To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.

We have received many representations on various aspects of local government finance since July. These have included representations from 150 authorities about the provisional local government finance settlement.

Is the Minister aware that my authority, the Wirral, is expected to make £12·5 million-worth of cuts in its expenditure this year, which is in addition to the cuts of £53 million that have been demanded of it over the past four years? Is it credible for the Minister to maintain that cuts of that magnitude demanded by the Government do not mean that there will be cuts to front-line services when that is clearly not the case? Our services in local government are being decimated.

The hon. Lady has got it wrong. The only possible meaning of a cut is that the budget that her local authority will set for 1994–95 is less than that set for 1993–94. That is not true. Wirral local authority will be able to increase its budget by 1·25 per cent. What it will have to do is cut the budget that it would like to have had. It will have cut its wish budget, which is entirely different from its actual budget. Wirral is not an authority which has to cut its budget in real terms. Only seven authorities are in that category.

Did any of the representations query how vast amounts of public money could be found for prestigious projects, such as the Manchester Olympic bid, which bring kudos and publicity to the Government when, at the same time, vicious cuts for local authorities mean the closing of school playgrounds, swimming baths, pets corners and other leisure amenities? Does not the Minister think that there is a stench of hypocrisy?

I do not recall that. However, I recall that a report commissioned by Birmingham council stated that Birmingham had indulged in some prestige buildings when it should have spent its money on education. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might think about that one.

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 375, which refers to local government finance? Does he agree that all hon. Members must lead by example? Does he believe that Opposition Members who preach about local government finance are handicapped by the behaviour of the councils of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy? Does my hon. Friend look forward with me to the days when good local government returns to Derbyshire county council and to Monklandsgate?

The lesson is that Opposition Members should be careful before they start hurling accusations about councils. There has been a pattern of accusations against authorities. There have been local authorities in respect of which the auditor is not yet satisfied with the accounts, and those include a large number of Labour councils. People should cast the motes out of their own eyes before they level accusations elsewhere. We have a common interest in making sure that local government acts with probity. The sooner we recognise that common interest, the better it will be for everybody.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to improve local government finance is to have unitary authorities? Will he accept the thanks of my constituents for the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday to abolish Cleveland county council? Will he join me in condemning the decision by Cleveland county council to challenge that decision in the court, at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds to council tax payers, in a vain attempt to save its own neck?

If Cleveland thinks that it should spend its charge payers' money by going to court, that is a decision for Cleveland. We implemented the proposals and the provisional and final recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The district councils made strong, articulate representations about how they would carry forward the business of that region, and they were extremely convincing. That is why we implemented the proposals. We will judge every case on its merits according to entirely objective criteria based on the needs of the local electorate and charge payers.

May I, as the original objector to the sale of the Westminster cemeteries, which led to Mr. Magill's first report, and one of the objectors to designated sales, ask the Minister what action is being taken to ensure that Westminster council no longer wastes ratepayers' money? Do the Government have power to send in a commissioner to make sure that our interests as ratepayers are protected by those Conservative councillors?

If we had, we would have done so in respect of Lambeth a long time ago.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who criticise some local authorities would do better to direct their concern at authorities that waste money, overspend disgracefully, do not collect council house rents, leave houses empty and do not collect their council tax, and that most of those authorities are Labour controlled?

Yes.

Let me refer the Minister to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) about real cuts. Is he embarrassed by the comments of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in May 1993, when he wrote to the Treasury saying that, in the financial year 1994–95, a 5·2 per cent. increase in total standard spending was necessary to protect—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is paraphrasing and not quoting.

Indeed, I am, Madam Speaker, and I am about to paraphrase even more in my final paragraph.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly in fine form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It took a long time to get that one from Opposition Back-Bench Members, I have to say.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a single regional office for all Government Departments in London will be established.

The new regional office for London will come into being in April.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new regional offices will be widely welcomed as bringing decisions closer to the community, not only in London but elsewhere, and will be particularly welcomed in Lancashire, where they will provide better liaison with the new unitary authorities, which we hope will come about sooner rather than later so that we can get rid of that high-spending county council as quickly as possible?

