asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

No, Sir. The legislation was reviewed in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I have no plans to institute a further review at this time. With the amendments we introduced in 1980 the Act provides an adequate framework for authorities to provide sites and control illegal camping by gipsies within the meaning of the Act.

Is my hon. Friend aware that several possible gipsy sites have been identified in the Waterside area of my constituency? Can he assure me that no decisions will be made on any of those sites until a full local public inquiry has been held on each one in turn? Does he agree that, in spite of what he said about the 1968 Act, it is high time that we reinterpreted the meaning of the term "gipsy"?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. I cannot give him the immediate assurance he seeks, because initially these are matters for the local planning authorities. I shall consider on its merits any proposal referred to me under section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and in doing so I shall bear in mind the extent of local feeling, as I do in all cases.

Does the Under-Secretary of State accept that, in the two years since he introduced his consultation document, a great many Londoners have had to suffer the unpleasantness, filth and squalor of caravan sites established outside their homes? London councils have wasted large sums of public money simply moving these people from pillar to post. When will the consultation and consideration stop and some effective help be given to the councils which have met their obligations under the Act but still suffer these regular invasions?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. As a London Member, I know some of the sufferings occurring in this area. The hon. Gentleman must discuss any specific local problem with the local authority and, of course, with the chief of police, because designation is an important process in all these matters. In 1980 that Act was strengthened, and I have no further proposals at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he has earned the deep appreciation and gratitude of all my law-abiding and rate-paying constituents for the firm and sympathetic action that he has taken about the gipsy problem in Peterborough? Is he further aware that by this summer, thanks to his help and steadfastness, we shall have about 72 pitches in a designated district, and the other 150 illegally parked gipsies will have to move to someone else's district, because we are fed up with them in Peterborough?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and approval, but I have no doubt that in the fullness of time I shall receive the wrath of some other hon. Member representing an adjoining area.

Will the Minister, in consultation with his colleague at the Welsh Office, sympathetically consider the problems of those relatively few authorities which are honestly seeking to comply with the provisions of the Act, and excite the lively resentment of their residents and ratepayers when they do so? Surely, after 15 years, the time has come to consider how patchy the provision is under the Act. Is the Minister content with the development? Will he reconsider the problems of individual authorities?

The Act was amended in 1980 precisely because of the problems that had emerged during the 12 years following the passing of the original Act. Of course I shall study any individual cases that come to my attention. Plainly, they fulfil a major part in any discussions that we have with the local authority associations. I shall draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable difficulty that there is in finding sites in cities? May I refer him to the protracted negotiations currently under way in Derby, which are causing considerable anxiety to householders and industrialists? Will he consider exempting major built-up areas from the provisions of the Act?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that guarantee. I well understand the anxieties felt by the people of Derby. I know the background to that protracted case, but I cannot give that assurance. We must consider each site and case on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate how much of the housing investment programmes will be funded by the proceeds of sales of council houses over the next three years.

For 1984–85, we estimate that receipts from the sale of council houses will comprise 42 per cent. of local authority gross capital provision for housing. No decisions have yet been taken about provision for later years.

I recognise the Minister's difficulty in forecasting figures for capital receipts in future years, but will he ensure that sufficient housing investment programme allocations are made to councils such as Burnley and many others which are facing severe difficulties in dealing with house building and improvements in both the private and public sectors? If money is not forthcoming to enable those important jobs to be tackled, the Government will be faced with a much more costly option, because the option of improvement will no longer exist, and clearance, demolition and rebuilding will result.

I am looking forward to my visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency on the 19th of next month. I hope that we will be able to discuss those matters then. As for future resources, we shall do our best within the constraints available.

What advice would my hon. Friend give to all those local authorities which have been identified in a recent report by the Audit Commission as being owed £250 million in rent arrears? If collected, that money could go towards improving, modernising and building homes for those in need.

My hon. Friend draws attention to a serious matter and one about which the Department has issued advice and guidance. It should be possible for local authorities to make renewed and special efforts to diminish the growing burden of rent arrears. I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice the chairman of the Sports Council has offered on the implementation of the Gleneagles agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions the Minister with responsibilities for sport has had with sports authorities about the Gleneagles agreement; and if he will make a statement.

I regularly meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss current issues, including the implementation of the Gleneagles agreement. The chairman has advised that it is the council's policy to support this agreement.

