To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tenants have now taken advantage of the Government's right-to-buy policy.

More than 1·5 million public sector tenants have bought their homes since 1979, of whom 1,140,000 have bought under the right to buy.

Does my right hon. Friend' agree that the extension of home ownership has been one of the great developments of recent times? Will he press forward with his large-scale voluntary transfer initiative and look sympathetically at the application from Castle Point borough council, under that initiative, to transfer the whole of its small estate of council houses to the private sector, where the tenants will be well served?

On the first point, I can confirm that introducing the right to buy has been one of our party's greatest achievements—so great that others have been obliged to copy it. On the second point, large-scale voluntary transfers bring real benefits to tenants and local authorities. We have received 14 applications for next year's programme, including the one from my hon. Friend's local authority. I am looking at the applications at the moment and expect to announce next year's programme in mid-December.

Would the Minister be surprised to learn that I was informed by a major building society yesterday that it had not yet received a single inquiry about the Government's rent-to-mortgage scheme? Is it not time that the Government set aside such gimmicks, which do nothing for the provision of social housing? Should not the Government concentrate on putting resources into the social housing sector, rather than making cuts of £300 million to the Housing Corporation, which we heard about yesterday, which will destroy the opportunities for homeless families and lead to the withdrawal of funding by major institutions because they do not believe that schemes will be viable on that basis in the future?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he may regret calling the rent-to-mortgage scheme a gimmick. It brings home ownership within the reach of those local authority tenants not on housing benefit. All the surveys that we have carried out indicate that such tenants would like to be home owners, and the scheme brings it within their reach. As with the right to buy, the Labour party will be obliged to do a U-turn on the rent-to-mortgage scheme and introduce it as part of its election manifesto. The rent-to-mortgage scheme only came on stream in early November, so it does not surprise me that the particular building society that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has not processed an application. The large majority of council tenants will find the scheme attractive.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authorities in Essex are leading the way in taking advantage of the large-scale voluntary transfer scheme? I hope that, in addition to looking favourably at the application from the local council of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), he will approve the application that he will shortly be receiving from Maldon district council in my constituency.

The assertion that Essex leads the way in this area was challenged by a number of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who come from Suffolk, where there have been a number of successful large-scale voluntary transfers. I will look sympathetically at the application made by my hon. Friend's local authority. As I have said, I shall come to a decision on next year's programme in the middle of this month.

The Labour party has always been in favour of extending the advantages of home ownership to as many people as possible—[Interruption.]—as the record of the 1964-70 Labour Government shows. Does the Minister accept that many people who are buying their council houses believe that it would be right and sensible for their local authorities to be able to use those capital receipts for housing purposes? Why are the Government now stopping the use of those capital receipts?

I can only admire the courage of the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Many of us were in the House between 1979 and 1983, when the right-to-buy legislation went through. The hon. Gentleman's party fought it tooth and nail.

"Repeal the law which allows tenants to buy their council houses."

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in response to his consultative paper on charter markets.

We have received a variety of representations both for and against our proposals and are carefully considering whether to introduce legislation to remove from local authorities the right to object to the establishment of new markets within the common law distance of 6⅔ mile.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a proposal in the name of competition to abolish without compensation the centuries-old charter rights of markets such as Romford market in my constituency while leaving intact the rights of private market operators would lack a certain conviction? Does not the rapid growth of unregulated temporary markets and car boot sales now provide a major outlet for the sale of stolen property? Is not that a much greater threat to fair competition, and should not dealing with it be the Government's priority?

I think that there has been something of a misunderstanding. It is being suggested that the proposals would in some way remove such markets, which certainly is not the case: local authorities would continue to own and operate them. All that we are considering removing is the arbitrary power of local authorities to exercise a monopoly right over any rival operator who seeks to bring new trade to an area. I have no doubt that traditional markets that have stood the test of time over the centuries will continue to do so, and to compete with the best.

Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of local authorities oppose the revocation of charter rights? Will he confirm that he has received many representations from people who trade at local authority markets, and that those people are opposed to the revocation? As there is no evidence that local authority charter rights act against the public interest, will the Minister ensure that deregulation does not include their revocation?

It is worth recalling that many local authorities—by my reckoning, well over 150—have no such market rights, but they seem to manage perfectly well using their planning powers. It is also interesting to hear Labour Members defending ancient privileges granted by the Crown.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the relative level of water charges in the south-west.

