To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to compel local authorities to compile a register of contaminated land.

I expect shortly to receive a departmental working party report on the feasibility of establishing registers of contaminated land. My assessment of that report will include consideration of whether such registers should be voluntary or compulsory.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent report on contaminated land from the Select Committee on the Environment? It has strong application in my constituency, because it calls for a compulsory register of potentially contaminated land, such as at Avonmouth in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that a register will create an opportunity to evaluate such land, and in so doing remove a barrier to its development, which potentially is one of the golden opportunities in Bristol?

I welcome the Select Committee's report, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to respond shortly. We are anxious to be as positive as possible in our response. In my evidence to the Select Committee, I said that it is essential that all contaminated land should be easily identified. A local register held at district council level would be very helpful.

The Minister will be aware that there is a register of contaminated land in Wales, but the problem is that local authorities do not have the money to do anything with the information that they have collected. Much money will be needed just for methane drainage schemes and for the removal of contaminated top soil. Will the Government offer local authorities grants to enable them to do that work?

One of the most successful grant mechanisms in Wales, as in England, is the derelict land grant. For every £1 of taxpayers' money that we have spent, about seven times as much has been attracted from the private sector. There is an increase in the public expenditure survey line of the Department of the Environment, but I should have to find out what has happened with the Welsh Office. I commend that scheme to the hon. Gentleman.

My hon. Friend may be aware that Arpley Meadows, a landfill site in my constituency, takes low-level radioactive waste. Does he believe that such sites should be compulsorily registered?

Such sites certainly should be registered, and that will be part of our response to the Environment Select Committee's report. I can give my hon. Friend the comfort that we have raised the standards to deal with such waste in the Environmental Protection Bill.

Does the Minister agree that it would have been far better if the full reports of the departmental working party had been given during the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill? Does he further agree that that would have enabled us firmly to enshrine in legislation a measure similar to the register in Wales? On Report, once the Minister has consulted local authority associations, does he intend to provide a clear duty for local authorities to compile a register? Will he give them the resources, take account of the problems associated with blight and ensure that the money to render contaminated sites harmless is incorporated in the Bill on Report?

The principal reason why we could riot bring those measures before the Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill was covered by the hon. Lady in her question. It would be less than courteous if we did not consult local authority associations, which believe—I think that the hon. Lady agrees—that registers should be made compulsory. It would be foolish, and certainly discourteous, if I were to make an announcement from the Dispatch Box without properly responding to the Select Committee's report. I certainly should not rule out the possibility of legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has developed to keep council rents at an affordable level.

It is for local authorities to determine the rents that they set. The Government are providing £3 billion of taxpayers' money to subsidise housing revenue accounts, from which around 60 per cent. of council tenants receive rent rebates, and rents generally can be kept within the reach of lower-paid tenants.

Does the Minister recognise the reality of council house rent rises this year? As with the poll tax, the Government have totally miscalculated the range of rent rises. For groups whose income is just above rebate levels, the penalty of the rent rises and the poll tax is totally beyond their means.

We have not totally miscalculated the rent rises. Most authorities have kept within or below our guidelines. We estimate that the average difference between our guidelines and actual rent increases is about 3 per cent. Council house rents throughout the country remain well below market rents.

Does it remain Government policy to seek a relationship between council house rents and the average value of property in the vicinity? If so, does my hon. Friend believe that, in some ways, that might be getting things the wrong way round? Sometimes the most acute housing difficulties are experienced by people living in areas where the average value of property is high.

We certainly want the pattern of rents to reflect the pattern of property values and market rents more than it does now. Vast amounts of public money go into subsidising rents throughout the country.