In view of the New Delhi communiqué, with which the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister was associated, what precise consultations have taken place and what advice has been given to the organisers of the 1984 Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, in view of continued South African intransigence?

Discussions take place from time to time with my officials and with officials of the Commonwealth Games Federation. I believe everybody understands that the Prime Minister supported fully the principles of the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, was reaffirmed in Delhi in November last year.

Will the Minister condemn the 108 Tory MPs who have signed early-day motion 485 supporting the English rugby tour of South Africa? Does he agree that supporters of this tour not only give support to the apartheid regime, but could jeopardise the forthcoming Olympic games and the 1986 Commonwealth games that are to be held in Scotland? Therefore, these Tory MPs could do more damage to international sport than even the English football hooligans in Paris last week.

I do not condemn what my right hon. and hon. Friends have done. It is their constitutional right to sign any early-day motion they wish. They have their views and they are entitled to them. The Government have their policy, which has been made amply clear by the Prime Minister and by myself from time to time.

Will my hon. Friend accept that under its Royal Charter the Sports Council must have regard for Government policy, including the Gleneagles agreement, but that he has no power to direct it on how to allocate its funds? Will he therefore confirm that, despite his somewhat veiled threats in the House about five weeks ago, if the tour to South Africa goes ahead no attempt will be made to put any penalty on any funds that the Sports Council might give to rugby football?

I must draw my hon. Friend's attention to precisely what I said. There will be no sanctions or recriminations against the Rugby Football Union if the tour takes place. If one seeks to withdraw funds, one most often hurts those in the regions who would benefit from coaching schemes. I made that point clearly. The independence of the Sports Council is guaranteed by Royal Charter.

My hon. Friend will doubtless have noticed within the last two or three weeks the most deplorable reports of outbreaks of serious ethnic and religious violence and intolerance in the territories of various countries which are signatories to the Commonwealth agreement. If that agreement is to be applied without discrimination, which lies at the heart of its philosophy, would it not be appropriate for it to be applied equally to those signatories?

Much as I should like to be drawn on that matter, I think that my hon. Friend's supplementary question does not relate to the original question. However, I shall draw to the attention of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what my hon. Friend has said.

Is the Minister aware of how deeply disturbing it is to see the outright support for apartheid from the Benches behind him? Is he also aware of the grave anxiety expressed by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth about the consequences for the Commonwealth as a whole if the tour goes ahead? Does he not wish to contrast starkly, as we on this side of the House do, the Prime Minister's position on this issue with her actions in 1980, when she summoned sportsmen and women to Downing street and publicly and privately tried to prevent a British Olympic team going to Moscow?

I wholeheartedly condemn the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He knows very well that there are deeply held views on this subject. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends genuinely believe that integration in sport in South Africa is not best helped by having a total boycott on contact with that country. My own view is that Government policy has to be implemented. That is why I hope the tour does not go ahead, as I have said from the Dispatch Box on more than one occasion in recent months. I do not believe that anybody will do any good by looking back to what happened three or four years ago. The important thing is that the Government reaffirmed in November last year their total support for the concept of the Gleneagles agreement.

Is it not clear that the Government's position on this matter, which I support, is gravely weakened when black West Indians carry out a cricket tour in South Africa? Is it not time that my hon. Friend tried to redefine the agreement to make it clear that we do not support official tours from Britain, but that there is no restriction on British subjects going there to play any sport they wish?

The entitlement or the desire of countries and their governing bodies to tour other countries is not a matter for which I have any locus or constitutional responsibility. Those tours are primarily a matter for the nations whose sportsmen attend them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will carry out a survey of facilities in bed-and-breakfast hostels used by single homeless claimants with a view to publishing recommended standards of accommodation and amenities in such hostels.

No, Sir. Local authorities already have a duty, by virtue of section 70 of the Housing Act 1969, to inspect periodically houses in multiple occupation, which include hostels, in their area. They also have powers to ensure proper standards and amenities there.

Is the Minister aware that that is a disappointing answer? Is he further aware that there are serious safety and health risks to single homeless claimants because of overcrowding? This is an urgent matter that will get worse before it gets better, and local authorities cannot handle matters themselves without Government guidance and intervention. Is the Minister aware that such intervention is urgent and necessary?

One must distinguish between the powers that the House has given to local authorities and the way in which local authorities discharge those powers. In the Housing Acts of 1961, 1964 and 1969 the hon. Gentleman will find a panoply of powers available to local authorities to tackle the problems that he mentioned. I do not accept that it is up to the Government to override the responsibilities of local authorities and to intervene, when authorities have all the powers that they need.