Water prices are a matter for the Director General of Water Services. However, the Government are aware that South West Water's charges for water and sewerage are among the highest in the country, and have been in discussion with the company and others about ways in which prices can be restrained.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he acknowledge the real feelings of outrage that I, with other west country Conservative Members, have been expressing for the past three years about the level of water charges? Will he give an assurance that he will continue his efforts—particularly in any European context—to ensure that the burdens imposed on west country people are not greater than those people can bear?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance to that effect. I have been deeply impressed by his long-standing, determined and realistic approach to minimising the costs of providing consumers throughout the south-west with higher water standards. He and other Conservative Members from the west country were making a constructive contribution to this debate long before the Liberal party jumped on the bandwagon. I only regret that their realism is not shared by the Liberal party. I am, however, glad to be able to assure the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who, unfortunately, is not present—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State resisted the demand made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), at a recent meeting at the Department of the Environment, for the costs of improving water around the south-western coast to be borne by constituents in Berwick upon Tweed.

Will the Minister confirm comments made by the Secretary of State at a private meeting with the Liberal Democrats in the past week that he is considering ending the present extremely unfair water rate system and replacing it with another means of payment possibly, as we have suggested, based on the council tax? If so, will that system include discounts for those living alone and those on low incomes as we have proposed?

It is a pity that the privacy of the meeting was not recognised by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who immediately spoke to the press. The account that they gave to the press was inaccurate in almost every particular. While my right hon. Friend said that he would examine any possibility, he gave no assurance of the sort that has been described. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are converting hypocrisy into an art form. The stench that the issue is causing is wafting beyond the Chamber to the homes of people throughout the south-west. First, the Liberal Democrats proclaimed a commitment to cutting green house gases and followed it with an absolute refusal to support any measure designed to achieve that. Now, even more fragrantly, they are demanding cleaner water and lower prices in the same breath.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek a further opportunity to raise the issue.

I shall be only too happy to debate the matter in detail with the Liberal Democrats—

But not now.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to meet his EC counterparts to discuss pollution.

I am attending the Environment Council tomorrow and Friday, when I expect to discuss a wide range of environmental matters.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will honour their commitment to ratify the climate change convention soon, even if other European Community members fail to do so?

I am very hopeful that discussions at this week's Council will enable those countries at present obsessed with forcing a carbon energy tax on the European Union to overcome their difficulties and allow joint ratification to take place. If not, Britain will certainly honour its commitment to ratify the climate change convention before 31 December.

When the Minister meets his EC counterparts, will he make them aware of the terrible pollution problems in Belfast as a result of coal-burning appliances?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter and I am certainly ready to discuss it in the EC. I am glad to say that positive progress been made recently in Geneva in the sulphur-burning emission negotiations and I am confident that an agreement will be reached on terms satisfactory to this country and other countries in the next few days.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is currently confusion in the EC about the definition of waste and that this is frustrating the work of many pollution-controlling and recycling businesses? I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to find a cost-effective way to clean up the environment and keep it clean. Will he continue to press for a more realistic definition of waste which identifies harmful material to be discarded and material to be reclaimed that can be successfully reused?

I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in the subject. He has been to see me to discuss it recently. The definition of waste is a complex matter, as one man's waste may be another man's raw material and demand for recycled material depends on the state of the market and prices being held for recycled material at any time. I take note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Are not the Government seeking to weaken or repeal at least three important EC directives—on nitrates in drinking water, on sewage in bathing water and on nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere—and is not the cause of that nothing to do with any failure on the part of the directives but a failure on the part of the Government? On at least two occasions, they have been taken to court and lost cases arising out of those directives. Instead of wriggling out of their responsibilities, when will the Government face up to their responsibilities and clean up their act?

In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new position, I express the hope that by the next Environment Question Time he will be better informed about the subject that he has raised. Our position on the drinking water directive is driven by two considerations. The first is the proper application of the subsidiarity principle which, if rigorously applied, would mean that there would be no need for a directive on drinking water. Secondly, given that we are trying to improve the drinking water directive, we intend to apply the latest scientific research results produced by the World Health Organisation. That is the only point of difference between us and the EC at present.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving towards the introduction of energy conservation in domestic households.