Does the Minister agree that it is inevitable that housing rents will continue to rise? Does he further agree that more tenants should consider purchasing their own property?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One million households have done precisely that under the right-to-buy scheme. I certainly want as many tenants to buy their properties as feel able to do so, for all the reasons implicit in the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of rents is an important factor in the amount of money that an authority will have available to carry out repairs, so it is not surprising that many Labour local authorities that have deliberately kept rents low for political reasons have had little to spend on repairs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Authorities can keep to our guidelines, knowing that the costs of borrowing and of rent rebates have been taken fully into account and that an allowance has been made for an 8 per cent. increase in maintenance programmes. Authorities that have not carried out maintenance programmes will certainly not have done their tenants a good service.

The guidelines are pure fantasy, and the Minister knows it. The authorities that cannot meet them are primarily Conservative councils. What specifically will the Minister say to the London boroughs of Redbridge and Merton, to Bournemouth and to Canterbury, all of which are Conservative councils and all of which are imposing top rate rent increases? There will be an average rent increase of more than £15 a week in Redbridge. A bill for a £15 a week increase will arrive on the doormat at the same time as the poll tax bill. How is a family of four supposed to live? Are they living on fresh air or on a feast of Tory broken promises?

I repeat that the guidelines are not figments of our imagination. They take full account of the borrowing costs of local authorities, of rent rebates and also of an 8 per cent. increase in maintenance costs. If an authority decides to go above our guidelines, it is perfectly free to do so. An authority may decide to do so for the best of reasons—to accelerate a maintenance programme or add to balances. That is a matter for the local authorities, and that is called local democracy.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that those living in good quality council houses—not flats—with gardens should pay a slightly more realistic rent, especially as, after yesterday's Budget, housing benefit will be more extensively available. Does my hon. Friend accept the point made earlier—that it is important that local authorities should be able to use the extra revenue to meet the pronounced need of those in my constituency and elsewhere who cannot yet obtain council housing?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Benefits are available for, on average, 60 per cent. of council tenants and some of them are among the most generous in the western world. They go up to 100 per cent., so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

If some local authorities decide to spend more on maintenance programmes in their area, that is a matter for them. The fact remains that, contrary to what the Opposition say, average rents throughout the country are well below market rents.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of money spent by the Government through urban development corporations since 1981–82; how many houses for rent have been provided by each of the urban development councils during that period; and if he will make a statement.

Urban development corporations have proved to be an excellent investment of taxpayers' money: £820 million has secured £7 billion worth of private sector investment, the creation of 26,000 new jobs and the reclamation of 2,700 acres of derelict land. Up to last year more than 2,000 homes for rent had been completed in UDC areas and several further schemes are under way or proposed.

May I congratulate the Minister on his forthcoming appointment and ask him whether he will deny that it is simply a manoeuvre to avoid having to deal with the chairman of Leeds urban development corporation, who is clearly an embarrassment to Leeds UDC and the Government? It is clear that development in UDC areas often involves an emphasis on big and grandiose schemes at the cost of small and local business, and there is plenty of evidence that that is already happening in Leeds. Does the Minister agree that the UDC should have a priority to provide for local business and also to provide for local people to live in the inner-city areas, in housing that they can afford—either by low-cost purchase or by rental? Are not the schemes envisaged by the UDCs pushing such people out and depriving them of housing opportunities in inner-city areas?

UDCs have a statutory remit to encourage people to live and work in their areas. Some 2,500 homes for rent are being built or are proposed in UDC areas in England and Wales at present. Instead of criticising his local development corporation and its chairman, the hon. Gentleman should concentrate—as many Opposition Members and many of my hon. Friends do—on supporting development corporations and their chairmen in the excellent work that they do.

I hope that my hon. Friend will disregard the continual and irresponsible attacks that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) makes on Leeds urban development corporation. Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the difficulties in the rented accommodation sector in Leeds—especially in constituencies such as mine, comprised of towns and villages on the periphery of the city—is that the council will not afford any priority to housing local people in areas where they have been brought up? If it did so, more housing would be available in rural communities around Leeds.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that, in our inner-city policy, we concentrate on giving people greater opportunities for jobs, better community facilities, a better environment in which to work and live and better homes. That is what the development corporations are doing and I only wish that they received more co-operation and help from local authorities.

