To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what improvement in quality of service has been seen in councils since the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.

Independent research by the university of Birmingham has shown that authorities' CCT contracts have ensured better monitoring and better delivery of services. Costs are on average 7 per cent. less than before, and up to 20 per cent. less for some services.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that compulsory competitive tendering breaks up the cosy relationship between some local authorities and trade unions, particularly those local authorities that run direct services organisations? Is not that really why Labour Members are fearful of fair competition?

If one wants evidence of that cosy relationship, one need look no further that this week's Municipal Journal. On one page, we discover that the GMB persuaded the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council to rethink its decision to award to outside contractors 19 contracts, which had been won fairly on competitive tender. If we want to know why that has happened, we have only to look on the opposite page, where we discover that the same union will be giving some £250,000 to help the Labour party to fight elections. That is the clearest possible example of a trade union buying influence. The Labour party is clearly in the pocket of the very union that does not want competitive tendering.

I declare an interest, as a member of the GMB. Are not many thousands of GMB and other trade union members employed by local authorities on very low wages? Have not the cost savings made through CCT often been at the expense of the wages of those low-paid people and, on other occasions, resulted in the quality of services suffering?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges being sponsored by the GMB, but does not have the good grace to acknowledge that the GMB is seeking to persuade the Labour party, with a substantial contribution of funds, to go back on competitive tendering.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite what the Opposition have said, my local council, Waltham Forest, has consistently failed to make the extra effort over CCT? The council's direct services organisation was hugely in debt and failed to collect the outstanding bills, and that led to a reduced service for the public. Was not that directly as a result of a political decision by the council to drag its heels over the matter?

All the evidence shows that competitive tendering brings substantial savings to local people and improves the quality of service. It is a sad reflection that far too many local authorities still resist introducing competitive tendering, often at the behest of the local trade unions. Local authorities must decide whose interests they serve—those of local people or those of local trade unionists.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning fraud and corruption in local government.

From time to time, there are allegations about fraud and corruption which are pursued by the proper authorities. Fraud and corruption are always to be condemned.

Will the Minister confirm the view that has already been expressed by the Government spokesperson in another place that John Magill, the district auditor in the Westminster homes for votes scandal, acted correctly and followed procedures to the letter? Will he join me and others in condemning Westminster Tories who are using the tragic death of Dr. Michael Dutt to try to discredit the district auditor's report?

The position is extremely clear and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know it. The auditor acted perfectly properly, but the conclusions that he has come to are preliminary conclusions, which have not been subject to any trial or adjudication by a court. Clearly, there is a procedure that will decide whether those conclusions were well founded. At that point, people can form their judgment. It is wrong to do so before.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), speaking of Lambeth council, was reported in The Times on 23 January 1993 as saying:

"the whole place is falling to bits with corruption"?

I know that the hon. Lady is an extremely assiduous Member for her constituency. She is clearly in a much better position to make judgments than the rest of us.

Is not it time that Ministers stopped condemning Labour authorities when only vague allegations have been made about their conduct, and addressed the real problems in authorities such as Westminster? Will the Minister tell us what his Department knew about the cash incentive scheme in Westminster? Was not that scheme approved by his Department? Were not the subsidies for that scheme paid by his Department? Was not the monitoring of the scheme carried out by his Department? Did not the Department undertake a comprehensive review of the scheme, which showed precisely what was happening? Is not it time that the Government came clean and not merely criticised what Westminster council did but owned up to their responsibility in that sordid matter?

The hon. Gentleman's introduction was revealing. He asked whether it was not time that we did not look at Labour councils. I say that we should look at all councils where there are allegations of corruption, no matter what political colour they are. We have a common interest in stopping corruption and sorting it out wherever it is found, irrespective of what council it is. We should create a clear distinction between allegations and what is found to be true. When allegations have been proven, we have a common interest in seeking probity in local government, irrespective of what council is involved.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the allegations of corruption and fraud in Labour-controlled Monklands, Lambeth and Haringey, the ex-deputy leader of Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council is currently serving a prison sentence for defrauding the council by fiddling his expenses?