I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce yesterday an extra £35 million a year for the home energy efficiency scheme, which will bring the total amount provided through similar organisations to more than £70 million.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the Government's energy efficiency and conservation schemes have been better than those of any previous Government and that the current one is the best ever? Will he confirm that some 500,000 homes are now eligible to receive benefits under the scheme and that that is good news for large numbers of pensioners and disabled people and for some 1,500 people who will find jobs as a result?

My hon. Friend is right to praise the Government's record. Perhaps through a slip of the tongue he said that 500,000 homes were eligible. In fact, 500,000 homes will have the work completed in any one year. About 4 million homes will be eligible. The scheme will mean that any pensioner who has concerns about insulation will be able to seek support. It is a remarkable achievement and it bears considerable advantage over any achievement of any previous Government.

As the Secretary of State has confirmed, it will take at least 10 years to insulate the 5 million or 6 million homes that require such insulation. Has he done any work to estimate the length of time that it would take to bring homes up to the standard of heating and insulation that obtains in countries such as Sweden and Canada, which do not have the large number of excess deaths of elderly people in winter?

I am surprised that the hon. Lady asks that question, as we are spending in real terms 17 times what the Labour Government spent in its last year. She should not try to mix the figures. She might also try to remember that there is a distinction between homes that are eligible and homes that need action. Obviously, many pensioners' homes have already had insulation work done to them or are already suitably insulated. It would be a great pleasure for the people of Britain if occasionally the hon. Lady cheered when things were done well instead of constantly whingeing on.

My right hon. Friend will have received the report of the Environment Select Committee on energy conservation published on Friday. We look forward to a response from the Government in due course. In the meantime, I welcome the doubling of the home energy efficiency scheme yesterday and the extension of its scope and, before that, the abolition of the client contribution. That was a terrific achievement. Does he agree, however, that the complacency of many better-off people and their failure to respond to market signals and the national commitment to the environment are a disgrace? Would we not be better educating them into improving their own performance?

I must point out to my hon. Friend that the energy saving campaign that we have just introduced has been one of the most successful Government campaigns ever. It is one of the top 20 in recall factors, thereby showing itself to be a very effective advertising campaign to do precisely what my hon. Friend says. I hope that my hon. Friend will also agree that those parties represented here—particularly the Liberals, who always talk about taxation to deal with the overuse of energy—should stop being hypocritical and support the tax system, as it will reduce the overuse of energy while giving proper support to those who cannot afford it.

The additional resources announced yesterday for the home energy efficiency scheme are of course welcome, but does the Secretary of State not realise that the Chancellor is devoting less than 1 per cent. of Exchequer revenue from VAT on fuel to the addition that was announced? Does the Secretary of State not realise that the HEES is very limited in the help that it gives? For example, it does nothing about cavity wall insulation. Moreover, at the same time as he trumpets that achievement, he has cut the green house programme by £45 million in the past year. And while we are at it, why do the Government not start by putting their own house in order? Is he aware that in the past year the Department of Trade and Industry increased its energy use by 24 per cent. and the Cabinet Office by 10 per cent?

I think that it would have been more accurate if the hon. Gentleman had read out the whole list. He would then have seen that we are well on course for a 15 per cent. reduction overall and that green Ministers in each Department are committed to that—[interruption.] The sad thing about Labour Members is that they are only interested in green matters when they think that they can win a vote or two. They are not prepared to pay the cost. The hon. Gentleman is in no position to talk about the amount of money that has been spent on energy efficiency when, as I mentioned, we have spent 17 times as much as the Labour Government did. The Chancellor is spending a very high proportion of the intake from VAT on helping those pensioners and others particularly affected by the cost of the scheme. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on social security, said recently that the Government should add to pensions to take account of VAT on fuel and that the Labour party

"could do it with an extra 50p on pensions."

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the process of local government reorganisation in England.

The process for reviews of local government structure in England is set out in the revised guidance to the commission which was published on 22 November.

I hope that none of the threatened reorganisations will impede local authorities in pursuing the opportunities for energy conservation, as indicated in the Secretary of State's earlier reply. Apart from the abolition of Avon, which I think we all welcome, is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Somerset have a low level of interest in, and commitment to, revolution in administration in local government, apart from certain contrived write-ins? Will he therefore be cautious in pursuing that matter and listen carefully to the views that hon. Members in the areas affected make to him in due course?