In spite of what the Minister has said, he must be aware that in the main the responsibility still lies with local authorities that have to meet the needs of the people who are compelled to seek housing for rent. Is he aware that because of the Government's policies, the urban renewal programme in Liverpool is in danger of not being completed? I am sure that he is aware that that city has had tremendous housing problems throughout the post-war period. Does he accept that the Government must do something to allow local authorities to continue their building programmes?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find time in his busy day today to attend the conference at the Barbican, which is being organised by Business Opportunities on Merseyside and which will be addressed this afternoon by both myself and the leader of Liverpool city council. If the hon. Gentleman were to do so, he would hear a much more positive message than the one that he it trying to put across. There is a positive partnership in Liverpool to improve the quality of life for the people there. The hon. Gentleman should praise and recognise that instead of belittling it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of vacant, dormant, underutilised and derelict land is currently in Government ownership; how much has been disposed of since the land register was set up; and when he estimates the remaining areas will disposed of.

By 30 September 1989 some 5,600 acres had been disposed of and 1,400 brought into use. At that date, some 7,200 acres were on the register. Their future will depend on a variety of circumstances related to individual sites, including marketability.

If, like me, my hon. Friend is dissatisfied with the speed of disposal of land on the register, and if he believes that the lack of purchasers shows a lack of interest in such property, will he take measures at once to speed disposals and to transfer suitably located parcels of land at low, nil or negative values to housing associations or to building societies, to create stocks of low-value, low-rent homes for those in housing need, and to encourage a property-occupying and saving society?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we should make use of derelict land for purposes other than keeping it derelict. I also agree that much more can be done to make such land more marketable. We are giving the matter urgent attention at the moment and I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency and in surrounding constituencies, many people would agree that they do not wish to see the land remain derelict? However, is he also aware that in the past few years hundreds of acres of land have become derelict in that area and that until the Government bring forward an intelligent and far-sighted view of derelict land grants, there is no prospect of the desperately needed improvements being made in that area?

The Government have greatly increased derelict land grants, which now amount to £71 million per year. We have nothing to be ashamed of in that. In fact, the grants have been put to extremely good use. The question is whether anything can be done over and above simply throwing money at the problem. We must consider other ways of trying to make such land marketable.

Is the Minister aware that there are now about 500,000 acres of vacant, dormant, derelict and underutilised land in both public and private ownership and that 60,000 acres of public vacant land have been added to the register since 1981? Does he agree that a private initiative is now required to market that land and to ensure that the people who hold the land at the moment—the public authorities—have a share in the asset value as it increases?

I am very much aware of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has taken a great interest in this matter for many years and has written a learned treatise on it. I am studying his writings., which relate to his question, very carefully.

Is not it clear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) was requesting the Minister to give the Government's policies on derelict land, particularly land in Government ownership, but that those policies were not forthcoming? Is not it also clear that the £71 million derelict land grant is insufficient to meet the needs expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? When will the Minister allow a debate in the House on derelict land? Let us have some policy directives so that people in local government and outside it who must deal with derelict land know exactly what will happen.

Personally, I should be more than happy for there to be a debate on derelict land, but that is not in my gift. I am sure that those responsible for such matters will listen to the hon. Gentleman. The question is whether it is just a matter of throwing more money at the problem, in addition to the £71 million available. If the land can be made marketable, such additional expenditure would be a waste of public money. We are carefully considering whether we can do more to make such land marketable, to enable it to pass into the hands of those who would turn it into something that would not necessarily require public moneys. We are considering the matter urgently and I should welcome a debate on it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet able to say whether he will community charge-cap Bedfordshire county council for the financial year 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

We are now looking at the budget information that we have received from local authorities. Until we have reached our decisions, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot speculate whether Bedfordshire county council or any other local authority would be capped in 1990–91.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his forthcoming elevation. Before he crosses the River Dee to take up his Welsh duties, may I draw his attention to the fact that the Audit Commission has strongly criticised the Labour-Liberal Bedfordshire county council for overspending? Despite that, the county council is increasing spending next year by 14 per cent. which will cause an unacceptably high community charge. As the community charge is designed to increase accountability, will my hon. Friend consider changing the electoral system whereby one third of county councillors would come up for election every year? That would not only make the county council more accountable, but would give us in Bedfordshire the chance to remove Labour and Liberal county councillors who have caused this huge community charge.