Why is the Minister so complacent, when all the reports show that there is a growing scandal about bed-and-breakfast accommodation, where many people are crammed into one or two rooms? Does he recognise that if local authorities had the funds to build and modernise, which they are now being deprived of, many of our fellow citizens would not need to be housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

Wide powers are already available to local authorities. They can require the provision of standard amenities in those dwellings, they can limit the number of occupants, and they can take out a control order and run the buildings themselves to protect the health, safety and welfare of their occupants. We had a full debate last Friday on resources for housing, and we demonstrated that not only in the public sector but in the private sector starts are increasing and that the decline in public sector provision, which began under the Labour Administration, has been reversed.

Did my hon. Friend see a recent press report of a landlord who received £2,000 a week from a council by putting 65 people in eight flats in one house? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the existing rules are being properly enforced, and is there not now a case for a review of the facilities available to all homeless people, not just the single homeless?

I have seen that report. The council in question was the London borough of Camden, and I understand that the chairman of its housing committee has ordered some urgent investigations into the matter. On the general question of provision for the homeless, the Government have increased the resources available through the Housing Corporation to help the hostel programme. Since 1979–80, 170,000 homeless families have been rehoused permanently under the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred. In addition, 6,000 families have been nominated to housing associations and to new town housing. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are in no way complacent about this matter and are considering several initiatives to make further progress.

Is the Minister aware that many homeless families are being accommodated in hotels, which are not amenable to inspection under the Housing Act 1969? Is he aware that many of those families are being accommodated not just by local authorities but by the DHSS? Does he accept the recommendation and suggestion by Shelter that the Government should lay down minimum standards of accommodation, safety and health where families are accommodated in hotels as homeless people?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that hotels are dealt with by legislation different from that which applies to houses in multiple occupation. However, local authorities have a wide range of powers under the Public Health Act 1936, the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to improve standards in hotels. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said and write to him if I believe that further action is needed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will monitor progress of local authority and statutory undertakers in developing their land within the two-year period allowed and which, but for that development, would have been included in the land registers.

The criteria for the inclusion of land on the registers formerly excluded land programmed for development within two years, but that is no longer the case except for land subject to planning blight. Apart from the latter, land which in other respects qualifies for entry falls to be registered unless a contract has been let for development.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than 100,000 acres are on the land register and that less than 10 per cent. of it has come into use and come off the register? When will we see some ministerial action taken under the powers provided by section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to compel the disposal of more of that land?

My hon. Friend's statistics are broadly accurate. More than 112,000 acres were on the register on 1 January, and 9,300 acres had been disposed of. More than 4,300 acres were removed from the register because the land had been brought into use, making a total of 13,600 acres. With regard to direction, my right hon. Friend is prepared to use his powers of direction to dispose of specific sites when the case merits that. So far, we have preferred to make progress by persuasion.

Will the Minister take into account the land held by health authorities and the British Railways Board, both of which are public bodies that hoard land and are reluctant to divest it although they have much land that could be developed?

All public bodies are obliged to register their land. The bodies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would be included in the figures that I gave earlier.

While the Government are waiting for the public sector to sell off its land, is my hon. Friend aware that 60,000 acres of good agricultural land are being lost every year to urban sprawl? Is there not a case for speeding up the disposal of sites to prevent such loss, and will the Government take speedy action?

The Government are most anxious that the 36,000 acres available for development should be brought into good use, which will reduce the pressure on the land mentioned by my hon. Friend. Should my hon. Friend feel that there is a good case for direction and intervention in relation to particular sites, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider it.

Is the Minister willing to admit that one of the reasons why local authorities cannot develop their land as quickly as they wish is that the money to be allocated for housebuilding and other capital projects has been cut by the Government? Does not the Minister's answer to this and other questions demonstrate clearly that the Government are interested only in selling off capital assets and forcing local authorities to do so, which will not meet the real housing needs of the homeless and those on the waiting lists?

The hon. Gentleman's approach is particularly dogmatic. Local authorities should sell the land in question to private developers on condition that they build houses at low cost and offer the properties first to those on the waiting list or living in local authority estates. If local authorities do that, they will meet the real needs of their areas without making demands on public expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to publish proposals for making the necessary adjustments to the London rates equalisation scheme consequent on the abolition of the Greater London council.

