part of the Minister's original reply, which referred to planning guidelines. Does the Minister agree that it is important to ensure that housing becomes available in rural areas for local people, and that for that reason it is essential that the cost be kept down? Does he agree that the best way to keep the cost down is to increase the supply significantly?

I entirely agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. That is why we have clear planning policy guidance and why local authorities now have to bring forward development plans in which they have to identify clearly land for housing provision for the coming years.

I fully support what my hon. Friend has said, but does he accept that the wealthier a rural area is, the greater are the problems among the lower paid in the area? Does he accept that there is a need for greater resources to be devoted to areas such as that covered by Macclesfield borough council to take account of the fact that many people in rural areas, especially young people, can no longer afford to live there?

I am always glad to have my hon. Friend's support. We have taken forward initiatives because we acknowledge that there are particular problems in rural areas. It is because we recognise that there are challenges that the Housing Corporation has a special rural programme and there is the potential for special capital allocations to rural local authorities for the reasons that my hon. Friend has outlined.

When will the Government take seriously the voices of their Conservative local authorities, of the rural housing associations and, increasingly, of their own Back-Bench Members, such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is not a whinger as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) would have us believe? When will the Government listen to those voices and recognise that they are saying that the villages of Britain are dying on their feet because of a lack of affordable housing? As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, the problem is especially serious for young people whose roots are in villages and country towns, but whose futures are in a housing queue which gets constantly longer.

This year we are investing £2 billion through the Housing Corporation for new, affordable social housing. We are committed to do that in the coming three years. A proportion of that money will go to rural areas. In addition, rural areas will have access to their own housing investment money. The Government are determined to ensure that every family has a decent home in which to live, whether in the town or in the countryside.

In the context of housing needs and preserving village life, will my hon. Friend assure the House that every effort will be made to prevent the illegal encroachment of traveller families in our villages?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to reviewing the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and I hope that we shall be able to bring forward that review in the not-too-distant future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish estimates of the need for social housing in England.

We publish projections of future household numbers based on demographic trends. It is not practical to sub-divide that and make a single estimate of the need for social housing because of the subjective judgment involved in assessing who should have access to social housing and the volatility of some of the factors influencing any assessment, such as house prices, incomes and interest rates.

Will the Minister reconsider his answer? Will he recognise that the Audit Commission not only made it perfectly clear in its recent report that it was possible and appropriate to carry out and publish such estimates, but its first recommendation said that the Government should publish estimates of housing needs. When will the Government take housing needs in this country seriously?

I have in front of me some relevant paragraphs from the Audit Commission, which support what I have just said:

"Definitions of need are value judgments … The point on the spectrum at which the definition of need is drawn is a matter of judgment and is partly conditioned by available resources".