To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the value and usefulness of the River Thames and its tributaries in London; and if he will bring forward proposals to make better use of it.

We are preparing comprehensive strategic planning guidance to maximise the undoubted assets of the River Thames.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the River Wandle, one of the main tributaries of the River Thames, runs through my constituency. Does he agree that the River Thames is much too often taken for granted and that it is under-used and under-recognised? Will he assure me that he will do his utmost to ensure that its aesthetic, historical and transport facilities are promoted to the full, perhaps in the context of the millennium fund?

It is vital that we use all the Thames's assets and ensure that it remains a working river. We want it to carry even more waste out of London, which would otherwise be moved by lorry, and to ensure that it is used to the full. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point about the millennium fund can easily be passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Why does not the Secretary of State improve his aesthetic appreciation and visit the Whistler exhibition at the Tate gallery, where he would see pictures showing that the River Thames was far more heavily used at the end of the last century than it is now? All the Government seem to be doing is pushing more lorries on to London's roads. Should not we be using the Thames more?

The Thames was so dirty then that the House of Commons had to give up sitting on occasions because of the smell. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is cleaner now than it has been for 400 years and we can now take salmon and other fish from it. Finally, the hon. Gentleman should not believe that he is the only person who has been to an exhibition.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the environmental impact of power lines in the vale of York.

Responsibility for assessing the environmental impact of the proposed power lines in the vale of York belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the consenting authority for such projects. I understand that, as required, environmental statements were submitted with the planning applications and that, following consideration of environmental matters by the public inquiry, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was satisfied with the environmental information before him.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I urge him to take a much closer interest in the proposed national grid power line through the vale of York, which people in North Yorkshire regard as a potentially serious blot on the landscape. It is not good enough for the Department of the Environment to fail in this instance to apply the planning criteria that would apply to other such applications merely because the issue is decided by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Does he agree that the public outrage is wholly justified, as the planning inspector considered that it was wrong for the ENRHON power plant to be given the go-ahead without an environmental impact assessment being conducted into the power lines through the vale of York?

That was a bit of a kick in the teeth.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on pausing a little, but I can suggest to him an appropriate dentist.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take in order to increase the safeguards to the environment from the leaching of radioactive substances from landfill dumps into which radioactive waste is deposited.

I am satisfied that disposals of radioactive waste to landfill sites are properly regulated and that the public and the environment are fully protected.

Is the Minister aware of the considerable dismay and concern that has arisen, following publication of the Government's consultation document on radioactive waste, about the possibility that waste currently going to Drigg could be redirected to landfill sites? Is he aware that from one such site in my constituency, Cilgwyn, water could leach through into the waterways in the neighbouring valleys and on to agricultural land, which would be wholly unacceptable from every viewpoint? Will he ensure that when considering the outcome of the consultation document, that dimension is taken fully into account?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises the matter. No specific sites have been mentioned and no decisions have been made. It is a consultation paper. He will be aware, as will other hon. Members who take an interest in these matters, that the consultation is being undertaken because of pressure at Drigg in Cumbria on the low-level waste disposal. At many sites in the country such disposal of low-level nuclear waste has been made over the years, under all sorts of Governments. It would not be my intention to make the situation any more difficult. I emphasise again that we have not talked about any specific sites; at this stage, it is only consultation.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there will be widespread acceptance and a widespread welcome for the consultation document, especially because of the kind of speculation that we have experienced in the past? Is he aware of, and would he like to comment on, the disgraceful and damaging speculation that has been indulged in, especially by the Liberal Democrats in the south-west in relation to Torbay? Of all the sites for landfill for radioactive waste, that must arguably be the most unlikely in the country, yet that has not prevented local Liberal Democrats from making absurd political capital or from trying to frighten the local population and visitors to Torbay.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I speak with authority because Liberal Democrats in my constituency suggested that a site on the boundary of the constituency would be reopened for nuclear waste. That was an absolute fabrication and complete nonsense, and they frightened many people unnecessarily. My hon. Friend is entirely right to suggest that certain people not a million miles away from the Liberal Democrat Benches here should think carefully before making statements that are untrue and misleading.

