To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest information about the level of average household council tax bills.

The average headline council tax per dwelling for the current year is £456–£30 less than the average headline community charge per dwelling for 1992–93.

Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister boasting that council tax bills in Labour areas would be £100 higher than the bills in Tory areas? Following further work on the figures, it has now been established that the council tax bill for Labour is £14 less than that for the Tories. Consequently, will the Minister congratulate Labour Sunderland on an average tax bill of £376, which is £65 lower than the average bill in the constituency of the Secretary of State in Tory-controlled Kent?

It is interesting that Front-Bench Members now get others to do their dirty work for them. We all know that, on average, Labour bills are £100 or more higher for bands C and D across the country. [Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. They are £107 more for every band C tax. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare individual constituencies and districts, he may like to compare Sunderland with Mole Valley. Sunderland has a band C tax of £534 whereas Mole Valley has a band C tax of £461. Mole Valley, of course, gets a fraction of the revenue support grant per head that Sunderland gets. Labour gets more grant and imposes higher taxes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help in making that point because, as he well knows, it is £100 more in Labour areas than in Tory areas.

Will my hon. Friend make a good job even better by encouraging local councils to settle appeals as quickly as possible and settle even more quickly those that fall out in favour of the customer?

I agree. We want good management of local councils across the board and as management improves, so taxes can come down and services can improve. I am grateful for all good suggestions for improved management of local government. Opposition Members should listen carefully to some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friends. There are many excellent Conservative councils and I am sure that electors will reflect that on 6 May.

Has the Minister seen the excellent report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which blows apart his use of band C as a comparison between councils? Was not the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy right to endorse our use of average household bills and to say:

"What will exercise people most is the bill they get through the door"?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman seeks to make an additional party political broadcast. We know that those claims are highly misleading. The truth is that Labour councils impose taxes of £100 more in bands C and D than do Conservative councils. The average council tax figure merely reflects the fact that Labour areas have far more low-rated properties than Conservative areas. Even Labour can just about get its band A tax below the average band D tax in Conservative areas. That is the magnitude of the gap between the two parties in office. Labour is charging £107 more for band C and £122 more for band D —the price of inefficiency and poor management.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average Government grant per head provided to Conservative-controlled county councils.

The average amount of revenue support grant for Conservative-controlled county councils in 1993–94 is £222 per head. The average for Labour county councils is £274 per head—for around £100 per household more grant. Where, now, are the claims that Labour is disadvantaged and done down by the rate support grant settlement? In addition to Labour county councils charging £100 more in council tax, they receive an extra £100 per household in grant.

In view of that answer, is it not even more remarkable that Conservative councils charge more than £100 less in respect of band C properties than Labour councils? Is it not a tragedy that Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the country have not yet learnt that what people want from their local council is the right service at the right price?

That is clearly true, and I am sure that the electors will express their views on it on 6 May. Conservative councils deliver better services at a lower price with less grant. That is the treble achievement of which my hon. Friends and I are rightly proud.

If Conservative councillors are so content with their standard spending assessments, will the Minister—as an hon. Member representing a Kent constituency—explain to me why that the mayor of Canterbury, Councillor Pat Burke, has wisely decided to apply for the Labour whip on Canterbury council? Does he agree with me that that was indeed a wise decision, and with the judgment of the Canterbury Gazette that, with the Liberal Democrats in disarray and the Tories of Canterbury moribund, he could have made no better decision?

The hon. Gentleman shows that the policies of Liberals and Labour on councils where they have some influence are similar. Conservative councillors up and down the country are doing a good job in delivering high-quality services at low cost. As I said, they obtain far less grant. Most of them are happy with the grant that they receive and do a good job within it. Some Conservative councillors would like more grant—that is understandable—and more grant is given to some Conservative councils as well as to Labour councils. As the figures show, however, it is the Labour councils which scoop the pool.