My understanding is that the gentleman has appealed against his sentence. He is alleged to be conducting council business from his cell in the mean time, and is receiving the allowances that go with those responsibilities. I should have thought that it might be slightly more prudent for those allowances to be held and paid if he is proved not guilty, rather than being paid during the period of his appeal.

Is the Minister aware that, on top of the systematic corruption and gerrymandering exposed in Westminster, there is a rising tide of reports of official corruption investigations in one Conservative district council after another, the latest being in South Oxfordshire, Hertsmere and Mid Bedfordshire? Is not it because the abuse of power by many sections of the Conservative party is so extensive that, in addition to what some Members of Parliament have said, the former Lord Chancellor and ostensible upholder of the rule of law, Lord Hailsham, issued a most disgraceful attack in another place on the integrity and independence of the district auditor? Is not it the case that, in the eyes of some Conservatives, the independence of the judicial process ends where Conservative sleaze and corruption begin?

What the former Lord Chancellor said is perfectly clear. He said that many people were acting as if the auditor's report were proven fact and those people mentioned in it had been condemned in a court of law. He said that that was not the case and that the reports contained the preliminary findings, which have to be verified. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what uptake he expects of the rent-to-mortgage scheme.

The early response to the scheme has been encouraging, although it is as yet too early to say how many of the 1.5 million tenants who are eligible will take advantage of it.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his considered reply. Does not the success of the scheme depend on the level of interest shown in it? Had the Opposition parties been in power, what level of interest would there have been?

My hon. Friend rightly points out that the scheme is of interest to 1.5 million local authority tenants who would not have the choice that is now available to them had we listened to Opposition Members. I hope that all hon. Members will bring to the attention of their local authority tenants the potential of the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which will be of interest to the 1.5 million local authority tenants who are paying their rents in full.

Does the Minister remember just before the last general election accepting a mortgage-to-rent scheme that I proposed, at least in part? The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Minister, said that the scheme would save thousands of people from being repossessed and going into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That was therefore a similar sort of scheme. Why did the Government say before the election that they would save thousands of those families, but fail to do anything afterwards?

That is a good example of Opposition Back Benchers implying that the Labour party is committed to substantial public expenditure when they know perfectly well that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have distanced themselves from any such commitment.

Is not the golden thread running through the rent-to-mortgage scheme, the right to buy council homes and leasehold enfranchisement that Conservative Members believe in people having control over their own lives? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proposition has never been welcomed by Opposition Members?

My hon. Friend makes the point in his characteristically clear way. The Conservative party is interested in choice and in giving people the opportunity to make decisions about their lives. Opposition Members want to deny people that choice.

Before the Minister gets too enthralled by the golden thread of rents to mortgages, let me point out that, as he knows, many people who have bought under the right-to-buy scheme, to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will later allude when he introduces his Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders Bill, are finding it impossible to sell their homes or pay for the capital or service charges. Can he tell them when he will relieve them of the consequences of buying under the Government's scheme, before he puts other people in a similar position?

As I think that the hon. Member will agree, most of those who bought flats from their local authorities did so with the benefit of substantial discounts, also benefited from the fall in interest rates and in no way regret the decision. A minority—

Seventy thousand.

It is nowhere near 70,000. A minority of those who bought are having difficulty selling their flats. My Department is having discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the local authorities. We are encouraging some local authorities to follow the example of authorities such as Wandsworth, which gives mortgage indemnities to those who want to buy flats. I urge all local authorities to consider whether they have a role to play in proposing mortgage indemnity schemes—48 are doing so—or doing what the London borough of Enfield has done and buying the flats back.

Should not that excellent scheme now be extended to housing association tenants? Will my right hon. Friend look at the ways in which that could be done, despite the early opposition in another place to home purchase by tenants of housing associations?