I recognise the constraints placed on Ministers in the case of the Nirex deep repository application in the county of Cumbria, but will the Minister take an interest in Nirex's practice of bribing local organisations to win approval, thereby trying to avoid real resistance from the people of the county of Cumbria to its proposals?

I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, takes an interest in these matters for constituency reasons, so I shall look most carefully at anything that he says. However, I have no evidence of anything happening along the lines that he suggests. If he has evidence to present to me, I should like to see it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which capital cities he has visited since becoming Secretary of State.

I have visited 20 capital cities. The list is in the House Library.

While the Secretary of State was clocking up his air miles, did he notice that each of the capital cities had city-wide local government and its own equivalent of County hall? In London, we have neither. Does he share my considerable concern about the bizarre happenings surrounding County hall at the moment? As it seems that the deal between the London residuary body and the Shirayama hotel group was based on a fraud perpetrated by Shirayama, and as we may now be moving into an area of criminal conspiracy, will he, to protect London, County hall and perhaps even himself and his reputation, now order a full inquiry into the events surrounding the takeover and sale of County hall and into the events now taking place?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his care for my reputation. I assure him that I have been to a number of capital cities, such as Paris, that do not have city-wide local government, so I do not think that that point is taken.

On his visits around the world, did my right hon. Friend discuss the impact of the private finance initiative, which we were told yesterday should very soon lead to an announcement of 100 new, modern trains for the Northern line in this great capital?

My visits were mainly concerned with selling British products. Interestingly, private finance initiatives, copied from this country, are now beginning to drive industry and government in a number of countries. In addition, the newly privatised industries are winning billions of pounds in orders for Britain—industries which, had they remained nationalised, would not have been able to win a single cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in real terms in Government expenditure on housing between 1978–79 and 1994–95.

Over the past 15 years, Government expenditure on housing has increased by £500 million in real terms. That takes into account social security spending on housing benefits and income support.

Is 90 per cent. of the Minister's constituency casework, like mine, related to housing, particularly in the wake of the halving of Government investment in social housing, which his figures should have confirmed? What hope does that give to 17,000 people on the waiting list in the city of Birmingham, which has an excellent record of private sector partnerships, and to the tenants of 4,500 council homes that still have outside toilets? Will he confirm that the further cuts in investment in housing announced yesterday will mean 20,000 fewer new homes next year and 15,000 fewer building jobs?

The Government have created 180,000 new lettings in the past three years, and our policies will achieve the same in the next three years. As the hon. Gentleman is talking about Birmingham, he will no doubt wish to applaud Castle Vale housing action trust, a partnership with private sector developers and tenants that will receive £7 million worth of grant aid this year and £26 million of estate action schemes. He should not forget that housing is a question not only of new build but of new lettings. The regeneration of housing and the turning of some of the awful post-war estates into places where people want to live and have pride in living is a central part, and one of the most successful parts, of our policy.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are 2 million more houses in this country than there were 15 years ago and that the Government are well ahead of their manifesto commitment on social housing and building programmes? Does he agree that a good deal more would be spent on housing if Labour authorities were rather better at collecting rents on their council estates?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, one has to take into consideration not only the resources that Government make available for those programmes, but how much money is levered in. Since 1988, we have levered £2.6 billion of private sector funding into the programme. That makes a very substantial programme and that is exactly the right way in which to do it. I am confident that we shall continue to lever in proportional amounts.

Will the Minister tell the House the truth about the cuts in housing investment over the lifetime of this Government? There has been a cut of more than 50 per cent. in real terms. Will he admit that that has been compounded by yesterday's disastrous Budget? Will he confirm that housing association starts will be reduced to fewer than 20,000 next year—the lowest level of rented housing since the second world war?