Bringing together the various offices of government in London and elsewhere will enable decisions to be made in a much more holistic way, rather than individual decisions being on made matters that should be considered together. Advice will, therefore, come in that unitary manner. It will be for the commission to make its proposals for Lancashire, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have views that he will want to make clearly.

Although the House will welcome better co-ordination between Government Departments—for many years, the Labour party has put forward that policy and it has now been accepted by the Government—does the Secretary of State realise that his plans are fatally flawed in two respects? First, not one extra penny of resources will be allocated to London to deal with the problems that Londoners face and to enable our capital city to compete with the best cities in the world. Secondly, his plans do not go one step towards creating what the people of London really want—a properly elected and democratically accountable government for London. Why are the right hon. Gentleman and the Government so afraid of democracy?

First, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the curmudgeonly way in which his more senior colleague welcomed the change when it was introduced. Indeed, he did as much as he could to attack it as being unsatisfactory. I see that Labour Members have already changed their minds about whether we are right.

Following my right hon. Friend's robust and welcome remarks, will he assure my constituents that under no circumstances will there be a repeat of the Greater London council or anything like it under this or any other Conservative Government? We cannot afford it.

The Government will continue to deal with the real problems in London and leave it to Labour Members to hide the absence of a policy with a continuous nostalgia for one of the worst systems of local government that we have seen.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what views he has received from the Audit Commission on his provisional proposals for distribution of standard spending assessments.

None.

Is the Minister aware that in the document "Passing the Bucks", the Audit Commission says that many of the decisions taken on grant distribution are political and there is no adequate explanation for the criteria used? When will we end the year-on-year manipulation of the grant system? In April, people up and down the country will face cuts in their budgets and increases in their taxes. In Coventry, the average will be £57, with £3 million in cuts. When will we have fair taxes at the local level?

The hon. Gentleman is saying that the whole system of distribution—the standing spending assessment system—is rigged politically. The Select Committee on the Environment will report on that, and I will bet the hon. Gentleman that there will be no reference whatever to the rigging of the system. What is more, the Audit Commission does not say that.

I am delighted that there have been no representations to my hon. Friend. The city council in my area is delighted with its standard spending assessment, although, of course, the county council is not pleased and is grousing fit to burst. Does my hon. Friend accept that we who run our affairs properly are delighted?

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to give my hon. Friend such pleasure.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about how many products now have ecolabelling in the United Kingdom.

On Thursday 25 November the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board awarded the first European Community ecolabels to Hoover Ltd. for three washing machines in its New Wave range. Environmental criteria have also been adopted for dishwashers.

I welcome the Minister to his new post, but he takes over a pretty sorry tale as far as ecolabelling is concerned. It is clear that about one third of shoppers would be happy to purchase products that were environmentally friendly, but they have become increasingly disillusioned by false claims. It is almost four years since the Government promised that they would have a proper system in place. Is not it appallingly slow progress to have virtually one award every year for four years? Can the Minister tell us how many more awards there will be in the next 12 months?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think that it is right and proper for me to place on record my appreciation of, and thanks to, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), for the sterling work that he did for environmental and rural interests. He can be proud of his ministerial achievements.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. In his time as a Northern Ireland Minister, my hon. Friend had experience of being grilled by the Select Committee on the Environment, and I can promise him just as much in his new post.

My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, and I am grateful to him for his kind wishes. We are in conversation with the DTI, and I know from my own experience how important it is that the information that is provided on any product fits in with the Trade Descriptions Act. I know that the DTI is fully aware of our concern and of the concern of the consumer.

Will animal testing now be definitely included in the ecolabelling process? The Government had apparently said that they were willing for animal testing to be included, but that has not been formally confirmed. Will there be across-the-board acceptable criteria and standards? When will the Minister conclude his discussions with the voluntary sector so that a general agreement can be made?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I know that the Commission is considering the matter and, as he will understand, I am not yet in a position to make a detailed judgment or statement on where the Commission stands. Certainly the Commission is interested in that, and the ecolabelling board in the United Kingdom is also aware of the concern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that there is more of an ethical argument than an environmental argument over animal testing, and that is a part of the problem that we have to consider. I shall give the matter my urgent attention.

