To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average housing association rent.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent for a housing association dwelling in 1978–79 and at the latest available date.

The average housing association rent in England on 31 March 1993 was £34.03 per week.

Does the Minister accept that, following the proposed cuts in the Housing Corporation budget, those rents will increase significantly—probably well ahead of inflation? That must be added to the difficulties facing local authorities, particularly lean and well-managed authorities such as Ellesmere Port and Neston. Does the Minister accept that, if those factors are added together, his policies will have dire consequences for people who need low-cost affordable homes? Will he reverse his policies and act positively in the interests of tenants both of housing associations and of local authorities?

I find it hard to take seriously the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made. On Monday, the House was invited to vote to give an extra £213 million to my Department, part of which would go to the Housing Corporation budget. I regret to have to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman voted against the provision of that sum. Against that background, I am surprised that he has the nerve to ask about resources for the Housing Corporation.

Given the average rent figures, and not least the higher figures in many metropolitan areas, does the Minister believe that ordinary families can now afford to be in unsubsidised housing association accommodation? Is not the effect of the policy to drive up housing benefit expenditure? How does that square with the declared policy of the Secretary of State for Social Security to drive down such expenditure?

I believe that £34 a week is a reasonable rent for housing association property, especially as so much of it is of good quality. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself a question. If he wants to keep rents down, he will find that there are fewer homes being built to meet the needs of those who have a housing problem.

Is not the real issue the speed with which we move towards market rents, to ensure that any assistance through housing benefit is given directly to those who need it, rather than through subventions to the corporation, which are spread among rich and poor alike?

My hon. Friend is right. We have made it clear that we believe that a more effective use of public resources is to move away from indiscriminate bricks and mortar subsidies towards more sensitively directed personal subsidies. It inevitably follows that the housing benefit bill will rise, but we believe that it is a more sensible use of public resources and will enable us to build more homes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how proud we in Teesside are of the new housing association rented properties that are coming on stream on the Teesdale sites? Those have been built with the assistance of Teesside development corporation as part of 155,000 properties that have come into being since the general election as a direct result of Government policy.

The House will be delighted to hear of the good-quality accommodation that is being provided in my hon. Friend's constituency. He is right to point out that the number of units provided by the Housing Corporation have exceeded by 25,000 the commitment that we gave at the general election.

Will the Minister reconsider his earlier answers and tell the House the figures that the National Federation of Housing Associations supplied to his Department recently, which show that the average rent for all housing association lettings in England is £43.86 a week and that the average for new lettings, which is obviously the most crucial figure, is no less than £51.12 a week? Will the Minister stop misleading the House with figures that are not accurate and tell us the truth? Those rents are not affordable.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the answer that I gave to Questions 1 and 2 was incorrect. They were the correct figures. The figure for new properties is, indeed, about £51 per week. That is not the figure that is paid by the vast majority of housing association tenants. Those tenants who are invited to pay the newer rents are eligible for housing benefit if they do not have the income with which to pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken within his Department to support his sponsorship of the construction industry.

We have established a construction sponsorship directorate committed to doing everything possible to ensure, in partnership with the construction industry, that United Kingdom construction is as successful as humanly possible.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the unemployment figures announced today showing a fall of 39,000? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the unemployed and their families? Does he agree one reason for the fall is the recovery in the construction industry shown yesterday by the increase in orders at home and by the fact that exports in the construction industry are running at £6 billion a year? Does he agree that more could be done to help our construction exporters? What exactly will the directorate do?

We all have every right to be proud that British construction skills, experience and quality are in such demand throughout the world. That means jobs at home. This year, together with the industry, our construction export promotion division is promoting trade missions, task forces and numerous country-specific events to ensure that United Kingdom construction wins as much business in the world as possible.

In the Prime Minister's references yesterday to the construction industry and particularly to housing, was not he ill-advised to refer to an increase in housing construction, when last year's figures show that construction was at an all-time low of 155,922 new starts? Will the Government give the industry the news that it wants to hear and say that some of the capital receipts can be used and that mandatory grants will continue?

I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the most recent statement by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Only days ago, it said:

"As confidence among buyers grows, we are experiencing a heartening buzz of genuine interest in many areas. As spring unfolds, the market will continue to develop. The economic soil is looking fertile and capable of sustaining growth. New house starts are going up at a very fast rate indeed."

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although I am delighted to see any resurgence in the construction industry, my constituents will not be pleased to see construction in the shape of new supermarkets in two places in Oadby in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear that in mind when he considers the applications that will be on his desk before long?

I commend to every Member of Parliament planning policy guidance note 6, which gives new planning guidance on out-of-town retail developments. It is an excellent publication.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current budget of the Energy Saving Trust.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the funding of the Energy Saving Trust.

The Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation. Funds for its schemes will come from a variety of sources. I understand that its budget for 1994–95 is currently under discussion.