Will my hon. Friend spare a thought for my constituents in Fleetwood and for the constituents of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Opposition spokesman on the environment, in Labour-controlled Lancashire, whose council tax bills are £160 more on average than in Conservative-controlled Hampshire, even though Lancashire has a larger external grant? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that, notwithstanding that, the services that Lancashire provides result in primary school children in Fleetwood having to be taught in corridors?

My hon. Friend's excellent example bears out what has been said about the contrast between Conservative and Labour councils. When I went to Lancashire recently, I heard at first hand about the excessive expenditure on banquets and publicity and about the 133 committees that are considered necessary to run the council. I hope that there will soon be a Conservative authority that can cut down on the unnecessary spending and give value for money—just as Hampshire gives value for money under Conservative control.

The House will understand that the Minister has felt bound today to wind up his arguments about local government now that the Conservative party is receiving its returns from the various counties around the country. However, does he not accept that his answer to Question 2 directly contradicts what he said in respect of Question 1? The reason Labour councils receive higher levels of grant is that generally they represent more deprived areas. Does the hon. Gentleman not also accept that there is great disquiet around the country because people recognise that the current system is completely discredited when Bournemouth is considered to be more deprived than Barnsley, when the mining area of Chester-le-Street is considered to be less deprived than Huntingdon and when Tory-controlled Kent county council receives £268 per head in grant compared with £234 in Staffordshire? Will the Minister bring forward the results of the review quickly and stop the slanting in favour of Conservative authorities?

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the exchanges so far today. I have made it very clear that Labour authorities are receiving the extra grant and they are imposing the extra taxes. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to see the standard spending assessments and grants reviewed, will he make available Labour's evidence to our inquiry? I have asked him for that on many occasions, but I am still awaiting his testimony. I can only assume that Labour Members cannot agree among themselves on how they would like the system to be changed and they know full well that most Labour councils are benefiting greatly from it at the moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of sewage treatment works failed their consent standards in 1986; and what is the equivalent figure now.

Twenty-three per cent, of sewage treatment works failed to comply with their assessed standards in 1986. In 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, that figure had fallen to 6 per cent.

I am delighted to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's good news of the 17 per cent. rise in compliance with sewage treatment standards. However, he should know that my constituents are concerned about a sewage treatment plant which is not yet in existence. Can he assure me that if South West Water locates a sewage treatment plant at Northam in my constituency, that plant will reach the highest possible standards? My constituents do not believe that it will.

I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses. She has drawn them to the attention of my Department. If the proposal does not meet adequate standards, it will not receive consent. In addition, all the environmental implications of the proposal will be fully taken into account before any decision is made.

Will the Minister comment on a recent survey by The Sunday Times of convictions for water pollution during 1992 which showed that five of the top 10 offenders were water authorities, with, I regret to say, Welsh Water at the top of that list of offenders? Is it not a sad commentary on the Government's environmental record that in the recent National Rivers Authority survey our rivers were found, for the first time, to be in a worse state in 1990 than in 1980? Would it not be much wiser if the money from our massively increased water bills were used for environmental improvements rather than for buying hotels, increasing chairmen's salaries and providing big dividends for shareholders?

Our water bills finance the investment in improved water quality in which I thought the hon. Gentleman was interested. One cannot, at one and the same time, complain about standards and also complain about the bills that are necessary if standards are to be improved. Prosecutions simply demonstrate that the NRA is determined to be even-handed in its approach to securing observance of the law.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the future of the Department of the Environment and Department of Transport buildings in Marsham street; and if he will make a statement.

No. 2 Marsham street will be demolished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah".]—as soon as possible when alternative accommodation has been identified and is available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department of the Environment building is one of the few buildings that actually looks better when it is covered with scaffolding and dust sheets and that the sooner it comes down, the better the environment will be? However, the important question is whether we will be mean minded or far sighted and imaginative about the use of that six acre site at the heart of the capital. Is my hon. Friend aware of the competition launced by Building Design and the comments of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the use of that site? Will he persuade his right hon. Friends to accept that we do not want more an more offices built on the site and that we want the site to be used imaginatively with the possibility of public open space or other forms of public benefit?

