To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what environmental issues Her Majesty's Government are in dispute with the European Commission.

There are no outstanding cases.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that some of us find that answer quite amazing? It is known that the Government have been tardy in implementing the water directives, with the consequence that the Commission brought us before the European Court. Can he assure us that the nitrogen oxide directives will be implemented in full, especially in the east Thames corridor, which does not have the air quality monitoring units that exist elsewhere? They are desperately needed because of the high and rising incidence of asthma in the south-east of England.

The United Kingdom has an extremely good record in implementing and enforcing European Community law. Between 1988 and 1992, a number of environmental complaints against the UK were examined by the Commission, but they resulted in only 2 per cent. of the European Court of Justice environmental judgments against member states. That makes our record very much better than that of most other member states.

Is not it wrong for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—a constituency that is not exactly everyone's idea of an environmentally sensitive area—to trump up charges and create divisions in a week when his party is daily beset by divisions, left, right and centre?

At least the hotels do not fall in the sea.

The House will accept that in these matters it is better to keep to the relevant fact, which is that there are no outstanding cases against the United Kingdom. That shows that we are doing our best to meet the very high standards that we set ourselves and which other countries do not meet to the same degree.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more open with the House and admit that there are areas in which the European Community has said that we should do things, but where the British Government and people have not. The obvious example is the one that he admitted to the House just over a week ago: that we have only 80 per cent.—not 100 per cent.—compliance with the bathing water directive and the need for clean beaches.

Go on: tell him he's a two-faced Liberal.

I always try not to state the obvious from the Dispatch Box.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite his protestations to the contrary, the problem is seriously growing? How does he explain that, in coastal towns, 40 per cent. of the raw sewage goes straight into the sea? How can he explain or defend the fact that, on the urban waste water directive—another thing to which the Government have signed up—there is no programme in place to meet the compliance which is expected by 2005? The Secretary of State is finding excuses not to do things. When will we have a Secretary of State who tells us how he will meet the directives in the time expected of him?

We are committed to meeting our requirements and obligations and we are spending £3,000 million a year. The hon. Gentleman can hardly say that. When challenged last week, the Labour party produced no figures or facts and no policy on water at all.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many Select Committee reports associated with the environment, it was clear that much of the evidence which the Commission brought forward in relation to the directives was faulty? The Commission is now modifying considerably the criteria on which these directives are based. Again and again it was shown that the British Government are well ahead of the game, compared with many other member states of the European Community.

I have had further discussions with the Commission and its view—it is also the view of the United Kingdom—is that we have to base matters on the best available science. It seems to me that the only place where people think we are not meeting the requirements and are not seeking to take the lead on the environment is in the House of Commons—on the basis of what are, I think, party political arguments rather than facts.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to alter the qualifying date for council tax transitional relief or introduce an exemption from the date in extenuating circumstances.

None, Madam.

Is not it incumbent on the Government to bring in some measure for people who have been prejudiced by the qualifying date for transitional relief? The Minister will be aware of a couple in my constituency who, on the qualifying date, had living with them temporarily their daughter and son-in-law. Because the following year the same date was carried forward, they will never be able to take advantage of transitional relief.

If transitional relief was to be a permanent system, where there had been anomalies one would have to put them right. But by its very definition, it is transitional. We had to have a simple and clear system and we took the last day of the community charge and the first day of the council tax, which was the obvious comparison. It was inevitable that a handful of people would be disadvantaged by that, but, no matter where we had taken that particular point, some people would have been disadvantaged.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Liberal-controlled Richmond-upon-Thames borough council increased the council tax, with or without transitional relief, by more than any of the other 32 London boroughs? There were no extenuating circumstances for them and, on 5 May, they lost six council seats.

I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says. Where the level of taxation and the level of performance of local councils was a strong issue in the elections, Conservative councils, with their record of low taxation, did very well. I have no doubt that people who voted otherwise last week will soon discover what they voted for. They may have their revenge in a few years' time.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to use Government-owned housing to assist housing associations and councils to meet housing need.