First, the answer to most of that is no. Secondly, perhaps the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully yesterday, he would have noticed that the pattern of rent increases in future will be 4 per cent., 3 per cent. and 2 per cent. in real terms over inflation. Of course, that means that the Government are doing what they said. Where there is a public expenditure gain to be made from increasing rents, we have pursued it. When that ceases to be of benefit, it makes sense to review the policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to protect small shops in town and village centres from out-of-town super stores and car boot sales.

I am determined to support and improve our town centres, and our planning guidance has been revised to encourage in-town developments.

I welcome unreservedly that answer from my right hon. Friend. Does he recall that it is now almost a year since he issued his minded-to-approve decision for a large out-of-town supermarket for Canvey island? The section 106 agreement has been delayed unacceptably by Aldersgate Development. Will he do what he can to bring that agreement forward so that my council and my constituents know what is happening about that development?

It is very important that people should know where they stand, and I will do all I can to ensure that there is a solution to that problem. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend noticed that the Labour party clearly does not think that it is a good idea to improve in-town developments and make our town centres live again. We know who is on the reactionary side in the House.

Does not the Secretary of State realise what a ridiculous figure he cuts at the moment—[Interruption.]—the Whale show—as he spends taxpayers' money trying to push through the Dumplington scheme in Greater Manchester, while at the same time he pretends to be in favour of in-town shopping?

The hon. Gentleman must know that the issue at stake is whether decisions by previous Secretaries of State should stand or whether they can be continually second-guessed thereafter. Any Secretary of State in my position would stand up for the maintenance of certainty in these decisions. That is precisely why I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) in the way that I did. What is more, if there ever were a Labour Secretary of State for the Environment, he would do precisely the same.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that out-of-town shopping centres are popular with the driving public because people can park their cars easily and for free? If we are going to make town centres competitive in respect of out-of-town shopping—and we should be doing that—does he agree that it is up to local authorities and shop owners in city centres to make city centres competitive, which means free parking?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that parking arrangements are crucial to delivering the in-town shopping centres that we want. Local authorities must make that possible and recognise that car parking is not a matter largely for them but that it can be much better run by those with an economic interest in the success of city centres, who run better car parks and ensure that there is closed circuit television to cover them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce decisions on bids made to the single regeneration budget.

As soon as we are in a position to do so.

As the Government shot themselves in both feet over the funding of English teaching to ethnic minority children, will the Minister ensure that the 50 single regeneration budget bids directly related to education, including that from Bradford, are given every sympathetic consideration? Will he do his best to ensure that the Cabinet sub-committee supervising the SRB quickly reaches new arrangements for the proper and secure funding of English teaching to ethnic minority children in schools?

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that we have doubled section 11 funding for teaching in schools where there are particular problems. Schools can bid for that funding, and no doubt Bradford will be one of the areas to do so. All bids under the SRB will be considered according to the criteria laid out. The partnerships must be very solid and deliverable and the schemes must be well-founded. They will all be judged on that basis. It is not the intention that any bid should have a head start over any other bid. The bids should be on an exactly level playing field.

Bearing in mind Nestlé's recent announcement of the closure, in two years, of the Rowntree Mackintosh factory in Norwich and its employment implications in my constituency, will my hon. Friend give appropriate consideration to the single regeneration budget bids that he receives from Norwich and the surrounding area?

I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), that we judge bids objectively. My hon. Friend will know that coverage was nationwide—we did not focus on certain areas—and that enabled us to address problems that arose from economic circumstances. We did not want any part of the country to feel that it was not entitled to take part in the process or that its concerns were not being met.

How does the Minister intend to compensate local councils and other organisations that have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds and thousands of hours preparing for bids that, as the Minister knows, will not be successful because of the absurd funding regime of the SRB? When will the Government implement a regeneration policy that addresses the needs of urban Britain rather than the whims of Ministers and the Department of the Environment press office?

