To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his plans for future initiatives on urban policy.

We will continue to support the regeneration of our cities through encouraging private investment and using public resources effectively. That is why I announced today my proposals for promoting growth along the east Thames corridor, which will be of great benefit to Lewisham and south-east London.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. It will go down very thinly in Lewisham because of the damage caused by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement in November. Does he recall that it was his Department which asked the London borough of Lewisham to prepare bids for the urban programme last year, that that was done at a cost of many tens of thousands of pounds and that his November statement rendered the exercise completely worthless? Despite his assurance that the money would not be wasted because the borough could apply for urban partnership, not one penny piece has come to Lewisham, with the net result that 1,500 jobs and training places have been lost. Are not his assurances about the urban programme completely worthless, in accordance with the Government's statement on taxation, and does not he continue to do immense damage to the prospects of the people of Lewisham and urban areas generally across the country?

Urban partnership, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is a competitive programme and Lewisham was not successful in that competition. However, it was successful in the competition for city challenge, which is a far bigger programme and from which the borough of Lewisham is receiving £37·5 million over five years. That is attracting larger sums of private sector investment. It is absolutely disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to ask a question about resources in Lewisham without mentioning city challenge. We are accustomed to Opposition Members selling the country short. The hon. Gentleman is selling his own borough short.

May I encourage the Government to retain the city challenge programme? Even if the precise expenditure under the programme in future years cannot at this stage be determined, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government intend to build on the achievements of city challenge in mobilising the varied resources of inner-city communities in a new and constructive spirit of partnership?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. City challenge has revolutionised the approach to partnership between central Government and local authorities by escaping from the dead hand of routine and encouraging authorities to examine from scratch the way in which resources can be most effectively deployed. I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's remarks into account in considering how we are to take the programme further.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a gross discourtesy to the House and to hon. Members who represent Kent, Essex and east London constituencies that he has not made a full statement to the House about the east Thames corridor instead of announcing it at a press conference this morning? Will he also note that while the east Thames corridor documents trail an expansion of housebuilding in the east which, of course, is welcome, the problem is not a shortage of planning permission for housing development in east London, but a shortage of customers and the inability of local authorities to once more build homes for families?

I certainly do not accept that there was any discourtesy. It is not customary to make oral statements to the House on planning guidance of that kind. I took steps to ensure that hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, knew in advance that the documents would be available in the Library this morning at precisely the same time as I gave my press conference, because I was anxious for hon. Members to be fully informed. The hon. Gentleman spoke about customers for houses. We know that the Labour party does not look any further than its nose, but the purpose of the guidance that I issued this morning was to plan for the future and for recovery. That is exactly what we shall do.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his announcement today of the task force to examine developments in the Thames corridor, which will be most welcome to my constituents. Housing developments throughout my constituency have restarted, so, when I cast my eyes around, I see that there is obviously regrowth and regeneration in the economy. We have many thriving industries in the docks, in Shell and at Ford Dagenham which are only seeking the opportunity for redevelopment. That will come with the kind of interest that my right hon. and learned Friend is taking in our part of the world.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's acute powers of observation, for which she is renowned. Using those acute powers, my hon. Friend has seen evidence of recovery all around her and her constituents. Those signs will become increasingly apparent over the weeks and months ahead.

Why does not the Secretary of State have the courage to admit that if his future initiatives, including that which he announced today, are anything like his past urban policy initiative they will be a complete disaster? Have not the Government learnt the lessons of docklands? Given the Government's humiliating defeat in the vote on the Committee of the Regions, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bow to democracy and give the House an assurance that people in the east London corridor and in inner-city areas will be properly represented on any bodies, structures or organisations which the right hon. and learned Gentleman creates through their democratically elected local councillors, not through the Secretary of State's stooges and puppets?

