asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, under the proposals for creating simplified planning zones, he will make it his policy to remove the obligation on local authorities mandatorily to consider the creation of such zones; and if he will make a statement.

The requirement of the Housing and Planning Bill is no more than that the authority shall consider whether simplified planning zones should be established. I see no likelihood at all that local authorities, or the Secretary of State, would require such zones to be set up in areas in which they would be environmentally unsuitable.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I support his proposition of SPZs in urban areas. Is he aware that forcing local authorities which do not want to do so, to go through all the bureaucratic exercise of doing the job is not only annoying, but reinforces the views of those who are worried about the whole thrust of Government policy? Will he re-examine the Bill to see whether he can restrict the obligation to urban areas only?

We do not want to increase bureaucracy. That is not the intention of SPZs, which are meant to reduce bureaucracy. However, I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, which he has put forward strongly on behalf of his constituents. I undertake to look again in Committee at the points that he has made.

Is not the simplification of planning zones fraught with problems, as the London Docklands Development Corporation, which is a halfway house towards simplification of planning zones, has shown over the illegality of the razor wire fence at News International's plant at Wapping? Would not the full simplification of planning zones bring about even more such abuses?

No, not at all. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that the docklands development in London has introduced more than £1 billion of capital and much needed development.

My hon. Friend's reassuring answer will be very welcome. Are not Dorset and other areas in the south of England places where SPZs are clearly unsuitable and unwanted, and would be an environmental disaster?

I am always anxious to try to reassure the county of Dorset, and I have already given the undertaking to look in Committee at SPZs in connection with rural, urban, green belt and other areas.

Does the Minister appreciate that the proposal for SPZs is causing great concern and is believed to be a way of undermining the green belt areas, the areas of outstanding natural beauty and other areas, especially as they were excluded in the consultative document but not in the Bill? Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that SPZs will not be allowed in green belt and other special areas?

I have already said that during the passage of the Bill in Committee we will conisder the point about green belt development. Will the hon. Gentleman speak to his Labour colleagues in the controlling groups on Oxford and Cambridge city councils, who want to make incursions into green belt areas, and get them to restrain themselves?

Does my hon. Friend accept that this concept has to be confined to urban areas, and for that matter derelict urban areas? Will he seek to delineate those areas in the Bill?

That is an interesting suggestion. One of the reasons for introducing SPZs is to do all that we can to help inner city areas, a policy which I know my hon. Friend supports. We must also look closely at the important environmental points that my hon. Friend has made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with British Nuclear Fuels regarding the monitoring of waste products; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend visited Sellafield in October 1985. There has been no formal ministerial meeting with BNFL since then.

Why does the Minister not go up to Sellafield and tell the management that the British people are fed up to the back teeth with hearing the management continually pour out lies about all the outbreaks that are taking place? There has been another outbreak in the last 24 hours, and the management has had to admit today that two workers have been slightly contaminated, which it denied yesterday. Will the Minister go up there and tell the management that there should be a proper truly independent public inquiry and that if it is found necessary to close the plant every worker will be paid for as long as the inquiry lasts?

I find the hon. Gentleman's concern about environmental pollution a little selective. We do not have the benefit of his advice in the House when we are debating pollution from coal-fired power stations. It is right that people inside and outside the House should recognise that the record at Sellafield has been good despite the problems, which my Department recognises and discusses with the management.

rose—

Order.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, particularly those who represent Cumbrian constituencies, are sick and tired of the lack of real information from Sellafield about incidents? Will he instruct BNFL that the public need to be reassured, not in the jargon of arrogant scientists, but in language that the layman can understand and accept?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The record is good, but there is no question but that we have to do better at getting that across to the people. We must make it clear that the public concern is being met and that the public institutions which exist to check that the record is good are open to public inspection.

