To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in environmental protection over the past year.

A full account will be given in the third year report on "This Common Inheritance", which we will publish on 10 May.

In discussing that report, will my right hon. Friend make the strongest possible representations to the French Government over the proposals to extend the shooting season, which will result in the unnecessary and unacceptable slaughter of many British migratory birds? Is my right hon. Friend aware—I hope that he is—that many people in the United Kingdom will find that to be an arrogant and unacceptable proposal, and completely distasteful?

I have already made it clear to the French Government that any consideration of the proposal to which my hon. Friend has referred must be in the context of there being no change in the present practice. They have assured me that they will take the scientific advice that has so far been given by Ornis, but there is more scientific advice to be obtained. I note that the European Parliament has declined to discuss the matter at this stage. The British Government have taken the clear view that the issue of migratory species is a matter of European Community competence, and we are determined to protect those birds that come to this country.

The Secretary of State's claims that he is protecting the environment look pretty thin when he publishes a 1993 report only in May 1994, when he drops his plans to set up contaminated land registers, when we still have not had before us any legislation on the Environmental Protection Agency and when there are no longer any long-term targets for limiting CO2 emissions. Worst of all, the Government and their friends have tabled more than 200 amendments and new clauses, which are clearly intended to wreck the Energy Conservation Bill being promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Is the Secretary of State aware that that measure would do more for the environment than anything that he is now doing?

The Liberal party is utterly unable to make any such comment ever since it reneged on its support for proper taxes on energy consumption. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that his position is untenable. We have heard the usual Liberal demand for something for nothing. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in all his other allegations. We are reporting for the third year running on these matters at a later date because of the publication of the report on sustainable development, which has been widely welcomed. Only the Liberal party would make such silly allegations.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the River Severn was severely polluted last weekend. In the light of that experience, will he have a word with the water regulator to ensure, first, that the quality of water is properly monitored and, secondly, that when such pollution occurs, samples are taken and analysed quickly so that the public can be accurately and properly informed of what is going on?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a serious incident. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside was in the area yesterday. There was an immediate inquiry into the matter. The points that my hon. Friend has raised will be taken fully into account. As far as we can see at this stage, the measures to which my hon. Friend referred were taken. The inquiry will establish that. We shall naturally seek to learn as much as possible from the inquiry to ensure that there is no repetition of that incident.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, over the past year, the environmental protection record of local government has been better than that of central Government? The right hon. Gentleman is fond of pouring scorn on Labour local authorities. Why is it that of the 11 local authorities that have been specially invited by the Government to make a presentation on best practice to the Partnerships for Change conference, not one is controlled by the Conservative party? Of the eight district councils selected by the Government as examples of best environmental practice, seven were controlled by the Labour party. Will the right hon. Gentleman now praise the pioneering work of Labour councils on environmental protection?

I am happy to say that up until now we have managed to praise the environmental work of a large number of councils of different political colours, and this is the first time that a party political division has been drawn into the matter. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. The only party in the House that has no right to talk about the environment is the Liberal party because it has reneged on all its willingness to support those matters. The Labour party must remember that I have criticised only the fact that it has the vast majority of the councils which demand the most money for the least services. It costs £131 more to pay the council tax in Labour councils—[Interruption.]—and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is trying to intervene, has had to admit that his figures are phoney—phoney councils, phoney figures, Labour councils.

Would my right hon. Friend think that it was making progress in protecting the environment if an application to establish opencast coal operations were granted at Towers Farm in Poynton in my constituency, in a most sensitive green belt area right on the edge of Cheshire and on the boundary of Greater Manchester, against the opposition of local residents, the parish council and the borough council and at a time when British Coal is closing coal mines as though there were no tomorrow?

I do not think that the cause of environmental protection would be helped much if my hon. Friend were to receive an answer in the House of Commons to what is a properly constituted inquiry into the matter, in which the environment will play a major part. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait for the results of that properly constituted inquiry and my decision on it. As to his comments about the coal industry, that is a matter for the coal companies themselves.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to protect areas surrounding closed coal mines from the potential pollution of watercourses.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had concerning mine water pollution; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is considering the detailed allocation of responsibilities in respect of coal mines after privatisation, as between the operators and the Coal Authority.