Is it not more important to get ecolabelling right than to be rushed into premature judgments? Will my hon. Friend take particularly seriously the representations of the paper industry to ensure that any system of ecolabelling does not work to the disadvantage of British producers of what is an environmentally friendly and eminently recyclable product?

What my hon. Friend says is right. It is essential that we have a standard that is applicable throughout the European Union. In those circumstances, it is better to take time and get it right, recognising that there is legitimate pressure from the consumer and from Conservative and Opposition Members that we should do so as quickly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce the principle of subsidiarity to relations between central Government and local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

I have made clear my commitment to the principle of subsidiarity and the delegation of responsibility not only from central Government to local authorities but from local authorities to the lowest possible level, consistent with efficiency, including locally managed and grant-maintained schools.

Alone among European Community members, Britain has a highly centralised government machine in which local self-government has been almost completely destroyed. I hope that the Minister will take on board the feelings of many people in Britain that it is time that local self-government was restored. People are fed up with the creation of quangos staffed by a Tory nomenklatura that will have to be swept away by the next Labour Government. I hope that when he talks about subsidiarity in the sweet terms that he does—

Order. I have not yet heard the hon. Gentleman ask a question. Is there one coming into view?

You will remembers, Madam Speaker, that I asked the Minister when he would restore local self-government—or is subsidiarity to be conceded only to Wandsworth and Westminster?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that as Minister for Local Government and now as Secretary of State for the Environment, I pioneered, and fought for, the extension of local government powers by passing community care to local government rather than to any other system. That major extension of local government powers will be completed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities are able to spend more than three quarters of all the money that they have, without any specific grants? Will he further confirm that the Government will continue the policy of caring capping, which means that we shall not allow local authorities to spend and waste money and we shall continue to protect ratepayers with capping?

My hon. Friend underlines that the reason why we have capping is that some local authorities, including the Liverpool authority that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) supported, behaved in the most disgraceful manner and found it impossible to manage their finances properly. Therefore, I should like to see more and more freedom for the local authorities that are prepared to be responsible in the use of their money. That is why I fought for, and will continue to fight for, the extension of local authority powers, particularly in the caring services through community care.

On the issue of subsidiarity between one authority—Westminster—and central Government, and as Dame Shirley Porter said on the radio that she could not remember whether she had consulted the Government about Westminster's housing and poll tax policies, will the Secretary of State confirm that at the material time, Ministers were, indeed, working in league with Westminster and Wandsworth councils in their gerrymandering efforts and were gerrymandering grant to those local authorities just at the time when the authorities were gerrymandering for votes?

Because Wandsworth has the largest cut in grant and, therefore, attracts a larger amount of the damping system which covers all London boroughs and especially benefits Labour London boroughs. It is rare that I have to say this and I shall say it directly to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] He may find it amusing to accuse people of organising a system that cannot be run in that way. His local authority associations were fully consulted on the laying down of the SSA system and they know that it is entirely objective. They asked for the damping system that he attacks. He knows that to be absolutely true and he is a disgrace to his party.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with helping people sleeping rough in central London.

The Government have spent £96 million since 1990 to provide almost 3,500 places in temporary and permanent accommodation and to help people sleeping rough in central London. Independent research shows that our rough sleepers initiative has housed several thousand people with a history of sleeping rough. We have provided a further £86 million to continue the initiative until March 1996. A count by voluntary sector agencies last November found 287 people sleeping rough in central London, compared with estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely welcome news, but does he agree that it is disappointing that the Labour party persists in putting forward their own campaign—[Interruption.]—persists in making cheap political capital at the expense of the small number of unfortunate people still sleeping on the streets? How many extra beds were made available during the recent spell of cold weather and what percentage was taken up?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the many voluntary organisations—especially Church-based organisations—that have done first-class work in achieving the reduction in numbers to which she rightly referred. It is encouraging that, according to the last count undertaken by voluntary associations in November, only three people under the age of 18 were sleeping rough. During the cold spell at the end of November, which was one of the coldest in London, extra emergency beds were opened—I think 150—and the maximum number taken up on any one night was 55.