Does the Minister accept that B30, where yesterday's incident took place, is about to be decommissioned because it is an old plant and is to be replaced by pond 5? I hope that no such incidents will take place in the future. Does he also accept that if the plant were to close there would be a loss not only of 11,000 jobs in West Cumbria but of a further 15,000 to 20,000 jobs which are indirectly involved in and dependent on the nuclear industry? In the light of that, is it not unacceptable that many people in Britain, including environmental groups, demand closure of the plant when they know that perfectly reasonable and sensible options are open to the industry to resolve the problems? Is it not fair to say that if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate does its work in the way that it should there should be no problems in future?

No one has a better right than the hon. Gentleman to speak on this matter, because he understands the real environmental concern and knows that they can be met. My Department strengthened the Radio Chemical Inspectorate last year and insisted on a greater monitoring programme by the plant. We are in discussion with my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a new authorising limit, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no problem here which cannot be dealt with. It will be dealt with and, in all the important cases, is already being dealt with. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about pond 5. That is another of the major steps to improvement at the plant.

Is it not clear that nothing useful will be achieved in this important matter by the hysterical approach of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? In view of that, will my hon. Friend take the trouble to put in Hansard the figures for the increased numbers of staff in the relevant inspectorates, which is important, and also the details of the long-run epidemiological monitoring, which is necessary to see that there is no damage to human health?

I shall be delighted to do as my hon. Friend requests, and I shall see that it is done. After the Black report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment to monitor those matters on a permanent basis. That was a sensible thing to do, and it received support from all those whose concern about this is serious and not merely hysterical.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us who have supported the nuclear industry all our political lives will reject his argument that those who express concern about the enviromental aspects of nuclear power are somehow trying to promote the coal industry? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a false argument and only creates false impressions? Will he accept that some of us are growing increasingly worried about the competence and sometimes the arrogance of some of the higher levels of management in BNFL? Does he agree that it would be far better if management were more open and honest in giving answers on matters of direct concern to the public?

I took great care to differentiate between people's concerns. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), whose constituents are near Sellafield, has more right and reason to be concerned about this matter than have many other hon. Members. I recognise that there are proper concerns, which are shared by Conservative Members, to ensure that the right thing is done and is seen to be done. In so far as the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) supports that aim, I certainly agree with him. I would not wish to say that everyone's concerns are hysterical. We must recognise that some people are deliberately stirring up the issue.

Great concern is felt about the announcement of the proposals by the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive on the storage of nuclear waste. Why has there not been an announcement since that list was delivered on 8 January? Will there be an announcement shortly? Are alternative solutions being considered?

My hon. Friend can expect an announcement shortly. The matter has been under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers collectively.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us with nuclear power stations in our constituencies are concerned when nuclear waste is entrusted to the BNFL and incidents such as we have heard about occur? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that Sellafield is open to international and European inspection? What discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the Scottish and Welsh environmental departments about environmental aspects, and with the Irish Government, who have expressed serious concern about pollution in the Irish sea?

I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish and Welsh Offices and the Republic of Ireland are closely involved in this matter. Some months ago we set up with the Government of the Republic a joint committee at official level, which has been working well and exchanging information. There is no reason to hide anything. There are good arrangements for inspection. Information is published and available and is reported to all the international organisations with an interest in it.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that parents in south-west Scotland, including my constituency, are genuinely worried about the effect of radioactive discharges from Sellafield and possible links with the high incidence of leukaemia? Does he agree that it does neither the work force at Sellafield nor parents any good for the management at Sellafied, after four incidents this year, to give yet more bland reassurances? They do not reassure parents. Will the hon. Gentleman meet Scottish Office Ministers to consider what urgent action can be taken to allay the genuine fears of parents in southwest Scotland?

The first responsibility of all of us who have the privilege of being hon. Members and having all the information easily available to us is to do our part in allaying unnecessary fears. I know that the hon. Gentleman will do that. I shall certainly be delighted to meet my opposite numbers in the Scottish Office to discuss whether anything further should be done. We meet regularly on this issue.