Will the Minister comment on the evidence given by British Gas to the Select Committee on the Environment last year that its funding of the Energy Saving Trust would be £2 million last year, £10 million this year and even hundreds of millions in years to come? In the past 24 hours, I have learnt that, in seven days' time, the Energy Saving Trust will give notice that it intends to cancel the gas condensing boiler scheme, which is the most effective thing that it has done towards reaching the Rio limits on emissions. Why have the Government changed the regulator of British Gas, and why has that regulator sought to change the opinion of British Gas on the E factor in gas pricing and, therefore, cut the funding of the Energy Saving Trust?

There are a number of questions there and I am aware of your caution in these matters, Madam Speaker. I do not want to answer too many questions from one Opposition Member. Perhaps I can pick the one to which I know the answer, which is that the appointment of the regulator is not a matter for me.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, it is clear that the Energy Saving Trust is in big trouble, having had its primary source of finance cut off. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, if it survives, the efficient delivery of its programmes will depend on obtaining adequate information about energy efficiency, not least in the domestic sector? In that regard, may I draw the Minister's attention to the Energy Conservation Bill which was presented by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? That Bill would ensure that such information would be available because it requires local authorities to carry out an exhaustive audit of the energy efficiency of domestic properties. Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the Government will do nothing to undermine that Bill on Report?

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Energy Saving Trust will be without funds, but that is incorrect. We already have a commitment for some £25 million from the electricity companies. That means that, at least until the discussions about the future of the British Gas contribution, plenty of money will be available to provide for the continuance of the Energy Saving Trust.

Is not my hon. Friend confused by the signals from Opposition Members in wanting not to burn coal when gas was coming in? All their policy papers suggest that we should increase energy prices enormously through carbon taxes, but, of course, they voted against VAT on fuel.

Like many Conservative Members, I am constantly confused about what the Opposition represent on energy matters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Energy Saving Trust and the Government should look closely at the use of energy-efficient lighting, which would greatly cut the amount of CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere and save people a considerable amount of money that would more than cover VAT on electricity?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised this matter for the benefit of all hon. Members in the recent debate on his ten-minute Bill. I was pleased to be here to listen to him and I entirely agree that the message that we all can take is that energy-efficient lightbulbs are much better than existing ones and that the more that we can use them, the better it will be for all concerned.

I congratulate the Minister on his characteristic candour in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). There is a serious dispute between the Government and the Energy Saving Trust and the Director General of Gas Supply about the director general's precise role in this. Although the Minister is not responsible for appointing her, does not he agree that it would be a good idea to sit down, run through the difficulties and try to resolve them, because the Energy Saving Trust's role is clearly being prejudiced by a lack of clarity about her role in the matter?

The hon. Gentleman is right and fair to draw attention to this concern. It is clearly a matter that we did not anticipate because at the moment OFFER—the Office of Electricity Regulation—does not see a particular problem. The problem that has been highlighted by the Ofgas regulator, Miss Clare Spottiswode, was unexpected, and the matter is being discussed through my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether there is a way round it. Failing that, we may have to consider other ways by which the matter may be addressed, and that might involve legislation.

My hon. Friend will be aware that this country spends about £50 billion a year on energy and that the Energy Efficiency Office has estimated that we could save approximately 20 per cent. of that, or £10 billion. My hon. Friend is also aware that his Department has set the Energy Saving Trust a target for carbon reduction of 2.5 million tonnes to meet our Rio target by the year 2000. To do that, the Energy Saving Trust will need to spend about £400 million a year. As well as benefiting consumers, it will cost them only an extra 1.5 per cent., but will benefit our balance of payments by £300 million and create up to 40,000 jobs. Will the Minister confirm that that is the sort of target and the sort of agenda that he will set the Energy Saving Trust?

Yes, Madam.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about pollution of waterways with coal mining effluent.

Discharges from coal mines in England and Wales are subject to regulation by the National Rivers Authority. It is for the operators and owners of those mines, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, to determine what measures are necessary to avoid pollution.

Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding his factually accurate answer, many hon. Members are frustrated by the buck-passing between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority? Is he aware that the Neath canal has recently been declared ecologically dead because of mine pollution? The Neath river is now heavily polluted and the Pelenna river in my constituency is regarded as the most polluted river in Britain? Will his Department please institute an urgent examination of the problem in conjunction with British Coal, its successors and the National Rivers Authority and will he make a statement in the House about this growing problem, which will get worse as more mines close.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my answer is factually correct. That in itself is an achievement. [Laughter.] I should perhaps have said that it was an achievement for the hon. Gentleman to have recognised it. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the NRA has powers to prosecute any offence involving pollution from mines. In the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raises—the River Pelenna in his constituency —I understand that the NRA and West Glamorgan county council have joined forces to undertake a £1 million project aimed at restoring the quality of the river to support wildlife and removing the discoloration caused by mine water. If there are any other points relating to individual constituencies, I suggest that hon. Members take them up directly with the NRA.