If the hon. Gentleman had taken trouble to study the announcement that I made this morning, he would know that the whole purpose of the task force that I have established in the east Thames corridor is to work together with the area's 16 local authorities, to help them to co-ordinate their efforts and to put in place the framework necessary to make sure, for the benefit of the people in the area, that we take the greatest advantage of the opportunities that the area has to offer. I am confident that, in time, we shall all benefit from the results of that exercise.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses will be provided in Hampshire as a result of the measures announced in the autumn statement.

Housing associations will purchase some 18,000 additional homes in England using the £577 million allocated for that purpose in the autumn statement. That is a very great achievement, exceeding by 2,000 the target of 16,000 homes set in November. I congratulate heartily the Housing Corporation and the 80 associations involved. Purchases have been widely spread across the country, with acquisitions in some 97 per cent. of local authority areas. More than 800 of those new homes will be in Hampshire. We hope that grants to local authority and housing association tenants will enable some 3,500 to become owner-occupiers, freeing their current homes for those in need. Latest estimates suggest that more than 200 may be in Hampshire. Overall, well over 20,000 families in England will benefit from permanent new homes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Swaythling housing association believes that his measures will house 2,500 people in Hampshire this year? In my constituency, the number of people in temporary accommodation has halved in the past three months as a direct result of my hon. Friend's measures. In addition, extra Government aid has enabled my council to increase by one fifth the money spent on housing development, and proposed rent rises have been halved as a result of Government aid. Is not that proof positive that, despite the Opposition's claims, the Government are implementing practical measures to help the homeless and those in council accommodation?

The House will take heart from the encouraging news from my hon. Friend's constituency, which is replicated throughout the country. The number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen 38 per cent. over the past 12 months and that is a substantial achievement. In Hampshire, the Housing Corporation has approved allocations for projects next year totalling almost £29 million. We are determined to maintain the momentum and to continue to make progress on all housing fronts.

Does the Minister accept that short-term measures, however welcome—and I welcome every additional home for rent—will not tackle the fundamental housing problem? Does he accept that the Government were responsible for a fall in the number of new homes to rent in Hampshire from 1,000 in 1988 to 462 in 1991? In the most recent year, well over 3,000 households in Hampshire became homeless. Existing measures must be expanded and sustained at a much higher level if homelessness is to be eradicated. What assurances can the Minister give the House that the type of measures taken will not be a flash in the pan, but will be expanded and sustained in future years?

On the question of expansion, the output of housing associations is forecast to rise from 27,000 units in 1991–92 to more than 65,000 this year. That is a substantial improvement. As for homelessness, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that, over the past 12 months, the number of people accepted as homeless by local authorities has fallen by 2 per cent. It is the first time in 17 years that we have seen a reduction in homeless acceptances.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the measures that his Department announced today about Hampshire's structure plans should be viewed along with the measures announced in the autumn statement, as they will have an equally significant effect on housing in Hampshire? Will he note that there is great relief in Hampshire following the news that no new settlement is to be imposed as a means of creating additional housing in the county and will he accept the thanks of the county council?

I can confirm that the announcement made today by my right hon. and learned Friend, announcing regional guidance for Hampshire, makes it clear that a new settlement will not be required during the plan period to 2001. I note that that news has been accepted with relief by my hon. Friend's constituents.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the Government's proposed reduction in housing association grant rates to 55 per cent.—announced in the autumn statement and since—rents are set to rise to more than 39 per cent. of tenants' incomes? Is he aware that the number of housing association tenants on housing benefit will rise to 89 per cent. by 1996? According to UBS Phillips and Drew, pensioners in Hampshire, Shropshire and Hereford will find that they have to spend 61 per cent. of their incomes on rent. Will not that totally undermine any common-sense understanding of the Government's declared intention of providing affordable housing through the housing associations—or will the Minister reassure us that those huge rent increases will be met by massive housing benefit increases?

I reject the alarmist propaganda that the hon. Gentleman has just revealed to the House. He knows perfectly well that no decisions on grant rates for 1994–95 have been made; when they are made, we shall bear in mind the important question of affordability.