I will certainly listen to the views of hon. Members. The fact that people have a low interest in something does not mean that it is not important to them. Local government spends £40 billion or £60 billion of taxpayers' money a year, whichever way one defines it, and is the form of government most in contact with people where delivery of service is concerned. It matters to people that they get local government which is effective, can be identified and is organised as rationally as possible. We seek to achieve that by the changes.

Is the Minister aware of the anger in Darlington at his decision to overturn the Local Government Commission's recommendation for a unitary tier authority in the town? Does he realise that his decision rides roughshod over the overwhelming public consensus in Darlington, which backs the commission? Why did he not exempt Darlington from any further review, particularly as the commission's recommendation is in line with his new ministerial policy guidelines? Will he agree at least to meet an all-party delegation from Darlington to hear the concerns of local residents and to act on them?

If the recommendation is in line with the new guidance, I have no doubt that when the commission puts forward its revised proposal, it is likely to come up with something suitable for Darlington. That would be a sensible solution. I will meet anybody to discuss the matter, so long as people recognise that the commission's job is to make proposals, which we must then judge. I will not sit down and draw lines on a map, because that is not my job.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in Lancashire we see no need to start carving up existing boroughs and districts? Is it not in order for two or three to group together to share services?

We have made it clear that we do not think that existing districts will become unitary councils on their own boundaries unless there are circumstances that make that common sense. We are looking for building blocks that will create effective and convenient local government, and district councils are clearly one of those building blocks. I have been speaking to district and county councils, and one of my arguments is that they should get to work locally and spend a littlé energy on making schemes that they think will work and be effective and that can be the starting point of the commission's deliberations. That is a sensible point from which to start.

Does the Minister accept that there is something fishy going on with this local government review? He has set up this commission, apparently to give independent advice. In Derbyshire, it makes proposals; some Tory Members of Parliament do not like them, so they are changed. Most of the population want the status quo. Banham makes further proposals and now Ministers, including the Secretary of State, are telling him to have a third go. They keep changing the goalposts in Derbyshire just because they cannot get the right political result. The Minister wants those commissioners to act as Tory political apparatchiks. They should resign and show up the Minister, because he will not.

Although I am an optimist, the idea that the unitary authority created in Derbyshire from the three Labour authorities would be likely to fall imminently to the Conservatives is more than optimistic. Any idea that this is political gerrymandering is rubbish. We sent back the proposals because we had received many 'representations, which Sir John Banham had reported to us. Because the guidance had changed, the authorities wished to have their future considered in the light of the same guidance as will be used with every other authority. We have done that. If the commission wishes to come back and make a similar recommendation, it is at liberty to do so.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many people in Staffordshire are deeply worried about the way in which the Local Government Commission has been operating in the light of the Derbyshire decision? I congratulate him on referring the matter back, for sound reasons. Because the Under-Secretary who replied to Question 2 did not answer the point about car boot sales in relation to the division of functions within local authorities, will my hon. Friend accept that there is deep disquiet about car boot sales, for health and safety reasons and because there are worries about criminal activities?

I note what my hon. Friend says. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his answer, the Government are examining whether it makes sense to remove what most people regard as an archaic rule. The point of having a consultation is to hear what people say, and we are conscious that there is widespread concern about car boot sales. We are looking hard to see what protection local authorities have and what initiatives they can take. If we conclude that that is not adequate, we shall have to change it or look carefully at proposals. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Is the Minister happy with the current arrangements for public consultation, given that those arrangements seem to vary from place to place?

The commission's job is to produce proposals that will achieve effective and convenient local government. How the commission chooses to judge public opinion is something for it to decide, as is the internal management of the process.

Will my hon. Friend give a cast-iron guarantee that no district council will be forced into a merger against its will and against the will of the people? Will he also confirm that there is no absolute minimum size for a unitary authority?

The Government have never said that there is a minimum or a maximum size for the new shape of local government. Flexibility must be retained by looking at local circumstances. Therefore, it would be perfectly silly to issue an arbitrary guideline which might not be sensible in the light of the particular conditions which prevail.