Why are there so many more people sleeping on the streets of London than in any other European city? Does not the Minister feel any shame about the fact that, in this year of 1994, so many thousands of our young people are sleeping on the streets of London?

I do not know which European cities the hon. Gentleman visits.

I said all of them.

I do not know which cities the hon. Gentleman visits, but I made it absolutely clear that the regular counts by voluntary organisations—not by the Government—show a reduction from 1,000 three years ago to 287 in November, of which only three were under 18. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that progress has been made and that he will encourage voluntary organisations to drive forward the programme. I also hope that, from time to time, he will accept that the Government do good work on housing.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are empty hostel beds in London today and that there are thousands of empty council houses in Newham, Islington, Lambeth and other Labour-controlled boroughs? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Labour party to complain that there are people sleeping rough when Labour councils are the most inefficient housing authorities in London?

Indeed, I hope that hon. Members who visit European cities will also find the time to visit some of the authorities in London that have large numbers of empty local authority homes. If one goes past an empty council house in London, the chances are that it is owned by a Labour local authority.

I recognise that there is some temporary assistance for the homeless in London, but, instead of scapegoating single mothers in his homeless review, making the victims pay the price for his failed housing policies and redefining away the homeless, as the Government have the unemployed, why does not the Minister tackle the causes of the housing and homelessness crisis? There are 1 million people with negative equity, 500,000 people with mortgage arrears, 1·5 million on local authority waiting lists, 150,000 statutorily homeless people and 63,000 people in temporary accommodation. Will not he accept the acute and absolute shortage of homes to rent and acknowledge that Labour authorities have the most effective housing record—[Interruption.] Of the 25 housing authorities named by the Minister in December, 11 were Labour, four were Tory and one of those named was Westminster. The truth is that Conservative Governments and Conservative councils keep houses empty. Is not it because Labour housing authorities are better that the Minister will not allow Labour local authorities the right to build the much-needed homes to rent?

I was grateful for the first half-sentence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks when he made a rather grudging recognition that some achievements have been made. When he sees the Government's consultation document on access to social housing tomorrow, he will see that no one is being scapegoated. He should also recognise that in each of the past six quarters, the number of people who are accepted as homeless has fallen and he should recognise that there has been a reduction of 41 per cent. in the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation. The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that of the top 10 local authorities in London that have empty properties, nine are Labour controlled.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a massive reduction in the numbers of rough sleepers in London since the Government began their initiative and that reports of anything different are grossly overstated, exaggerated and untrue? Will he also agree that there is one particular case in which there is a real problem—the bullring—and will he concentrate his attention on that, so that the propagandising by the Opposition, which is totally untrue, can stop?

About three years ago, everybody who was sleeping rough in the bullring was offered alternative accommodation and it was closed. The Government asked Lambeth council to leave it closed, but the council decided to reopen it and the problem has recurred. Discussions are taking place with the property owners to see whether we can get a more acceptable alternative to the present design of the bullring, and a key part of any redesigning or rebuilding will be offers of suitable accommodation to those who are sleeping rough.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce new minerals planning guidance on opencast extraction.

We published revised planning guidelines for public consultation on 14 December. The guidelines deal with both deep mine and opencast coal and with the disposal of colliery spoil.

I thank the Secretary of State for his decision in the Birch Copice case, when he refused the application for opencast mining and overruled the public inquiry. May I remind the Minister that 20,000 homes in my constituency are still threatened by the prospect of opencast? Many of the people who live there are former miners and face not only the loss of their jobs but the potential destruction of their environment. Is not it time that he gave local people a veto and a right to say no to opencast despoiling their environment?

In those circumstances, I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will welcome the new guidelines, which have gone out to consultation, because they mark a distinct shift. They have withdrawn the strong presumption in favour of opencast coal development that existed previously and have replaced it with a test of environmental acceptability.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the new guidelines on mineral extraction and ask when he will introduce in the House the orders necessary to put those guidelines into practice?

They are out for consultation, which closes at the end of March. Given their acceptance and welcome in the House, I hope that hon. Members will make that clear as part of the consultation process.