Throughout the county of Durham, wildlife is being destroyed and farmers' fields are being flooded. Surely someone must take responsibility for the pollution. I know that the Government want to renege on their responsibility, but is not it time that someone stood up and took the matter in hand?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for —like others of his colleagues—raising that important matter, which we are seeking to address. That is why, following the last Environment Question Time when the matter was raised, I took it upon myself to talk to my colleague the Minister for Energy. At present, if there is a particular cause of pollution, the National Rivers Authority should be spoken to. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind and would like to talk to the NRA, but has been unsuccessful, I should be pleased if he would take the matter up directly with me.

The Minister will be aware that the National Rivers Authority is of the opinion that the law is somewhat unclear about British Coal's responsibility for pollution. Does he accept that many people are afraid that when private enterprise has the responsibility—if it can be called that—of keeping pollution at bay, the situation might get worse? Can he assure the House that he will take the necessary action to tighten up the legislation and ensure that no additional burden falls on either water ratepayers or council taxpayers in the areas concerned where there is likely to be a diminution of deep mining?

As I have said, I recognise the concern. The hon. Gentleman is unfair in his attack on private enterprise—in many areas, private enterprise has demonstrated a good record on environmental activity and pollution control—but I understand what he is saying. We have recently published a document called "Paying for our Past" and we have invited various people and organisations to comment on what we should do about contamination of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I know that the hon. Gentleman's points, and those of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and the others who share his worries and concerns, will be dealt with when we consider the results of that consultation.

Is not it far from the case that the NRA has the responsibilities that the Minister has just suggested that it does? Does the Minister agree with Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the NRA—no raving socialist, I understand—who said recently:

"There is a legacy of contamination for which no one is currently responsible, no one is prepared or able to pay the necessary clean-up bill, and no one is charged with the running—"

Order. I am sorry, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that he may not quote at Question Time. He may paraphrase, not quote directly.

Certainly, Madam Speaker. Is not it clear from the comments of Lord Crickhowell that the responsibility that the Minister claims already rests with the NRA simply does not? Will the Minister undertake to the House that when the Environmental Protection Agency legislation comes before the House, he will consider using that opportunity to clear up the confusion? I assure him that, if he does that, he will get co-operation from the Opposition.

Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence for mine owners to cause or permit the pollution of water courses. There is legislation, but I recognise that there are some questions about exemptions because of the retrospective aspect of the legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the top 10 council taxes and the bottom 10 council taxes.

The highest council taxes in descending order have been set by Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Coventry, Langbaurgh, Salford, Bristol, Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the success of Ealing in setting a low council tax. Is he aware that in 1986, when I was a member of the Ealing council, it boasted the lowest rates in west London? Is he also aware that 12 months later—following 12 months of Labour control—the rates had gone up by 65 per cent? Does not that show that Conservative councils cost people less and Labour councils cost people more? Is he also aware that Westminster schools are so good that they appeal to one Labour Member, who prefers Westminster schools to Lambeth schools?

There is one essential statistic in all of that. It is that Conservative councils cost people less—precisely £131 less across the country.

Is not the Minister using fiddled figures in making comparisons? Does he agree that the only true comparison is that made by using the average rate of council tax? That simply takes into account the amount that a council spends and how many people live in that area. The use of bands is distorted because the different spread of property types and values in an area is reflected in those figures. Does the Minister agree that no one would use that comparison objectively? Is not it only those who would try to use the figures for cheap political advantage who would use bands, rather than another comparison?

For Opposition Members to talk about distorted figures is pretty rich. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted figures which entirely overlooked the fact that the three precepting authorities were Labour. Nothing is more irrelevant than to use the average tax per household, as it depends on the level of banding in that property and on the amount of grant that is given. The lower the banding, the greater the grant, and Labour councils are delegated even more grant. The trouble is that they do not use it very well, and that Is the heart of the argument.

Does my hon. Friend find it interesting that those authorities in London that receive the highest levels of grant from the Government, such as Lambeth, Haringey, Camden and Islington, also levy the highest council taxes? Is not it even more revealing that those authorities that receive the lowest levels of rate support grant, such as Wandsworth and Westminster, are able to charge the lowest council taxes?