Is it not the truth that what could and should have been a judicious and impartial review of local government is being undermined by a series of inconsistent proposals from Sir John Banham and by incompetence and meddling by Ministers? Does not the Minister understand that having not one, not two but three reviews in Derbyshire and Durham has wasted the time and the money of local communities? Does he accept that that has also—quite unreasonably—destablised the staffs who were affected?

The hon. Gentleman has characteristically got hold of the wrong end of the stick. There have not been three reviews. The preliminary guidance clearly stated that the commission was to come up with preliminary conclusions, and later it was to come up with final conclusions; the Government then had the responsibility to accept the proposals, modify them or refer them back to commission. We have done nothing that was not spelled out clearly in the rules at the beginning of the procedure.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my local county council of Buckinghamshire is anxious about the abbreviation of one week in the review period which has been made? The county council and the local district councils are working towards an agreed solution, which is preferable in all cases, and they are anxious that the time has been taken out arbitrarily. Even at this late stage, will my hon. Friend examine the timetable and perhaps bring some influence to bear on it to reinstate the four-week period?

We accelerated the programme because everyone asked us to do so. People wished to have the uncertainty concluded.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the proportion of local authorities which will (a) raise council tax rates and (b) introduce cuts in local government services following the grant allocation for 1994–95.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to announce his detailed proposals for the local government finance settlement very shortly.

Were not huge public, spending cuts announced in the Budget? Does that mean that there will be big council cuts and big council tax rises during the next three years? Has not the Secretary of State failed to defend his Department and shown himself to be the wimp of the Cabinet, and should not he go?

One thing which is always endearing about the hon. Gentleman is his predictability. Council taxes and services depend on the decisions taken by local councils. That depends on their reserves, collection of deficit, tax base and collection rate. What we are hearing now, before anybody knows the facts, is the old Labour litany that this will be a catastrophe. I recall that we heard that about Birmingham last year, yet no catastrophe overtook it, except that it, apparently, spent a lot of money building pyramids.

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the announcement that local authority capping will be kept on this year? As, clearly, many electors up and down the country have been foolish in voting in Liberal Democrat and Labour councils, does my hon. Friend agree that they should get what they voted for and take the blame for having increased the council tax, rather than pass the blame back to the Government for being prudent, unlike those councils?

The Government have experience of no controls on local government expendituré and we saw some outrageous increases. Because of that and because of a need to curb public expenditure generally-local government expenditure is a large proportion of the total pool—we think it sensible and prudent to maintain those controls on councils. That does not mean that there is not reasonable discretion for local authorities to determine their priorities. Certainly, there is enough discretion for people to make their choice at the ballot box.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities he has visited since his appointment.

I have visited 45 towns and cities since my appointment, including Manchester, York, Coventry, Birmingham, Leicester, Cambridge, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Nottingham, Derby, Gloucester, Bristol, Rochester and Peterborough.

I note that the Secretary of State made no reference to Sefton on Merseyside. Is he aware that in my local authority, Sefton metropolitan borough council, the housing waiting list is now more than 8,000 and that in my constituency of Bootle applicants have to wait for about three years before they are first considered for housing? The hon. Members for Southport (Mr. Banks) and for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) will testify that it takes about seven years in other parts of Sefton before housing applicants are considered for housing.

Two of my hon. Friends have visited Sefton. Sefton has one city challenge scheme, which is a good example of local partnership, and I notice that that gives a particular advantage to Bootle. Therefore, a great deal is being done in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world. It remains true to say that we will more than meet our election pledges on building social housing. What is more important perhaps is that we have already announced new means of ensuring opportunities for people who want to move out of local authority housing that has become too large for them in order to leave the space for others who need it. I hope that that scheme will benefit the hon. Gentleman's part of the world. A considerable sum is still going into housing. I am happy to look personally at the particular points that the hon. Gentleman raises about Sefton.

My right hon. Friend was not able to include the London borough of Barnet among those towns and cities that he has visited. Does he accept that he would be welcome to come to Barnet, especially if the standard spending assessment that he announces takes full account of the facts that we educate many children from refugee families and that we have a large elderly population?

As I have been to a large number of London boroughs and often visit Barnet privately, I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's comment. It is true to say that most Conservative-controlled boroughs in London educate many people from neighbouring Labour boroughs—including the children of some Labour Members who prefer their children not to be educated by a Labour council.