First, I thank my hon. Friend for this kind remarks.

Bedfordshire has done very well from the settlement, and the external support for Bedfordshire authorities, taken together, is 15·8 per cent. higher than in 1989–90. Yet, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, the county council seems to have decided to increase its income by approximately twice the rate of inflation. That is a serious matter and it is worth reflecting that, perhaps the county council would not be doing that if it has to face its electorate this year.

I add my congratulations to the Minister on his promotion. How long does he estimate that it will take charge-capped authorities to prepare and issue revised bills? What calculation has he made of how much that will add to the already excessive cost of collecting the poll tax? What help does he propose to offer in respect of the cash flow problems that such authorities will undoubtedly face? Does he have any concept of the impossible burden that he is imposing on local authority treasurers, Tory as well as Labour, who are already hard-pressed, through his refusal to specify what his charge-cap criteria will be?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and look forward to explaining in Wales, as I have in England and still will for a further two months, the way in which the community charge is a much fairer and simpler system, which makes local authorities more accountable.

Capping was a matter for Parliament to decide and it decided to give the power to charge-cap to the Secretary of State. Once we have considered all the budget information available we shall take our decisions and announce them to the House. Until then it would be wrong to speculate about the timing or operation of any capping scheme that we might operate. We have made it clear, however, that we shall cap authorities that have chosen to budget excessively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is complete nonsense for people in Bedfordshire to compare this year's community charge with last year's rates? Under the spendthrift Labour-Liberal authority that we have in Bedfordshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"]—those people would have felt a considerable impact if the rating system had remained. That factor should be considered; at present, we are not comparing like with like.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and the response from the House demonstrates how true his words are. Had the rates system continued, for Bedfordshire authority to have raised the same amount of income from its local people, there would have had to have been a substantial increase in domestic rates. If Bedfordshire council was run by the efficient Conservative administration in Luton, the community charge would be much lower.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average poll tax for England in 1990–91.

On the information available to me, I estimate that the average community charge in England is £363.

Will the Secretary of State admit that his estimates of the poll tax were probably made up on the spare page of a fairytale book? Does he accept that councils of all political persuasions have been forced to fix the poll tax on average 30 per cent. above his phoney guesstimates? As he and the Government cynically misled the British people about the levels of poll tax, what right has he or any of his colleagues to deliver sanctimonious lectures to the millions of people in this country who are determined to resist this evil tax?

The principal reason for the level of community charge in the coming year is that local authorities' gross revenue expenditure will be £5 billion higher next year than this year. On those figures, domestic rates would have increased by about 33 per cent. The only lecture that I will give is that people should obey the law and pursue democratic argument through the ballot box. I hope that that is the lecture that Opposition spokesmen will give to the hon. Gentleman who, as I understand it, advocates that his constituents and other people should not pay the community charge.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is producing a schedule setting out what the charge would have been for each local authority had the rating system remained? Will he further confirm that that schedule will distinguish between authorities that suffered a substantial reduction in real terms in Government support and those that shamelessly increased their expenditure, to stratospheric levels in some places?

We shall certainly attempt to give the sort of information for which my hon. Friend has asked. In due course the House will wish to know what the consequences for domestic rates would have been in individual authorities given some of the spending levels that have been set. The community charge—or domestic rates if we still had them—will be higher in areas controlled by Labour councils. For example, the average charges in Labour-controlled London boroughs are £167 higher than in Conservative boroughs.