That is exactly right. It might be helpful if I spelt out those standard spending assessment levels, so that we can get the facts right. Tower Hamlets receives £1,481 per capita—that is not a Conservative council—Hackney receives £1,305, and Islington £1,185. Westminster is number four, receiving £1,167, and Wandsworth does not appear in the top 10 at all.

Could the Minister explain why so much money has been stuffed into Wandsworth in non-meansrelated grant? Wandsworth contains 0.5 per cent. of the country's population, but receives 11 per cent.—£44 million—of all non-means-related grant. Could he also explain why, in Westminster, £96 of every £100 of council spending is contributed by central Government, while the council tax payer spends just £4?

The hon. Gentleman is an astrologist, not a mathematician. He does not understand the system to begin with. Let me make it clear. Why does Wandsworth receive the grant that it receives? Because its community charge was zero, to the great benefit of its population, the transit relief had to be at a higher level, and because it had the biggest cut in standard spending assessment. That is why it has the damping grant.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role he foresees for his Department over the next 12 months in sponsoring the construction industry.

The Department will build on the enhanced support that it is giving to the construction industry in order to encourage its success in both home and overseas markets.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the £6 billion worth of exports undertaken by the United Kingdom construction industry during 1992? Is he satisfied that the industry is receiving sufficient support and can he cite any initiatives that would help it to gain a still larger share of the world market?

I pay tribute to the construction industry's work in generating some £6 billion in overseas earnings: that shows that there is a demand for British products and skills. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just returned from India—where he led an export drive —clutching a fistful of new orders. I am off to Beirut next week, and to Kazakhstan next month, with the construction industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is off to Chile and Argentina. The Department will do what it can to help British companies to win orders and generate work for British people.

Why do not the Government act now to forge a clear link between housing construction, employment and the health of our economy? As well as encouraging the industry to win contracts in Berlin and Beirut—which we welcome—why not also let local authorities use their £5.5 billion worth of capital receipts from council house sales to get thousands of our 500,000 construction workers back to building and repairing the homes that are desperately needed for rent here in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not seen the figures that we published yesterday about the construction industry. Construction orders for the latest three months were 14 per cent. up on the previous three months—31 per cent. higher than a year ago. Public sector building orders are 50 per cent. up on 1991. There has been a real about-turn in the construction industry, with the most positive forecasts that we have seen for many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rejoice at the better news that is now coming out of the industry.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Sir Michael Latham is about to produce an important report on the construction industry. May we be assured that the Government will consider it carefully and will provide any legislative time that may be needed to implement it?

As my hon. Friend says, our former colleague Sir Michael Latham is carrying out an important study into construction. His interim report was published a few weeks ago and was well received. He hopes to complete his work in July. It is a tribute to his work that the interim report was well received, and certainly the Government and all those in construction who await his final report in July will give it the serious consideration that it rightly merits.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the past year the departmental green Ministers have met together.

Green Ministers have regular bilateral meetings. The last full meeting took place in October 1993, and the next one will take place in May.

Do the green Ministers realise that the forest sales programme is eating away at the heart of the national forest? Will they explain how their stated aim of expanding forest cover, as set out in the document "Sustainable Forestry", will be achieved if they allow private investors to buy the public forest instead of planting their own forests? When will the forest review report finally appear?

That report is currently in front of Ministers and in due course the hon. Gentleman and the House will hear the results of those deliberations.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain what are green Ministers?

Green Ministers are those Ministers from various Departments who, under the tutelage of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, take various actions in their Departments to ensure that the use of materials, recycling, energy use and other matters are regularly reviewed and that the Government estate benefits in the same way as everyone else.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make extra funds available for housing improvement grant allocations in order to deal effectively with the backlog of housing renovations and repairs in (a) Wolverhampton an (b) other cities and towns.

Within their overall resources, local authorities may spend whatever they wish on private house renovation and my Department will reimburse 60 per cent. of their expenditure.

In the current year, Wolverhampton's housing improvement grant allocation has been reduced by just under £4 million. There are thousands of post-war properties crying out for improvement, especially new forms of heating. Children in families are cold and the lives of elderly people whose homes need new insulation techniques that ought to be applied to those properties are being affected.

Question.