How many more homes might have been provided in Hampshire if the Budget had done more to assist the private rented sector? If my constituency is anything to go by, there are about 10,000 empty dwellings in the county. I acknowledge the importance of building new houses, both for owner-occupation and to rent, but is not it equally important to make use of the private rented sector when so many dwellings are empty?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those 10,000 empty units represent a resource which must be returned to use. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are examining proposals to revive the private rented sector further and to restore incentives for property owners to make their accommodation available for rent, so that we can make more progress in tackling the housing problems in my hon. Friend's constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 January, Official Report, column 1029, what further developments have taken place in respect of management of water quality in Bassenthwaite.

I understand that the hon. Member had a useful meeting and follow-up with the National Rivers Authority. The NRA's study of water quality in Bassenthwaite is continuing and will enable the authority to establish whether improvements are required.

I also had a useful and helpful meeting with North West Water. May I have an assurance that no administrative, procedural or bureaucratic obstacles will delay whatever proposals North West Water presents with a view to sorting out the problems in Bassenthwaite?

I, too, would deplore any unnecessary administrative or bureaucratic delays. The best way to avoid any bureaucratic delays in the future is to have this conclusive study conducted by the NRA, with which no one can disagree. If, following that study, the NRA should request North West Water to take remedial action, I would not anticipate any bureaucratic delays.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to allow local authorities to determine their own spending levels.

It is for each local authority to set its own budget, taking account of all appropriate considerations, including any provisional criteria for capping which have been announced.

That is a particularly disappointing reply, even from this Secretary of State. Is he aware that, because of the severe capping regime being forced on local government, about 35,000 jobs have been lost in local councils in just the past few weeks and that, as a result, there have been deep and damaging cuts in vital local services? Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is to be the renaissance of local government promised a few weeks ago by the Prime Minister, it must entail giving local people the freedom to determine the level of local services, instead of the present interference from Whitehall?

I certainly do not accept that there have been the job losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He is referring to the estimates which we always hear at this time of year and which are rarely translated into practice. What clearly emerges from his question is that he and his hon. Friends are prepared to remove all constraints from local authority spending and to see it go through the roof. That is a message which we shall take to every home in the shire districts of England in the forthcoming county council election campaign.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that councils that set budgets that are indifferent to the plight of those who have to pay the council tax towards those budgets are not providing good leadership for their areas? Is not it the brutal truth that the vast majority of the local authorities that come up against the capping criteria are Labour or Labour and Liberal authorities, which are indifferent to the people who live in their area?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The attitude that the Opposition take to this question is entirely typical of their lack of concern for those who have to pay the bills.

Has not the Secretary of State seen the Audit Commission's draft report entitled "Passing the Bucks", which wholly damns his disreputable standard spending assessment system as being "neither simple…nor stable". It states that it does not provide a standard level of service, that SSAs are now

"being used for tasks"—

such as capping—

"for which they were not originally designed",

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to rise to confess at last that all his dire predictions about the council tax had been mistaken, that his prophecies of doom and gloom about the council tax in the past few months had been without foundation and that he had been entirely wrong.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that few councils want to spend more than their SSAs and that most council tax payers want to be protected from the ambitions of high-spending councils? Will he also bear in mind the fact that if Oxfordshire can be in the south-east for area cost adjustment purposes, Gloucestershire would like to be in the south-east for those purposes, too?

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of Gloucestershire and I certainly agree that people want to be protected from high-charging councils and that Conservative councils, on the whole, do not wish to spend beyond their capping limits. However, I cannot extend my agreement with my hon. Friend to cover Labour-controlled councils. If given the chance, they would undoubtedly spend beyond their capping limits and would be encouraged to do so by the Labour party, with total disregard for the interests of the people who live in those areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet environmental groups in the near future to discuss the impact on the environment of the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom.

I have no such plans.

Is the Minister aware that the President of the Board of Trade once described Magnox nuclear power stations as old and unsafe? Is he also aware that the nuclear installations inspectorate has identified serious safety problems in five Magnox stations and that there is therefore a risk of a serious accident? Will he explain to the House why he has allowed Nuclear Electric to continue to operate those stations far beyond their design life and why, in view of the serious safety problems, he has not ordered their immediate closure?