Government Departments are urged to make best use of their empty residential property, through disposal where possible, or by leasing to local housing providers. We encourage local authorities and housing associations to consider the scope for using empty Government-owned homes to meet housing need.

Is not it time to stop the nonsense whereby the Government dump thousands of empty Government-owned properties on to the private market and therefore depress house prices, which is bad for the economy? Through leaseback or other schemes, the Government could transfer those houses to housing associations and councils in areas such as Bromley, where there are empty Air Force homes at Biggin Hill, or Slough, where former Army and Air Force homes are empty. Two local authority areas could get people out of bed and breakfast, save money and help restore the economy.

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that only last month 119 Ministry of Defence properties in Finningley were sold to the South Yorkshire housing association and that more than 1,000 MOD properties are on lease to local authorities or housing associations. It must be right for the MOD to put on the market those properties that it does not need and to give first-time home buyers the opportunity to acquire them. I see nothing wrong with that policy.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that housing need would be less if local authorities had fewer empty council homes? He will remember his visit to Hackney, where 9 per cent. of local authority housing stock is empty.

My hon. Friend is right. There are 71,000 empty local authority homes. That is more than the total number of families in temporary accommodation. The main culprits are Labour-controlled local authorities. It would be in the interests of meeting those housing needs if we could make better use of the potential.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring forward proposals to change the current homelessness legislation.

I hope to announce the Government's conclusions before the summer recess.

Will the Minister confirm that, of the 9,500 responses to his Green Paper, an overwhelming number criticised the Government's proposal to remove the homelessness safety net? Will he listen to the advice that has been given to him by housing and care professionals and withdraw his proposals?

The hon. Lady will know that the consultation document contained not one but a range of proposals and that some of those proposals—for example, putting more emphasis on prevention and making better use of the private rented sector—commanded support. The Government will of course reflect on the weight of the representations. When we announce our decisions, I hope before the summer recess, I trust that some of the more alarmist propaganda that has been flying around will be put to rest.

Will my right hon. Friend go some way towards dispelling some of the alarmist comments that have been made? Does he accept that the consultation paper keeps a safety net for the most vulnerable members of society and that it prevents queue-jumping, which causes so much misery to those who are pushed down the list because of queue-jumpers?

As I said in the debate on 26 January, there is no question of vulnerable people, including families with children, not having a home or not having any suitable accommodation. I agree with what my hon. Friend said at the end of his question. It is right to have a fair approach to the allocation of rented housing and to allocate on the basis of need, not on the basis of whether, at some time in the past, people acquired the label of being statutorily homeless.

Given the number of adverse responses and the tone that the Minister has now adopted on the Government's consultation paper on access to housing, will he confirm that he believes that a better way to approach the matter is to consider the code of guidance given to local authorities about allocation, rather than to change the laws by repealing good homelessness legislation, which ensures that the homeless have a statutory right to a secure home?

No, it would be wrong at this stage to rule out primary legislation. Some of the proposals in the Green Paper need primary legislation and at this stage I am not disposed to rule that out.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to increase the availability of private rented accommodation.

The private rented sector has expanded considerably since deregulation in 1989. A number of initiatives have been developed to revive the sector and increase the availability of rented accommodation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Harborough district local draft plan, which requires the building of several thousand houses in the villages of Billesdon, Great Glen, Kibworth Beauchamp and Kibworth Harcourt, will do nothing whatever to increase the availability of rented private housing? Does he also accept that what it will achieve is to destroy those villages in particular and rural south-east Leicestershire in general?

As my hon. Friend will know, the Harborough plan is in draft form at present. Proposals will be formally placed on deposit for objections to be made later this year and my hon. Friend has rehearsed a number of those objections. They can then be examined at a public inquiry.

The Minister will recognise that there would be little private rented sector housing if it were left purely to market forces and that rent allowances are absolutely crucial to underpinning the private rented sector. Does he recognise the difficulties that have been caused to local authorities because of the increased portion of the rent allowance that they must meet, which is causing problems to many local authorities at present?