I am asking for more resources to respond to the real housing needs in Wolverhampton and in many other cities and towns.

I recently spent a morning in Wolverhampton in the company of the leader of the council, the Conservative Bill Clark, and I saw at first hand the improvements that the local authority is carrying out to properties in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).

Was the Minister electioneering?

Indeed I was, and rightly so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also be electioneering. During my electioneering, I got positive support from those whom I met. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that many of his constituents appreciate the improvements to their properties that are being carried out by the Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton city council.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the people of Wolverhampton understand that socialists always believe that every housing problem can be cured by throwing taxpayers' money at it? The people of Wolverhampton are increasingly buying their own homes, and they are enjoying the current low interest rates, which make it possible for an increasing number of people to make their own housing provision.

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for a majority of the people in Wolverhampton when he refers to their aspirations to home ownership—aspirations which are now much more within their reach due to the very low rates of interest. I hope that many people in Wolverhampton will take advantage of the present low interest rates to achieve their ambition and buy property in Wolverhampton. There are many good-quality new schemes being built by builders, offering people homes at competitive prices.

The Minister knows that the Federation of Master Builders agree with towns such as Wolverhampton that they have not enough money to meet their statutory requirement to meet mandatory grants. Will he make additional resources available to Wolverhampton and other local authorities now, or is he going to end the right and entitlement to mandatory grant?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have just completed a review of the improvement grant regime, which considered a number of radical options, one of which would be to enable local authorities to have a more proactive approach and promote more home improvement areas. The Government will announce the conclusion of that consultation exercise later this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are about 801 pre-reinforced concrete homes in my constituency in west Wiltshire, many of which are substandard and some of which are in danger of falling down? Is he further aware of the plans submitted by the district council to transfer the entire stock to the private sector for restoration—plans that have so far been blocked by the Treasury? Can he assure me that in his Department, he will give a fair hearing to the district council when it resubmits the plans, so that those people who live in appalling conditions in PRC homes will have a better chance in the future?

As my hon. Friend rightly says, it has not proved possible this year to find a place in the large-scale voluntary transfer programme for the properties to which he refers. I very much hope that it will be possible to restructure the proposal of his local authority, so that the transfer of those properties can proceed in 1995–96, and we will certainly do all that we can to facilitate such a transfer.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he plans on energy conservation.

Our further measures to encourage energy efficiency are clearly set out in the United Kingdom's climate change programme, in our strategy for sustainable development launched recently by the Prime Minister, and in our response to the Environment Select Committee's report on energy efficiency.

Can the Minister reassure the House that the decision by the Government and their hon. and right hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches to table more than 200 amendments and new clauses to the Energy Conservation Bill has nothing to do with the desire for the amount of electricity consumed to be maximised before the sale of the remaining 40 per cent. Government stake in the two national power companies? Is there not a direct contradiction between those two Government policies—energy conservation on the one hand and maximising the revenue from those sales on the other?

Only a Liberal Member of Parliament could dream up such a fantasy. The straightforward fact is that the Bill would impose a statutory duty to compel every local authority to inspect and audit every home in the country, not only their own housing stock, and we believe that that would impose an unnecessary extra regulatory burden on local authorities and unnecessary extra costs on taxpayers.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Midland Electricity on its generous gift of £500,000 to Neighbourhood Energy Action in support of its excellent work, supported by the Government, to insulate low-income homes? Will he take the opportunity to encourage other British electricity companies and others in the energy field to give money to NEA?

I fully support everything that my hon. Friend says. Neighbourhood Energy Action does some excellent work, especially the work that it does with the home energy efficiency scheme. That scheme has been nearly doubled to £75 million. It provides grants to improve the energy efficiency of low-income households and will enable 400,000 homes to be treated in 1994–95. That is an indication of the support that the Government give to energy efficiency.

Can the Minister explain why he is stopping the application of the Energy Conservation Bill to Northern Ireland?

That, I suspect, is one of the matters that the House will wish to consider and debate at some length on Friday.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the primary purposes and benefits of energy conservation is that it reduces the need for energy production and the environmental damage caused by it, especially by such means as opencast mining? As his contribution to that process, how soon will he publish the revised guidelines for MPG3?

We hope to publish the revised guidelines by the summer.