One of the advantages of being an Environment Minister is that, looking out of the window of the building, one does not have to see the Department of the Environment.

Will the many people who work at the Departments of the Environment and of Transport be compensated for any move that takes place? Is the Minister aware that the trade unions involved are very anxious to remain on the site? Why should they be kicked out at the whim of the Government, who are almost certainly hellbent on lining some developer's back pocket, while at the same time bailing out the developers at Canary wharf?

That is a pretty drivelly question, even by the hon. Gentleman's standards. The staff with whom we work at Marsham street are consulted closely and kept in touch with information about where the new building is to be. We are as anxious as they are to move to a decent working environment. A building that is likely to fall down in the next two years is not the best place in which to work.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him following the recent announcement of his policy towards the east Thames corridor; and if he will make a statement.

The proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 24 March have been broadly welcomed as both imaginative and realistic. We continue to receive representations on them from a wide range of bodies.

My hon. Friend will know that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I welcome the concept of the east Thames corridor with enthusiasm. It will involve the creation of 128,000 new dwellings and 182,000 new jobs by the year 2015. Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that he will engage in proper consultation with local authorities at all levels, and with local communities, when the project moves into its development stage?

A few days ago, I chaired a meeting of all the 16 local authorities involved in the east Thames corridor project. That meeting was very helpful and productive, and my officials and I now plan to hold further meetings with the local authorities—both elected councillors and officials—that are co-operating with the imaginative proposals for the corridor.

I recognise the great potential of the east Thames corridor for recreation, commerce and residential use. Does the Minister appreciate, however, that the glossy documents that were produced a few weeks ago were considered cosmetic and cynical in my constituency, given the high unemployment in Kent and Essex? What new moneys will be spent to promote jobs and commercial opportunities and how will the homes be built? Does not the Minister realise that acres of planning permissions exist for residential properties? What is lacking is confidence among potential home buyers and opportunites for local authorities to build homes in which they can house families, thus reducing their waiting lists.

Confidence is returning by the day. Private developers will be interested in developing the sites in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for both homes and jobs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nowhere has the announcement of the east Thames corridor been more strongly welcomed than in the London borough of Havering, represented in Parliament by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and myself? Will he undertake to give every encouragement to the Havering Riverside project launched yesterday, which invites private investment in what will be a key site in the Thames corridor? If there is to be an international station at Rainham, bringing Paris and Brussels within two hours' travelling time, it will also be a major gateway to Europe.

I am heartened to hear from my hon. Friend about the proposals for further investment in the east Thames corridor. I will indeed take an interest in the scheme that he mentioned. Within the constraints applying to a planning Minister, which I am sure that he understands, I will ensure that my Department gives the planners every assistance in bringing the scheme forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the importation of toxic waste into the United Kingdom.

I have had representations from hon. Members, the waste industry, environmental and other organisations and members of the public.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that people in south Wales are asking, "Why should we have this toxic waste dumped on our doorstep?"? Surely, a sophisticated country such as Germany should be able to deal with its own waste. The Minister will be aware that south Wales has suffered enough from pollution, with coal tips galore, the horrors of Aberfan and so on. May I make a plea to the Secretary of State? Will he do whatever he can to prevent the insidious American concern Browning Ferris from establishing a waste disposal plant in Newport?

The House will find the hon. Gentleman's comments about coal tips rather odd in the light of the views that have recently been expressed, particularly by Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps referring to a shipment of toxic waste from Germany that was recently the subject of comment in the media. He will know that I have made representations to the German Environment Minister asking him to place a ban on the exportation of that shipment to Britain. The shipment has not left Germany and I hope that my representations will have the desired effect, which I hope will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.