As my hon. Friend knows, housing association tenants do not have the opportunity to take up rent to mortgage, because housing associations use private finance to supplement their resources to build new homes. We have given those tenants opportunities to get access to home ownership by extending the tenants' incentive scheme, which gives them the cash sums that they need to purchase homes in the open market. To some extent, that is a broader choice, because it does not confine them to buying the home in which they currently live.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take in respect of the practice of charging for water by compulsory metering of the domestic water supply.

The basis for charging is a matter for each water company.

Yet another answer from the Government in which they say that something is not a matter for them. We have just heard a lot about choice from Ministers, yet water metering is rarely a matter of choice; in fact it is compulsory. Does the Minister agree that when water is compulsorily metered there is a vast increase in the size of bills? What will he say to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. McGregor, who have seen their charge of £70 a year for water transformed into a charge of £144 for the first quarter—an increase of close to 700 per cent.—which they simply cannot pay?

The hon. Lady flies in the face of the facts that confront the average user of, say, electricity or of gas, which is metered and distributed on the basis of those who can afford to pay.

But sewage charges are not metered.

If the hon. Gentleman were to be quiet for once, he might hear something to his advantage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not unreasonable for people to pay for what they use? Therefore, is not it right that subsidy should not be given when one bears in mind that, on average, with a metering system people will pay exactly the same? That point of elementary mathematics appears to have been misunderstood, or is incapable of appreciation, by Opposition Members.

My hon. Friend is quite right. Opposition Members are not very good at mathematics. Although vie should be tolerant of their foibles, the fact remains that, as is often the case with environmental issues, they say one thing here and another outside.

The Minister must accept, however, that compulsory metering hits many households, especially large families with children and those with disabilities who need frequent bathing. If the Minister is worried about the environmental effects of drought, will he tell the water companies to do something about the 25 per cent. leakage of water, which is lost from the system and never gets to households? Does not he recognise that compulsory metering takes no account of human need, that it rations by price and discourages proper hygiene? Will he now ensure that private water companies such as Anglian Water, which has already embarked on a programme of compulsory metering, are told to desist in no uncertain terms?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The fact remains that gas and electricity, which are metered—

They are quite different.

They are not quite different; they are comparable and those utilities are required by average families, who pay accordingly. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) knows as well as I do that those in need and the more vulnerable members of society are able to obtain help and support from benefit offices. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman standing at the Dispatch Box to suggest that metering is not on. There are alternative methods of payment, of which metering is one.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of South West Water to discuss the basis of water charges.

My right hon. Friend has not yet had the opportunity to meet the chairman of South West Water. I hope to do so shortly.

As and when my hon. Friend meets the chairman, I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell him about the indignation and anger that have been expressed during the past four years by hon. Members who represent the west country at the unsustainable level of water charges in the west country, which have continued to rise unabated. When does my hon. Friend expect the valuable initiatives taken in Europe to try to cope with those charges to bring about some decrease?

My hon. Friend is one of my hon. Friends who have led many delegations to see Ministers, former ones and current ones, to discuss with us the problems of his constituents. I know that he will understand that we are doing all that we possibly can to alleviate the pressures on South West Water and on my hon. Friend's constituents. What is apparent, from what my hon. Friend knows and from what he and his colleagues have said to my right hon. Friend and to me, is that Opposition Members believe that we should implement directives on quality in some areas but are not prepared to listen to the concerns so adequately and properly represented by my hon. Friend and others on behalf of their constituents about those increases in charges.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concern expressed in Devon and Cornwall by ordinary water users about the fact that their bills are due to double in the next four years to more than £500 a year on average? Is he also aware that people in the area are appalled by the synthetic concern expressed by people like the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) who, after all, voted in the House for higher bills?

I do not believe that we need any lessons in synthetic protest from Opposition Members.