There would be even less private rented accommodation if we had listened to the Labour party over the past 20 or 30 years. The factor that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the percentage of housing benefit that falls on local ratepayers—is taken into account each year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the provision of more private sector accommodation is central to the idea of providing diverse solutions to the problems of homelessness, but that that should not distract us from the central point that he made earlier: that we must continue to have a unified list with genuine flexibility for local authorities if they are to be free to tackle homelessness in the way they wish to do?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome the increase in the number of households renting from private sector landlords. The figure has increased from 1.6 million in 1988 to just under 2 million in 1993. If one is genuinely trying to increase the supply of good-quality accommodation to help those in housing need, that increased supply is something that all of us who share an interest in housing should applaud.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning disconnections of domestic water supply.

My right hon. Friend receives representations regularly.

The Minister will agree that it is a disgrace that, at the end of the 20th century in England and Wales, nearly 250 families have their water supply cut off every week. Does he agree that as it will continue to be illegal in Scotland for water to be disconnected, it would be sensible to apply that to England and Wales as well?

I cannot comment on what happens in Scotland—that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Disconnections have been available since the Water Act 1945, so they are hardly new, but the number of disconnections is going down regularly each year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a "no disconnect" policy would be a "no pay" policy, that most disconnections are reconnected within 48 hours while the remainder occur in empty properties and that water boards give people many options to pay? What on earth are we talking about?

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know, as I am, that the area that supplies water to our constituents had a survey in November last year among well over 1,000 representative householders, 82 per cent. of whom said that they wanted the disconnection policy maintained.

However, is not it a demonstration of peculiar incompetence even for this Government that the Minister tells us that disconnection is essential in England and Wales, while on 14 April the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland not only said that disconnections should remain illegal in Scotland, but placed a clause in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill specifically to that effect? Should not the Government be saying the same thing everywhere in Britain: that the disconnection of domestic water supplies—the removal of the means to life and health—has no place in a civilised society?

I am an Englishman and I can speak only for England. In England, for which I have responsibility, the number of disconnections is going down. According to the regional company responsible for water supplies in the north-west, the vast majority of its customers want the disconnection policy to be maintained. I must remind the House that the policy to allow for disconnections was included in the Water Act 1945, so nothing has changed.

Does my hon. Friend agree with my experience of dealing with constituents who need to be disconnected that the water companies generally deal with them very sympathetically? Does he also agree that if people do not pay, the water companies have to increase their charges for everyone else to make up for the shortfall?

In the present circumstances, a court judgment must be made and only if the arrears are still outstanding is there the possibility of a disconnection order being made. That is an exhaustive procedure and, as I have already told the House, the number of disconnections is decreasing annually. That policy is, apparently, supported by water users and consumers, who wish it to be maintained.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the present standard spending assessments system.

We intend to discuss with the local authority associations a number of possible changes in standard spending assessments.

Does the Minister agree that, in view of the corruption in Westminster city council, revealed by the BBC "Panorama" programme on Monday night, and the apparent connivance of Ministers to rig grant to Westminster, perhaps the only worthwhile revision would be to remove the grant allocation system from the hands of Ministers and put it in the hands of an independent grant commission?

I do not agree with that for one minute. The Select Committee on the Environment examined the way in which SSAs were distributed and concluded that it was done entirely objectively. I have no doubt that the Labour party ran over the system with a fine-toothed comb, but it has not managed to discover any bias in the system— because it is not there. For a member of the Labour party, which spends its life talking about quangos, to propose setting up another one is slightly curious.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the area cost adjustment, which applies only in the south-east of England, has absolutely no basis in fact or logic and that the sooner it is done away with the better? Once that happens, areas such as Dorset will start to benefit from the real costs of providing services rather than working under a fudge factor, which was introduced to stop the high-spending Labour councils in London going bankrupt.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The area cost adjustment would not exist if there were no objective reason for it. We examined it carefully. We must, however, consider the way in which it tapers as it leaves central London. I have made it clear to the local authority associations that it will be one of the focuses for the continued review of SSA systems.