It is a great pity that the Secretary of State's visits to our cities and urban areas have not given him a proper and clear insight into the problems that they face. Why does he not have the courage to admit that the Government simply do not have a clear, coherent or credible policy for dealing with our cities and urban areas? Why has he failed to defend his Department's budget against the Treasury cuts for local government which were announced yesterday? By how much more is he increasing resources in real terms to our cities as a result of the city pride project? Is that initiative like everything else that he does on the subject—a cheap political gimmick and another municipal gameshow that insults the integrity and intelligence of those who seek to administer local government?

The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. He spent a lot of time, when we were discussing the setting up of the single unified budget for the great cities of England, telling us that there would not be the money for it. I am pleased to remind him that the £1·4 billion which I announced last year would be available is available this year. That is what we promised that we would deliver and what we have done. The hon. Gentleman first complains that I did not defend the budget; then when I do defend it, he repeats that I did not. He must get the figures right.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current Government urban policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current Government urban policy.

The Government will continue to support urban regeneration through a range of initiatives, including the single regeneration budget announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 November.

The Minister will be aware that Sefton may have been awarded city challenge resources, but Knowsley, which neighbours Sefton and has similar problems that are no less severe, was denied the resources, despite an excellent presentation. Will he recognise that the consolation prize of £1 million-worth of urban partnership funding can be seen locally only as a sop when it is accompanied by a rapid rundown in urban programme funding? The authority used to receive that funding at a level of £4·5 million per annum and used it to address strategically a wide range of economic, social and environmental problems. Will the Minister give a commitment to restore urban funding in my borough of Knowsley to such a level and in such a manner that it will be able once again to address its many problems coherently and will not be forced reluctantly to indulge in an annual game of urban funding bingo?

As the hon. Member knows, the urban programme is being phased out, but alternative opportunities are available to his constituency—for example, we are spending £10 million through estate action to remodel the Lickers Lane estate in Whiston. We are giving help to three local shopping parades—Liverpool road, Leathers lane and Hillside road. The hon. Gentleman's authority has received £20 million in urban programme resources over the past 10 years. Although it may not have been successful with city challenge, there has been a substantial investment in that part of the country by my Department in particular schemes, which I am sure has been of benefit to his constituents.

What plans does the Minister have for places like Bristol, where existing Government schemes are coming to an end? It has lost area task force money, it is losing the safer cities project money and it does not have the benefit of assisted area status. How will the proposed Minister for Bristol fit into the plans? Would not a better alternative be to fund properly a democratically elected local council?

The hon. Gentleman mentions all the things that Bristol does not have, but forgets to mention Bristol development corporation, which has just spent £47 million building a spine road linking the M32 to the A4. It is building a new shopping centre and a new business centre, and is helping to regenerate the whole area around Temple Meads station. For the hon. Gentleman to criticise the failure to win a number of smaller prizes when the area has the real help of that development corporation is to look through the telescope the wrong way.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this year the county of Cleveland will benefit from £100 million from the Government for urban regeneration? Central to that will be the continued excellent work of Teesside development corporation, which has attracted 7,500 jobs since it was established. Does he agree that that success and investment would make Teesside an ideal location for the new headquarters for the Urban Regeneration Agency?

My hon. Friend's note of optimism strikes a much more recognisable tone on behalf of his constituents than do some of the Opposition complaints. It is certainly true that the development corporations in the north-east are transforming prospects and providing a much broader base for the economy and more jobs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the part that he plays in further pursuing the work of the development corporation in his constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to combat homelessness.

The figures announced yesterday will mean that more families can move into home ownership, releasing their present local authority or housing association home to homeless families and others in housing need. Some £30 million is being made available to local authorities to run cash incentive schemes; and more Housing Corporation resources will be provided for its successful tenants' incentive scheme. That is good news for families in housing need, who will benefit from new lettings made available. It is good news for tenants and good news for the housing market.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Edinburgh churches and other organisations that are arranging a sleep-out for homeless people on Friday in which I will participate? Does he recognise that the vast majority of people who have homes and incomes are appalled by the plight of homeless people and by the fact that the Government have presided over such an alarming increase in the number of homeless people and done so little to help them? What concrete measures does he propose to ensure that young single homeless are properly accommodated?