On this Friday's Energy Conservation Bill, am I right to assume from the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) that the Government are opposed to that measure? Is that why more than 200 amendments have been tabled in an apparently deliberate attempt to sink the Bill through lack of time? Is that why the Government are attempting to change the fundamental principle of the Bill from placing a duty on local authorities to allowing a permission for local authorities, thereby undermining the entire purpose and benefit of the Bill? If the Government engineer the collapse of that measure, will not they be left without a shred of credibility on energy conservation?

I made clear the Government's approach to the Bill on Second Reading. It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that, in some way, the Bill is a touchstone of the Government's attitude to energy efficiency. Our commitment to energy efficiency is clear and constant. The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office has been increased to more than £100 million this year, which represents an increase of nearly 50 per cent. on last year and a 17-fold increase in real terms since 1979. We have a clear commitment to energy efficiency, but we do not believe in imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on local authorities, which will not necessarily bring further benefit to energy efficiency.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss with South West Water the charging policy for water consumers.

Both the Department and Ofwat have had a number of discussions with South West Water about the importance of keeping price rises to the minimum.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the latest increase this month, there is now grave concern at the ability of those on fixed incomes and pensioners with modest savings in my constituency of Tiverton to find the money to meet this year's bill, let alone the expected increases in future years? When speaking to South West Water, will my hon. Friend examine carefully its contribution to the investment in the clean up of south-west beaches and its exorbitant charging for installing water meters? Will he also make representations to his colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that they are aware that financial help will be needed to assist the people of the south-west?

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend represents, which has been expressed to my right hon. Friend and me by hon. Members from the south-west on numerous occasions. As we all know, there are many beaches in the south-west of England, but fewer people than in the rest of the country to pay for the clean up required, as well as the cost of water. I shall convey my hon. Friend's concerns to my colleagues in the Treasury and to the water companies.

Is the Minister aware of the growing consensus against the use of compulsory water metering, which is considered a waste of money that should be spent on repairing our ancient water system, and in favour of using council tax bands to assess water bills?

The hon. Lady's view is not held unanimously, even on her side of the House. Many people feel that metering has a part to play, just as it does in charging for electricity and gas. Given that we are discussing the use of a long-term resource with increasing demands on it, metering seems to be the fairest and simplest way to charge for it. However, I recognise that concerns have been expressed about the possibility of council tax banding. Hon. Members must understand that, were that option to be considered, it could be just as damaging in terms of people's pockets as any of the other options.

Is my hon. Friend aware that water prices for the average householder in the south-west have nearly doubled in the past few years and will double again by the end of the decade if something is not done? With the water regulator now beginning his work on preparing the charging formula for July's announcement, does my hon. Friend accept the urgency of getting agreement in Brussels on slowing down the implementation of the EC directive?

I am aware of the concern, largely because many of my hon. Friends have expressed it to me and the Secretary of State. On the directive on urban waste water treatment, we are doing exactly what he asks and seeking to persuade the Commission and our colleagues within the Union that that matter will cost far more than they expected. They are beginning to understand that. As a result, it may be recognised that it can be spread over a longer period.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss the implementing of EC environmental directives.

The next formal Environment Council will be on 8 and 9 June. The agenda has yet to be determined.

Will the Secretary of State be discussing the implementation of EC water quality directives? Will he confirm that it was the Conservative Government who signed the drinking water directive in 1980? Will he give an estimate of the number of jobs that would have been created if the Government had honoured their commitment and improved water quality as they said they would? Will the Government also confirm that a green dowry was given to the water companies at the time of privatisation specifically to bring our water quality up to EC standards?

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the importance of those standards. I am concerned that we should reach those standards in the most sensible, cost-effective way. There is no doubt that many of the costs associated with reaching those standards are considerable. Some of the legislative measures—not only in the directive, but others—are prescriptive. We want to achieve the standards sensibly. In the post-Maastricht period, it might be more sensible to regard drinking water standards as matters of subsidiarity to a greater extent than they were viewed in the past. It is reasonable to treat them in that way. I do not see why the subject should divide the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in being part of Europe if the other European countries do not play by the rules? Will he ensure that, for every European environmental directive, each country embarks on a compliance-cost assessment? That would ensure that every country knew how much the directive would cost before it embarked on it and how much it would cost to enforce it. Britain should not go it alone and follow the directive until every other country has done the same, and there must be cross-border enforcement.