Does not the question highlight the need for debate in the House on the environmental impact of the coal industry, preferably before the Coal Industry Bill returns to the House on Report and Third Reading? Perhaps my hon. Friend would discuss the matter with his colleagues and suggest to them that there is considerable feeling on both sides of the House that such a debate should take place.

I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of my hon. Friend's concern.

Will the Minister also take account of Coalite, which produces coke from coal and the fact that the dioxin effluent coming out of the factory into the River Doe Lea is 1,000 times above the requisite safety level? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that is stopped? Is the National Rivers Authority doing anything about it? It seems rather laggardly in its action.

I am very disturbed if, as I am sure it is, what the hon. Gentleman says about that river is true. I will ensure that the attention of the NRA is drawn to that case and that if action needs to be taken urgently it will be.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the correlation between political control and the top and bottom 10 council taxes so far declared.

Of the 10 councils that have fixed the highest council taxes, seven are Labour controlled, two others have Labour county councils, which are the principal precepting authorities, while I understand that Liverpool is split between rival Labour factions.

will my hon. Friend confirm that band for band—A for A and B for B, right up to H for H—Conservative councils cost less? Will he also confirm that while the Labour party continues to play its childish games, the Conservatives will stand and deliver better local government?

It is true: those who live in Conservative council areas and whose properties are in band A pay less than they would under Labour. Those who live in Conservative council areas and are in band B pay less than they would under Labour. It applies right through the bands. Whether one has modest means and lives in a modest house, whether one has a middle income and lives in a middle-income house or even if one is relatively well-off and in band H, one will always pay less under the Conservatives than under Labour or the Liberals.

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State's press release issued this morning recognised that Liverpool's band C figure does not represent what most people in Liverpool will be paying and that although there will be an increase, that is almost entirely due to the unfairness of the standard spending assessment for the city? Will he consider that a fairer way of comparing council tax levels is to look at averages? Liverpool's average of £550 compares favourably with councils such as Wokingham and Ribble Valley, both of which are Conservative controlled.

I cannot think of a less intelligible way of comparing council taxes than using averages, for the simple reason that no one pays an average council tax. Everyone pays one band from A to H and that enables us to make a direct comparison. What matters is how much one pays and one pays less under Conservative-controlled authorities than under Labour-controlled authorities, including Liverpool.

Does my hon. Friend agree that council tax levels would be much lower if Labour-controlled councils, such as Islington, Liverpool and Manchester, cleared their enormous debts so that they could use some of the capital receipts?

It is true that if councils collect their debts, council house rents and taxes, that money can go through into services. That has given councils that have improved their tax collection rates much room for manoeuvre this year. That is one of the keys to good services, not an optional extra. It is part of delivering a good service to council tax payers, and Conservative-controlled councils do it best.

A moment ago, in the hearing of the House, the Minister said that the use of average household bills per dwelling was a less intelligible way of comparing what people were spending. If that is so, why did the Department of the Environment, in its press release last March, use average household bills per dwelling? Will the Minister also explain why the research department of Conservative central office, in a brief dated last March, also used the average council tax per dwelling? Did Conservative central office use those figures before it discovered that average household council tax bills per dwelling are £40 lower in Labour-controlled areas than they are in Conservative-controlled areas and that, whether locally or nationally, the Conservative party costs people more?

We are clearly getting under the hon. Gentleman's skin. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to demonstrate that the council tax paid in any one of the eight bands is lower in a Labour-controlled authority than in a Conservative-controlled authority. He cannot do it. A council with houses predominantly in the lower bands will have a lower average council tax than a council with houses predominantly in the higher bands. That is a matter of statistics, not politics. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the basic fact that Labour-controlled councils are setting higher bills. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can read to him the 10 councils with the lowest bills, and he will not find a Labour-controlled council among them.

My hon. Friend mentioned the high levels of uncollected rents and council taxes in many Labour-controlled areas. When will the Government do something to force those councils to collect the rents that they should be collecting on behalf of the rest of the population?

If councils collect rents and taxes, they can spend more on services. A lack of services is the result of incompetence on the part of the councils.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the relative rate of rent rises in the public and private sectors.

Rents in all sectors have risen during the past few years. Public sector rents have increased to bear a closer relationship to the value of the accommodation being provided. That reflects, in part, our policy of moving away from direct subsidies to suppliers, towards paying personal subsidies to tenants to ensure that help goes to those who really need it.

Rent assessment panels agreed private sector rents in the east midlands for the first quarter of 1993 at an average of £46 a week. Will the Minister congratulate east midlands local authorities on keeping average local authority rents down to £28 as at April 1993? Does not that show how much better local authorities are at providing affordable housing than the private sector?