We are currently considering the responses to the consultation paper that we have issued on this subject. We shall announce our proposals in the light of those responses in due course.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that the London rates equalisation scheme will be extended to ensure that ratepayers in boroughs such as Lewisham will not pay higher rates as a result of the abolition of the GLC?

As the White Paper says, we intend to extend the equalisation scheme to the outer London boroughs. It is not our intention that there should be a windfall gain to the central boroughs as a result of the GLC's abolition.

Does the Minister accept that, unless the scheme is amended and extended, 25 of the 33 London boroughs are likely to face higher rates, including all those on the Government's index of highly deprived boroughs?

I do not accept that at all. As the hon. Gentleman has probably studied the consultation paper, he will know that the emendation proposals are under consultation.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the confusion and worry in industry and local authorities caused by scaremongering propaganda put out by the GLC? Will he condemn such propaganda and reaffirm the intention to introduce measures as quickly as possible?

It is extraordinary that a major local authority such as the GLC has been converted largely into an organisation for whingeing and complaining about Government policies. The fact that it needs to add public relations and advertising agencies to its strength in order to do so only confirms what my hon. Friend says.

rose——

Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has lost his voice, so I shall call his question for him. Mr. Frank Cook. Question No. 8.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give further details of the joint use policy for sport as announced by him in November 1983.

I propose to mount a campaign, with and through the Sports Council, to encourage greater shared use of schools and other community facilities. That continues the initiative I began last year with my approach to the country's largest companies, to make the fullest use of existing sport and recreation facilities in the public and private sectors. It is proposed that at least £500,000 of the £29·359 million made available, subject to parliamentary approval, for the Sports Council next year, will be allocated to new shared use schemes.

Had my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) recovered his voice on time, I am sure that he would have said that that reply was hardly reassuring. However, it says here — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does the Minister realise that since his November announcement nothing appears to have been done, save that the attitude expressed in the Prime Minister's Office has been one of opposition to the Minister's proposals? Does the Minister recall that over the past three years capital spending on new sports centres has decreased? Finally, what plans are there to facilitate the development of youth, as epitomised by Robin Cousins in 1980 and Torvill and Dean in 1984, or will British skaters have to go on succeeding in spite of the facilities available rather than because of them?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reading of that question. I know that his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) is a reasonable man, and that he would not have posed that question in the first place. He knows that the Sports Council grant has been more than doubled within four years and that the better part of £20 million has gone into sport, leisure and recreation facilities in the past year, through the urban development programme. Over £2 million has gone into sport, leisure and recreation from the derelict land grant. In addition, some £60 million overall from central Government funding has gone into sport, not including money from local authorities. I am indebted to what the Sports Aid Foundation has done in addition to that. It has enabled the Cousinses, the Ovetts, the Coes, the Torvills and Deans to train and practice. Therefore, there has never been so much money spent on sport, leisure and recreation facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many regional water authorities now make their meetings open both to the public and the press.

None of the regional water authorities opens its board meetings to the public or the press. The Welsh water authority has decided to do so for a trial period of 12 months. Several authorities open their land drainage committees to the press.

Is the Minister aware that because of the loss of proper representation of consumer councils on regional water authorities the press and the public should be openly invited to attend and take note of what is said? Is the Minister aware of what the Prime Minister said in her maiden speech? Having been her Parliamentary Private Secretary for some time, he should know. On 5 February 1960, in moving the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill, she said:

"The public has the right, in the first instance, to know what its elected representatives are doing." — [Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1350.]

With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is common ground between us that my right hon. Friend introduced her Bill before the passing of the Water Act 1983, and different considerations now apply. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he should not be unhappy because the Welsh water authority is the only one that admits the press.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the press were permitted to go to Thames water authority meetings, as it was when I was a member of the authority, it would be astounded to learn that this year four firms and two banks between them will be able to save over £300,000 by virtue of metering and that everyone who pays water rates in the region is having to pay 3 per cent. extra in water rates as a result of industry and commerce being able to meter their water inflow?

The introduction of metered water is desirable and is an option available to most domestic customers. In the Thames water authority, as in others, there will be a consumers consultative council. The Act reached the statute book only 10 months ago and the new consultative arrangements should work well.

Will the Minister advise his hon. Friends to look at the experience of the water authorities before they support the abolition of the metropolitan county councils? Surely the experience arising from those quangos will be reproduced in the many quangos that will come to rule the metropolitan county council areas—quangos that will be obsessed with secrecy—and there will be a diminution of democracy. Should not all those Conservative Members who are concerned about democracy examine the experience of the water authorities, which should lead them to vote in favour of maintaining the metropolitan county councils?