Will the Secretary of State compare the average charges in England with those of the Labour authorities that control most of Scotland? Will he give the amounts that might be reclaimed in rebates and state whether they take into consideration the changes made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday? Does the Secretary of State believe, as I and most other Scots do, that the changes should apply retrospectively to Scotland? Does he further understand——

Order. One question please.

—that despite the transitional payments, which are part of the poll tax and were announced at the Conservative party conference, not one person in Scotland has benefited from the supposed changes?

The responsibilities of my Department are extensive, but do not go as far as the bounds of the hon. Gentleman's question. He will have noticed that the research on Scotland shows that people in low-income households pay a smaller proportion of their income on the community charge than they paid on domestic rates. I take it that part of the hon. Member's question was addresed to the generosity of the local authority grant settlement in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Chancellor on his welcome announcement on community charge relief. Will he assure the House and our constituents that the new reliefs will be paid before the bills have to be met this year, following the changes made by the Chancellor?

All local authorities will want to do everything that they can to ensure that people get the relief they deserve as rapidly as possible.

The Department of Social Security will be talking to local authorities to ensure that relief is paid as expeditiously as possible. As my hon. Friend said, yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was widely welcomed and shows that we have listened to some of the constructive criticisms.

For once, will the Secretary of State stop knocking local authorities for overspending and recognise that local authorities such as Lancashire and many others are trying to meet the needs of the people who elected them? If poll tax-capping is introduced, will he accept responsibility for the services that are cut and at some stage will he say what he will do to help people who cannot pay the poll tax?

What is of most concern is not whether I am knocking local authorities but whether local authorities are knocking community charge payers—and all too many of them are. I am extremely pleased that the community charge benefits are more generous than those available under domestic rates.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wide range of community charge levels reflects the wide range of council manning levels and shows that some at least are overmanned and inefficient—Lancashire, for one? Will he take an early opportunity to publish a list of manning levels of local authorities so that community charge payers can see whether they are getting value for money?

An inevitable and welcome consequence of the introduction of the community charge is that more local voters are becoming interested in value for money in local government. The sort of figures for which my hon. Friend has called will be of considerable interest to many local charge payers.

Does the Secretary of State accept that although Opposition Members warmly welcome the statement of the Chancellor yesterday, we are very concerned that the Treasury and the Department of the Environment seem not to understand that, while lifting the capital disregard for entitlement to rebate on poll tax and to housing benefit, they have failed to alter the taper? In consequence, people who have capital investments or savings of over £10,000 a year, despite the lifting of the ceiling to £16,000, will not be entitled under present rules to either housing benefit or poll tax rebate. Will he state this afternoon that the Government are prepared to change the rules, which involve £1 of income being counted for every £250 of capital savings held over £3,000, so that people are entitled to benefit? Does he accept that, in making a complete mess of this—as they have of everything else—the Government have misled people into believing themselves entitled to help that they will not get?

The hon. Gentleman is not well informed on that question. I hope that he will recognise that the taper is already more generous than it was previously. That is why many more people will benefit under the new system than did under the previous system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many architects are employed by his Department; and at what cost.

Thirty-six architects are employed by my central Department and 375 in the Property Services Agency at salary costs of £1 million and £9·2 million respectively.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the work of those architects in designing buildings to be erected on vacant and derelict publicly owned land? Would not it be better to dispose of the land and to let private sector architects get on with the job?

I agree with my hon. Friend that architects have an important role in bringing derelict land back into use and that it is desirable to have as many architects as possible in the private sector. That is why I am delighted that of the 375 employed in the PSA, 372 will go with PSA Services into the private sector in 1992.

Is the Minister satisfied with the quality and standards of architecture and is there enough flair in the business of architectural design? If not, could that be because of the straitjacket of Government cost yardsticks?

We have a reasonably high standard of architecture, and in recent years many architects employed in the PSA have won design awards. We get about 23 design awards in the PSA every year. I should be happy to put in the Library a list of awards won during the past 12 months.