Is it not a fact that there is always a measurable risk in terms of health and safety at plants, whether petro-chemical plants, oil-fired power stations or steelworks? Is not the safety record of the nuclear industry second to none? Are not the safety measures which are rightly imposed on the industry also second to none? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the general public should not be alarmed, because the nuclear industry is a controllable industry on which we shall have to rely in future years?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no great industrial activity that does not contain some risk. I have to say that the nuclear industry is asked to work, and does work, to far higher tolerances of safety than any other industry. If one compares the number of people injured or even killed in other tragically high risk industries, or even higher risk industries, such as railways or mining, one finds that the record of the nuclear industry is second to none.

Does the Minister realise that the country will regard his replies as extremely complacent, just as they regard the attitude of the chief spokesman for the Labour party as completely hypocritical? [Interruption.]

Order. In fairness, I have not yet called the chief spokesman for the Labour party, and the hon. Gentleman must not cast such aspersions upon anybody in the House.

The remarks made by the chief spokesman for the Labour party—

Withdraw.

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman would help the House and himself if he withdrew the statement.

Mr. Speaker, at your behest I shall withdraw the remark. The remarks made by the chief spokesman for the Labour party in public are entirely unacceptable, because if the House had followed the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party and all of his colleagues, who unanimously and alone in 1978 opposed the extension of reprocessing, we would not have had the problems that we have had since then. Will the Minister—

Too long.

Order. Briefly, please.

Will the Minister accept that unless there is a suspension of reprocessing, and until there is international inspection and a chance for the House to debate the Select Committee report, there will be no confidence in the Government, in BNFL or in its chairman?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the eloquent speech of the leader of the Social Democratic party on the occasion of the debate on the THORP reprocessing plant. He might learn something that would be helpful to his contribution to these debates.

Will the Minister accept that, with my hon. Friends, I regard the blaming of the work force for the problems of the management of the nuclear industry as unacceptable? We also regard mass unemployment, as advocated by the Liberal party spokesman, to solve the problems as unacceptable. Will he recognise that the series of incidents, however minor in radiological terms, which have occurred in the past few weeks at Sellafield can do nothing other than undermine public confidence in the industry and its future? In view of the Minister's remarks about the need for more openness, will the Government undertake to review the workings of the Official Secrets Act as it applies to the civil nuclear industry? Will the Government invite the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—that arm of the Health and Safety Executive which is the public's statutory and independent watchdog in these matters—to carry out a rigorous, independent safety audit of the old part of the Magnox fuel reprocessing facilities at Sellafield? Will they ensure that such a report is made public and debated in the House? Will the Government reject the opportunist and contemptible remarks and inconsistent attitudes of the alliance, as demonstrated by the SDP and the Liberal party?

For a moment I was not sure to whom the hon. Gentleman was pointing. It behoves us all to reject some of the irresponsible riding of bandwagons that there has been on this subject. It brings no pleasure to my Department or anyone else to have to read in the newspapers about the problems of Sellafield. We must all recognise that with an enormous plant, some of which is old in industrial terms, there will be some problems from time to time. We must keep a sense of proportion about the matter. We have a group examining the publication of information about environmental matters in general. I shall ensure that this matter is dealt with by that group. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Health and Safety Commission may well consider his suggestion carefully. It would seem to have some merit.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the football authorities about crowd behaviour.

We continue to review progress and issues in my working group, comprising representatives of the football authorities, the Home Office and Department of Transport. The group last met a week ago on Wednesday 12 February.

In view of the Belgian Government's ban on all British teams playing in Belgium following the tragic events in the Heysel stadium last May, and the fact that Scotland has now been drawn to play Belgium in the European Nations Cup, will the Minister remind the Belgian Government that I am still awaiting the courtesy of a reply to my letter to them of last May in which I pointed out that FIFA and UEFA draw a distinction between Scottish and English football? They are not punishing Scottish football teams and their supporters for the misconduct of some English supporters. The Belgian Government should follow suit by lifting their ban immediately on Scottish teams and allow them to play in Belgium.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. He has correctly drawn attention to the narrower definition put upon teams by UEFA and FIFA. It must be for the Belgian Government, with their much broader interpretation, to determine when and how they should ease their ban on British teams. In all the circumstances, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to seek to intervene.