My right hon. Friends and I are always happy to learn from experience.

Is it not significant that hardly any of those involved in the synthetic campaign about the water authorities attended the meetings when they were open to the public? Is it not a fact that when the meetings were open to the public the attempt to combine accountability and business-like methods was a failure, as many of our constituents would agree? Are not the objectives far more likely to be reached under the arrangements provided for under the Water Act 1983?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We believe that the change in the arrangements that we have made will lead to more efficient water authorities and that the new consultative councils will give an opportunity for the proper participation of consumers in that organisation.

Will the Minister look again at this matter, particularly in the light of the report on environmental pollution, which says that apart from the technical points, the most important considerations are information for the public and lack of secrecy, and persuade his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that in this year, above all, freedom of information is desirable and that a U-turn in policy generally looks like an unacceptable U-bend as regards the water authorities?

I do not propose to heed that advice from the official spokesman of the Liberal party.

Is the Minister aware that there is one announcement to the press which the consumers of Northumbrian water authority wish had never been made—the increase in the rate this year of 18 per cent? Is the Minister aware that this rise results largely from the borrowings of the water authority which were made to satisfy the needs of the industry in the area? Why has he not been prepared to respond to the requests of the water authority to restructure its debts so that the grossly unfair burden on the domestic ratepayer is reduced?

We considered carefully the special position of this water authority. We had to conclude, reluctantly, that we were not able to make special arrangements in this case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the most careful consideration was given to the special plight of this authority.

That answer simply will not do. The truth of the matter is, as the Minister well knows, that the Northumbrian water authority has increased domestic water charges for residents in Northumbria by an enormous amount, and the users of water in Northumberland have no remedy against excessive charges. Why on earth do the Government not do something about this other than altering the law for the appointment of members to the Northumbrian water authority?

I visited the Northumbrian water authority in January this year. Even after the increases for next year, to which the hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) and Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) have referred, the charges made by the Northumbrian water authority will still be in about the middle range of charges made by other water authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government are taking any new steps to improve access to the countryside for walkers and cyclists.

Not at present.

Does the Minister appreciate that the large numbers of people who go walking or cycling, or both, are disappointed that the Government and the local authorities seem to have little concern for their recreation compared with the concern that they feel for other sports, many of which have hooligan supporters? When will the Government ensure that there are new routes for cyclists in the countryside and clear many of the public rights of way in the countryside, which at the moment are illegally obstructed by such things as barbed wire and bulls, so that people can get out into the countryside and enjoy themselves?

I agree that Britain's great strength in access to the countryside is in its public right of way system. The Government and local authorities believe strongly that rights of way should be made usable. That is the basis on which we must regard the future.

Will my hon. Friend encourage consistency in the application of cycling facilities in London's parks?

That is a matter for another Minister, but I know that he is listening carefully.

Does my hon. Friend support the legal right of access on foot and horseback to Dartmoor under the Dartmoor Commons Bill? Does he agree that a precedent for secondary legislation would be set should that Bill be passed?

I am about to discuss that Bill and shall not come to any conclusion until I have done so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against the refusal of planning permission were made to his Department during the last year for which there are recorded figures; how many of these were successful; and in how many of the successful cases costs were awarded to the appellant.

During 1983 there were 13,699 appeals against or in default of planning decisions. A total of 11,221 appeals were determined—not all of which were received in 1983. Of these, 3,633 were allowed in whole or part and 31 awards of costs were made in favour of appellants.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the widespread feeling of unfairness, particularly among private individuals and small companies, of the fact that there is no automatic right to costs on a successful appeal? Will my right hon. Friend consider revising practice so that anyone who succeeds on a planning appeal is not out of pocket?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but a planning application is an administrative matter, not a contested legal action. It is right that costs should be awarded only when one of the parties has demonstrably caused unnecessary and unreasonable expense. The Government work to criteria recommended by the Council on Tribunals.

As there is evidence that some developers carry out works that are not the subject of planning permission, will the Government consider introducing legislation to provide for mandatory demolition, especially as many local authorities lack the guts to take action on their own initiative?

That is a matter for the individual planning authority. Power exists to require the demolition of work that is not authorised by valid planning permission.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development control system would be more beneficially and effectively applied if he made it his practice more frequently to award costs, not only against local planning authorities for taking unreasonable time to announce decisions or making decisions obviously not based on proper planning policies, but against appellants who make repeated applications and cause undue and unfair manpower and money resources to be used?