The Minister must, however, agree that what he wrote into the new draft planning guidelines on opencast mining in December is a presumption not against opencasting, but in favour of it. The guidelines state:

"It would be against the national interest to refuse permission",

Any reasonable person who reads the guidelines will see that they make it clear that where the impact of opencasting would have particularly adverse effects on the environment and the quality of life for local people, permission should not be given unless the development would produce overriding benefits. The guidelines strike a balance between the economic importance of opencast coal and the protection of the environment. It is worth the House recalling that when the socialist Government nationalised the coal industry they did not have any planning regime whatever for opencast mining.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.

My Department is currently consulting local authorities and other interested parties on detailed proposals for extending CCT to local authority security work, vehicle management, management of on-street parking and legal services. We will begin consulting on other white collar services in the course of this year. I anticipate that legislation will take effect in a phased programme beginning in April 1995.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response. He spoke of the solid benefits of compulsory competitive tendering. Is he also aware of the hidden benefits to a local authority department that chooses to bid for a service: perhaps for the first time it has to look afresh and self-critically at the costs and true resources of that department, to the benefit not only of the smooth running of the department but of the charge payer?

Yes, competitive tendering has brought substantial benefits. Independent research has shown that it has reduced costs on average by 7 per cent. and on some services by up to 20 per cent. Those savings have been made to the benefit of local taxpayers and can be applied to other services in the local authority area. In addition, competitive tendering has improved contract specification, standards have risen, staff morale has improved and scrutiny has improved. All those have been brought about by competitive tendering.

Is the Minister aware of the great contribution to the quality of the built environment made by local authority architects' departments? Last week, for example, I attended a meeting with the Royal Institute of British Architects in Hampshire to celebrate a Hampshire school winning the national RIBA award for public design and on Friday I attended the opening of the Tauntons college in Southampton, the design of which was completed by local authority architects.

Even by the Labour party's terms, I can see no possible ideological reason why architecture has to be designed in-house. A few of us could think without too much difficulty of some fairly horrific examples of 1960s and 1970s buildings by municipal architects.

Will my hon. Friend, in his customary big-hearted way, extend warm congratulations to Geoff Lennox, who was a committee chairman and later a senior officer at Derbyshire county council and dedicated his career firmly to fighting against contracting out local services—

He was never any good.

He was a big buddy of yours.

He was not.

—but who recently took a job on a large salary with a private sector company dedicated to selling contracted-out services to local government institutions? Does this show that at least parts of the Labour party are making progress, or is it just the usual mixture of hypocrisy and opportunism?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of people in the Labour movement are seeing the light. My hon. Friend mentioned one; let me mention another. At a recent meeting of the Association of Direct Labour Organisations, Jack Dromey, the national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, warned that there could be no return to the 1970s, when, he acknowledged, the interests of producers had dominated those of customers. He said:

"The managers, councillors and unions made arrangements which suited them, not the community as a whole. I can't put forward any ideological reasons why refuse collection has to be done in-house."

Will not the Minister halt the extension of CCT to housing management, recognising the failure last week in Tory-controlled Wandsworth to introduce and privatise the management of some 8,000 houses in Putney and Battersea? Does he not recognise that that failed and abortive exercise has cost the tenants and residents there some £750,000 in trying to meet Tory policy?

There is absolutely no reason why competitive tendering should not also extend to housing management. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about privatising, most of it is extending to council tenants a considerable choice, to which the Labour party seems opposed.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. Points of order come after Question Time, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of competitive tendering is that it allows the in-house team to prove its ability, if it has it? Significantly, it has been proved in Tory boroughs, whereas Labour boroughs consistently fail, when they do not fudge the figures.

Local authorities will increasingly have to demonstrate that they are giving good quality to local people for the vast sums of money that they spend. One of the best ways that local authorities can demonstrate that is to expose their services to competitive tendering. I find it amazing that the Labour party still has difficulty with that concept.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made about the impact of housing revenue account subsidy on the level of council rents.

My right hon. Friend is increasing council rent guidelines for 1994–95 by an average of £2·20 a week. The average council rent guideline for subsidy purposes next year will be £31·60, which is both moderate and reasonable.