The hon. Gentleman should spend more time, as I do, going around the country and talking to council leaders. He will find what great support Labour leaders are giving the process. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is a very good case in point. Since he ceased to be its leader, matters have improved considerably in Sheffield.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern that bids from areas that already have assisted or European regional status will receive preference in the SRB round. Can he assure me that that will not be so and that bids from areas such as Erewash, which will be put together by the business community and the local authority, will be judged on their merits only and will not be disadvantaged in the way that I have described?

I am sure that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. We judge bids on their intrinsic merits, the strength of the partnership, their deliverability and whether the schemes are working and are practicable. When the results are announced, my hon. Friend will see that we have been absolutely consistent in our treatment of the bids.

Does the Minister not understand that cities such as Sheffield are putting in bids for the single regeneration budget simply because there are no other sources of funds to deal with the major problems of city centres? The Government have not allocated new money for the budget. All that they have done is shut down the urban programme, cut the money available and put it into the single regeneration budget, and add to it money from housing investment programmes that have been top-sliced in the first place by central Government. There is no new money. There are real problems, and the Government are doing nothing to address them properly.

The problems are being addressed properly, and they are being addressed properly in Sheffield, because the city of Sheffield has shown considerable and welcome enterprise in this matter. I have considerable dealings with the leadership in Sheffield. The development corporation and estate action and housing programmes are working well. We will see whether it will be successful with its single regeneration budget bid. The scheme has certainly been well supported by Sheffield.

Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents, who were glad to welcome him on his recent visit, greatly look forward to the all-party delegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and I will bring to see him on 12 December in respect of our single regeneration budget bid? I hope that he will sympathetically consider our proposals, which are based on a real partnership of business and the local authority. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming what our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said yesterday about extending single regeneration budget funding.

I look forward to meeting the delegation with my two hon. Friends from Blackpool. I know how hard they try to promote the interests of a borough that has its problems—we all realise that. No doubt, my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that resources have been increased and that there will be a second round on the same basis as the first round. Where bids have not succeeded the first time, there will be a chance to put them forward in the second round. Other bids will be invited as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has received from the water industry about future charging arrangements for water and sewerage.

As the hon. Member knows, the water industry associations have recently presented to Ministers their views about future methods of charging for water and sewerage services which are being considered.

Does the Minister recognise that in an industry where there is not usually political consensus, there is consensus—apart from the Government Front Bench and the Director General of Ofwat—that, because water and sewerage are public services, it is both fair and sensible to allow water companies to continue to use the local taxation base as a reasonable core charging method? Will he respond positively to the document which was presented to him by the water industry associations and say that they can use council tax data for their charging systems? Will he do that as soon as possible?

The hon. Lady and other Opposition Members must realise that, if they believe as much as we do in sustainable development of a natural resource, it is logical that a cost must be levied on the basis of consumption. That is the case with gas and electricity, and I do not see how water is any different.

Will my hon. Friend think very carefully before moving to increase metering? I hate to agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), but there appears to be a great deal of evidence that water companies bear costs in the area of distribution of water as opposed to production of water. Therefore, the additional costs that may be added because of the introduction of metering might be out of all proportion to the benefit to consumers. If people were to reduce the amount of water they use, the price of water per gallon might rise dramatically. I hate to think what the political implications would be if we went ahead with metering.

My hon. Friend recognises, as we all do, that there is no party political division in this area; there is no dogma on this matter. Opposition Members keep telling us about the need for sustainable development and an environmental approach, but they seem to fly in the face of the logic of that stance, which is that cost should be based on consumption. If that is the case, metering is the logical answer.

Does the Minister accept that, if he decides to go ahead with compulsory water metering across the country, that cannot be brought into effect to meet the present time scale for ending charging on the old rating system? Therefore, would it not make sense to allow that system to be updated by using council tax to ensure a modern system with up-to-date values? That would open the possibility of providing help to people on low incomes and those who live alone, particularly those with high water charges, on the same basis as the council tax.