I am also aware that we have the toughest regulatory framework in the world for our whole nuclear industry, which operates only if the independent inspectorate believes that it is safe for it to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that nuclear power stations are the most environmentally friendly means of generating electricity and are responsible for producing virtually no greenhouse gases? Does he further agree that early closure of the Magnox nuclear power stations, such as Bradwell in my constituency, would make it more difficult for us to meet the targets set by the Rio convention?

My hon. Friend is right. The nuclear power industry makes no contribution to our CO² and greenhouse gas problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] The authentic voice of the Labour party is emerging—it opposes nuclear power. Labour Members should talk to one or two of their hon. Friends, especially the shadow Foreign Secretary. He may put them right.

Is the Minister aware that his answer to the question reveals that the Government have no plans to discuss the White Paper after its production tomorrow until it comes to the House for a vote next week? That shows that the White Paper is meant to be a general fiddle, as well as a quick fix. The implications for the environment, energy use, employment and the economy are meant to be obscured, as the Government make a dash for safety and buy the votes of their Back Benchers. When we are asked to consider the future of the coal industry, we shall not even have the chance to consider the finances of the nuclear industry. Is not that madness, as well as a fiddle?

So why did you vote for the Government?

Far be it from me to suggest that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may have made a valid point, too. Perhaps the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should concentrate more on the facts, instead of preparing sound bites for question time.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to curb fraud and corruption in local government.

The prevention and detection of fraud and corruption is the responsibility of the members and senior management of local authorities, with the support of the auditor. Where the system has failed, the police also have a role to play. I welcome the recent announcement by the Audit Commission of a study into fraud and corruption and if the study finds that local authorities or auditors need new powers I will certainly be willing to consider its proposals.

In view of the widespread and worrying expansion of corruption, extending to places such as Hackney, where fraud worth £40 million has been reported, will the Minister tell the House whether his proposals will cover incentives and protection for the people who have the courage to expose those practices? Will his study of malpractice cover contracting out by local authorities and all that has happened in that connection under Labour local authorities?

I trust that I speak for the whole House when I say that we share my hon. Friend's concern about fraud, wherever it occurs. On my hon. Friend's serious point about the risks that may be run by whistle blowers, as I think they are called, if there is any evidence that further protection is needed I will examine it carefully. On the wider powers in respect of compulsory competitive tendering, on which there is a later question, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have significant powers at present and that we shall not hesitate to use them whenever and wherever there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour.

Does the Minister accept that the main cause for worry about fraud in local government emanates from the Secretary of State's office—the kind of fraud which deprives authorities such as my own borough of Sandwell of resources while showering largesse on some of the richest boroughs in the country such as Westminster and Wandsworth? Judging from his earlier reply, even the current Secretary of State is so embarrassed by the scale of fraud that he has at last—not before time—promised us a review.

The hon. Gentleman makes light of the very serious subject of fraud in local government. That is the subject of the question and I had thought, perhaps wrongly, that it was something against which the House was united. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cheapened the argument as he did.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that council taxpayers know the level of tax charged by each tier of local government in their area.

The main way in which people will learn of the different precepts set by the different constituent local authorities is through their bills. I have a sample bill which makes very clear the amounts being charged by the county and district, respectively, any discounts which apply, and finally the amount that the individual or household is required to pay. I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will find their bills clear. They will know who has imposed the charges and—from what they read in their local papers—who is delivering the goods.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a difference of £108 between what a householder in an average band C house would pay under a Labour-controlled and under a Conservative-controlled council? Needless to say, the difference is in favour of the Conservative council. Is there a lesson that my hon. Friend would like to draw to the attention of those who will be voting in the county council elections in May?

Indeed—they will get better value for money and better services at a realistic price from Conservative councils. My hon. Friend may like to know that Thamesdown, a Labour borough, imposes a £94 band C district charge while the adjacent Conservative authority of Salisbury charges £41—notwithstanding the fact that Salisbury receives less grant than Thamesdown.