I support the discussions that have taken place between my hon. Friend and the football authorities, but does he agree that we need to encourage a greater sense of self-discipline in some sportsmen and some members of the crowds who go to sporting events, thus diminishing the amount of crowd and sportsmen's misbehaviour?

I entirely agree. Within my working group we have had considerable discussions about the community interest which we encourage between football clubs and the communities around them. I applaud those football clubs which encourage community interest and family involvement.

What discussion has the Minister had with the football authorities and the police in the light of the dreadful incident that occurred recently outside the Liverpool stadium, when soccer hooligans, not fans, squirted a harmful liquid into the faces of the Manchester United players? What preventive measures does he intend to take to stop the recurrence of such an incident, when a footballer may be seriously injured or killed?

That was a regrettable incident and one which both sides of the House will deplore. It was a matter of public order and there is a police investigation into it. It would be wrong for me to comment further at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has for regeneration of the inner cities.

The Housing and Planning Bill was given a Second Reading on 4 February.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £100 million underspend on urban development grant during the past three years represents many wasted opportunities for redevelopment of the inner cities? Will he pledge that the allocation will not be cut next year, but that officials will assist and encourage local authorities and other organisations to seek out more eligible schemes, especially in those areas, such as Bradford, which were excluded from the recent policy initiative?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is regrettable that in the first two years of the urban development grant there was a slow take-up, to which the Select Committee has drawn attention. I have no doubt that UDG is an excellent type of grant, and it already supports 146 projects, involving £330 million. Bradford has benefited by about £5 million. I have seen the large derelict site in the middle of Bradford—a dump called Listerhills—and proposals are coming to me about it.

Has the Secretary of State read the 10th report of this Session of the Public Accounts Committee, which shows that the urban programme has not been spent up to the limit agreed by the Treasury for each of the past three years? Is that not wrong and, indeed, disgraceful? What is he doing about it?

I am trying to ensure that we spend up to the limit. I have read the report, which is an interesting and useful contribution to the debate. I attach considerable importance to the urban programme. Where we have underspent on UDG, I have allocated it to, for example, development corporations and derelict land grant.

As a high proportion of the buildings in inner cities are derelict, obsolete or under-utilised, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider redirecting part of the urban regeneration grant, which the Housing and Planning Bill introduces, and which Conservative Members welcome, to revitalise buildings as well as the land on which they stand?

The powers of grant that I am taking in the Housing and Planning Bill will allow me and other Ministers a considerable degree of flexibility in devising ways of supporting the inner cities, whether for land or for buildings. I am sure that money spent on the reclamation of derelict land in our cities is money well spent.

Does the Secretary of State accept that in the United States urban regeneration bonds offering tax free interest payments on long-term investments have been extremely successful in attracting private capital into declining urban areas? Will the Government use a similar incentive to attract much-needed private investment into our inner cities?

I am not particularly attracted by the advantages of industrial revenue bonds. The Federal Government in America are now moving to withdraw them. Our grants, the UDG and derelict land grant, and the new powers that I am taking under the Bill give Ministers the instruments to assist in the regeneration of cities.

Will my right hon. Friend study carefully the evidence of large acreages of unused and derelict land in the hands of local authorities and the Property Services Agency, and the unused and empty dwellings in the ownership of local authorities? Will he do everything that he can to ensure that they are sold to the private sector, so that private capital can be introduced to make a profit in the inner cities?