Will the Minister accept that it is now well over a year since the Prime Minister came to the west country and promised to cut bills? Since then, bills have continued to increase. When the bills for next year shortly fall through their letter boxes, people will find that they have gone up by almost a third since the Prime Minister made that promise. How long do they have to wait until their bills are a reasonable level?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he has also had a meeting with the Secretary of State—incidentally, he broke the information on that to the press before it was properly made available, but, frankly, that is typical of the Liberal party—that the situation is quite clear. We have understood the problem faced by people in the south-west, which is due to the fact that that region has a larger number of beaches than other parts of the United Kingdom. Is the hon. Gentleman expecting his hon. Friends in other parts of the country to subsidise the costs that his constituents are being asked to bear? If so, I should be extremely interested to learn his hon. Friends' response to that suggestion.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he plans to take to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to housing associations.

Twenty five authorities have so far transferred their housing, with the agreement of their tenants, and 18 more are programmed to do so between now and March next year. I shall encourage more to do so in the future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real benefits that will start to flow in Wychavon, to the tenants of Wychavon council housing and to the homeless, following the decision of the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction to allow the authority's stock to be transferred to two housing associations? Does he share my concern about the propaganda from certain Labour-controlled local authorities and the Labour party branches of Maidstone and Thanet against such transfers? Does he agree that it is about time that the Opposition started to put the interests of tenants and the homeless above their petty ideology?

When such a transfer was first made in my constituency, I had my doubts, but all I can say is that the experience of transferring local council housing in Suffolk, Coastal to Suffolk Heritage housing association has been uniformly good. In my surgeries, I find that far fewer complaints and many more congratulations are offered about the way in which local housing is run.

What can the Minister do about transferring the high-rise flats in Mixenden in my constituency, where asbestos has been found? The local authority cannot afford to pay for its removal. Would the Minister make special grants available if the property were transferred to a housing association?

As the hon. Lady knows, a number of local authorities, many of them Labour controlled, are now joining in to decide how best to deal with such matters. [Interruption.] Opposition Members must try to realise that I am trying to be as non-party political as usual, and I shall continue to try and be so. I do not want to embarrass any of the hon. Lady's colleagues, but they are looking into the matter. If the hon. Lady has a particular problem about asbestos in a particular block of flats, I am happy to consider it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Commission to produce its preliminary report on the future structure of local government in Devon and Cornwall.

The Local Government Commission has asked for initial proposals for Devon to be submitted to it by 8 April and for Cornwall by 29 April. The commission will then prepare draft proposals, on which it will consult local people and other interested parties. The publication date for them is a matter for the commission.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a recent High Court ruling has changed the rules in favour of two-tier authorities? Does that explain why the commission is now no longer saying that unitary authorities are the preferred option, but that it will investigate and examine the merits of unitary authorities? Is he aware that the MORI poll in Devon recently shows that there is no pressure for change in our county?

First, the Government firmly believe that unitary authorities are often the best way to achieve effective and convenient local government. My hon. Friend is free to make his own views known to the commission, but he has to be aware that there are other views in Devon. I understand that eight out of 10 district councils in Devon are putting an agreed joint submission to the commission proposing a smaller number of unitary authorities. The political complexion of the districts involved is one Conservative, two independent, two Liberal, two with no overall control and one Labour. That shows that, in Devon, as elsewhere in the country, local people and councils of all political complexions are discussing with their neighbours the natural size of local government that is best for their area and are putting agreed proposals to the commission.

Does not the Minister owe it to the House to be absolutely precise about the soaring cost of his plans for local government reform? Can he confirm that the cost of the commission has risen from £2 million two years ago to an estimated £8 million next year? Can he further confirm that substantial numbers of civil servants in his Department are engaged full time on that and nothing else and that many others are peripherally involved?