The rent officers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are operating under the Rent Act 1977. That regime shows how they operate. As to other rents in the private sector, Conservatives want investment in the private rented sector to be restored and more good-quality accommodation to be provided by private landlords. If that is to happen, those landlords are entitled to a realistic return and that means higher rents than the controlled rents supported by Labour Members.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of rents in the public sector is determined, in part, by the number of voids in the public sector? Is he aware that, in the London borough of Barnet, 0.9 per cent. of council houses are empty, whereas in the London borough of Hackney 9.2 per cent. are empty? Is he further aware that, in certain London Labour boroughs, rent arrears equal more than 20 per cent. of the annual rent roll? Is that not a national scandal?

As always, my hon. Friend's remarks are perceptive. It is unacceptable for local authorities to leave accommodation empty when people are in housing need in those boroughs. I urge all local authorities to do better in bringing back into use the voids under their ownership.

Is it not the reality that the Government are intervening and deliberately engineering high, rising rents in all sectors, forcing council rents up, pricing people out of being able to afford a housing association home, coercing council tenants to buy out, draining housing benefit into the private rented sector and forcing people to choose between a home and a job offer? When will the Minister realise that unemployment and low incomes into high rents just will not go without generating more homelessness?

None of that happens. If the hon. Gentleman is making commitments for higher public expenditure, I wonder whether he has cleared that with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make housing waiting lists more effective.

Our consultation paper proposes a single local waiting list so that social housing is allocated as fairly as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that, under the proposals, there will be adequate measures to take care of the most vulnerable members of our society?

Certainly, I would not have introduced the consultation paper unless that was an absolute, basic fact.

With millions of people in need of decent homes and scores, if not hundreds, of thousands of construction workers unemployed, is not the best answer to the length of housing waiting lists to build affordable low-cost housing for people to live in and to provide the jobs that mean that construction workers do not have to go abroad to make a living?

That is why we have already exceeded the target on which we fought the previous election. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should spend more, perhaps he has not talked the matter over with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), because that sounds to me like another promise to spend more money if the Labour party were elected.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must clamp down on abuses in the housing waiting list system, but will he take the advice that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) put to him—young women with children should not be put at risk as a result of these measures? Will he also concentrate on continuing to revive the private rented sector and, therefore, take care that none of those measures damages the Government's rent-a-room initiative?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend's first point, which is why we want equal access to the waiting list on the ground of need, instead of the present system. I agree that, as far as possible, we should revive the private rented sector, as we want as many homes as possible, particularly to provide for those who are without decent accommodation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he had in the development of the single regeneration budget.

Some 10,000 copies of the draft bidding guidance on the single regeneration budget have been distributed, 11 seminars organised and several hundred written responses received.

Does the Minister accept that the new measures that he is introducing are little more than camouflage for a further cut in the funds available for urban regeneration? Does he acknowledge, in the context of the east midlands, that the three cities of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby received some £10 million under the previous allocation of urban aid funding, whereas under the single regeneration budget they will be invited to bid for a total of £10 million for the whole east midlands region? Does he accept that 40 or more authorities bidding for an open pot amounts to a descent into game show politics and economics, which reduces the status of funding to little more than the game show "Don't Forget Your Toothbrush"?

That is all complete bunkum, and I shall gladly write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures to demonstrate the fact. The single regeneration budget straightforwardly fulfils our manifesto commitment to bring together resources for targeted inner-city programmes in a single budget, so that funds go where they are most needed locally, rather than according to a set of priorities determined in Whitehall. I should have thought that every hon. Member would welcome that.

Surely the Minister does not wish to mislead the House. Will he confirm that the annual report of the Department of the Environment—published only last week, on 8 March—states that there will be a cut of nearly £200 million in the single regeneration budget over the next two years?

We are spending £4 billion on urban regeneration this year. In so far as there is any reduction, it is caused by the fact that some institutions, such as those funded by urban development corporations, are beginning to wind down. Those are the straightforward facts.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has had so far about council tax levels.

The average band C headline council tax is £516. [HON. MEMBERS: "Average?"] Within that average, it will be found that the average for Conservative authorities is a great deal lower than the average for Labour or Liberal authorities. That represents an increase of 2.2 per cent. on the 1993–94 average.

Has my hon. Friend read the speech that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made to the Labour local government conference on 4 February, when he said, "I am proud of the"—

Order. The Executive are responsible for Government policies; they are not responsible for the activities of any Opposition Member. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point and ask a question right away?

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Labour party has—

Order. Let me explain. I think it only right for me to explain to the House that the Government are not responsible for the activities or the policies of the Labour party at Question Time.[Interruption.] No, it is right for me to be heard, so that the House understands me. The Executive are responsible for Government policies only; that is their accountability during Question Time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have consistently demonstrated that Labour is a party of high spending and high taxation in local government?