At a time when owner-occupiers—I count myself among their number—are benefiting not only from tax relief on mortgage interest payments but from significant reductions in housing costs because of the fall in interest rates, how can the Minister justify the fact that, in the forthcoming financial year, local authorities will receive no net subsidy for housing and will have to find £66 million to support housing benefit, which will have to come from rents? Why are the Government so vindictive towards council housing and council tenants?

To get the figures straight, there will be some £4 billion in housing revenue account subsidy next year. Local authority tenants who are on benefit will, of course, be insulated against any increase. Those tenants who are not on benefit have the option of the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which was put through the House by the Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will promote, with vigour and enthusisasm, the rent-to-mortgage scheme to his tenants who are paying the rent in full.

Will my right hon. Friend look at councils that are increasing the costs of running their housing departments, which they are passing on to their tenants on an increasing scale? They are doing that to bring in more revenue for the council and are hiding the real costs of running their department.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that housing management will be put out to compulsory competitive tender. The benefits from the reduced cost that that will bring will be fed into the housing revenue account and will feed through in lower rents for his constituents. That is a powerful reason for the Government's pressing ahead with their policy, on which we were urged a few moments ago to hold back.

Does the Minister recall the answer that he gave me on 1 December, which showed that in the previous four years, when the retail prices index increased by 28 per cent., average council rents in London had been pushed up to 89 per cent? His own local authority, Tory-controlled Ealing council, led the way with a massive and disgraceful increase of 201 per cent. Does he recognise that his own authority has the record of the highest local authority rent in the country followed by Tory Redbridge, Tory Westminster, Tory Kensington and Tory Harrow? Will he now admit that it is Tory councils, often inefficient and corrupt, which hold the record for the highest rents?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, I take some interest in local authority rents in Ealing. He may be aware that rents in Ealing had to go up by such a substantial amount because of some creative accounting by a Labour-controlled Ealing council, which was thrown out of office three years ago. It was the only gain that we made from the Labour party and we achieved it because local people recognised that creative accounting by Labour-controlled councils was highly expensive.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings have been made by local authorities in the last year as a result of compulsory competitive tendering.

Details of annual savings are not held centrally, but the results of independent studies by the university of Birmingham show that compulsory competitive tendering has reduced costs by an average of 7 per cent. between 1989 and 1992 and up to 20 per cent. for some services, and also improved services.

In the light of my hon. Friend's answer, will he look carefully at my local council, Waltham Forest, and join me in condemning it for dragging its feet on the application of CCT? As a result of that delay, the council has now started to lay off managers as well as workers in the direct works organisation, which could have been avoided had it applied CCT. Does that not demonstrate that yet another socialist council is failing to work for the people?

Waltham Forest's record on competitive tendering is pretty miserable. We have had to give two directions to it in respect of financial failure of its direct labour organisations, one for failure on building maintenance work and one for failure on ground maintenance work. That meant that Waltham Forest's direct labour organisations were making losses, which were inevitably passed to local tax payers as higher local taxes or reduced services, or both. We are determined that such losses should not continue.

When the Minister is attacking Waltham Forest council by suggesting that it should be more efficient and producing savings, will he also consider what is happening to the housing action trust in Waltham Forest? It seems that the local authority is expected to make savings by putting services out to tender, whereas the housing action trust, which spends millions of pounds of public money, is allowed, unilaterally, to dispense with contracts with the local authority and to set up its own direct management, without any tendering process. Is not that a case of one rule for the local authority and another for the quango?

It is very sad that the hon. Member should seek to attack the Waltham housing action trust, because he knows, as other hon. Members know, that local tenants voted for it because they saw that it would bring considerable benefits to them. It is clear from the exchanges in the House this afternoon that the Labour party does not like tenants voting for their own management or local authorities providing better services through competitive tendering.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the benefits of CCT. He is also aware that his Department had to issue an instruction recently to close the contract services department of Sefton metropolitan borough council, which holds sway over my constituency, at least until we recapture our unitary authority status in Southport. Will he join me in expressing regret that it was necessary for the Government to step in to look after the genuine interests of the council tax payer instead of being able to leave the matter to the local authority leaders concerned?