The manifest advantages of our membership of the European Union are enhanced if we ensure that EU countries undertake a cost-benefit analysis before decisions are made. I want to go one stage further than my hon. Friend suggests—I want the Commission to produce figures in advance of making the proposition in the first place. That would be sensible government—it is what we would expect in this country and certainly what we would expect in the European Union.

When the Secretary of State meets his European Union counterparts, will he discuss objective 1 funding, which partly covers environmental needs and designates Merseyside as one of the poorest areas in Europe? Will he explain to them why the Government choose to pump millions into rich, Tory-controlled boroughs in the south of England at the expense of areas in the north which, by the Government's own definition, are deprived?

I will certainly explain to them that the system by which we provide money to different parts of the country is based on an objective system worked out by the largely Labour-controlled council associations. They may have misread a statement by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was special adviser in the Department of the Environment when Labour found that Westminster's need per head was £486.47 and Liverpool's was £326.95. The difference was 49 per cent. in Westminster's favour. While the Conservative Government have been in power, it has been 33 per cent. We can see the truth of the hon. Gentleman's slurs.

Will my right hon. Friend take time when he next meets the European Environment Commissioner to discuss the latest directive proposing to phase out chlorine from industrial activity? Is he aware that chlorine is a basic component of bleach, which every housewife needs to clean the loo and to bleach shirts and sheets? Is he aware that chlorine is a basic component of PVC and clingfilm, which every housewife needs to wrap up scraps before putting them in the fridge? Is he aware that Britain has the two largest PVC manufacturers in the world that provide thousands of jobs, which will go if the directive is implemented? There are at least 250 manufacturers of packaging material based on PVC. The directive will create an enormous vacuum and many job losses.

I find it difficult to agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that those jobs are done only by housewives. I hope that they are done by both sexes in the home. For environmental reasons, we need to look extremely carefully at the use of chlorine. Although it is a most useful chemical, it should be used in a way that is not detrimental to the environment. The Department is determined to ensure that our children's future is put first. Therefore, if it is possible beneficially to restrain the use of chlorine, that is what we shall do.

Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the EU Environment Commissioner chapter 10 of the White Paper on competitiveness and growth? If he has, does he agree that it shows a new understandmg of economic policy and the fact that economic success and job creation are both compatible with and strengthened by environmental sustainability? Will the Government support the principle of that chapter, which is to shift the burden of taxation away from jobs and people on to the overuse of resources and pollution?

I am sure that it is right to accept that environmental protection is a spur to competitiveness and to industrial success, rather than the opposite. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in supporting a major example of putting taxes on the overuse of energy —I refer, of course, to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what items of environmental policy he has raised in the past month with the European Commissioner.

I have discussed a wide range of environmental policy issues with Commissioner Paleokrassas in the past month.

Next month, the Government will have the opportunity to ban toxic waste from EU countries. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take immediate steps to impose that ban in this country and in all developed countries from next month?

We have signed the convention, which takes effect on 6 May. Therefore, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must be yes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that EU environment directives should be better framed and should always be based on the latest scientific evidence? Does he further agree that the policy of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties of environment directives being scrutinised—

Order. We are here not to discuss Labour and Liberal Democrat policies, but to question the Executive. Would the hon. Gentleman like to rephrase his question?

Thank you for that stricture, Madam Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour and Liberal Democrat policies—

Order. I shall move on unless the hon. Gentleman asks a proper parliamentary question. I shall give him another chance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—third time lucky. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties—[interruption]

Order. We shall move on.

The Court of Auditors is one of the more effective organs of the European Union. It has produced a number of devastating reports, including one showing that most EU expenditure happens to be counterproductive to environmental matters. The Government's view was defeated in the European Legislation Committee because the Government had dragged their feet over discussing the report. Is the matter now being taken seriously by the Government and the Commission?

Yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of planning applications for new supermarkets are for in-town sites.

We do not hold the information in that form.