My hon. and learned Friend makes a good and fair point. We now have the registers of under-used and derelict land, and my predecessor and I have issued a number of directives about the disposal of that land. When there is a problem in housing and inner city regeneration, it is wrong that land should lie idle, especially land held and owned by public authorities.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in real terms, there will be no increase in financial assistance to the inner cities in the next financial year, and that he is now subordinate to an unelected member of the House of Lords regarding the development of inner city policy?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the pilot studies in eight areas, which I fully support. They are directed at unemployed young people, and he should be sufficiently broad and wise to support those initiatives. I am anxious to make as many resources available as possible. I must find ways of attracting more private sector money into the cities.

Will my right hon. Friend avoid being drawn by the Opposition into competing in seeing how much money each side can pour into the bottomless pit of the inner cities? Does he agree that pouring more public money into the inner cities will not solve the problem?

It depends on how it is spent and how it is used. If the money is spent on the regeneration of workshop units, on regenerating old houses and warehouses, and on bringing life back to the cities, I believe that it will be money well spent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations about the 1986–87 grant settlement he has received from non-metropolitan county councils since the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87 was approved in January.

I met a deputation from Cumbria county council on 29 January and my hon. Friend met a deputation from Derbyshire county council on 6 February. In addition, we have received written representations from a number of shire counties since the settlement was approved.

In a speech in December 1985 the Secretary of State referred to an expectation of 9·5 per cent. rate increases. From the first batch of Tory councils to announce increases, Buckinghamshire proposes 30 per cent. and Lincolnshire and Norfolk 22 per cent. Does that mean that they are chronic overspenders?

Proposed rate increases in several shire counties are higher than we would have hoped—none is higher than in my own county of Avon, which is Labour-controlled —because there have been real increases in expenditure, which were no part of the Government's plans.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of those making representations welcome the decision to allocate more funds to the inner cities? Why was no attempt made to find offset savings from other Departments, rather than from the shire counties?

The decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to take about the allocation of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money were difficult, as they always are. It was thought right to respond to the concerns expressed in the House.

Is the Minister aware that some Conservative county councils will follow Conservative-controlled Sefton metropolitan district council, which intends to do a "Liverpool"? They are contemplating an illegal budget—underbudgeting in Sefton by £2 million —on the assumption that they might receive extra rate support grant during the financial year from money clawed back from overspending councils, which the Secretary of State can redistribute. Will he condemn that act of illegality by Conservative councils?

If the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to distinguish between the behaviour of Sefton and Liverpool councils, there is nothing that I can do to unconfuse him. It is perfectly right for a council to make a reasonable review of its reserves and revenues and to budget legally within them.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that one result of the many representations that he has received about the current rate support grant will be the long-awaited and much-promised fairer deal next year for responsible shire counties?

The outcome is always dependent upon the total provision and the total rate support grant percentage. Although I know that many of my hon. Friends find it difficult to accept, within those constraints several steps were taken to help the lower spending authorities.

As almost every one of the 29 shire authorities which have raised their rates by almost 20 per cent. is still proposing to spend below the standard of need set by the Government, why does the Minister not have the guts to admit that rates are rocketing in Conservative and Labour areas because of cuts in the rate support grant and not because of increases in expenditure? In the light of those figures, how can the Minister justify the wild claim made by the Secretary of State on 18 December that rate increases would be only 7·5 to 8 per cent., when increases of more than 20 per cent. were predicted, and were predictable?

The, hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to make that allegation stick on my right hon. Friend, who is a most sober citizen. The fact—I have the figures in front of me—is that in many authorities where the rate increases are more than we would have wished, including Gloucestershire and Essex, there were real increases in spending, which were never part of the Government's plans.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the establishment of an accurate register for the proposed community charge.

I have so far received a small number of representations covering a range of issues in response to the recently published Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", but it is far too early to draw any conclusions from these.

As both the electoral register and the community charge register will be available for public scrutiny, would it not be sensible and save a lot of bureaucracy if the information for both those registers were collected on the same form? Will my hon. Friend lay to rest the ridiculous red herring that the community charge is a tax on voting, because whether or not someone has paid the tax will have no effect on the right to vote?