I strongly endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to self-sufficiency for developed countries. Does that not also mean that those developed countries should take a responsible attitude to international trade? For example, how much longer can we tolerate the fact that German legislation is undermining the recycling industry in the United Kingdom by ensuring that dumped material undercuts anything that can be generated in the United Kingdom market?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the consequences of that element of German legislation. I have made representations on that matter as well to the German Environment Minister, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made representations to the European Commission. The matter needs to be dealt with and my right hon. Friend and I are considering urgently what action we can take.

Will the Secretary of State come clean about the Government's attitude to the international trade in toxic waste? He has made it clear, and I support him, that he feels it appropriate to make representations on occasions to other Governments to prevent the import of toxic waste into Britain. Is he aware that our reputation is severely harmed when he and the Government take no action to prevent the export of toxic waste, particularly to developing countries such as Mexico? It does Britain no good continually to be seen as the dirty exporter of Europe.

The most significant step forward in the European Community in recent years is the waste shipment regulation, which was agreed under the United Kingdom presidency in the second half of last year. It resulted from a United Kingdom initiative started by my predecessor, now the Governor of Hong Kong. We have consistently taken the lead in encouraging our partners in Europe to pursue effective policies on the export of toxic waste.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend think carefully before rejecting any work that may come to Britain through recycling of toxic waste? Does he agree that there is surely a dichotomy in the Opposition's attitude? We hear lectures all the time from Opposition Members about recycling things. When we perhaps recycle nuclear fuel, the Opposition criticise us for doing so and making billions of pounds and creating hundreds of jobs in the process.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the internal inconsistencies in the attitudes of Labour Members. This is not the only issue on which we see that. My hon. Friend will know that I am awaiting the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in relation to the THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—application, and therefore I am sure that he would not expect me to say anything about that matter at this stage.

The Secretary of State will be aware that from May of next year it will be possible and legal for the United Kingdom to ban the import of toxic waste from developed countries. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House a firm and unequivocal commitment that he will take action to do so? The Minister for the Environment and Countryside has appeared to indicate that he will take such action and, at different times, that he will not, while the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Lord Strathclyde, has talked simply of reducing toxic waste imports rather than banning them. Will the Secretary of State ban toxic waste imports into this country from developed countries from May of next year?

The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the situation. We have every intention of implementing the regulation agreed last year on the due date, May 1994. Indeed, we pressed the Community to fix an earlier date for the implementation of the legislation, but we were unable to persuade our partners in Europe to achieve an earlier date.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were purchased under the special package announced in the autumn statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have now been brought into use by the housing package announced in the autumn statement.

Housing associations have purchased some 18,000 additional homes in England using the £577 million allocated for this purpose in the autumn statement. This 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 81 associations involved. Purchases have been widely spread across the country, with acquisitions in some 97 per cent. of local authority areas. Grants to local authority and housing association tenants have enabled some 3,300 to become owner-occupiers, freeing their current homes for those in need. So, overall, the package has provided more than 21,000 permanent new homes for families in England.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that a number of other developments have enormously enhanced the value of that package, not least the considerable fall in interest rates?

My hon. Friend rightly points out that there have been significant improvements in the housing market, working with the grain of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's autumn statement. My hon. Friend will know that building societies' net advances were up 40 per cent. in March compared with February and that new lending commitments, at more than £3 billion, were double the January level. So there is every sign that the autumn statement package was effective in restoring confidence in the housing market.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still far more empty houses than there are homeless families? Does he further agree that the way in which to provide housing for those who need it is to bring those empty houses into use and not to cover our green fields and gardens with more buildings?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some 60,000 families in temporary accommodation and some 600,000 properties empty, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point. This Administration have taken steps to bring into use many of those empty properties. We have introduced a scheme, using housing associations as managing agents, to persuade the owners of those empty properties to bring them back into use and to rent them to those in need. We are also developing proposals to continue the revival of the private rented sector, to which the Government attach particular importance.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the Rowntree report, which suggests that the estates that are being bought up for this purpose are in danger of turning into ghettos of the 1960s and 1970s style? If the Minister has studied the report, does he have any proposals to stop that happening? I hope that he agrees that it would not be in the interests of anybody to re-create that type of problem.