My right hon. Friend probably holds some information in some form. Does he recognise that my normally tranquil and serene constituency of Esher is at present up in arms about the villains from Tesco and Sainsbury, who are attempting to put superstores on the edges of communities in my constituency in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton? They would not be out-of-town shopping centres, but shopping centres on the edge of communities which would rip the hearts out of those communities. He has received thousands of letters opposing those developments; will he consider carefully the damage that superstores cause to communities in semi-urban areas?

My hon. Friend would not want me to comment specifically about decisions which I may have to take from a quasi-judicial position, but, in general terms, my view is that we need to take those decisions in the light of the viability of the shopping centres in high streets of small towns and large towns and also in some less urban areas. That is the purpose of PPG 6—the planning guidance on town centres and retail development—and the joint planning guidance on transport—PPG 13—with the Secretary of State for Transport. Putting the two together, my hon. Friend should have confidence that we are determined to protect the viability and life of our traditional high-street shopping centres.

While I do not disagree with the Secretary of State, will he look into the question recently drawn to my notice of applications for developments that are described as warehouses or buildings for leisure pursuits, when the real intention is to develop retail outlets of the sort that he apparently deplores?

I am determined to ensure that the same planning rules shall be laid upon all comparable developments, and merely calling them something different will not exclude the full planning procedures. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are some who seek to do that; I will seek to make sure that they fail.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how welcome his recent proposals on out-of-town shopping centres have been in constituencies such as mine, where thriving inner-city, city-centre shopping is of paramount importance to the economy and quality of life of the community? Is he aware that the balance that he is introducing in his proposals is widely welcomed in Chester?

It is important not only to get the balance corrected, but to raise the standard of the design of the shops when they come back into city centres and the centres of our small towns. That is why I turned down a particular proposal in Ludlow, where the design was not up to the quality of the town centre it sought to enhance.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State for finally acknowledging that the Labour party policy on out-of-town developments, on which we have been campaigning for years, is the right one? Will he now apologise to the councils that have had their decisions overturned and the developers that now face hundreds of extant planning permissions which, on current completion times, will take years to finish? How does he propose to compensate local communities that have had their green belts ruined, and the local authorities that have seen the destruction of their town centres because of the myopic policies of this Government?

It is very often the local Labour council that has given the planning permission. That was a pretty rich comment, even for the Labour party. It would be nice if the hon. Gentleman at least could say that after a perfectly reasonable period where the retail revolution was allowed to continue, providing a considerable number of jobs and choices for the people of Britain, we are now saying that the balance should be reverted—in a different direction. That is perfectly reasonable. We are not in any sense resiling from the view that there ought to be a mix, but we need vibrant city centres. We are encouraging that, not only through the planning process, but through the enormous sums of money that we are putting into our city centres in such excellent policies as city challenge and similar ones which were opposed virulently by the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to protect endangered flora and fauna indigenous to the British Isles from extinction.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides comprehensive statutory protection for endan-gered wild species of flora and fauna and their habitat in Great Britain. Further measures will be introduced shortly to meet legal objectives under the EC habitats directive.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the biodiversity action plan steering group will provide a major opportunity to protect in the United Kingdom endangered species such as the dormouse, red squirrels, otters, pine martens, the lady's slipper orchid and, indeed, strapwort? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that he intends to protect the habitat and species named in the UK Red Data book?

Yes.

Does the Minister accept that two of the most endangered species in Britain are Tory councillors and Tory MPs, and that no amount of grant gerrymandering by the Government will save them from near extinction on 5 May and 9 June?

I wish that there were protection for the loud-voiced bamboozler which is obviously represented by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only enduring way to protect wildlife is to conserve and create habitat? Will he therefore work with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that the habitat scheme is made effective under the new set-aside arrangements?

As I think the House knows, my hon. Friend has a distinguished record in, and knowledge and understanding of, these matters through his own personal experience. I will certainly give detailed consideration—indeed, I am doing so—to the points that he raises.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals by private mining companies against refusal to agree opencasting by local authorities he has (a) allowed and (b) rejected since the introduction of the present mineral planning guidance note 3.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of opencast coal mining.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities on the issue of the draft mineral planning guidance note 3 on coal mining and colliery spoil disposal; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on mineral planning guidance on opencast.