Has the Minister seen the Department of Environment's "Index of Social Deprivation", which reveals that Sandwell is the ninth poorest borough in England? Many other black country boroughs feature in that list of deprivation. Is he aware that, today, the Tory leader of Walsall council said that the Government must face the fact that the shire counties have been treated much better than inner-city areas? Does not that sort of national corruption of local government finance deserve a "Panorama" programme of its own? Is not it about time that the Government recognised the fact that local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled ones, are being held back from what they are trying to do by the financial rigging of the Government?

That is completely untrue. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the councils that receive the largest grant, he will see that they are all in the inner cities and Labour controlled. If he reads further from the "Index of Social Deprivation", he will discover that Westminster comes 26th and St. Helens comes 54th. That justifies the differential, does it not?

Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent report of the Select Committee on Education it was proposed that the education element of the SSA should be removed and that it should be calculated under an alternative common funding formula? Will he consider that report and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education?

I am perfectly willing to discuss improvements in the system. At the moment, the system is formula-driven. What matters in that case is to ensure that the formula picks up real needs as sensitively as it can and distributes them to where the need is. Therefore, we shall have to continue to review some elements, especially of social need, and we shall do so. People try to make out special cases for this, that or the other. It is always possible to argue that it would be nice to have more money here or more money there, but there is an absolutely equitable system of distribution and no one has been able to prove to the contrary. They cannot prove it because it is not true.

In the new spirit of rationality that has broken out between the Front Benches, the Minister must surely recognise that one of the reasons why the Conservative party had its worst results for more than 50 years in the local elections and the Labour party its best results for 13 years, is a lack of confidence in the impartiality of the SSA grant system. There was overwhelming criticism of that system not only from the Labour party but from council tax payers, who simply could not understand the fairness of the system. As the Environment Select Committee made many criticisms of the SSA system, and as the Audit Commission recommended an independent grant commission, why does the Minister continue in his refusal to consider that and to begin discussions across the Chamber about that sensible proposal?

I did quite a lot of knocking on doors during the local election campaign—[Interruption.]—especially in Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington, and I was not engaged in spontaneous discussion about the SSA system at many of them. We have an objective system and the local authority associations co-operate with it fully. We are committed to ensuring that we make that system as finely tuned as possible without its becoming so complex as to be incomprehensible. We have set out on a good course. A further review is under way and I see no reason to change that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make clear in his revision of MPG3 that environmental acceptability is in the national interest in relation to opencast applications.

The draft revised guidelines withdraw the strong presumption in favour of opencast development which existed previously and replace it with a test of whether a proposed opencast application is environmentally acceptable. Those guidelines are now up for consultation and we are considering all comments carefully, with a view to publishing final guidelines in the summer.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Local people, however—especially in West Yorkshire—are so used to losing appeals against opencast applications that they will need to see the policy worked out in practice. Will he make it clear to planning inspectors in the future that national interests for coal must not be pitted against the environment, and that the quality of the environment matters and is in the national interest?

In Leeds, only two opencast applications have been lost on appeal. The system is extremely fair in that regard. As I have made clear to the House on many occasions, the revised guidance will impose a test of whether an application is environmentally acceptable. I should have thought that the whole House would recognise that as an advance on the current situation.

With cheap coal readily available on world markets, is it not madness to rip up the countryside of our crowded island? However, bearing in mind the fact that we are meant not to be being nasty to each other at the moment, will my hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that decisions on opencast mining used to be made by the Department of Energy, which habitually passed applications on the nod, before a Conservative Government devolved that power to county councils? Can we now continue with that fine record of tightening controls on opencast mining?

That is exactly what the draft planning guidance does. It imposes a tough environmental test. If there were an application for opencast mining on a green-field site, the local mineral planning authority would have to bear in mind the fact that it is a green-field site when deciding whether to allow that planning application. Obviously, different criteria would apply if it were considering a derelict land site.