I have read the very interesting report published last week by Rowntree. The hon. Member will know that housing associations do not, by and large, develop large estates. The average size of a housing association development is about 20. The report, however, acts as a useful warning to housing associations that may be looking at the larger schemes that there are management problems that could go with them. In practice, most housing association schemes on large sites are already broken down into smaller sites operated by different housing associations, so there is diversity of tenure and of management on the large estates where housing associations are active.

While I welcome the fact that money is being spent on housing, does the Minister accept that, in London at least, the impact of this package on both the housing market and family homelessness has been very limited? In the main, the money has gone on buying newly built properties—only 5 per cent. have been repossessions—and mainly one-bedroomed flats rather than family housing. Will the Minister look again at whether more money can be spent by both housing associations and local authorities to buy family housing, so that we can start to do something about the growing number of families in London who are in temporary accommodation?

The hon. Member will find that the package was focused on two-bedroomed properties rather than one-bedroomed homes. In my constituency, the London borough of Ealing has been able to end the use of bed and breakfast. Only one person is now left in bed and breakfast, who is there voluntarily. Part of the reason why the council has been able to do that is the use of the autumn statement package to take people out of bed and breakfast and move them into homes acquired under that package. I think that the hon. Member will find that London has benefited from the package. There has been a 38 per cent. fall in bed and breakfast over the past year, and I would expect to find that improvement maintained when we have the next figures in a few weeks' time, which will show the full impact of the package.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association homes he expects to be made available in 1992–93.

A final figure for completions is not yet available. However, the Housing Corporation estimates that at least 80,000 units, including some 6,000 funded through local authority housing association grant, will have been made available by housing associations in 1992–93. This is not far short of double the corporation's forecast of 43,400 units when the programme for 1992–93 was announced—thanks to the housing market package and to the excellent value for money which has been achieved by housing associations.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent working relationship between the Conservative-controlled St. Edmundsbury borough council and the 14 housing associations in my constituency? Will he agree with me that this excellent working and organisational relationship has been of benefit by reducing waiting lists and virtually doing away with difficulties for families needing bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he also agree with me that this excellent record contrasts markedly with the appalling housing record of so many Labour local authorities that have blighted the lives of so many thousands of our fellow citizens?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I recently visited his constituency and met the hard-working local councillors in charge of housing policy. I welcome the way in which they have embraced their enabling role and are developing good relationships with housing associations. I also welcome the way in which they are working with my Department on an estate action scheme in Haverhill in the same district. My hon. Friend's local authority is a model of what more local authorities should do to make faster progress in tackling their housing problems.

Will the Minister tell the House what representations he has made to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the 9,291 empty Ministry of Defence properties throughout the country, 527 of them in my constituency of Plymouth, which is 21 per cent. of the total MOD stock there? Would he care to congratulate Plymouth city council on having less than 0·75 per cent. of its houses void at a time when many people are homeless in the city? What representations has he made about empty MOD properties?

The hon. Member will know that after the last election we set up a task force, chaired by John Baker, precisely to deal with the issue that he has raised. He will also know that the Ministry of Defence is bringing back to this country large numbers of service families who will need accommodation when they get here. The MOD is leasing property to housing associations and local authorities. It is disposing of surplus stock and giving cash grants to service men leaving the armed forces; they can use that money to buy some of the surplus stock.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the £2·7 billion worth of new lending by building societies in February clearly shows that it is not just Ministers who believe that now is a good time to buy a new home?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The indicators, some of which I mentioned a moment ago, show that that is so. Abbey National reported that its mortgage approvals in the first quarter of the current year were 60 per cent. up on those in the same quarter last year. Many people are taking the view that this is, indeed, a good time to buy a home.