My hon. Friend is right. The community charge is intended to be a charge for local services, not a charge on voting. It would be better to have separate registers, so that we can register those who would not necessarily be eligible for voting, but who would be eligible to pay the community charge.

Have not the representations made the point that, in addition to the unnecessary bureaucratic cost, the vast majority of people will be worse off and that those who will gain the greatest benefit will be those who live in the biggest houses?

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The people who will gain most from the community charge will be the single who live alone. That represents many of the worst off in our community.

Is my hon. Friend not worried that the scheme may involve considerable administrative costs for local authorities, whether or not it leads to an increase in overtime?

The community charge is likely to cause a small increase in administration, but we believe that the system will be so infinitely preferable to the present system that the additional cost will be well worth it.

Why will the Minister not at least listen to the anxiety expressed by the Home Office, that using the electoral register will seriously damage the integrity of that register and will be seen, especially by low-income families, as a disincentive to exercise the right to vote? If the Minister is determined to continue with the idea of a poll tax, will she at least recognise the overwhelming need to have entirely separate registers?

Indeed, I do, and that is precisely what I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There will be a separate register for the community charge, which I must repeat is not a poll tax. It is a charge for local services, to be paid by those who use local services.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed community charge would have a sobering effect on councils such as the city of Leicester, which, after an advantageous rate support grant settlement, is gleefully proclaiming that it will increase rates by 80 per cent.?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. The great advantage of the community charge is that there will be a direct link of accountability, wholly perceptible and transparent to the voters. That will be of immense advantage to those who live in an area. The idea of an 80 per cent. increase is disgraceful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide financial support to assist Manchester city council in purchasing vacant housing on private estates which building societies and private builders are unable to sell; and if he will make a statement.

It is for Manchester city council to decide its spending priorities. If it wishes to buy private sector houses to resell for owner-occupation, either outright or under shared ownership terms, it is welcome to do so.

Is the Minister aware that many young people who were forced into buying in the private sector because of the scarcity of rented accommodation are now abandoning their homes because they cannot meet their mortgage commitments? In one estate in Manchester, Central, 17 of 42 houses built two years ago are empty and vandalised. Does that not prove that the Tories have no housing policy? It is a scandal. The Government should provide the finance so that the county council can acquire those properties.

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that one of the reasons for such houses falling into that state is the high rate levels levied by Manchester city council. I have correspondence in the Department from residents of Manchester who say that high rate rises are driving owner-occupiers out of their homes.

If my hon. Friend is minded to consider this matter, will he make it conditional on its application to areas wholly within the city of Manchester, bearing in mind that the leader of Manchester city council demanded the incorporation in that city of the Prestwich and Whitefield parts of my constituency? That demand is rejected and resented by the people who live there, because they do not wish to pay the high rates and have the extravagant services which Mancunians have to bear under the Labour party.

I can well understand why the constituents in those parts of my hon. Friend's constituency dread the possibility of coming under Manchester city council. I cannot understand why that council, when it is offered Government money, as I have offered, to conduct a proper study into housing conditions in the Hulme estate does not choose to take it and help its ratepayers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans for further meetings with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of his commission on the subject of the report "Faith in the City"; and if he will make a statement.

When I met the Archbishop of Canterbury on 28 January I offered the assistance of my Department in following up his commission's work on the assessment of need in urban areas. We also agreed to look at the potential for joint initiatives involving Government programmes and the proposed Church urban fund.

Given the announcement in another place on Monday by Lord Skelmersdale that the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor's committee that law centres should be funded is not to be taken up by the Government, and given that the worst crisis will come in the metropolitan counties and Greater London during the coming year because of their abolition, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he accepts the Archbishop's commission's recommendations that the law centres should be funded? If they cannot be funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department, will his Department look sympathetically at their funding next year?