Does the Minister accept that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has hit the nail on the head? People in the north and the midlands where opencast mining is proposed are overwhelmingly opposed to opencast developments. If opencast opportunities arose in Suffolk, Coastal or Oxfordshire, the Minister and his boss would find that public opinion there was the same. In conducting the review, will the Minister accept that public opinion does not believe that environmental acceptability is a sufficiently strong test because of the amount of judgment involved and that the need for coal should also be demonstrated before approval is given?

No, it is not the purpose of the planning system to determine whether there is a requirement for a specific mineral. Rather, it must strike a balance. In this instance, the planning system must strike a balance between economic need and environmental acceptability. That is what this planning guidance does, and I believe that it will do it extremely well.

My hon. Friend will be aware that local communities dislike the prospect of opencasting. Three such proposals affect my constituency. Will he assure me that his new MPG3 guidelines will take fully into account the environmental impact of opencasting, including the consequence of increased heavy traffic on the road network in surrounding towns and villages?

If hon. Members look at the draft guidance they will see, set into it in considerable detail, the factors that local planning authorities must take into account: visual impact, noise, transport movements—exactly the concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend—dust, and water pollution. The mineral planning authorities will have to bear in mind a range of environmental considerations in determining whether a planning application is environmentally acceptable. I am therefore more than willing to give my hon. Friend the assurance that she requests.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss inner cities.

I met Jeremy Beacham on Monday 9 May.

The Minister will be aware that local authorities fear and believe that the single regeneration budget is a device for disguising spending cuts. Why did the urban programme—the main policy and vehicle for combating deprivation in inner cities—spend £236 million two years ago, whereas this year it is spending £85 million, which is a cut of £151 million? Does that not confirm that the fears of local authorities are correct?

No, it confirms that the urban programme has been superseded by a number of other programmes that we are using to deal with the problems of our inner cities. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the past we used to go to the United States and other countries to see how they did things and to learn from them, but now they come to see what we are doing. For example, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited President Clinton, Mayor Murphy of Pittsburgh drew attention to the success and model provided by our urban policy. It is now the United States experts who come to the United Kingdom to learn, rather than the other way round, and the Germans and Australians are following suit.

Is it not encouraging how Labour-controlled authorities such as Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough have taken a leaf from the partnership ethic expounded by the Teesside development corporation and other development corporations and have put forward successful city challenge bids, enabling them to use budgets provided by the Government and the private sector to rebuild inner city areas?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The establishment of the integrated regional offices and the single regeneration budget has been widely welcomed even by people who are politically opposed to us, because they see that we can approach the problems of the inner city in an integrated and holistic way instead of in a partial manner. I therefore hope that the Opposition will continue their support, as they do in the countryside.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, far from solving the enormous problems faced by urban areas, the single regeneration budget will make life much more difficult for the people who run our major towns and cities? Will he assure us that the shortfall in urban aid which the introduction of the single regeneration budget has created will be made up in full by the Government as a matter of urgency?

I do not want to transgress the delicate feeling in the House at the moment, but when we announced the single regeneration budget the hon. Gentleman said that it was a cover for a cut and that there would be less than £1.4 billion in 1994–95. In fact, we announced £1.4 billion—precisely the figure that we had given—so the hon. Gentleman has asked a question about something that does not exist. We are putting very significant amounts of money into the inner cities. This is working extremely well and is very widely welcomed. What is more, it is over and above the substantial main programme of investment. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate his fire on reality and stop trying to pretend that things are going wrong in areas where we are doing extremely well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to revive inner cities is to give the people who live in them a direct investment in the making of decisions that affect their lives? Does he agree that housing action trusts, local management of schools and grant-maintained schools do precisely that? Is it not somewhat hypocritical for the Labour party to argue for greater local decision-making while opposing each and every such measure?

I am very much in favour of the subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend refers. Speaking to an audience that included a very large number of Labour councillors, I noticed that when I said that I wanted more subsidiarity from national to local government they cheered, but when I said that I thought that there ought to be more subsidiarity from local government to schools and other organisations they booed. For them, subsidiarity seems to stop at a particular level; I believe in reaching down to the smallest possible unit in running the government of the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to restore powers and functions removed from local government during the past 15 years.