Does the Minister accept that comparisons involving the use of band D, band C or any other band are wrong? The only comparison that should be drawn is between the average council tax for whole areas. If there are two similar authorities with the same average council tax, the authority with more lower-band properties will automatically have a higher council tax for any given band. That is the truth of the matter. Generally, it is Labour authorities that have more lower-banded—that is, cheaper—properties. Is it not time that Conservative Members stopped using fiddled figures to try to justify their own inadequacy?

The Opposition do not understand a thing about how the system works. Labour authorities that have more lower-banded properties get a lot more grant to compensate for that. Contrary to Labour Members' allegation that the fraud is that Labour authorities get too little grant, those authorities get much more grant to compensate. The correct comparison is between band D and band D and between band C and band C. On those comparisons, Conservative authorities win every time.

Has my hon. Friend noted the trend in local government spending whereby the highest council tax in a shire, a district, a metropolitan district or a London borough is to be found in a Labour authority and the lowest council tax in a shire, a district, a metropolitan district or a London borough is to be found in a Conservative authority?

My hon. Friend is quite right. There is Newcastle at £704 and Wellingborough at £218, Greenwich at £696 and Westminster at £262—in each case, the higher amount is charged by Labour and the lower amount by the Conservatives, even though more grant goes to the Labour authority and less to the Conservative one.

The Minister is not telling the whole story, as he well knows. Will he stop picking bands C and D to suit his case and accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has said—that what matters to people are the bills that come through their doors? Is he not delighted to hear that the average precept in the eight Labour shire counties is running at £6 lower than the average precept in Conservative counties, and that the latest survey by the Local Government Chronicle of all 363 tax-raising councils in England shows that the average bill per household is running at £493 under Conservative councils and at £479—£14 less—under Labour councils? Is the Minister aware, therefore, that Tory claims about the council tax are as worthless as Tory claims about value added tax and that Labour councils cost less and give a great deal more?

The hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, does not understand the system any more than his Back Benchers understand it. He is wrong on every count. Labour authorities get more grant and charge more, property for property, in the same bands. That is the relevant comparison. The hon. Gentleman is simply drawing attention to the fact that Labour authorities get more grant than Conservative authorities get.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to publicise the leasehold enfranchisement provisions of the Housing and Urban Development Bill once it receives Royal Assent; and if he will make a statement.

The leasehold enfranchisement provisions have received much publicity in the press over the past few months, most of it supportive. There will, of course, be further publicity when the provisions, which will be welcomed by many hundreds of thousands of people living in flats, come into force. We are planning to publish a booklet to help leaseholders and have offered to help fund an advisory agency for up to three years.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the 750,000 potential beneficiaries from these provisions, including many in Eastbourne, will welcome that announcement, as they will welcome the Government's redeeming of this important manifesto pledge in the teeth of opposition from Labour Members?

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Bill has left this House and is in another place, where it has provoked a lively debate but where, in the capable hands of my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the leasehold enfranchisement clauses have so far emerged unscathed.

Will the Minister now give his estimate of how many leaseholders will be able to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill? I ask him because in Committee he was unable to say how many had taken advantage of the provisions of the previous legislation. Is he aware of the anxieties that have been expressed about the fact that the complexities of the current Bill are such that many leaseholders who would like to enfranchise will not be able to do so?

About 750,000 leaseholders will potentially benefit from the Bill. It is entirely up to the leaseholders whether they exercise the choice that the Government are making available to them, so at the end of the day it is not the view of the Government that matters but the view of the leaseholders of the flats.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last visited the borough of Lambeth to discuss the efficient use of resources.