Not very well done, but just about passable.

I do not need to demonstrate that fact; I let it speak for itself.

Would the Minister care to admit that his use of band comparisons in regard to council tax is spurious and bogus? Let us suppose that two comparable authorities raise the same amount from the same number of properties, and their average council tax is the same. Very different comparisons could be made in respect of different bands. Authorities containing more properties in band A, the lowest band—which are more likely to be Labour controlled—would, as a consequence of that fact alone, have higher rates for the other bands. That is a simple mathematical truth. Perhaps the Minister would like to verify it, and also verify the political truth that Labour authorities cost less and give better services.

I notice that, whenever someone is about to say something that is manifestly not the case, it is described as some sort of irrefutable truth. It is not the case that Labour authorities cost less. The only sensible basis for comparison is comparing like with like, and that can be done only by making comparisons across the bands—which clearly demonstrates that Conservative councils are setting lower council taxes.

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), is not my hon. Friend being unkind to the Labour party, because surely the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) clearly said that his spurious claim was based solely on the fact that Labour authorities have more properties in the lower bands? Has my hon. Friend noticed that similar Conservative authorities are a lot cheaper, so, band for band, Conservative councils cost people a lot less?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would mention the fact that if Labour authorities have more properties in the lower bands, they are much more likely to get more revenue support grant from the Government and to benefit from council tax relief and various other forms of relief. That means that, despite the fact that Labour councils get more support, they still cost more—they could choose to lower their council tax.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the principal sources of nitrogen dioxide emissions; and which of these are currently increasing and which are decreasing.

Road transport, with 51 per cent., and power stations, with 25 per cent., are the main sources of nitrogen oxide emissions. I am pleased to report that the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", No. 16, which will be published this April, shows that all the major sources are decreasing.

In the light of the increasing evidence that there is a direct link between nitrogen oxide emissions and asthma and other respiratory diseases, will the Government introduce mandatory standards of air quality in line with World Health Organisation guidelines to protect the health of our children and that of other vulnerable people?

An investigation is considering the problem of air pollution and subsequently, I hope, there will be a report. As the parent of an asthmatic, I am only too well aware of the importance of air quality to asthmatics and others with breathing difficulties, especially in certain urban areas. We expect to be able to make a judgment in the not-too-distant future. The House is aware that the expert panel on air quality standards is considering the issue, and I am only too well aware of the importance of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great contributions to reducing greenhouse gases comes from the United Kingdom's nuclear industry, especially Nuclear Electric, which, in 1992–93, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than 55 million tonnes and reduced sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 870,000 tonnes? Does he also agree that, by reducing the United Kingdom's reliance on fossil fuels, we are contributing benefits to the global and national environment?

My hon. Friend put the point as succinctly and as well as it needed to be recorded.

Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways to tell whether we are improving air quality is by increasing the scope of air monitoring stations because we are far below all comparable countries in testing the quality of air? Will he ensure that we have the facts so that we can tell what is happening, as a matter of public record and information?

At the moment, we spend about £4 million per annum on air quality monitoring, and the figure has doubled since the 1991 White Paper. There is always a need to have a pretty fair understanding of air quality and the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it is certainly our intention to ensure that air quality monitoring is improved, not the reverse.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now intends to publish the third annual update of "This Common Inheritance".

Very soon; the report is currently with the printers.

Does the Minister agree that "This Common Inheritance" was published in 1990 and reported in 1991 and again in 1992? Why is it six months late this time? One of its recommendations was that we should not export toxic waste, but it has now been proved that some non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are used as routes for dumping such waste. Does he agree that we should be reporting the recommendation made by the Danes at the Basel convention?

I made the decision, which was widely welcomed, that we should not publish the next White Paper until after the sustainable development report so that it could be taken into account. I do not think that anyone has objected to that and it has been widely understood to be a sensible order.

Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), the Secretary of State will, of course, be aware that paragraph 14.61 of "This Common Inheritance" claims that Britain has taken a world lead in calling for self-sufficiency in national waste disposal. However, that does not apply to the export of toxic waste. The Secretary of State may nowadays be unimpressed by the fact that 15 Anglican bishops have called for an end to the export of toxic waste to developing countries, but he may take rather more notice of the call that has been made by Pope John Paul II. Will he, therefore, support the Danish proposal at next week's meeting of the Basel convention for a complete ban on the export of toxic 'waste from Britain to the developing world?

I know of no ecclesiastical personage who would support the imperialist view that a country that has exactly the same means of reprocessing toxic waste to help its industry should be denied that opportunity because it happens to be a developing country. Those people want to ensure that none of that toxic waste is dumped on other countries and used improperly. I am determined to ensure that, but I am not acting imperialistically.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce transitional relief for those new authorities which, as a result of the local government review, will face disproportionate increases in their council tax bills.