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not appreciated that the timetable for the commission has been reduced this year. Of course, that means that the costs are higher this year, but the overall costs are exactly the same. I am also surprised by the hon. Gentleman's lukewarm approach to the issue. Clearly, he has not consulted his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) who made it clear that Labour has been in favour of unitary authorities almost for ever. I thus find his remarks surprising and out of tune with what is being said, but perhaps it is yet another instance of the Labour party being totally split.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the recent court case and subsequent ministerial advice, many of us in the west country take the view that we are over-governed, that there is a strong case for single-tier local authorities, that Cornwall needs local government based on the existing district councils and that the county council should be scrapped?

My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the duplication of functions. There is bound to be confusion when essential services, such as housing and education, are delivered by different authorities in the same area. In my hon. Friend's constituency, it must be confusing to local people that if they are concerned about the cleaning of their street, they must approach their district council, but if they are concerned about the maintenance of their street, they must approach the county council. That cannot make good sense. As I have made clear, we firmly believe that unitary authorities will often be the best way to achieve effective and convenient local government.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of new housing association houses to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of new housing association houses to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

The Housing Corporation estimates that housing associations will provide around 57,600 new lettings in 1993–94, 58,300 in 1994–95 and 51,500 in 1995–96; a total of around 167,400 over the three years.

Is not the real fact that in the next financial year Government investment in housing associations will be cut by more than £300 million and in the year after by not far short of £300 million? How does the Minister explain away the fact that his Government have spent years grooming housing associations as an alternative to local authorities in providing low-cost housing only now to strangle housing associations, forcing them to cut back on building, or raise rents, or both? What does that mean for the 900 families who become homeless in my city of Birmingham every single month?

What really matters is the fact that the Government have exceeded by 25,000 the number of new units they said that they would provide. We have exceeded our manifesto commitment by producing 178,000 new homes as against 153,000. In the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92 the output was 70,000; in the next three years it is likely to be 178,000. That is what really matters for the homeless.

Is not what really matters the newbuild social housing that we have for rent in this country and not the figures which the Government are putting out? Is not it true that there will be a 38 per cent. reduction in building new social housing for rent rather than the figures with which the Minister is misleading the House?

What really matters for people in housing need is the number of new lettings. Those are the figures that are of relevance to people in housing need and they are the figures which consistently go up.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are 2 million more houses in this country than there were in 1979, but that too many of them are currently empty? Can he also confirm that the Government's task force on empty properties is making a concerted attack on bringing back into use those empty Government properties? Is not it time that Labour local authorities who are sitting on thousands upon thousands of empty houses made an equally determined attack on the problem?

My hon. Friend is right. We must make better use of the stock that we already have. There are some 800,000 units empty and there is a political imperative to bring them back into use. I hope shortly to receive the report of the task force, with its recommendations for making better use of Government-owned properties. Local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled local authorities in London, must make better use of their own housing stock if we are to make faster progress.

Is not the real answer to more housing association houses being built to give the tenants the right to buy? To paraphrase Shakespeare, what we would like to hear on this side of the House is: "Sir George for England and for housing association tenants".

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for injecting a patriotic note into our discussions.

The Minister was very selective about the figure that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). He did not dare to compare the current position with that of 1979. Will he not admit that there is now a serious shortfall in housing that is built for rent, as a result of Government policy? The Government are now cutting the money available to housing associations, and they have axed local authority provision. Given that he accepted last year that capital receipts should be used to allow new building, why does not the Minister accept that they should be used for that purpose now?

The figures for homeless acceptances have fallen for the past six quarters; in the past 12 months, there have been 41 per cent. fewer people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and the number of lettings is rising. That is the currency which matters to people on waiting lists or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are making good progress, and we are determined to go on and do even better.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that 9 per cent. of Hackney council's housing stock is unlet? Does he not think that the council is trying to become even less efficient than Lambeth council—if that is possible?

My hon. Friend is right: there are housing difficulties in Hackney and it is incumbent on Hackney council to do all that it can to make better use of its housing stock. Filling those properties would generate a rental income which, in turn, could be ploughed back into improving the condition of the housing stock. I very much hope that that will be one of the issues on which public attention will be focused in London over the forthcoming months.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a repair order in respect of Battersea power station.