The hon. Gentleman and his party spend a lot of time preaching at us about the environment and about sustainable development. As I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) earlier, if we believe in the policy there has to be a consumption-related tax. Frankly, when it comes to water matters, I take less notice of what Liberal Members say than anyone else in the House.

Why do the Government insist that it would be right for everyone in the country to be forced to have a water meter and to find the cost of installing that meter? The public have made it clear that they do not want meters. The water companies have now described it as an untenable option. Why do not the Government abandon the idea and allow the companies to charge instead on the basis of council tax bands or rateable values? Only the Government and the water regulator persist in believing that compulsory metering is right. We have to start asking whose side the water regulator is on: the Government or the public?

When the hon. Gentleman has been doing the job a little longer, he will understand the complexities of the matter. Then he will realise that the logic of his policy, as often declared, to support sustainable development of scarce and declining resources is to ensure that consumption is the factor, just as it is with gas and electricity. There is no compulsion as the matter stands. There are alternatives, and people have the opportunity to take them up. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the subject up and then talks to me. I will tell him what it is all about.

Bearing in mind the intense hardship to people whose water is cut off for non-payment or other reasons, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that fewer people are cut off nowadays? Will he undertake to initiate research which will ensure that every possible step is taken before people are cut off, including finding other ways of paying their bills, perhaps through social security or in one way or another?

My hon. Friend is right to say that disconnections are declining. The recent figures announced for this year showed a continuing decline. The process that has to be followed by a water company before it can obtain disconnection—a court order, several letters and various other requirements—means that disconnection does not take place unless it is the absolute ultimate sanction. All the evidence, certainly from research by the water companies among customers in my area in the north-west, suggests that the majority of customers, by which I mean a substantial percentage, wish to retain the option of disconnection as an ultimate sanction for non-payment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the plans to establish environmental protection agencies; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations, which I have taken into account in the Environment Bill which we intend to present for First Reading in another place tomorrow.

I welcome the legislation which is to be presented, but I wish to express disappointment, particularly on Saint Andrew's day, that there is to be no separate legislation to establish a Scottish environmental protection agency. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify how that decision was reached, given the different legislative systems? Despite that, will he give an assurance that he will consult Scottish-based organisations with reference to abandoned and contaminated land sites, which often contribute more to river pollution than the normal industrial activities of the modern day? Will he give us an assurance that a duty will be placed on the agencies to have a catchment management policy which will ensure that all aspects are examined closely together?

The hon. Lady is right to say that these things must be looked at together. That is why we are bringing the three agencies together and why there is a clear section in the legislation dealing with the Scottish environment agency, which will be a separate agency. It is perfectly proper that it should come in the same legislation because we all share in the environment and we all seek to ensure that environmental protection in Scotland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom should complement each other. There is no reason why we cannot deal with the matter in the same Bill. All that I can say is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken an extremely detailed personal interest in the matter as it relates not only to Scotland but to the rest of the United Kingdom.

When my right hon. Friend considers protection agencies in general, will he consider one for chief executives of Liberal-controlled authorities, who appear to be becoming an endangered species? Has he read the report in the Local Government Chronicle and from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives that the Liberal Democrats seem to have a policy of sacking chief executives or not replacing them?

Order. The question hardly relates to that on the Order Paper. I called the hon. Gentleman because I realised that he was Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment and thought that he might have an interesting contribution to make. If the Minister can make some sort of reply, I would appreciate it if he could keep it to the subject on the Order Paper.

The environment agency will have a number of duties, but I fear that they could not reach so far, even though an agency to do as my hon. Friend suggests will be increasingly important.

On the cost benefit provisions of the proposed agency, does the Secretary of State care to reflect on the case of the Drax power station, where the need to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions on environmental grounds led to massive investment in flue gas desulphurisation? Is he aware that, due to the Government's bizarre criteria, the electricity companies are purchasing cheaper electricity from dirty power stations in preference to that produced cleanly at Drax?