The Minister referred to the number of homes that will become available, but does he recognise that there is a real problem with the rent levels—a problem underlined by the housing associations' campaign on affordability? More than 81 per cent. of housing association tenants now need housing benefits. Are not housing association rents far too high, and is it not time the Government did something to get those rents down, so that people can afford to pay them?

I cannot agree that average housing association rents are too high. The average rent is about £40 a week. In my view, that is a reasonable figure. I am aware of the sensitivity of the housing associations about this matter. The subject engaged the attention of the Environment Select Committee for some time when I appeared before it last week, and I await its report with interest. But the hon. Gentleman must accept that by reducing the rate of grants from 72 per cent. last year to 67 per cent. this year, we have achieved an extra 3,300 homes for those in need without any increase in the implied rent, because of the fall in interest rates and in land values. One has to strike a balance between rent levels and the output of new homes, and I think that we have got the balance about right.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great efforts that he is making to provide more tenancies. Does he agree that a survey of our cities would show up a flaw, however, in that some of the boarded-up houses that are not owned by anyone in particular are not the sort of houses that housing associations want? Is it not possible to direct the housing associations to go for houses that need maintenance but will then provide housing units, instead of the simple solution of buying new build?

I entirely agree. I am anxious to re-focus the energy of the housing association movement on the inner cities, where many of them started. That is why I have told the Housing Corporation that I should like 18 per cent. of this year's budget to go towards rehabilitation and improvement. We are also conducting research to find out what is impeding the housing associations' attempts to do more work.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of his urban policies.

The Government's urban policies are encouraging investment and improving the quality of life in our major cities through partnership and competition. The hon. Member will, I know, welcome the fact that over £400 million in targeted urban resources has gone into Manchester in the period 1990–93 alone.

Is the Minister aware that phasing out the urban programme will cost us about 3,400 jobs and about 12,000 training places? Is he further aware that the town hall has spent about £100,000 on tendering that has been aborted as a result of Government cancellations? The voluntary organisations are being devastated in the city at the same time—a time when the Prime Minister has visited Manchester to back the Olympic bid, saying that he wants to revitalise the city.

Against the background of the Department of the Environment's urban block programme this year of £1,000 million, it is a little perverse of the hon. Gentleman to concentrate entirely on the urban programme. For the record, this year Manchester will get some £9 million from the urban programme and, of course, the council has the freedom to spend all its capital receipts as it wishes. In addition, Manchester has two development corporations, an excellent city challenge, one task force, substantial housing investment, use of derelict land grant and the prospect of substantial investment from the Olympics in the year 2000. Most hon. Members would be delighted to get such a package.

In the areas that have large numbers of empty houses, can my hon. Friend discern a pattern between the scale of the problem and the political complexion of the councils in those areas?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I understand from my housing colleagues in the Department that there is often a sad correlation between the number of housing voids and the fact that a council is under Labour control. I hope that electors in the forthcoming county elections will bear that in mind.

Does the Minister recall telling local authority leaders in November that he would review the list of urban programme authorities in the new year, using the 1991 census? Will he explain why the consultation paper arrived only in April, four months after it was promised, and why local authorities have been given only weeks to respond to a very important area of policy? Is not it the case that the delay in publishing this document is a result of the Minister's desire to manipulate the criteria for political ends and to provide excuses for his savage cuts in inner-city aid?

The hon. Gentleman must have misheard my earlier answer. I agree with him only on the importance of this programme. There is no delay. Matters are on target. It takes a little time to incorporate the entire results from the 1991 census, which will rightly guide us in this review. We have consulted local authorities, as I assume the hon. Gentleman wishes us to do, and we shall produce our final proposals later this year. The hon. Gentleman should not worry, because we are on target and our advice will be the best possible and will be triggered by the latest possible information.