When considering specialist staffing in his Department, can my hon. Friend tell the House what justification there is for the royal parks police who regularly turn up in their specialised police vehicles, two or three——

Order. Are they also architects?

I am not aware that the royal parks police employ any architects.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had about improving access for walkers and climbers to mountain and moorland in England and Wales.

We have had useful discussions about such matters with a wide range of organisations. In particular, we have discussed with the Countryside Commission its policy for improving access to the countryside. Subject to parliamentary approval, its grant in aid will increase next year by 13 per cent. Part of that is in support of its work on access and rights of way.

I thank the Minister for his reply. May I remind him that about 10 million people enjoy walking in the countryside as a recreation and that the number is steadily increasing? What steps will the Government take over the next 12 months to ensure greater access?

We have a superb network of rights of way—about 140,000 miles in all. It is primarily the duty of the highways authorities to keep them clear of obstructions and to record them on maps which are made available to the public. Those highways authorities can also negotiate additional rights of way where appropriate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that proper access must never be confused with indiscriminate access to moorland? Are not control of the moorlands and their proper management absolutely necessary for the continuance of a fine tradition in our countryside?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Our aim is to give maximum access to the public, consistent with proper management of the land and the needs of nature conservation. The rights of way network is often the best way of giving that access while avoiding confrontation and conflict with those who work in the countryside.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the negotiations within the European Community to set up an environment friendly labelling system.

Following agreement at the Environment Council meeting last September, official level discussions with the European Commission will take place later this month to develop proposals for a Community wide scheme of positive environmental labelling for consumer products.

As progress on this matter in the European Community may turn out to be slow, will the Secretary of State commit himself to introducing such a scheme in this country if there has not been agreement by the EC within a specific time limit, for example the end of this year?

As the hon. Lady will know, we have taken the lead on this initiative in the European Community. The Commission has assured us that it will be possible to introduce proposals reasonably soon. I should like to see them in place, or at least agreed, by the end of this year. If we do not make the progress that we should like, we shall have to go ahead with a national scheme. The objective is to have in place national schemes which are compatible across the Community so that we are prepared for the single market in 1992.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department will take to ensure that security arrangements for British soccer fans at the World Cup are adequate and comprehensive.

We are providing assistance to the Italian authorities in respect of safety and security measures in connection with England's participation in the World Cup. My Department chairs an interdepartmental working party of officials, which also includes representatives from the police and the football authorities, to co-ordinate United Kingdom measures on preparation for the tournament.

That is all very well, but will the Minister confirm that there will be exchanges between the Italian and English police authorities, that the intelligence that has been gathered by police spotters will be used in any operations, and that he will take action on alcohol restrictions of the kind that were so successful during the England-Holland match in Dusseldorf? Finally, does he believe——

No. One question please, although I think that the hon. Gentleman has had two.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Gentleman asked three questions, all of them important. Police spotters and closed-circuit television have proved invaluable in our determined efforts to reduce football hooliganism at domestic games, at the European championships and at international friendlies. The information gathered by, and expertise of, the spotters and the national football intelligence unit will be on offer to the Italian authorities. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on the detail of police operations.

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question related to the exchange of police. That is already under way. As he will be aware, about 50 carabinieri are at present in England—[Interruption.]—not, as some newspapers suggest, learning English as understood by football supporters. Their visit is devoted primarily to the policing of football.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's third supplementary question, on the vital issue of alcohol restrictions, I assure him that I shall be discussing that matter in detail during my forthcoming visit to Sardinia.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many England soccer fans in Lancashire may be unable to travel to see the World Cup as a result of the excessive community charge demands of Lancashire county council? They could have travelled had the Conservative proposals—for a community charge of £60 per head less—been adopted.

I am only too well aware of the position expressed by my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister appreciate that security at home is just as important as security abroad? Does he further appreciate how welcome was yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is he aware that many other sports—rugby league and rugby football, for example—will be affected by the Taylor committee recommendations and will he undertake to discuss with his right hon. Friend ways in which those sports may be assisted to make the changes which the Taylor recommendations necessarily involve?