The functions of local government have always been subject to change. The Government believe that responsibility should be delegated to the level most consistent with competence, practicality and cost-effectiveness.

Does the Minister realise that millions of people, of all parties and of none, deplore the fact that local authorities have been denuded of so many of their powers and functions since the Conservative Government came to power? Local self-government has been replaced by a vast quangocracy stuffed with Tory placemen and placewomen who are accountable to no one other than the most highly centralising Government in all Europe. Does that not amount to disfranchisement of the electors at local level?

I never quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is so attached to the impenetrable bureaucracy of Whitehall, county hall and town hall. What we are concerned about is the delivery of services closer to the people. It is the people who count—not the bureaucrats or, for that matter, the councils. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for example, in Merseyside there is an urban development corporation, on the board of which there are three councillors, spending £156 million; a city challenge programme with provision of £131 million; a task force; and an objective 1 programme of £354 million. If he takes such exception to all of those, I am sure that we can arrange to cancel the funding.

Representing, as I do, a part of the borough of Macclesfield in Cheshire, which has one of only two councils in the whole north-west region that still have overall Conservative control, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that among some Conservative Members there is a strong feeling that if local government is to continue to exist it must have a range of reasonable and sensible responsibilities? Otherwise, we shall not get people of the right calibre to serve on councils. Will my hon. Friend ensure that local authorities continue to have proper, full and meaningful responsibilities so that we may continue to have that level of government in the United Kingdom?

Of course—that is precisely why, for example, care in the community and the administration of housing benefit have recently been passed back to local government. What matters is the quality of the service to the person who is receiving it. That is what government at all levels is about. It does not matter so much who delivers a service; what matters is that it should be provided efficiently. The obsession with county hall, city hall or Whitehall seems to me to be forgetting the essential ingredient—the person on the receiving end, whom government is there to benefit.

When considering restoring powers to local authorities, will the Minister do so in the light of the 1991 "Index of Local Conditions", which shows relative deprivation in our cities and which the Minister slid into the Library this morning without even providing copies for the parliamentary press? Will he look at what has happened since he took powers away from local authorities such as Leicester which, instead of being one of the wealthiest cities in Europe, is now among the 10 per cent. most deprived areas in this country?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that is a function of local government powers, he is rather more imaginative than I had credited him. Local government has a remarkable opportunity in the shape of the single regeneration budget and programmes such as city challenge. Local government can act as an assembler of all the resources of the community to tackle particular problems. That is a new and much more exciting challenge than it has had in the past. The single regeneration budget, working with the private sector and public authorities, can make this work. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should spend his time telling Leicester to get stuck into all that, instead of complaining about its powers.

While my hon. Friend discusses the possibility of returning powers to councils, especially in Merseyside, will he give me an assurance today that my constituents in Southport will have the chance to have returned to them the powers associated with unitary authority status which they enjoyed before 1974? Will he assure me that the Local Government Commission will listen to their pleas as early as 1995, so that we can get out of Sefton and get back on our own again? Sandgrounders rightly deserve that opportunity.

We have made it clear that when the Local Government Commission has completed its review of shire England we shall direct it to look at the boundaries of metropolitan areas where there is a strong case for its doing so.

Nothing better confirms the degree to which current Ministers and the party in Government have become infected with the virus of centralisation than the threat that the whole House heard the Minister issue to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)—the threat that the funding for various bodies in Liverpool would be cancelled if my hon. Friend did not like what was going on. Does the Minister not understand that it is exactly that kind of arbitrary and capricious exercise of power that voters object to?

The hon. Gentleman does not want power to the people—he wants power to the councils, which is not always the same thing. That is the fundamental difference between us. We have passed power to the people. We have passed power to school governors, to parents and to people who live on council estates. That is what passing power to the people means. Why is the hon. Gentleman obsessed with passing power to councillors, which is by no means the same thing or the most efficient way of doing things?