Does my hon. Friend accept that recreation and leisure areas and parkland are vital to urban areas? The question is not just about the urban programme and allied policies but about urban policies in general. The inspectorate of his Department often appears only too ready to grant planning permission to public bodies such as health authorities that are seeking to develop vital and important open areas within centres such as the borough and town of Macclesfield. Such areas are vital for recreation and as parkland, and they enhance the environment of our town centres. Will my hon. Friend seek to prevail upon his inspectorate and direct his attention to these vital policies? We do not want every area of green within cities to be covered by housing.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction has heard my hon. Friend's question and has confirmed to me that the latest document, PPG17, specifically addresses that point. I agree with my hon. Friend on the wider issue of the importance of recreation. Hon. Members from Sheffield or near Sheffield will know about the substantial work by the development corporation there which is transforming old, derelict areas into excellent open spaces for recreation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average level of the council tax; and if he will make a statement.

The average headline council tax for two or more adults in a band C dwelling in England is £506.

The Minister will be aware of major demonstrations against council tax levels which took place in the Western Isles. Is he aware that even after the cuts in council tax that followed, which will clearly have a significant implication for services in the islands, someone in a £40,000 house in the Western Isles will still pay £110 more than someone in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon? Does the Minister think that the surcharge that the Western Isles are paying over Huntingdon is reasonable, equitable, just and defensible, or does he think that it means that Huntingdon is getting too much public support and that the Western Isles is getting too little?

The hon. Gentleman is badly misinformed about the relative levels of grant support. Scottish authorities receive £1,013 per head in external support—47 per cent. more than English local authorities, which receive £689 a head. Even allowing for some difference in functions, that is a big increase over the English figure. The hon. Gentleman should take up his argument in Scottish Question Time, and with those who are trying to lead the Western Isles council. The electors in the Western Isles knew where to lay the blame. They knew that it lay with the council, which is beginning to respond.

Will the Minister confirm that not only is band C council tax £107 more under Labour authorities than it is under Conservative authorities, but that the 10 highest council taxes have all been set by Labour authorities? Does he agree that this is no mere coincidence, but compelling evidence that Labour authorities are profligate spenders and that value for money is an alien concept to them?

My hon. Friend is right. All 10 of the highest English council tax rates have been set by Labour local authorities. Practically every one of those authorities not only gets more grant than the average but, in most cases, gets massively more than the average because the Government recognise some special factors. However, the councillors are not able to use all the extra money to the benefit of their local taxpayers and provide good-quality services.

Is the Minister aware that of the 1,800 inquiries received by Darlington council about the disabled persons reduction scheme, 1,500 came from people placed in band A? Does he recognise that his refusal to extend the scheme to those living in band A properties short changes those who are in most need of assistance to pay their bills? Will he consider introducing a new council tax band of A minus to assist my constituents and those of other hon. Members who, through no fault of their own, are losing out?

The idea of disablement relief on houses in different council tax banks is that it should come into operation where a disabled person has had to spend extra on improving the house to cope with the disability. For those on low incomes, who are already rated in the lowest band, there are many other ways in which they can get help, such as through disability benefit and council tax benefit. We wish to ensure that people on low incomes are not penalised, and there is a generous scheme to do that. If the issue is whether somebody has been put into a higher band by virtue of the disability, that element in help for disabled people can be given only to those in the higher band. Like Opposition Members, I wish to help the disabled. That is why we have a series of measures to help them, geared to income and house values.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters were designated by Her Majesty's Government for the purposes of the 1975 EC bathing waters directive by May 1979.

No bathing waters had been identified by May 1979 as within the scope of the bathing waters directive.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the position has changed, although Cleethorpes is not yet up to standard? Perhaps he might like to consider taking one of his holidays in Cleethorpes. The Prime Minister has already said, in a reply to me earlier this year, that he hopes to visit Cleethorpes. Can my right hon. and learned Friend, if he comes to Cleethorpes, hold out the prospect that, by 1995, there is every probability that our beaches will be able to hold their own with the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he also confirm that, this year, Cleethorpes expects to receive the greatest number of tourists ever? Clean beaches would put the icing on the cake of that great tourist achievement.