I very much regret it when it is necessary for Ministers to issue statutory notices and directions. I hope that we can achieve a situation in which Ministers are no longer concerned with CCT, because I would hope that every local authority, be it controlled by Labour, the Conservatives or others, would appreciate the virtues and benefits of exposing their services competitively to the marketplace, and the benefits that that brings to local people. It is clear from this afternoon's exchanges that Labour still has a real ideological hang-up about competition. It seems that for the foreseeable future, Ministers will have to continue introducing statutory notices and directions to ensure that local authorities behave properly.

Is the Minister aware that one person who hopes to benefit from compulsory competitive tendering is none other than the person mentioned by the hon. Member for Amber. Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—Geoff Lennox, the ex-director of education with Derbyshire education authority? He used the Labour movement and tried to close schools in my constituency, until I stopped him. I smelt a rat seven or eight years ago and warned my Labour colleagues that he would desert them in the end—and now they all agree with me.

As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley scored a palpable hit. It is clear that the gentleman concerned was only appointed by the Labour party because he was a socialist—and for no other reason of merit.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet his EC counterparts to discuss pollution; and if he will make a statement.

At the next Environment Council on 24 and 25 March.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Great Britain has now ratified the climate change convention? Which European countries have not ratified, and will he take steps to see that they do?

We have ratified and are followed in that by a number of other European Community countries. All have said that they will ratify, and we expect the remaining member states to do so. The Community itself ratifies, of course. I am pleased that we shall together help to guard against climate change, which would be so damaging to this and other countries.

Is it the Minister's intention to explain to his colleagues why the Government are privatising the parts of the civil service that specifically provide protection against pollution in this country by making a high level of scientific input into investigations of instances of environmental pollution? Will the right hon. Gentleman do all that he can to ensure that those functions remain within the Government service and are not privatised for the benefit of private industry?

I want the highest possible standards of pollution control services. If they can be improved through the use of private organisations or by privatisation, I shall hurry on with that. The measurement is not whether the services are public or private but whether they deliver the goods that we want—the highest standards of pollution control.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the opening of an opencast mine in a sensitive area between the village of Poynton in my constituency and the Greater Manchester boundary might be described as a form of pollution? If he does, and if my constituents are unhappy with the decision taken by Cheshire county council—which has responsibility for deciding mineral extraction planning applications—is there any way that my constituents can take their case to Europe?

As you, Madam Speaker, did not stop my hon. Friend asking his question, it must be possible for it to be infiltrated into the subject of pollution. I will go no further in answering the first part of my hon. Friend's question.

Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of the fact that in this day and age people who use our beaches and waters for sport and pleasure often find themselves surrounded by raw sewage? Why does he not direct his energies, and those of his colleagues, to cleaning up our bathing waters—instead of seeking to dodge out of the EC bathing water directive?

What I am ashamed of is the fact that, for many years, the nationalised water undertakings did not spend the money that they should have spent on ensuring proper discharges. That is why we privatised the system, in the teeth of opposition from the Opposition; it is why we are spending—Interruption.]—I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will want to hear this figure. We are spending £3,000 million a year on improving the infrastructure of the water system in Britain. The Labour party tried to deny the system that money, because it voted day in, day out against privatisation. The hon. Gentleman is another Labour Member who should be ashamed of himself.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he plans to take energy efficiency forward.

The promotion of energy efficiency to reduce carbon dioxide emissions remains a key Government priority, as demonstrated by the further increases in the Energy Efficiency Office's budget for 1994–95 to over £100 million. Energy efficiency measures will play a significant part in the United Kingdom's climate change programme which will be published later this month.

When undertaking their recent inquiry into energy efficiency, some members of the Select Committee noted widely differing standards of energy efficiency among local authorities. Will my hon. Friend endeavour to encourage local government to pursue energy-efficient schemes as widely as possible?

My hon. Friend, with his great experience of local government, is right to pick on this area as one which can be developed even faster. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning and I are prepared to spend as much time as necessary encouraging local authorities to recognise that their expenditure and, hence, their costs to local charge and taxpayers, can be reduced by energy efficiency.

Time is up.