The spokesman for the Liberal party is asking yet again for more expenditure in the inner cities. The Liberal party also asks for more spending in the shires, the rural districts and the suburbs. How is all this Liberal largesse to be funded? Where is the money to come from? The hon. Gentleman would he infinitely more credible if he set out how we are to fund all the special interest groups which the Liberal party promises to support. The Liberal party comes to the House and weeps and wrings its hands over every special interest group, but where is the money to come from?

When my right hon. Friend met the Archbishop, did he draw to his attention the excellent comment on the Archbishop's report by the Chief Rabbi? In particular, did he draw to the Archbishop's attention the comment by the Chief Rabbi that in the Archbishop's report Christian charity was roughly balanced by a measure of blatant political bias?

I have read the document from the Chief Rabbi entitled, "From Doom to Hope", and I was so impressed with it that I asked the Chief Rabbi to meet me to discuss it. Some of the sentiments expressed are plain speaking and good. One of them reads:

"A Jewish religious contribution would lay greater emphasis on building up self respect by encouraging ambition and enterprise … let them [parents] encourage ambition and excellence in every negro child as Jewish parents encourage in their children and they will pull down their ghetto walls as surely as we demolished ours."

Has the right hon. Gentleman looked carefully at the housing proposals in the commission's report? If so, what is the right hon. Gentleman's response? Will we get a real response, or will we get the usual guff that we had from the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister the other night on television?

During my meeting with the Archbishop, we discussed that matter. The commission intends to develop a form of neighbourhood partnership that will be directed towards housing, among other things. I am also holding discussions with various large financial institutions on ways in which they can help to deal with the housing problems in our cities and towns.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one hope for the inner cities is the idea of a task force, on the lines of the Liverpool task force? Does he further agree that £8 million for the new task forces can be only a beginning if we are to have effective leverage to draw in private money? Which Minister will be responsible for the Leeds and northern task forces?

The task forces will cover a population of only 300,000. We will have to see how they get on. I am optimistic that they will show results in a short time. They are especially directed towards dealing with the problems of young unemployed people, especially from ethnic minorities, in the inner cities.

Does the Secretary of State not recognise that local authorities are, and will remain, a major and significant force to tackle the problems of the inner cities? Given that, is it not a humiliation for the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues to have been elbowed aside from that responsibility, which has now been given to the Department of Employment?

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. While we have been in office the urban programme has increased from below £100 million to more than £300 million. We have introduced a variety of grants, and we are introducing another this year, to help with the problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the funding of the Hackney Black People's Association.

I believe that most of the funding for Hackney Black People's Association comes from the GLC and Hackney borough council. In 1985–86 those two authorities are providing nearly £30,000 for an advice and information centre and for Afro-Caribbean arts and cultural activities. The association also manages a youth communications project, which has received support from the Hackney inner area programme amounting to £21,300 this year. This project aims to develop the communication skills of young unemployed black people and to improve their employment prospects.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hackney Black People's Association recently offered a platform to Mr. Louis Farrakhan, the anti-semitic admirer of Adolf Hitler? Is that a proper use of GLC funds?

I was amazed that an association which purports to foster good race relations issued an invitation to someone who is notorious for his anti-semitic views. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary refused him admission.

Does the Minister accept that most hon. Members deplore the anti-semitic views of Mr. Farrakhan, with his disgusting references to God's ovens, just as they deplore the attempts by the hon. Member for Northampton, North to bad mouth the Hackney Black People's Association and to act in a fashion that is calculated, if not designed, to incite racial hatred in Hackney? Does the Minister accept that all we ask for in Hackney is equivalent treatment with the people in the City of London down the road? When will we get that?

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) is an influential person, but I should be very surprised if his question this afternoon were to raise the temperature in Hackney.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred to me, when he meant another hon. Member.

I shall take points of order after Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current level of investment in improving the quality of the existing housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

The primary responsibility for deciding how much should be spent on improving the housing stock rests with the owners.