No, precisely the opposite is true. That commitment makes it possible for us to protect the environment. The area of the world in which the environment has been least protected is eastern Europe, which ran a socialist society. We all know perfectly well how one destroys the environment—one has central planning, central control and no market forces and one does not introduce mechanisms whereby market forces support the environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government reforms in Warwickshire.

I have received many representations on local government structure in Warwickshire. However, the review of Warwickshire is still in the hands of the Local Government Commission. I expect to receive its report next month.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Local Government Chronicle recently published a report which stated that the Local Government Commission would recommend the status quo for Warwickshire? Is he able to confirm that? If he is, is he aware that the church bells will ring and wine—or at least beer—will flow in the streets of Warwickshire? It would be a marvellous Christmas present to hear something encouraging from my hon. Friend.

I have learnt not to rely on gossip, even when it is in the Local Government Chronicle. We will await the report and judge it on its merits when it is submitted.

Is the Minister aware that in Warwickshire and throughout the country people are sick and fed up with the Local Government Commission and with the fantastic amount of money that has been wasted on that futile exercise because it has not given local government the freedom that it needs to look after our constituents and communities? From start to finish, the whole thing is a sham and the Minister should admit it and abolish the Commission.

Considering that we have not received the final report for all the counties, the hon. Gentleman is prejudging the exercise. The decisions announced so far seem to have been well received, although from time to time we will obviously disagree with the Commission's suggestions. If the hon. Gentleman has reason to disagree with its original suggestions, the appropriate thing to do is to direct his representations to Sir John Banham.

Is the Minister aware that, if beer will flow in the streets of historic Warwickshire, more beer will flow in historic Yorkshire if he allows the return of the historic county of north riding, as he did recently when he allowed the abolition of Humberside and its return to the east riding of Yorkshire?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have announced our proposals for North Yorkshire and for the former Humberside, which include the recreation of East Yorkshire, although not precisely along the historic boundaries.

Does not the Minister understand that, if the Government are prepared to announce the order for the abolition of Cleveland while at the same time they are not prepared to let the review finish, it is not my hon. Friends who should be accused of prejudging the review but the Minister and his colleagues? Would it not be more responsible at this stage to stop playing party politics with local government reorganisation, and to let the commission finish its review before bringing any orders before the House?

That would be disastrous, and it would leave a large number of people unclear about their future. The hon. Gentleman presupposes that we are looking at the reorganisation in terms of a universal blueprint. We are judging each county on its merits, and it seems reasonable to announce the proposals for each county and debate them as individual proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for opencast mining affecting the green belt have been made in the last six months.

We do not hold this information, but my hon. Friend may be interested to know that our planning guidelines make clear that opencast coal mining should be allowed only where the development can be carried out in an environmentally acceptable way or where there are overriding benefits.

Will my hon. Friend consider collecting such information? If he does, he will become aware that there has, during the past year, been a surge in applications for opencasting on green field sites within the green belt in Leeds and elsewhere in the country? If environmental acceptability is rightly to be the key test, will he or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State come to visit Garforth in my constituency to see exactly how unsuitable those applications are?

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted an invitation to visit. As regards the information, I am willing to look into the possibility of providing it as soon as is reasonable.

Does the Minister further agree that in a constituency such as mine—which had huge numbers of deep-mined pits until very recently—it is an affront that, during the past six months, applications have been made for opencast mining in the very small pieces of genuine countryside which we have? Will he make a presumption against opencast mining in such cases, as we have suffered enough from mining waste?

It is not an affront to apply. With the new regulations and the new attitude, there must be an environmentally-oriented balance. Nevertheless, we must accept that minerals can only be worked where they exist.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the strategic planning factors within the responsibilities of local government and his Department which favour urban development at Ebbsfleet.