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the deplorable reply given to my question by the Minister, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial savings could accrue to the council tax payers of Broxtowe if the joint districts proposal for the introduction of single-tier local government in Nottinghamshire were implemented.

As the review is still in progress, all aspects of local government reorganisation in Nottinghamshire are a matter for the Local Government Commission, including the costing of options for structural change.

Is it not important, in the interim, that local constituents understand that the principal element in their new council tax bills is the amount levied on behalf of the Labour county council and not the proportion levied by their district council?

Yes, one of the strong arguments in favour of unitary authorities is the straightforward idea of accountability. Having two local authorities can often confuse people and it is not always clear which is rendering a particular service. As my hon. Friend says, this can present particular difficulties in relation to council tax bills, since the lion's share—that rendered by the county council —has to be collected by the district council.

Is the Minister aware that the figures range from about £600 million to more than £1 billion for the transitional changes? Those changes will have to be met by cuts in services as the Government do not plan to put in any other money to meet their cost. Was there a delay in Nottinghamshire because the commission now recognises that no one in Nottinghamshire either wants the change or wishes to pay for it?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman's last comment is accurate. I suggest that he reads the comments of his Front-Bench colleagues in our local government debates.

He should not bother.

My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman should not bother, but it might be helpful for him to see that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen purport to be in favour of unitary authorities. As to savings, some of the figures that have been bandied around are grossly exaggerated. Certainly each of the reorganisations agreed so far by the Local Government Commission estimates that the savings and receipts at the outset will well outweigh the initial costs and that thereafter the savings will be continuous year on year. We have made it clear that we expect substantial long-term savings to follow the Local Government Commission recommendations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleague in Northern Ireland concerning the establishment of an environmental protection agency.

My officials are in contact with their opposite numbers in Northern Ireland, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's approach reflects the differing circumstances there.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not sure that I understand what he means by the differing circumstances. He must be aware that some four years have passed since 1990, when the Select Committee on the Environment recommended strongly that such a board be set up in Northern Ireland. Since then, the Government have commissioned a thermal oxide reprocessing plant which, with the regulations attached to it, can allow a 900 per cent. increase in toxic atmospheric discharge and a 1,100 per cent. increase in the toxic discharge into the Irish sea. Is the Minister aware that people living on the eastern coast of Northern Ireland are concerned that the Department is both poacher and gamekeeper in environmental protection and that such an agency is urgently needed as an independent assessor?

I am only too well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns as I was the Minister who took the decision, in the face of the Environment Select Committee, which came to interview me at Stormont on exactly the answers that were given. I recall that the answer was simply that I had a commitment to set up an environment agency in due course, that in Northern Ireland, where the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has different responsibilities, there was no need for it at that stage, but that the Department of the Environment, represented by me as its Minister, was by no means opposed to such an agency.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of investment in the water industry in 1978–79; and what is the expected level in 1992–93 expressed in constant prices.

On a comparable basis at constant prices, water industry capital expenditure in 1978–79 was about £1.1 billion. By 1992–93, it had almost trebled to some £3.2 billion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that about three weeks ago I opened phase 1 of a new sewage treatment plant in Kinmel bay in my constituency costing £23 million? Will my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends now come to sunny Rhyl for their summer holidays, so that they can swim in the beautiful clean sea and enjoy the wonderful amenities there for family holidays?

There is no doubt that Rhyl and the rest of that particularly beautiful north Wales coast is a fine place for a holiday and I am looking forward very much to doing some canvassing in the European elections in that area.

Is the Minister aware that the cost of this investment has been borne by many people who cannot afford to pay—that is, water rate payers and even those on low incomes? Is he further aware that this is leading to a very high rate of water disconnections in my constituency—the third highest in the country? Is it not time he stopped this extortion by water companies from people who cannot afford to pay?