No. This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage; but I understand that English Heritage inspected the building last month and noted no significant change in its condition.

Does the Secretary of State recall John Broome's proposals 10 years ago to turn Battersea power station into a sort of Disneyland, at a ceremony attended by Margaret Thatcher? Now—apart from its roof having come off—the power station is in danger of falling down. As the Minister responsible for London, and the ultimate planning authority for London, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will take urgent steps to find a community use for Gilbert Scott's wonderful gem on the Thames that is compatible with its architectural importance?

We must get the balance right. Much of the work done under Mr. Broome's ownership was of a structural nature, and it is clear that the danger to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not exist at present. I shall keep an eye on the power station, however, because—like the hon. Gentleman—I recognise its importance as an architectural feature. Although there is dispute about quite how important it is, I accept the hon. Gentleman's view.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Battersea power station is just one example of a sad category of buildings that have attracted the attention of Government Departments as gems of one kind or another, but have then been listed in a way that makes it extraordinarily difficult to adapt them, and have then been left for long periods? Many have decayed to a point at which they can no longer be rescued. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for National Heritage about this distressing scandal?

I wonder whether it is a growing scandal, although it is certainly distressing when buildings that might be put to better and newer use are not so put. We must accept that it is particularly difficult to find a new use for this building. It is, however, being regularly and properly inspected by English Heritage, and it should be recognised that large sums are necessary if it is to be put to a reasonable use. I do not think that my hon. Friend has many bright ideas about that—and few Opposition Members have either bright ideas or suggestions about where the money should come from.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposals to change priorities for rehousing families in permanent council accommodation.

The consultation paper on access to local authority and housing association tenancies was issued on 20 January. The consultation period ends on 18 March.

Does the Minister agree that, in the allocation of houses, it is not the system but the shortage of decent, affordable housing that is the problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an inevitable consequence of the proposals in the homelessness review will be an increase in the number of children coming into care because their parents are overwhelmed by housing difficulties? Does he really want to go back to a "Cathy Come Home" situation? Will he reconsider his proposals, which only serve to punish the homeless for their housing need, and deal with the real problem, which is a shortage of decent, affordable housing in this country?

I think that the hon. Lady is mistaken, and I shall explain why. At the moment, we have a situation in which some people, who are in very bad housing conditions but are not technically homeless, are left in those conditions, whereas others, who are in better conditions but are technically homeless, take the places that are available. What we are proposing is simply that we should seek a common means of sharing, on the basis of need, the accommodation that is available. The hon. Lady should be ashamed of herself for trying to suggest otherwise. She is using the plight of homeless and sad families for party political purposes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current legislation on homelessness works against ordinary families with children who are in need, who often find themselves on the housing list for years despite the fact that they are local people with a right to be housed?

I am sure that when the legislation on homelessness was introduced it was intended to give people access to local authority and housing association accommodation on the basis of need. It is clear that that does not always happen, and it is sensible that we should try to ensure that in future it will. I do not understand why Opposition Members, who are supposedly interested in the provision of housing for those in priority need, find it impossible to join us in this effort and, instead, use the situation for sordid party political purposes.

On the subject of shame, is not the reality that here, the shame rests with the Conservative party? Will the Secretary of State, instead of scapegoating single mothers and, now, the homeless in general and rubbing out people's right to a secure home by offering only a short-term break of six months in a private rented bedsit, cancel this uncalled-for, unwanted, back-to-basics-tainted review of the homelessness legislation, which is crudely geared to fiddling the homelessness figures—doing to the homeless what the Government have done to the unemployed, and doing absolutely nothing to tackle the real housing and homelessness problem, which the Government are deliberately turning into a crisis?