Planning guidance for the south-east aims to change the balance of development in the region from the west to the east. Thames Gateway is the main opportunity for growth in the region. Kent Thames-side, including Ebbsfleet, with its large and varied supply of development sites, has been identified as the main eastern focus for development in the Thames Gateway planning framework.

Will not any urban development at Ebbsfleet detract from the development of east London, which was one of the strategic reasons for putting the last channel tunnel link on its particular alignment? Is it not a fact that the proponents of stations at Ebbsfleet and Stratford respectively were not given equal access to Ministers? Do not both of those facts reflect upon the integrity of Ministers, and of any hon. Member who did not have a constituency interest and who was involved in that controversial decision?

As far as access to Ministers and ministerial visits to sites is concerned, I repudiate absolutely what the hon. Gentleman has said because it is not true. Ebbsfleet was chosen because it stood up commercially from the very start. Ebbsfleet was never in competition with Stratford—it was in competition with Rainham, because those were two potential sites within the M25 catchment area.

My hon. Friend will know from his visits to Ebbsfleet when he was considering all the potential sites that it is located on exhausted chalk pits, so it is not a green-field site of specific environmental interest. Will my hon. Friend also note that Ebbsfleet was chosen because it is right alongside a pool of talent offered by my constituents of Gravesend and Northfleet, alongside deep water wharfs on the Thames and transport access to and from the M25 and the A2? Ebbsfleet is the right location for the international station and as a focus for the redevelopment of Kent Thames-side.

I repeat to the House that Ebbsfleet was chosen because it stood up commercially when the potential sites for an international station were examined and for no other reason. We hope that Stratford, which is east inner London, will also attract developments if commercial logic suggests that. We have fought to keep that opportunity on the table.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for ensuring that outstanding European directives relating to environmental and ecological matters are enacted into law within the next six months.

Our aim is to implement European directives as far as possible on time and in full. The House will be aware that we have just implemented the habitats and urban waste water treatment directives.

Should local planning authorities, in support of the spirit of those directives, pursue planning policies that presume against development on sites of special scientific interest, will the Minister undertake that his ministerial inspectors and his ministerial colleagues will support such policies rather than demonstrate mere regard to the existence of SSSIs? Will he and his colleagues join those local authorities by implementing policy that presumes against development on SSSIs?

No doubt my noble Friend the Minister for Construction and Planning will hear the hon. Gentleman's point. We must work from the supposition that we protect SSSIs, but there are occasions, albeit a few, when that policy does not fit. We try hard at national and local level to ensure that SSSIs and other sites of particular interest are maintained, usually in whole, but often in part.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of carbon dioxide emissions for the United Kingdom in 1994 and predicted for 2000.

The latest estimate for carbon dioxide emissions in 1993 is 152 million tonnes of carbon, down from about 158 million tonnes in 1990. Figures are not yet available for 1994. We currently expect that in the year 2000 they will not exceed 1990 levels in line with our commitments under the United Nations climate change convention.

Will the Minister ensure that the environmental and planning policies pursued by his Department are given some real teeth? For example, when considering planning applications for out-of-town shopping developments, the Department should take into account the fact that such developments lead to a vast increase in cars and, in turn, an increase in pollutants and obviously CO₂ emissions. When will the Government change the general trend of their policy to encourage the private car as opposed to the interests of public transport, because that would be a major way in which to reduce CO₂ emissions and thus the impact of global warming on the country?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware that he has just stated many of the policies adopted by the Department on those issues, especially after inquiries have recommended such policies. I recognise his attempt at a pun and that should have been anticipated, but given the plastic teeth with which the hon. Gentleman is smiling at me, he better be careful.

My hon. Friend will know that the Opposition do not have a monopoly on concern about carbon emissions. Will my hon. Friend take decent steps to discuss with his Cabinet counterparts concrete proposals to reduce carbon emissions? In particular, will he consider reducing the motor mileage allowance to public servants, including Members of Parliament? Will he also consider reducing the number of cars made available to civil servants and possibly reduce the number of ministerial cars as well?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will join me one evening, going home on public transport with five red boxes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses his Department has received to the consultation paper he issued in August on the disposal of nuclear waste.