At a time when over 200,000 building trade workers are unemployed, when almost 4 million houses are classified as substandard in some way, and when there are lengthy waiting lists for home improvement grants, including 2,000 in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is both economic stupidity and political folly not to embark upon a major home improvement investment programme in this labour-intensive activity, similar to what we had three years ago?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I remind him that provision for local authority housing capital expenditure next year, 1986–87, is £2,532 million, which is some 9 per cent. up on this year, and that local authorities and new town development corporations are spending about £2·5 billion a year on maintaining and modernising their stock.

Is not the outturn this year higher than the planned expenditure? Is it not the case that even the Government's modest increase is less than the outturn, so that there is a cut? Should it not be the aim of any Government committed to decent housing for all the people to make sure that there is enough investment, from whatever sources, to improve and maintain the housing stock at a rate at least equal to the rate of deterioration? Why do the Government not have that as their aim?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do have that as our aim. Spending on repairs and improvement to private housing stock is running at a massive £9 billion a year. While we have been in office we have paid out some £2·5 billion in grants to the private sector. This year the amount is likely to be £500 million.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when he next meets the secretary of the Football Association, he will raise with him the measures being taken by the football authorities to regulate the numbers and conduct of persons travelling to other countries in connection with football matches; and if he will make a statement.

Yes. These matters are covered by the European convention agreed last year, following a United Kingdom initiative, and require co-operation between Governments and football authorities. We are considering particular steps needed for the World Cup in Mexico and the European Nations Cup.

When considering the problems of people travelling to and in foreign countries on football business, will the Minister please consider the tragic death of my constituent, Mr. Jim Grey, a football coach teaching in Saudi who was knocked down and killed by a vehicle? Will he consider the deplorable lack of advance in any prospect of his widow, receiving compensation? Will he please consult the Football Association and the Foreign and Commonwealth office to see what can be done to help that lady?

We have great sympathy for the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent. After considerable efforts with the Saudi authorities, the Football Association's general secretary has sought our advice. It is primarily a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is considering what advice and help it can give.

Why is it that the proper game of football, namely, rugby union, can be played between England and Scotland in the Calcutta Cup without problems—that is, apart from England losing—yet soccer causes so many problems?

I am not sure that in the context of the original question travel between England and Scotland is travel between foreign places, but I take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria upon which he grants local authorities loan sanction in respect of the demolition of multi-storey Bison system flats.

Local authorities do not need loan sanction for the demolition of housing which they own. However, they may now apply to continue to receive housing subsidy in relation to the original costs of such housing. Such applications should be made before deciding to demolish, and my right hon. Friend will agree to them only if he is satisfied that the alternatives to demolition have been fully assessed, including disposal to the private sector.

The Minister well knows that local authorities need the subsidy. Is he not making up his policy as he goes along? Why is he condemning people to live in these terrible dwellings? In particular, how can he justify allowing Newcastle city council to demolish, with subsidy, three of the four Bison flats in my constituency, and not allow the demolition of the fourth?

We have allowed subsidy to continue on two blocks—Crescent and Parade Houses—and the application for a third block is before us now. The reason why there is a problem with the fourth block is that it has already been demolished.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on progress being made to establish the first marine nature reserve.

Good progress is being made at Lundy. The Nature Conservancy Council hopes to go out to consultation in the spring and put formal proposals to my right hon. Friend in the summer.

I respect my hon. Friend's efforts to achieve voluntary agreement for the first marine nature reserve, but it is now more than four years since the Wildlife and Countryside Act gave us the obligation to establish such reserves. If voluntary agreement for a marine nature reserve is not reached in the very near future, will my hon. Friend ensure that Parliament takes powers so that the Government can impose the first reserve?

I gave a pledge—to my hon. Friend, I believe—that we must have a reserve within 12 to 18 months of a commitment that I made some time ago. We are still within that time scale, but we are watching the situation very closely, because no further slippage would be tolerable.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the point of order afterwards.

So long as I can make it before the Minister of State leaves the Chamber.