I do not think that it is acceptable that a family with children living in very bad housing should wait and wait and wait while people who are statutorily homeless, even though they have a better roof over their heads, jump the queue. The hon. Gentleman ought to take the opportunity of his next article in the newspaper for which he writes regularly to explain that Conservatives want to ensure that choices are made entirely on the basis of need rather than on the basis of statutory entitlement. Until the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the bona fides of others, as we are prepared to accept his bona fides, he will have nothing to contribute to this debate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to encourage greater energy efficiency.

My Department is taking forward a comprehensive range of measures to encourage greater energy efficiency. These are set out in the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on energy efficiency in buildings, which was published yesterday, and also in the United Kingdom's climate change programme, which was launched by the Prime Minister on 25 January.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the doubling of resources for the home energy efficiency scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the November Budget has been widely welcomed throughout the country, especially by the elderly and disabled? Will he ensure that the benefits of the scheme are made widely known throughout the country to those who may be eligible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is right to draw attention to the fact that we are increasing the budget in that area, as in many others related to energy efficiency. I will certainly take to heart his strictures about ensuring that the public are even more aware of what is needed to improve energy efficiency.

Is it not time that the Minister admitted that all those documents and policies are long-gone pious hopes, short on realistic objectives? The Energy Conservation Bill, which represents a practical way of doing something about the problems, passed unamended through its Committee stage this morning. Will the Minister now assure the House that on Report he will not seek to weaken the important principle in clause 2—the duty to survey properties—by providing the alternative of a permissive principle, which would make the Bill a toothless tiger—or can we assume that that is his real objective?

The hon. Gentleman was present this morning when the Standing Committee examined the matter at some length, and he will understand, as will the promoter of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that there are issues that cause some concern, and which are the subject of some consideration. In due course, we shall consider what action to take in relation to them.

May I generally welcome the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, and its positive tone, as well as the responses of OFFER—the Office of Electricity Regulation—and the Energy Saving Trust? But may I underline the fact that the EST clearly has problems in funding a very important programme that will be the key to fulfilling our obligations under the climate change convention? May I therefore urge my hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to bring together the EST and the regulators to ensure that a solution is found to the problem and the funds produced?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that the regulators will meet officials from my Department tomorrow. I will certainly press the cause that he advocates.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the standard spending assessment formula used to determine local government spending in Liverpool.

Liverpool's standard spending assessment is calculated according to the formulae set out in the local government finance report for 1994–95, which was approved by the House on 3 February.

How can the Minister justify a formula that leads to children at risk in Birmingham being allotted £5,000 per head, whereas in Liverpool the sum is only £800 per head? How can he justify a formula that leads to a city that has been afforded objective 1 status by the European Community losing about £17 million from its assessment in the current financial year? Whereas local authorities across the country are receiving an average increase of more than 3 per cent., Liverpool will have a reduction of more than 1 per cent. In the circumstances, is the Minister now in a position to respond to the representations made to him by all the political parties on Liverpool city council? They are still awaiting a reply.

The hon. Gentleman would know a little more about the justification for the standard spending assessments had he been in the House when we debated them, and had he voted on that occasion. He was not here. It is not my job to compensate for his previous absence. The SSA system has been worked out objectively; it is a formula-based system, a means of dividing a fixed cake. The fact that Liverpool gets lots of benefits from other schemes is not relevant to the consideration. I told Liverpool clearly that if its representatives wished to discuss the way in which we took the SSA system forward I should be perfectly willing to do that. I have made that offer to all the councils whose representatives have come to see me. This year's settlement was agreed by the House in the hon. Gentleman's absence.

Are the findings of the 1991 census now incorporated fully into the SSA formulae?

Yes they are. In future years, the population estimates will be included until there is another census that will enable us to incorporate the actual figures. That is part of the continual updating of the system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had on the control of car boot sales.

We regularly receive correspondence on the subject of car boot sales from those who are concerned about the problems that badly managed events can sometimes cause and from others who regard car boots sales as a useful activity which is already adequately regulated.

As the Federation of Small Businesses fears that the abolition of market franchise rights will harm traditional village and town markets, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that honest market traders and consumers are protected from the minority of car boot sale cowboys?