We are discussing with local authority associations the arrangements to finance new councils. When a new council receives a standard spending assessment that does not reflect its inherited commitments, we shall consider whether we should provide transitional help to protect council tax payers.

In the light of that response, will the Minister assure us that, in practice, he will not enforce local government reform on any area against the wishes of the local community?

The purposes of local government reform are perfectly clear. They are to achieve a more accountable form of local government and to achieve more efficient local government. It is also a reform which corresponds to the needs of local people. If first tests demonstrate that changing the system of government will deliver those benefits, that is what we shall do. But if a fairly clear case can be made that that is not so, the Government have no national blueprint. We are not doing it just for the sake of change.

What is the likely effect on a new authority's council tax levels? In Derbyshire county council's dying days, the deputy leader has been thrown into gaol for fraud and continues to draw his council's allowances; the former leader has resigned in disgrace, having squandered millions building a millionaire's complex in Yalta in the Crimea; and, habitually, close friends and relatives of senior Labour politicians get top jobs in the council. Is that not real corruption and gerrymandering and will not a cost be passed on to any new councils that are formed after the county council is abolished?

I am sure that all of us want the new councils to start with a completely clean inheritance and perhaps with a different set of values, as well.

The Minister will be aware from his consultations with local authorities and others, especially Conservative colleagues, of the many anxieties about the cost of local government reorganisation. Has the Department commissioned a study to assess the overall cost in England arising out of any changes in the local government review? If such a study has not been commissioned, will the Minister tell the House why?

It is very simple. Let us be clear: there is a distinction between transitional costs and net costs. The net costs will be met. At the end of the day, we think that the realisation of efficiencies, and so on, will pay for the transitional costs. However, until we know what shape local government will take, until we know what the commission comes forward with and until we know what the House will accept, it is utterly impossible to come to any conclusions. We have made it clear that we shall make available to local authorities credits to finance those transitional costs. All the commission's projections show that there will be a pay-back period in efficiency and in avoiding duplication, which will finance the transitional costs, including the rolled-up interest.

Does my hon. Friend share my anger and that of my constituents at the blatant politicking that Lib-Lab-run East Sussex county council puts into its magazine "Countywide", which merely defends its current position? Is that not as bad as the loony left councils, and will it not be a cost to council tax payers, now and in the future?

I never cease to be amazed by the number of councils that tell me that they need more standard spending assessment because they are so hard up that they cannot finance essential services, yet they always manage to finance consultants, Queen's counsel and other people to argue for their own survival. Several councils have put out misleading propaganda, such as polls that can have only one result. I have seen East Sussex's literature, and it has been one of the most conspicuous authorities in doing that. A genuine debate about the merits of local government reform and how best to deliver services is to be encouraged, but simply trying to protect one's own job by misleading the public shows local government at its worst. We shall examine most carefully the costs incurred by such councils.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions have been taken in relation to city pride.

The partners in the three city pride cities, Birmingham, London and Manchester, have all formed partnerships to take forward the preparation of prospectuses for their areas and they are making good progress.

Does the Minister agree that that is a competition of the poor versus the poor, instead of providing proper funding for inner-city areas such as Salford? Government policy is not working in that regard. We need more resources. What does the Minister intend to do about that?

We tried to get more resources on Monday night, and I am ashamed to say that the right hon. Gentleman again voted against more resources for my Department. The sum was £213 million, some of which would go to the urban programme. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to hear what Manchester city council said about city pride:

"The City Council is determined to respond very positively to the Secretary of State's invitation."

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to deal with the problem of dog fouling of parks, beaches and other public places; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are very concerned about the unpleasant nuisance of dog mess, but we believe that that is primarily a matter for local authorities.

The Minister's reply is hopelessly inadequate. Is it not a fact that our parks, beaches and other public places are ruined by the selfishness of some dog owners? Does he agree that it is about time that the Government took a lead in making those parks, beaches and other public places available to all our citizens?

I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that a recent Tidy Britain Group survey revealed that one in six streets was fouled by dogs and that, for 76 per cent. of adults, dog fouling was one of the worst aspects of environmental damage of which they could think. However, one has to recognise that there is a difficulty, between the people who believe that their pets can do no wrong and others who take a different view. I do not want to fall between two stools.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of compulsory competitive tendering, Conservative local authorities are more efficient at cleaning up dog dirt than Labour authorities? Does that not mean that, in a Labour authority, one has to watch not only how much one pays but where one walks?

We can also say that, at any rate, we have a better class of dog in Tory authorities.

Will the Minister explain how the Government could possibly help the nation to clean up its dog mess when they cannot even clear up their own mess?