It is a question whether a person acts unreasonably. If a person acts unreasonably and demonstrably causes unnecessary and unreasonable expense, costs are awarded. The development control system, about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal, should not be regarded as a type of court action in which the costs follow the event. The normal rule is that costs lie where they fall.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister realise that the Wildlife and Countryside Act is proving inadequate to protect East Anglia's natural landscape and the wildlife associated with it? Is he further aware that heavily subsidised arable farming in East Anglia is responsible for uprooting hedges, for the disappearance of deciduous copses and for the devouring of heathland and ancient woodland? Is he aware that all that is being done with the support of public money and is out of public control? Could I give him due warning that unless teeth are put into the legislation some of the wildlife in East Anglia will decline beyond recall?

I am well aware of some of the problems in this area. The Act has been in force for only a year. We are watching its progress closely. However, it is an attempt to set up a balance between competing interests and to compensate those who have important land that should be preserved, and it is one that must be made seriously.

Will the Minister accept that there has been substantial damage and destruction to proposed sites of special scientific interest, some of which are of real importance, and that this is entirely due to a deficiency in the Act, which allows the three-month loophole of which he is aware? Could that particular problem not be resolved as a matter of urgency?

I have discussed this matter with the hon. Member. I know that there is a real problem here, which we are considering. No one would thank my Department for bringing forward more primary legislation in this area, but we recognise a potential problem here.

How much more evidence does the Minister need before he will admit that this legislation has been a failure? In particular, will he expose the scandal of cases where farmers and landowners apply for financial compensation for not pursuing environmentally damaging schemes which they would never contemplate if that compensation were not available?

It is exceedingly difficult to prove that what the hon. Member alleges is true. Obviously, the possibility of it exists. However, we believe that a serious approach to a voluntary system in this area is worth an attempt to make it work properly. It is far too soon to say that it is not working.

When the Act has been in force for two years, will my hon. Friend consider making a detailed report on its working to Parliament?

The Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission themselves in their annual reports will be making detailed observations both to Ministers and to the House, and I think that that is the best way of proceeding. I assure my hon. Friend that no one is more aware than my Department of the potential difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will allow suitable flowers and bushes to be planted round the memorial to the soldiers and horses killed in the Irish Republican Army bombing in Hyde park on 20 July 1982; and if he will make a statement.

I think that the existing memorial fittingly expresses our respect for those who died. I am told that flowers and bushes would be unlikely to do well under the shade of the trees. I am prepared to consider any alternative proposals that my hon. Friend may wish to put forward.

I welcome the slight progress in the answer from my hon. Friend. Will he go all out to commemorate the fact that soldiers and horses gave their lives in Hyde park by adding to the memorial, which is excellent but plain, suitable bushes and flowering shrubs which will survive under the trees? Is he aware that the public have subscribed several hundred pounds for a fund that I raised for this purpose and that it would cost the Government absolutely nothing to do something?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. A heinous crime was perpetrated on 20 July 1982. Near that spot is a dignified memorial to the men who died. The memorial to the Blues and Royals was designed with their full approval. It is set near the roadway in grass and under trees. Flowers and bushes would find some difficulty in surviving at that point. Perhaps it would be best for my hon. Friend and me to sit down and talk about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the chairman and vice-chairman of the housing committee of Sandwell metropolitan district council to discuss the regulations relating to the right to buy.

As I said in my letter of 15 February, I do not believe that a meeting would be useful on the particular point that the hon. Member put to me on behalf of Sandwell borough council. If there are other aspects of the right to buy that the council wishes to discuss, I shall, of course, be ready to consider the case for a meeting.

Why does the Minister display such a lack of understanding? Is he not concerned that Sandwell council—and no doubt many other local authorities—is losing £60,000 on the sale of something like 10 council houses? How can he justify the daylight robbery of local ratepayers and the waste of public money when he would never expect the private sector to build houses and then sell them at half the cost of their construction? Why does he expect the council to do it?

One can justify it by looking at the other side of the coin. In Sandwell, nine houses were sold at a historic loss, but 2,362 were sold at a profit. Therefore, if one looks at the overall position one sees that Sandwell ratepayers have done well out of the right to buy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will appoint to the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive independent experts who are not directly involved in the nuclear industry.