How an authority uses its resources is a matter for its members, who are accountable to their local electorate. The voters of Lambeth must be deeply concerned about the staggering allegations of maladministration in their council's performance, as revealed in the recent report of Lambeth's chief executive.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Lambeth cannot complain about lack of resources from the Government when each dwelling in Lambeth receives £500 more than each dwelling in Conservative Wandsworth next door, but that they can certainly complain about the level of corruption in the Labour council, as recognised now even by Streatham Labour party? Does he agree that they can also complain about the level of inefficiency which leads to uncollected rent, rates and community charge now totalling £140 million, which could and should be spent on better services at lower cost?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. As he knows, the standard spending assessment methodology is applied consistently across all local authorities in the country, and as a consequence of that methodology Lambeth receives a very high SSA, although it may not do so if Opposition Members get their way. My hon. Friend also points out that, despite that support, in the year just ended Lambeth managed to set the highest community charge of all, at £425.

I congratulate the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), on coming to Lambeth this week to discuss the efficient allocation of resources and the city challenge scheme. I hope that the example that he set of co-operation with local authorities will be followed by some of his fellow Ministers.

The best evidence for co-operation between the Government and Lambeth is that Lambeth council was one of the winners of city challenge on merit and, subject to the usual procedures, will receive some £37·5 million over the next five years for much-needed work. That is the most effective answer to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Lambeth they are still doing the Lambeth walk with £20 million worth of rent arrears and £18·2 million of rate arrears? What the hell are Lambeth councillors up to? Why should they ask the Government for more money when they do not get down to doing the job themselves?

My hon. Friend makes most eloquently the point about the failings of Lambeth council over many years. The House will be relieved that he did not go into a dance to demonstrate it.

Can the Minister confirm that the London borough of Lambeth is co-operating fully with the police and the Audit Commission in all their investigations, and will he join me in welcoming the public inquiry established under Elizabeth Appleby QC? Can he confirm that the minority Labour administration's correct proposal to close down immediately the directorate most affected by the allegations was scandalously defeated by an unholy alliance of suspended and Conservative councillors?

The most important development recently in Lambeth has been a statement from the hon. Gentleman issued by the Streatham branch of the Labour party in which the hon. Gentleman, with considerable support, called for the immediate retendering of building maintenance contracts and for Lambeth council's huge finance and legal services departments to be put out to tender. I ask the hon. Gentleman, first, to persuade all the local Labour councillors to back that and, secondly, to get his own Front Bench to agree with it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the mismanagement of Lambeth council has knock-on effects which go well beyond Lambeth? In my constituency, for example, children from Lambeth who are in care are being looked after in private care homes in Croydon. The lack of speed of payments from Lambeth council is such that many of those homes are now in extreme difficulty. The payments are not coming forth from Lambeth council.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There are knock-on effects which go beyond the boundaries of Lambeth. It is in all our interests that Lambeth councillors organise themselves more properly in the next five years than they have in the past 10 years.

When the Minister visited Lambeth last week, did he discuss the use of resources in the building management south east division of the Property Services Agency and the allegations of fraud and malpractice, including false payments to bogus companies, misuse of Government resources, tax fiddles and nepotism?

The House will note that attention has shifted from local government. With regard to the Property Services Agency, hon. Members have been told that a full inquiry is under way. To date, that inquiry has not discovered any evidence of fraud, although there was a small piece of undercharged work. The allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made today, and which are repeated in a national newspaper, will be taken over by that inquiry. As none of the allegations has so far been substantiated, there is no reason on earth why there should be a delay in the sale of PSA businesses. We are confident that the sale of the five businesses will not be significantly affected.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the urban partnership fund.

I have received several representations about the urban partnership fund. Many have welcomed the £20 million of Government cash, which the partnerships forecast will bring in another £33 million of local authority receipts and £130 million of private investment.

I thank my hon. Friend for listening to and acting on representations from my constituency in Southport, which resulted in an urban partnership fund grant of £310,000 for the redevelopment of Southport sea front. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance today that he will find time later this year to visit Southport to ensure that the local authority spends the money as it was intended? Does he agree with me that the urban partnership fund is an outstanding success?