The whole House will wish to join me in welcoming that announcement, which reflects the Government's concern to ensure that vital improvements to football grounds are made. I am certain that the football authorities will now take urgent steps to provide for the safety and comfort of their spectators by implementing as quickly as possible Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. All-seater stadia are, as the Football Association and the main question recognise, a prerequisite to a successful and safe World Cup bid.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the improved facilities that will be provided in English football grounds as a result of yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor may make it possible for this country to host a future World Cup?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday's announcement will be warmly welcomed as being significant for sport. As the Football Association recognised in representations to the Secretary of State and myself, all-seater stadia are a pre-requisite. They are essential now for any country wishing to host the World Cup, and the twin aims—of ensuring the safety of spectators and of making sure that we have a sufficient number of all-seater stadia to host the World Cup—are doubly welcome.

May I, from the Opposition Benches, endorse our appreciation of the Chancellor's action yesterday which the Minister will recall we advocated in the debate in January, after negotiations with the pools promoters? Will the Minister be more active in relation to the potential explosion of violence in Italy? Will he comment on the reports that the thugs of Holland and of this country are already arranging their own fixtures for a celebratory punch-up? That would be disastrous.

Is it true that the police have only nine names on their computer to use in relation to part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989? Will we be able to stop only nine of these evil crooks going abroad and causing trouble? What will the Minister do to make sure that the hundreds of people who misbehaved last year are not allowed to leave these shores for the World Cup?

We hope that part II of the Football Spectators Act will be in place by the end of April. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is vital that it should be in place before the World Cup and that everything possible should be done to assist the Italian Government and authorities in minimising trouble during the World Cup and in deterring the hooligan factor. Five major interdepartmental meetings have been held in the past year; I have been to Rome and I shall shortly be going there again and to Sardinia. We shall be offering every possible assistance, through the Home Office, the Foreign Office and my Department. If the right hon. Gentleman has any additional ideas, we shall look at them closely.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. That we have taken careful note of the representations that he and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) have been making for many years was evidenced by the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest representations he has received over the implementation of the poll tax.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I continue to receive representations on a wide range of issues concerning the community charge.

Can the Minister give any explanation why, despite the sustained Government propaganda, the poll tax is so widely hated throughout Britain, including Mid-Staffordshire? I know that the Minister is not yet a member of the Cabinet, but why do not the members of the Cabinet stand up to the Prime Minister in the same way as Tory councillors have done by rightly resigning the Tory whip in many parts of the country in opposition to this notorious measure?

Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away

about alleged unfairness, does he think it fair that people living in Conservative wards in the Walsall area, regardless of how they vote and regardless of their circumstances, should have only £298 per head spent on them by the council—the Government's assumed community charge for Walsall—while people in Labour areas have £425 per head spent on them under the Labour council's community charge? That is the policy of the hard Left on the council which the ruling Labour group accepted on 5 March. Its policy is to look after its own areas and blow the rest. That is unfair, it is a scandal and the hon. Gentleman should condemn it.

Several tens of thousands of people in my constituency will receive rebates and transitional relief. Is my hon. Friend sure that everybody who is entitled to those reliefs will get them?

We must do everything possible to ensure that they do. Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that people with savings of more than £10,000 would not be entitled to a rebate; that is incorrect. Equally incorrect was his previous statement that people would not be entitled to transitional relief, or would lose their right to transitional relief, where a council was spending higher than the Government's assessment. If we joined in putting across the positive message to 10 million people that they are entitled to rebate, with the additions of yesterday, and to 7·5 million people that they are entitled to transitional relief, we would all be doing much better by the British people.

How many representations has the Minister received from Tory local authorites across England and Wales which have combined to produce poll tax bills an average of 31 per cent. above Government projections? That is within a whisker of the national figure of 35 per cent. Can he guarantee that there will be no further protest resignations by Tory councillors to add to the 18 in West Oxfordshire, and the nine who resigned yesterday in Humberside?