I very much look forward to visiting Cleethorpes, although my hon. Friend has a somewhat exaggerated notion of the number of holidays that I take during the year. I can confirm that we expect the bathing beaches of Cleethorpes fully to meet the standards of the European bathing waters directive by 1995. I am delighted to hear what he has told me about the number of tourists that Cleethorpes intends to entertain over the summer and I am sure that they will benefit from all the facilities that the resort has to offer.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is unreasonable for funding for the kind of environmental improvements covered by the directive to be provided in such a way as to have a terrible effect on water bills, with the impact that has on low-income families? Would not it be reasonable for at least some of that funding to come from the public purse? Is such funding already given or would it be possible?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that the resources for the public purse come from his constituents, just as much as the money for the bills that they have to pay for improved water systems. It is no use the hon. Gentleman or other Opposition Members proclaiming the need for higher standards without being prepared to make available the resources necessary if those standards are to be achieved.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Torbay enjoys the cleanest beaches and quite the best bathing water in the country. Is he aware also that a large burden is placed on South West Water chargepayers, who are obliged to pay for what is, in effect, a national asset? Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly visit Torbay this summer, swim in our water, and then examine our water charges?

I am grateful to all hon. Friends who want me to spend an ever-increasing number of holidays in their constituencies. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks about the excellent quality of Torbay's beaches, and I know of, and have some sympathy with, his concerns about the level of bills in the south-west. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated recently that we are examining those matters.

Does the Secretary of State agree that of interest is not whether he is willing to visit Cleethorpes but whether he is willing to swim there—and whether he is worried that he might be swimming in sewage? That is the issue of concern to people throughout the country. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any plans to enforce the directive's guidelines, rather than just its minimum standards? There is evidence that enforcing only the minimum standards still leads to sickness caused by sewage problems. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Britain's 400 designated areas will reach the minimum standard by 1995 or will he renege on that standard? Does he agree with the Marine Conservation Society that it would be reasonable to ask the big 10 privatised water companies to reduce their returns to shareholders, to achieve decent minimum bathing standards?

I am not persuaded that the present mandatory—not minimum—standards are in any way inadequate to provide the quality of bathing beaches that we require. We are making excellent progress. Very few of our bathing beaches no longer reach the standard, and I hope that they will all meet it in 1995. Perhaps the hon. Lady will come with me to Cleethorpes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities with the highest level of council tax.

The 10 local authorities in England with the highest average headline council taxes are as follows. I give the band C values, but at all levels they are the highest. Harlow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour"]—£878; Newcastle upon Tyne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]— £704; Greenwich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£696; Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£656; Haringey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£646; Liverpool —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£645; Camden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£638; North Tyneside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£628; Salford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£628; and Derwentside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£626.

I thank my hon. Friend for that revealing answer. Will he be kind enough to name the 10 local authorities having the lowest levels of council tax?

Without prior notice, that could be difficult, but I have a list that I prepared earlier for my hon. Friend. There is Wellingborough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Conservative."]—there is.—

Order. I am looking at the clock. We must speed up.

There are also Westminster, Isles of Scilly, City of London. Hambleton, Hinckley and Bosworth, Huntingdon, Basingstoke and Deane, South Cambridgeshire and Fareham.

Is the Minister aware that according to his own Department's figures for average household bills, there are twice as many Tory councils as Labour councils in the 50 most expensive areas and that among the 50 least expensive areas for average bills there are twice as many Labour as Tory councils, including Southampton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Lincoln—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Stoke-on-Trent —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Corby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Great Yarmouth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Bradford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Plymouth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—York—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Slough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—and Norwich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—all with bills way below the average Tory bill of £465. It is Labour which serves us better and costs us less.

In any band that we care to choose, Labour costs us more and Conservatives cost us less. The hon. Gentleman has not understood that point, after a long session today, but we are going to go on saying it all the way up to 6 May, because it is the truth and the voters will respond.