Of course I agree that it is a great success. It is an example of partnership in action. It encourages local authorities to raise more money by asset sales and to use the money for the benefit of their local community. If I can fit in a visit, I should love to visit Southport. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) was in my hon. Friend's constituency only yesterday. I should love to come and see the good work. I am sure that Southport sea front will benefit a great deal and will produce another £9 million of private investment for that £310,000 Government grant.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of fiscal changes announced in the Budget.

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman owns a part share in a racehorse, so I would imagine that he would be the first to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his Budget measures. I welcome the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement, which will greatly benefit the environment. It was the greenest Budget ever.

Instead of inflicting cruel damage by increasing fuel costs by 10 per cent. across the board, would it not have been better for the environment if the Chancellor had adjusted the differentials between leaded and unleaded petrol and introduced a higher rate of tax on cars with large engines than on small cars? I suggest to the Secretary of State that that would have been a much better contribution to our environment.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced measures on the taxation of cars which will achieve precisely the effect to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The use of unleaded petrol does not contribute to a reduction in global warming. Therefore, increasing the differential would not have the effect that the measures that my right hon. Friend introduced will have.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that yesterday Britain came under attack from our EC partners for failing to endorse an EC-wide energy tax? Will he make our critics aware that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his recent Budget met our commitment fully by covering energy tax in the way that he has done?

I did precisely that at a meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers in Brussels on Monday. As a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget, we already have in place measures that take us two thirds of the way towards achieving our target under the climate change convention that we signed up to at Rio. In the next few months, we shall announce how we propose to fulfil the other third of our target.

Will the Secretary of State admit that the imposition of VAT on electricity and gas bills will, at the most generous estimate, reduce carbon emissions in Britain by less than 1 per cent? Is that not a pathetically small advance for the environment at the cost of massive hardship to millions of people who will now have to struggle hard to heat their homes? Is it not true that, as Greenpeace pointed out, the Budget was far more about raising money than about tackling climate change? Are not the Government pretending to be green purely and simply because their finances are in the red?

The hon. Gentleman will know that Friends of the Earth warmly welcomed the measures in my right hon. Friend's Budget. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that in February this year he told Green Magazine that his party had been thinking of a number of small but effective tax measures which included increasing VAT on environmentally unfriendly products? Does the hon. Gentleman think that he can get away with telling Green Magazine one thing and the House another?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

We have received more than 900 responses to our consultation paper, "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968". A list of the respondents is in the Library, and copies of the responses are in the Department's library. We are considering the responses carefully and will announce the way forward as soon as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that many of those who use gipsy sites are not gipsies, but itinerants, didicoys and ne'er-do-wells who feel that they have no obligation to society? Can we have some assurance of early legislation to repeal the Act?

I think that there is general agreement that the Caravan Sites Act needs reform. At present, it fails gipsies and local communities. We want to ensure that the gipsies can have proper provision for sites through the planning system and that local communities are freed of the problems of illegal camping whether by gipsies or by new age travellers.

Does the Minister accept that some of the proposals in the consultation document last August that official sites should be abolished and sold off in the way suggested by some hon. Members would create more problems than it would solve? Will he undertake to consider in a positive way whether one solution that would be more acceptable to local authorities and residents, while overcoming some of the problems caused by unofficial sites, would be to consider the provision of smaller sites rather than large official sites?

With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully read the consultation paper. We are keen to ensure that local authority sites are properly managed. Many local authorities are not managing their sites. If gipsies are allowed to make provision for their sites through the planning system, I have no doubt that the consequence will be smaller sites.

Is the Minister aware that his proposals have widespread support, especially those which aim to stamp out the plague of illegal occupation? Is he aware that my local borough council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk, is aware that the proposals might lead to the withdrawal of 100 per cent. funding of local authority sites? Will he look again at the proposals and seek a compromise whereby there is still some Department of the Environment funding for those sites?

There is no other parallel anywhere in the machinery of government for 100 per cent. direct grant as there is for caravan sites. There is no longer any justification for that. We have no objection to those who wish to pursue a nomadic form of life, but they should not do so at a cost to the general taxpayer and should increasingly make their own provision.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress on the tenants charter.