I have received a number of protests and representations from Tory areas about the extent to which they must pay into the safety net to protect losing areas, which in the main are Labour areas. The hon. Gentleman should look again at the calculations. If he took the safety net contributions out of the comparison, he would find that the average community charge in Labour areas was considerably above that in Conservative areas.

Did my hon. Friend see yesterday's newspaper articles revealing that in Labour-controlled Islington the community charge would be £68 less per head if the council did not dish out money to fringe groups? Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to get the community charge down is to get rid of Labour councils?

I could not agree more. I hope that, as the pain of accountability hits Labour councils, they will begin to listen to their ratepayers and their future community charge payers. As for the newspaper article, I look forward to The Sun shining on the truth of Labour irresponsibility in the days to come.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will visit Liverpool to study its housing problems with a view to reviewing its housing investment programme.

I have no plans to review Liverpool's main housing investment programme allocation for the coming year which is to be increased by 73·2 per cent. compared with this year.

If the Minister came to Liverpool he would realise how horribly below the necessary level the Government's housing investment programme is. The people of Liverpool believe that they are being discriminated against on narrow ideological grounds. Liverpool has more than its share of Boswell and Boot defective houses, and that is not the people's or the council's fault. More than 700 people who bought their houses at the Government's behest now cannot sell them. When will the Government do something about that, and live up to what Liverpool people, who bought their houses under the Government's diktat, expect from them?

The Government have been incredibly generous to Liverpool with taxpayers' money. Next year's HIP allocation for Liverpool is the third highest in the country, at more than £33 million. On top of that, next year the housing revenue account subsidy for Liverpool amounts to about £68 million, which is more than £1,000 per dwelling.

If my hon. Friend visits Liverpool, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) suggests, perhaps he would travel on to west Lancashire——

Order. Not today, please.

—where he will note that the misbehaviour of Liverpool city council over the years, in overtaxing its tenants and its industry has resulted in many of its current problems, such as loss of grant. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real truth is that Liverpool city council has landed Liverpool in the mess that it is in today?

I agree with my hon. Friend. In many respects, Liverpool has been the author of its own misfortune. That is especially true with defective housing. Whereas most councils have dealt with 60 to 65 per cent. of their defective houses, Liverpool has got around to dealing with only 5 to 10 per cent. That is why the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has a problem in his constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has developed any new proposals to alleviate homelessness.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to bring forward proposals to reduce the number of homeless people in England and Wales.

I shall very shortly be announcing allocations for 1990–91 of the two-year programme of additional resources to meet the problem of homelessness in London and the south-east. These will total £112 million for local authorities and should result in more than 5,000 additional lettings next year.

I thank the Minister for his reply and urge him to make his announcement very quickly. Is he aware of the special needs resulting from homelessness in the Waterloo area, particularly in the bull ring? Does he know that the money to be made available for the borough of Lambeth will not make it possible to deal with that special problem? Will he recognise that fact by coming up with a new project for the area with which the London borough could help? As he is a new Minister, will he share a walkabout with me some evening in the next fortnight so that he may see the area for himself?

Much as I would enjoy accompanying the hon. Lady round the bull ring, it would be a little superfluous as I have already been there to look at the problems. I agree with the hon. Lady that people living rough in the area present a special problem. The question, which we are addressing very urgently, is what can be done about it without encouraging people to leave home. People leaving home early and split marriages are major causes of rooflessness. The allocations that I have announced today will, of course, help.

Does the Minister agree that the extra amounts allocated for hostels and for counselling are far too small?

There are 50,000 hostel places in this country—21,000 of them in London alone. The question is whether the throughput is fast enough. One reason behind what I said today is that we want to provide more fixed abodes. We want to provide housing to which people currently in hostels may go. That is precisely why we have targeted this extremely generous amount of money as we have.