My Department's records show that the Secretary of State has allowed 30 appeals and dismissed 17. Opencast coal mining can have a serious environmental impact. That is why we have revised the planning guidelines for coal extraction to ensure that they set tough environmental tests for the industry. The consultation period for MPG3 has only just expired. I will place a list of those who responded to the consultation exercise together with a summary of their comments in the Library of the House in due course.

Does the Minister agree that the data that he has given to me about the results of appeals show that the present mineral planning guidance very much favours mining companies above the interests of local authorities and local communities? In considering the revision that is going on at the moment, will he examine the needs of areas such as Morley—one half of my constituency—which faces six planning applications: three of which have been granted, one of which is pending, and two in which mining companies have shown an interest? Will he accept that there is a cumulative effect upon communities to which they should have a right to object? Does he understand that when the last planning application was given, local people did not want to see it accepted or the appeal granted by the Minister?

If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the draft new mineral planning guidance, he would have seen that the strong presumption in favour of opencast coal development in MPG3 which did exist is being withdrawn and replaced with a test of environmental acceptability. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that.

Is the Minister aware that one of the largest opencast sites in the country is located in my constituency? In making the planning application, British Coal said that it was necessary in order to mix the coal from this site with the coal from Lea Hall colliery, and then Lea Hall colliery was closed. British Coal then said, "We need the coal to mix it with the coal from Littleton colliery" and then Littleton colliery was closed down. Is the Minister therefore aware that all that my constituents have left is a big environmentally unacceptable hole in the ground?

The planning guidelines aim to strike a balance between the economic importance of opencast coal —we should not underestimate the fact that it does have an economic value—and protection of the environment in a way that is fully compatible with the principles of sustainable development. In all these matters, balance is important.

I do not think that any of my colleagues are happy with the replies. The planning guidelines contain a loophole so large that one could put an earthmover through it. There is more than planning at stake. Will the Minister make it clear whether the demise of planning control over opencast mining has something to do with the closure of deep-mined pits?

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not listened to either of the answers that I have given. In my role as Minister responsible for planning, I am determined to ensure that the acceptability or otherwise of individual proposals for opencast coal mining depends on the balance between environmental impact and economic gain. That balance has to be struck, irrespective of the ownership of the coal or who is involved.

Why, having made a decision on the Birch Coppice opencast application on 2 August 1993, did the Minister set it aside on 25 February 1994, thereby blighting thousands of homes in north Warwickshire? When will a further decision be made? Will he now offer an apology to the people of north Warwickshire for the long delay? Is it not the case that, if he had displayed such manifest incompetence in a proper job in the private or public sector, he would long ago have been dismissed?

That question shows manifest ignorance of the whole planning system. The hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate the fact that all planning decisions are subject to the review of the High Court. Ultimately, it is the High Court which determines whether a planning decision is valid. Although I appreciate the concerns felt by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, he knows, but did not seek to make it clear to the House, that the High Court has still to determine the planning application in the matter to which he referred. I am sure that he will appreciate that I am unable to comment further at the moment.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Before I hear the point of order, may I say that I am very disappointed that the House did not make the progress that it should have made at Question Time. Questions have been too long and, although there have been one or two very brisk answers from a particular Minister—for which I award him an accolade—answers, too, have often been too long. I hope that things will improve tomorrow and in the coming days.

You may be aware, Madam Speaker, that following reports in the press in Wales today under the headline "Redwood Plan in Tatters", referring to what is called

"the humiliating defeat of the Secretary of State's plan which blew a hole through his blueprint for counties in Wales",

I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but he is clearly referring to decisions, activities and debates that took place in the Standing Committee. I have not so far been informed by the Secretary of State that he is seeking to make a statement to the House.

Further to what you said, Madam Speaker, about the prolongation of Question Time, would it not be better were we to revert to the old custom—and only very few of us here remember it —that nobody bothered to thank you for allowing them to catch your eye? This is a new development. The new calibre, lower-quality Members now think that somehow or other they play to your favour by saying "Thank you." Will you tell them that there is no need for that; you are simply doing your job?

I wish that all hon. Members were as courteous to each other as the hon. Gentleman seems to think that they are to me. They are not always very courteous to me, and I value a little "Thank you" sometimes. I now call Mr. Hain.