There is continuing interest in the charter, mainly from tenants. More than 200,000 tenants, have already applied directly to my Department for copies of the full charter.

Is the Minister aware that tenants used to have a charter right to decide who should manage their estates? Will he confirm that that right of veto by tenants is being removed by the Government's Housing and Urban Development Bill? Does that not demonstrate the hypocrisy of a Government who pretend to be the tenant's friend, but when it comes to the choice between the rights of tenants and the Government's mania for privatisation they put dogma first and tenants last?

If the hon. Member were to look at the Bill and its provisions, he would see that tenants have far more rights to be consulted under the Bill than they have at present and will be much more involved in the tendering process than they are at the moment. The truth is that this Government and the Conservative party have introduced the right to repair, the right to improvement, the right to manage, the right to buy and the right to be consulted. We are determined that tenants should have proper rights and effective remedies. Labour Members are concerned about that because they know that all too often Labour councils are incapable of delivering effective housing management.

Will the Minister confirm whether, under the tenants charter, it will be possible for tenants who pay their rent regularly and on time to force incompetent councils such as Lambeth and Southwark to take action against tenants who do not?

We are determined that standards of housing management should be driven up. Too many local authorities are lax in doing repairs and lax in collecting rents—and all too often they are Labour-controlled authorities. I invite any Opposition Member who doubts that to spend half an hour with me and walk across Westminster bridge to the China Walk estate in Lambeth, where I can introduce him to large numbers of people who have been waiting for basic repairs for some considerable time.

How satisfied is the Minister with his Department's record in improving housing conditions for disabled people seeking more suitable premises?

We have a very good record on renovation grants and on grants for disabled facilities. They have increased substantially in recent years and we will see that they continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the trend of investment in (a) water supply and (b) environmental measures to cleanse rivers and beaches since the Water Act 1989.

Since privatisation, investment in water supply and the cleansing of rivers and beaches has increased dramatically. The £30,000 million investment programme in new pipework in water supply and sewerage treatment works is cleaning up our rivers, beaches and seas. It is good for the environment, good for consumers, good for the construction industry and good for jobs.

Those of our constituents all over the country who are paying greatly increased water charges will need to know of the value for money in the increased investment in the water and sewerage industry. Incidentally, they will also be concerned about the burden on single-person households and share the general pressure for water metering. Is my hon. Friend aware that the consumers of South West Water, who include people in the western end of my constituency, are very resentful indeed about its high charges and the rapid increase in those charges and that their view is strongly held by my hon. Friends the Members for the area? They feel that the whole country should be responsible for the clean-up of the beaches in the south-west, which are a national asset.

Of course I am aware of the concern of my hon. Friends in the south-west about the increase in their water charges, due to implementing various measures designed to clean up the large number of beaches in the south-west. I think that my hon. Friends will agree that if we are to continue to have a fine tourist industry in the south-west of England we need the highest possible environmental quality. We are embarked, and the water industry is embarked, on a programme there, but I also take careful note of, and am very sympathetic to, the point that in the longer term any other measures that we sign up to must have quantifiable, value-for-money results. We are keen to sign up to measures that protect the environment, but we must show that they give value for money.

Does the Minister agree that his attitude in boasting of the investment that is taking place is far too complacent? His duty and that of the Government is to ensure that people have safe water to drink, that our rivers are clean and that our beaches do not make children ill. We do not have the best. In 1992, the European Court of Justice found Britain guilty of failing to comply with the drinking water directive. That means that over a million people have been drinking water that damages their health, river standards have declined and many of our beaches cause ill health in children who play there. The Government must encourage more investment and less profit for the privatised water companies.

Sometimes I am amazed at the Labour party's attempts to try to grapple with the concept of the market and delivering goods and services to people. The hon. Lady accuses us of complacency and boasting of a £30,000 million investment programme. Of course we are boasting about it—it is the biggest investment programme in this country's entire history; because of it, the quality of water in our rivers and in our seas gets better every year and we are on target to meet our investment programmes and all our water quality directives.