It is difficult to put the hon. Lady's question alongside the constant demands of Labour Members for even more spending. Where do they think the money comes from? In the end, it comes from the consumers of water. There is no other way of delivering these very large sums of money. As the hon. Lady is concerned about the situation, I hope that she will support the very careful and cost-effective way in which we are ensuring that we spend what is necessary without overspending. I am sure that her electors in Cambridge will want her to affirm her support, even though she may have to vote against her own Front Bench.

Although that may be jolly good news in Wales, the standards imposed by the European Commission on the west country mean that people in that region face an intolerable burden, with some 650,000 water charge payers being responsible for cleaning up one third of the nation's coast. While I accept that that is an obligation imposed by the EC and not Her Majesty's Government, will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that the intolerable burden imposed by Europe will be ameliorated?

I agree with my hon. Friend who, with his colleagues, has been consistent in pressing on me the very serious matter that he has raised here. We have looked at the way in which the burden falls upon all consumers so that it is as cost-effective as possible. I know that Mr. Ian Byatt is completing his discussions with the water companies and that we should have some direct figures very soon. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises how closely we have been watching the situation. I know that he has pressed hard on behalf of his constituents and others on this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the use of local referendums.

I have made no assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the use of local referendums.

Does the Minister appreciate that referendums are commonplace in Europe and are one way of enriching and revitalising public debate? After 15 years of Conservative Government during which local authorities have lost powers, functions and relevance, would not the increased use of local referendums be one way to re-involve people in civic debate?

That is absolute twaddle.

Will my hon. Friend not dismiss the idea of referendums too easily? Will he also consider doing away with rate capping so that we can then expose those councils which spend wildly and a referendum can be held at the subsequent local government elections?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If it were not for council tax capping, large numbers of Labour authorities would be only too keen to spend council tax payers' money like confetti.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the United Kingdom is taking to phase out the production of substances damaging the ozone layer.

The production of halons has already ceased, CFCs and carbon tetrachloride will cease by the end of this year, and methyl chloroform by the end of next year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that congratulations are in order on the Government's achievement of those achievable targets? Does it not vindicate my view and that of the Government that it is far better to set targets which are easily achievable than to set targets which cannot be attained and which other countries have no intention of attaining?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that where we can raise the standards we ought to do so. I am pleased to say that the European Community as a whole is moving faster than the Montreal protocol requires with regard to chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. We have shown that, wherever we can, we will move faster than we are required to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the progress being made by the Local Government Commission.

The Local Government Commission has submitted final recommendations for 10 shire county areas. It is due to announce initial recommendations for a further group of shire counties, including Cumbria, in June.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he give me an assurance that, before any final proposals for Cumbria are made by the Local Government Commission, there will be full and wide public consultation with my constituents and those elsewhere in the county so that the final shape of local government in the county of Cumbria can enjoy widespread and continuing public support?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the commission must make initial recommendations and then a final recommendation. Up to that point, there is no role for the Government. When the commission makes its recommendation, we shall consult widely before we lay an order before the House. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to make representations at that time, and we will of course listen to him.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the commission, which is charged with reviewing parish and town council representation in local government areas, points out to Opposition Members that under existing legislation it is possible to call a poll? If local authorities want a poll, they can already have one if they are enparished—rather than listen to the first cuckoos of spring on the Opposition Benches.

My hon. Friend, who has the advantage of representing an area that is about to be reorganised, speaks from great experience. I defer to his judgment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the installation of pre-payment water meters in council properties.

A number of water companies are currently conducting trials of pre-payment water devices. The Director General of Water Services is monitoring the progress of these trials.

Will the Minister consider the case of Severn Trent Water, which installed some 700 prepayment devices? That has already led to about 400 disconnections. As the Water Act 1989 lays down clear guidelines under which water supplies can be disconnected, and as pre-payment devices do not appear to comply with those guidelines, does the Minister believe that water companies are acting lawfully or unlawfully?

I am convinced that the companies are acting lawfully. If that were not the case, it would be a matter for the Director General of Water Services. Metering, which is largely the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question, is still being discussed throughout the length and breadth of the country and there remain differing views.