I am always concerned at the fact that the hon. Lady is so unhappy about these matters. As I said, this is a serious matter and one which the House should take seriously. It is something which we should encourage. I suspect that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the serious message to give—we want to encourage owners to recognise the importance of not leaving dog mess in places where it can do damage to children, other people and society as a whole. If that message gets across on both sides of the House, that will go a long way towards solving the problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Office of Water Services about the basis of charging for water supply in the south-west.

The Department is in frequent discussion with Ofwat on the basis of charging for water.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that water charges in Devon and Cornwall in 1993 were substantially higher than in the rest of the country, and we are now facing an increase in our water charges of more than 12 per cent? Does he understand that the patience of the residents of Devon and Cornwall is wearing thin? Can he assure me that the Government are leaving no stone unturned to reduce our water bills? When can we have some positive news on this important subject?

We are certainly seeking to do all that we can to reduce water bills. However, we must also meet the standards that not only are expected of us by the European Community but which we ourselves want to meet. We are trying to do both at the same time.

Does the Minister recognise that, because of the frightening increase in bills in the south-west, there is a growing feeling up and down the country that what is wrong with the water industry is that the customer—the consumer—is not coming first? Does he agree that it is crucial that both the water regulator, Mr. Ian Byatt, and the Government should start to listen to consumers about the unfairness of compulsory metering, the wrongness of disconnecting homes and the impossibility of meeting the very steep water increases?

My constituents want us to meet the highest standards. They believe that it is a major protection for the consumer that water companies can cut off the supplies of people who refuse to pay their bills when they have the means so to do.

May I press my right hon. Friend on what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) said—people in the south-west will not put up with such bills for much longer? The fact is that many people cannot pay their bills. We are looking to my right hon. Friend and Mr. Byatt to find a satisfactory solution that will end the misery.

I understand what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, he has been pressing me on these issues for some time, as have other Tory Members for the south-west. There is a difficulty in trying to deliver the standards that we want at a price that is acceptable to the consumer. I am seeking to find every means to do that. However, in the end, those standards cost money, and I know that Mr. Byatt has that point very much in mind.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to ensure that local authorities carry out an energy audit of buildings within their area.

We encourage local authorities to carry out audits of their own buildings as part of good practice and to play a wider role in energy efficiency thinking in their areas.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I am always overkeen to get the business of the House completed. I have a very straight question and will be obliged if I get a very simple answer. Can I have an assurance that the Government will support the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) —the Energy Conservation Bill—without amendment?

We are considering that matter. However, as I made clear on Second Reading, we will not add to the burdens of local authorities unless it is absolutely necessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that all urban areas have effective monitoring of air pollution and quality.

We shall cover all major cities within three years and are currently considering responses to our consultation paper, which proposes a national system.

Can the Minister confirm that air pollution has increased in urban areas? Does he agree with the advice that the Government are giving to the millions of asthma sufferers like myself—that we should stay indoors when air pollution is bad? Does he not think that he should be looking at the causes of pollution, rather than recommending voluntary house arrest?

I agree that it is the causes of pollution that matter. Indeed, the air in our cities has improved considerably, but lately the increased use of cars has resulted in a return to a rise in pollution. That is why I announced yesterday, for example, planning policy guidance 13, which will change the balance in planning in relation to transport. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that, in the end, that is the way down which we must go, as well as having cleaner cars.

May we have a full environmental survey of Staveley in north-east Derbyshire, where there are a mass of airborne pollution problems other than those resulting from transport, which has already been mentioned? Problems arise from the works in the area and from dioxin. I have raised that matter several times in the House. It would be fruitful for the Government to adopt procedures whereby they can solidly investigate asthma and other problems in such areas.

If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I will certainly look into the possibility of doing something special in his area.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations took place in the development of the single regeneration budget.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson).

In view of the Secretary of State's statement last November and the projection that there will be a 40 per cent. reduction in urban aid programmes between 1990 and 1996, will the Minister reassure the House that urban areas such as my constituency will not suffer even more drastically than they have done for the past three generations because money has been diverted into more prosperous areas that have only recently suffered because of recession?

Millions of pounds have been spent on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and nearby, through the Tyne and Wear development corporation, city challenge and other initiatives—for example, estate action and the single regeneration budget—and millions of pounds will continue to be spent in his constituency on urban regeneration.

Are we taking the motions together or singly, Madam Speaker?

For the convenience of the House, we are taking with the first motion the two following motions relating to PAYE and pre-entry losses:

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made relating to the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993 and the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973.

That provision may be made amending Schedule 7A to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

Some words of explanation on the third resolution from the Financial Secretary would be helpful in view of the extent of argument that we have had about the treatment of indexation losses in Committee. We are dealing with the ways and means motion after we have dealt with some aspects of the matter in the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) should be congratulated on his ingenuity in raising again on the Floor of the House a subject that we debated last night in the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill. The resolution and the new clause for which it is a paving measure is not intended to deal with the subject of loss indexation allowance per se. Loss indexation is to do with the quantum of loss relief that is available to a particular taxpayer.