There is a battery of regulation and legislation already in place which can be used to control car boot sales. It may be helpful to the House if I state that the Acts are the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Theft Act 19768, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions.) Act 1976, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Local authorities already have a wide range of powers to manage car boot sales. One wonders what further regulation the Labour party wants. Does it simply want to ban car boot sales altogether?

Will my hon. Friend please bear it in mind that well-managed car boot sales provide a useful source of income to many charities and voluntary organisations? Will he try to avoid producing yet more well-intentioned legislation, which ends up letting the villains escape and trammelling decent people in yet more burdens of red tape?

As I have already made clear, there are at least eight Acts of Parliament that apply to the control of car boot sales. My hon. Friend makes a good point that there are large number of organisations, including voluntary and charitable organisations, that find car boot sales a useful way to legitimately raise funds.

What is the real reason why the Government have reversed their policy on market deregulation from their statement contained in a letter from officials to the National Association of British Market Authorities on 11 March 1991? Will the Minister confirm that a change in franchise rights will allow car-boot cheats to thrive at the expense of honest traders? It will be a crooks charter. Does not he accept that that failure to reimburse local authorities for any change in franchise rights would, in the words of his officials,

"infringe the European convention on human rights"

I am somewhat boggle-minded at the idea that removing archaic rights given by the Crown many years ago to local authorities is somehow in contravention of the European convention on human rights, but I believe that anything can be said at Question Time. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is completely bogus. The only right that market franchise rights give to a local authorities is to be able to object to a market being within six and two thirds of a mile on that day. As most car boot sales take place on a Sunday, it follows that market franchise rights have little, if any effect, in controlling car boot sales.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the leader of Chelmsford borough council to discuss local government finance.

I shall do my best to respond positively to an invitation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. If he were to come to Chelmsford to meet the leader of Chelmsford borough council, Councillor Wedon, he and the other Conservative councillors would explain how they have reduced the council tax bill by £20 in the current year while maintaining services. He would also hear that that good work for the taxpayer will be undercut by the increases that Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council is imposing on charge payers by spending up to its standard spending assessment.

I know that the present leadership in Chelmsford has tried to pull back the council from the exorbitant levels of expenditure reached by the Liberal Democrat party and I am sad that those efforts will be undermined by the opposition parties of Essex county council. That will end the tradition of sound rule.

Is the Minister aware that the Bolsover district council will travel to Chelmsford and they will pass all those cones on the M1 to discuss the important question of the landslip, which they discussed with the Minister, on which six houses have already been demolished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not in Chelmsford.] We are prepared to discuss it at Chelmsford, at Finchley, at Westminster—

Order. It is being discussed here, at Westminster. The hon. Gentleman's question is irrelevant.

We will travel anywhere to get the money.

Order. We are in Westminster now.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimates of potential savings as a result of the creation of single-tier local government in England.

The capacity for savings across England will depend on the action of the councils established by Parliament following the recommendations of the Local Government Commission.

Does the Minister agree that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that shire counties' estimates of the transitional costs of the local government review are grossly exaggerated? Does he agree that they have also grossly exaggerated the pay-back period of those transitional costs and that there are real savings to be made in the local government review? Therefore, the shire counties' claim that the review will mean £100 on people's council taxes is erroneous. Does the Minister also agree that unitary authorities offer great scope for local government, particularly in Halton and Warrington borough councils which I represent?

In local government reorganisation, we must look at the opportunities that that reorganisation presents to find ways in which services can be better delivered for the benefit of local people. I have absolutely no doubt that, up and down the country, people of all political complexions are coming together to find just that. We need to treat with suspicion some of the estimates of the costs of reorganisation presented by way of special pleading from particular groups from wherever they come. However, I hope that everyone considering the reorganisation of local government will consider ways in which long-term savings can be made as a consequence of reorganisation.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

No, I have a statement. I call Mr. Robin Cook to ask his private notice question.