We have received 251 responses to the consultation paper. A list of those has been placed in the Library of the House. In addition, we have received about 5,000 letters.

I am sure that many of those responses were from local authorities. Learning that the Secretary of State very much opposes central planning, when applications for the deposit of low-grade nuclear waste are received, will the Government's intention be that they should be determined by local authorities, so that they can respond to the opinions of local communities on the issue?

I make two points in response to that. First, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution consults the local waste regulation authorities and the local authorities before any authorisations of any type are made, and that has been the case for some time. Secondly—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not party to this—there is a suspicion sometimes that the talking up of low-level nuclear waste, as though it were more dangerous than it is, gets the issue out of proportion. Low-level nuclear waste is the type of waste that comes from hospitals—rubber gloves, old exit signs and other similar bits and pieces, which, although they are obviously radioactive, are radioactive to such a small extent that they do not cause any damage or threat to the environment.

Would it be helpful to remind my hon. Friend of the commitment that I gave to the electors of Brigg and Cleethorpes in the House in 1986? Would it be helpful for him to leave that constituency on one side when it comes to considering this matter? Would it also be helpful to him to be reminded of the constituency represented by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary?

I am, indeed, well aware of my hon. Friend's earlier pledge about those matters. I know him well enough to know that he would never have to implement it in so far as I am involved in any policy that is of concern to him, but I emphasise again that, as he well knows, if we have mentioned any specific sites—which we have not—we are talking about very low-level nuclear waste, which is the sort of stuff that has been going on for years and does not cause a problem.

Will the Minister confirm that bringing the waste regulation authorities into the new environmental agency will mean that, rather than their decisions reflecting the opinions and anxieties of local people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) suggested, in future they will have to respond to directives from the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State could intervene and direct them to accept low-level nuclear waste, whether they liked it or not?

No.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter planning law.

I shall consider the need for amending legislation in the light of the report, "Shopping Centres and Their Future" by the Select Committee on the Environment, and of a symposium on quality in town and country that I have arranged for next month.

Will the Minister consider planning permission as regards Crown land? He may be aware that, obviously, residents who live next to Crown land cannot object to anything that the agent of the Crown land wants to build. In my constituency, where a big hangar has been built, the residents had little or no say in the decision to grant planning permission for that monstrosity. It was just built.

I shall be happy to consider the specific case. I believe that another case is presenting problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I shall consider that as well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the planning system can never be totally prescriptive in every case, but that the normal presumption should be that the local plan and structure plan should take priority? Will he ask the planning inspectorate to make that the normal presumption?

Clearly, the structure plan is the one within which all such decisions should be made. Occasionally there are exceptions, but they need to be extremely well explained and there must be a real basis on which to make a change. We want a plan-led scheme, but I also want a great deal more flexibility within the plans. For example, I do not want local plans which designate in advance the use of every single site. We need to defend the green belt rigorously but get mixed development in our cities, towns and villages so that we can bring people back to the centres and enable them to live, work, take their leisure and worship in the same places instead of forcing them to use their motor cars to drive long distances.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of rural pressure groups to discuss the merger between English Nature and the Countryside Commission.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 7 October that we do not intend to proceed with a merger between English Nature and the Countryside Commission at this time. Instead we have asked the chairmen of the two bodies to draw up a programme of closer working.

Is the Minister aware that the announcement that the two bodies would not be merged has been widely welcomed in the rural parts of my constituency? Is he also aware that the practical and voluntary approach adopted by English Nature in past years has built up an enormous amount of good will among farmers? Does he agree that it is essential to keep that approach rather than adopt that of the Opposition, which is to regulate and control all aspects of country life?

My hon. Friend, who speaks with considerable authority on rural matters, is entirely right, and I shall convey his thanks to the chairmen of both organisations.