I have not so far considered that there was justification for this, but I am considering representations by the Trades Union Congress and a recommendation by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in its tenth report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the decision of the directors of ICI not to co-operate in the building of a nuclear waste dump at Billingham?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise the distinction in the roles of NIREX on the one hand and my Department on the other. The Government's role is not to select sites but to ensure that there is adequate machinery for a rigorous, impartial and public scrutiny of the proposals. NIREX identified the Billingham mine as a potentially suitable site on geological grounds, and it has said that it will go on to identify other potentially suitable sites for consideration. Clearly, the decision by ICI—I totally understand the reasons that led the board to come to that decision—is a material factor in NIREX's search for a suitable site for disposal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet the Broads Authority to discuss the future of the Halvergate marshes.

I expect to meet the Broads Authority on 14 March.

Will the Minister agree that the concern about these marshes is widespread and that the national importance of possibly the greatest area of grazing land remaining in that part of England is crucial to the well-being of the environment? Will his Department consider funding all or at least 90 per cent. of the management agreements necessary to safeguard the marshes?

We recognise the importance of the area, which is why we have already offered 75 per cent. as opposed to the usual 50 per cent. I believe that the authority will be asking for 90 per cent., as the hon. Gentleman suggested, and I should like to discuss the matter with the authority. I do not want to give a final answer today.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has read the final report published by Coopers and Lybrand on 22 February covering the costs of his proposals to abolish the metropolitan county councils.

Yes, Sir.

In that case, the Secretary of State will have noticed that this careful analysis of the costs involved in the reorganising of local government means that, realistically, the ratepayers and taxpayers will be faced with an extra £40 million a year in costs, while the effectiveness and efficiency of local government will be reduced. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the detailed discussions that went on in Committee on the 1972 measure, when the reorganisation was being put through by the then Tory Government, and the high hopes that were held out? What has changed the opinion of the Government?

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will know that the proportion of administrators in the Health Service has consistently fallen in the last four or five years as a proportion of the total cost of the NHS. I entirely reject what the hon. Gentleman said. The study shows, as we have always said, that there is opportunity for savings because of the abolition of the metropolitan counties, and I am confident that when the boroughs and districts come to decide how to run these services they will find substantial savings. The study also shows that the wild claims of huge extra costs that are being put out in the propaganda of the metropolitan county councils are ludicrous exaggerations.

Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's last reply that his Department agrees with the figures quoted in the Coopers and Lybrand report?

We have always made it clear—and nothing in the report has changed our view—that it is not possible to do a detailed analysis of the costs and savings until the lower tier authorities have decided precisely how they will manage the services that will devolve upon them. We remain confident that the removal of an entire tier of local government will enable us to achieve significant savings.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that even those of us who have some sympathy with his avowed objectives are worried, especially about the provision of finance for the arts? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make savings by the abolition of arts committees, and what plans does he have to establish joint boards or nationally funded arts operations in the metropolitan counties?

We are considering the many recommendations made to us on this subject. It is not part of the Government's intention that the restructuring Of local government in the metropolitan areas should result in a reduction of support for the arts. We are concerned to find the best way of making sure that support for the arts can continue.

The Secretary of State is in grave danger of being charged with misleading the House. Why does he now say that it is impossible to make a detailed financial examination of the case for abolishing the metropolitan counties, when the Conservative general election campaign guide contained the figure of £120 million for the saving, and when he himself placed in die Government Whips' Lobby a few weeks ago a document containing a similar claim? Why does the Secretary of State refuse to be candid with the House on this matter? Why does he also consistently refuse to place in the Library the submissions and evidence received by his Department from about 1,500 bodies?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that it would be totally without precedent for the Government to place in the Library the whole of the very substantial volume of evidence that we have received. We have published a list of the main organisations — local authorities and other substantial representative organisations—which presented evidence. It is there, and it is for the Library to secure the copies of that. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of bellowing from a sedentary position, he might learn something.

Not very much.

What I have said—there is no conflict here—is that it is not possible to analyse the savings in detail until we know how the lower tier authorities will manage the services. Where detailed analyses are being made, they show that significant savings can be made.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that I hope he is not seeking to extend Question Time, which has already lasted for an extra two minutes.

I am raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I seek your assistance on behalf of my hon. Friends. How can anyone make a rational examination of the evidence in these matters when the Government consistently refuse to make that evidence available to Parliament?

Order. I am not responsible for any answers given from the Front Bench.