The official Opposition would have been happy to take the three ways and means resolutions formally, but a few words of explanation are called for following the remarks of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

I beg to move,

That the draft Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

"the preservation, in the interests of the nation, and the Church of England, of churches, and parts of churches, of historic and archaeological interest, or architectural quality, vested in the Fund by Part III of the 1983 Measure, together with their contents so vested."

The Minister has mentioned possible new vestings. His attention may have been drawn to the fact that during the debate on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, I drew attention to a gap between the redundant churches fund and the historic chapel fund in relation to private chapels and chapels of ease that belong to the Church of England but which the redundant churches fund cannot take on. Nor does the historic chapels fund consider it appropriate to take them on—I speak as a trustee of that fund. Is the Minister looking into that problem and will he come back to me about it?

Yes, I will look at the important problem that the right hon. Gentleman raised and I shall come back to him in due course.

"a focal point for the review of policy and the selection of priorities and the matching of expenditure with resources."

I thank the Minister for moving the order, which has the Opposition's support. That is hardly surprising as it was a Labour Administration who, in 1969, introduced the original Measure. I am glad that it has the continued support of the hon. Gentleman's Administration.

I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for not being present when the order was introduced. The business galloped ahead with such unaccustomed rapidity, and my hon. Friend's speech was so succinct and to the point, that it overturned and exceeded my capacity to get across the road from No. 1 Whitehall in time to hear even the tail end of it. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the Opposition spokesman, in his elegant and helpful speech of welcome to the order, touched on most of the important points that my hon. Friend made so I am now as familiar with it as though I had heard it myself.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question about the criteria with which he and the Church Commissioners, for whom he speaks, approach the selection of churches?

I am not sure whether it was the hon. Gentleman who wrote to me about that church; I think that it was. A substantial draft response has been prepared and I feel that it would be improper and undesirable for me to rehearse it now. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, however, the case that he has specified has been subjected to microscopic examination.

Can the right hon. Gentleman shed any light on the number of churches seeking succour from the fund? That would give us a better idea of the extent to which it will be able to deal with applications.

I am tempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request, but I do not want to spoil my hon. Friend's winding-up speech, of which that relevant information will be an important feature. Rather than trespassing on his speech, I shall leave that little gem of information for him to hold up and allow to sparkle before the House.

I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He said the other day that, although we were discussing redundant churches, the Church—partly because of the population shift—is now building a significant number of new churches each year. That is right: the Church must respond to the needs of the present, rather than giving priority to maintaining the heritage. I fully recognise, however, that across the Church—and, indeed, more widely—there is a general acceptance that the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 was far-sighted and wise; I think we should ensure that its purpose continues to be served.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls the fact, because it featured largely in our recent debate, that English Heritage has been determined in its support for, and its help in creating, the Historic Chapels Trust to do precisely that job.

One hopes that the Treasury will not prevent English Heritage from continuing that obligation. It would be useful if, in his wind-up, the Minister would assure the House that that purpose will continue as a priority.

It is fairly unusual for the Church of England to get such a prime-time slot. It strikes me as more like a General Synod debate on a dull day than the excitement of the mother of Parliaments. However, such is the product of non co-operation and the timetabling that ensues.

I shall speak briefly, following on from a brief intervention that I made in the debate on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure last week. I speak not as a member of the Church but from an agnostic point of view. I do not approach the matter from the point of view of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who represents the Church Commissioners and who feels that spending the money may be appreciated by only a narrow section of the population. I believe that the beauty and the majesty of churches in the townscape and in the landscape generally are widely appreciated by a vast cross-section of the population and by far more people than actually attend churches.

I do not intend to repeat what I said in the debate on the Pastoral Measure last week, but I shall pick up two or three points made in the debate.

I would not necessarily object to a redundant church becoming licensed premises. We have in my constituency a former church run by Mr. Joe Hodgson who calls it the St. James' club, and it is conducted wholesomely. However, a building owned by our parish church in Wath upon Dearne was acquired by a brewery company; it secured planning permission for "upmarket purposes" and subsequently called it the Jailhouse Alehouse. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if church buildings are to become licensed premises they should be given reasonably suitable names?

Anyone who takes over an historic building should have some sympathy for the building in the use that he makes of it. Generally, it is commercially a good thing to draw on the traditions and qualities of a building when one uses it for some other activity. Many nonconformists, however, are uncomfortable with their buildings becoming licensed premises, and some have trust conditions and covenants expressly to prevent their use as such, which complicates the situation when a sale is in prospect.

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to this extremely interesting debate—more interesting than perhaps it looked at the beginning when the Benches were rather sparsely populated.

Not yet.

As the hon. Gentleman says, not yet. However, we shall take a very close look at the situation.