It is not the case that homelessness is increasing in England. For the past four quarters, acceptances by local authorities of those who are statutorily homeless has fallen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that. Fewer and fewer of those accepted as homeless are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There has been a fall of 41 per cent. over the past 12 months in the number of families in bed and breakfast.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those policies, which are bringing down homeless statistics for the first time since records began. Can he confirm that there are 800,000 empty properties, representing 13 empty homes for every family in temporary accommodation? The Government are right to target resources on bringing those homes back into use, and is not that exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there are 800,000 empty properties. He is also right to promote schemes to bring those properties back into action, such as, for example, the housing association as managing agent scheme. Everybody who wants to bring decent homes within the reach of more people should do all that he can to encourage such schemes to get off the ground so that those homes can generate income for their owners and provide decent shelter for those who might otherwise be in unsatisfactory accommodation.

Do not the Minister's replies demonstrate a shameful complacency? Everyone except the Government seems to agree that 300,000 new homes are needed in the next three years. Is the Minister aware that today, more than 200 homes will be repossessed, more than 500 families will be registered as officially homeless, more than 60,000 families are trapped in temporary accommodation and more than 8,000 will sleep out, not only in London but in towns and cities throughout the country?

What really matters for those in housing need is not the number of new homes that housing associations built each year but the number of new lettings that housing associations provide. The Government are refocusing the resources of the housing associations into more cost-effective schemes, such as the tenants incentives scheme, shared ownership and do-it-yourself shared ownership. The number of completions next year, at 53,000, is roughly double the number of completions that were achieved in 1991-92. It is not the case that the Housing Corporation will not make a real impact. The Housing Corporation believes that, during the next three year, it will maintain the output that it envisaged completing at the beginning of the year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although Conservative Members welcome the reduction in the number of the homeless, Shelter claims that there are more than 2 million homeless people in England?

A number of figures are bandied around in the housing world. The figure of 2 million homeless people which was produced by Shelter is one of the most absurd figures that I have seen in three years as Housing Minister. Shelter has included in the 2 million figure everyone who is on an assured shorthold. The assured shorthold is now the most common form of letting in the private rented sector. If one were to describe as homeless everyone who had an assured shorthold, one would include many hon. Members.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to increase the number of air quality testing stations and by how many.

My Department published consultation proposals on the development of air quality monitoring on 2 November. Decisions will be reached in the light of responses to that consultation.

Can the Secretary of State say why so few testing stations are currently operating and why, given the huge increase in asthma and the links between asthma and vehicle emissions, he does not have immediate plans to build new testing stations to have them operating wherever concentrations of population and traffic coincide?

We have 42 continuous automatic stations. We are spending £4 million a year on that work. Anyone in the country can telephone his or her local number to find out the quality of the air in the place to which he or she wishes to go. That is especially valuable to those who have asthma problems. I have great sympathy with people who have such problems, as I am a former sufferer. I am, therefore, pleased that we shall have a report by the sub-group investigating that topic. I hope to have that report in 1994 and to consider it in conjunction with the work that we have already done. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important matter, which I shall not forget.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that much air pollution comes from the motor car. What plans has my right hon. Friend in place to reduce pollution from that source?

The reduction in pollution that has already occurred because of the move to leadless petrol is a remarkable achievement. That has been extremely helpful and has made a major difference. It is one of the biggest changes that has occurred. Cars now have to have catalytic converters. We are seeking to tighten those arrangements and have been doing so for some time.

Far from being reduced, did not pollution from nitrogen dioxide in central London rise by 17 per cent. last year alone and is not the number of national monitoring stations for nitrogen dioxide in Britain seven compared with 200 in Germany? Given that one in every seven children suffers from asthma and that the number of sufferers has doubled in the past 10 years, is not the least we can do—and the first step we should take—to improve substantially the monitoring of nitrogen dioxide and air pollution so that we can take action to tackle the problem seriously?

The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Three times as many centres do that already. There are 21 stations monitoring nitrogen dioxide; the hon. Gentleman said that there were seven. The figures we put forward are the facts; the ones he put forward are his hopes. The hon. Gentleman is constantly trying to undermine what the Government are doing. What we are doing is very effective. I have said that I am not sure whether we are doing the job well enough. That is why I issued a consultation paper. I shall consider that consultation paper and act on the facts. If the hon. Gentleman were more willing to acquaint himself with the facts and seek our help on them, we would get much further.