To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the extent of the importation of hazardous wastes into Greater Manchester for treatment or disposal in the last two years, and the routes used for the movements of these wastes.

Details of hazardous waste imported into the United Kingdom are not held centrally. However, I am advised by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority that the total amount of foreign waste imported into its area was 7,770 tonnes in 1985 and 11,937 tonnes in 1986. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

Is the Minister aware that because other European countries are placing restrictions on the import of hazardous waste materials the United Kingdom in general, and Greater Manchester in particular, are expressing concern that we are becoming the dustbin of Europe? With this extra workload the site operatives may well be flouting the rules and regulations that apply to waste disposal.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that waste imports amount to a small percentage of the total waste disposal in the United Kingdom —0·5 per cent. annually. He will also agree that the critical factor is that we should have the right facilities and the capacity to handle hazardous wastes. I hope that he will welcome the directive on trans-frontier shipment of hazardous waste, to which we are hoping to adhere as soon as possible. It will increase the amount of information that is available across boundaries and thus help to ensure safe handling and the effectiveness of the regulations that are currently in force.

Ismyhon. Friend examining ways in which to improve controls over the handling of hazardous wastes?

We are looking at ways of improving controls; for example, by extending the special waste regulations to cover all pollution risks, improving the consignment note procedure and introducing a statutory code of practice to put greater responsibilities on the producers of waste to ensure its safe disposal. We are examining the possibility of registering waste carriers and extending the powers of licensing authorities. Those are all ways of improving control, and deep consideration is being given to every one of them.

Is the Minister aware that his answers will be thought amazingly complacent? Why are we importing any hazardous waste into this country when we have enough of our own to dispose of? The Minister told me in a parliamentary answer that in 1983 we imported 14,824 tonnes of hazardous waste from abroad. By 1986 that had escalated to 53,000 tonnes. Has that escalation continued? Why does the hon. Gentleman's Department not know what happens to the waste when it arrives in this country, or how it is disposed of, or where it goes? Surely we do not need to rescue the British economy, which the Government claim is not ailing, by buying the rest of Europe's hazardous waste?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a long history of waste control, and it is essential that the treatment and disposal operators be required to achieve the highest standards. The export of a waste disposal service is an important industry, as long as we continue to have the right facilities and the capability to handle hazardous wastes properly. Far from being complacent, the Government are dedicated to ensuring that every possible control is exercised to ensure an effective, well-managed and highly proficient industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are a limited number of people with the high skills required for controlling waste, and that it is therefore better to concentrate on a few sites than to have the waste scattered hither and yon over Europe?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this country has the highest competence and that we should utilise it, so I agree with the thrust of her question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the introduction of a compulsory requirement for local authorities to schedule and publish their land ownings.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from my hon. Friend and others on this subject.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that local authorities are trustees of ratepayers' assets? Does he further agree that this register should not be voluntary, but should be compulsory?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. He asks that the register be made compulsory. We are presently awaiting the outcome of a working group made up of CIPFA, the local authority associations and the Audit Commission. They are considering this matter and we intend to await their conclusions before taking any further decisions.

What about a register of Government-held land? For example, the Ministry of Defence is holding land like some sort of medieval land baron. It has over 500,000 acres. What efforts is the Minister making to put pressure on some of his colleagues, such as the Secretary of State for Defence, so that land that is not necessary for such Departments is released for more useful social purposes?

The Ministry of Defence has particular needs which lead to its land holdings, and the Government are taking every step to ensure that it does not hold any land that it is not necessary and desirable for it to hold.

In our campaign for inner-city regeneration the availability and ready development of land is an important component. While local authority land is important, surely inner city land held by statutory undertakings and by private owners is equally important. Perhaps a register giving an overall picture would go a long way towards helping us in the campaign to regenerate our cities.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will not overlook the role of market forces in making that land available. As time goes on we expect more and more of that land to become available.

Does the Minister accept the overwhelming case for a land register of all land held by all private and public bodies? That was recommended by the Law Commission and there is a Land Registration Bill in the other place proposed by Lord Templeman. One way for everybody to know what is available, to prevent speculation and to develop the inner cities is open access to information about the identities of landlords. Will the Government say that they are willing to support that principle and do something about it?

The Government support the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have written to him today on that very subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals for reform of the planning system.

We have made many improvements to the planning system in recent years. We expect to make an announcement shortly about our conclusions on the future of the structure and local plan system.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the planning system is failing to prevent the over-development of our countryside and failing to encourage development in the inner cities, where we want it? Does she also agree that at the moment our planning system is developer-driven and is allowed to be driven by bodies such as Consortium Developments? Will she now look at the task of revising the planning circulars?

Later today we will give the House details of two new series of planning policy guidance and mineral planning guidance notes that are published today. I do not wish to anticipate the detailed written answer that will be given later, but the purpose is to make our planning advice clearer and more accessible. That should increase certainty for developers and others, and I think that it will be widely welcomed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of good planning, the views of local people should be taken into account, and that the way to take them into account is to listen to what locally elected representatives have to say to the local planning committee? Again and again planning applications are overturned on appeal, and that is disillusioning for elected councillors, who are doing their best for local people.

I have read with interest my hon. Friend's views on changes in the planning system, which were published in "This Pleasant Land". I do not think that everything he proposes is practical or desirable, but there is widespread agreement about the need to encourage development in urban areas and to protect our countryside as much as possible. It is encouraging that nearly half the land for house building is now found from reused sites or vacant urban areas. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to "The Future of Development Plans", which was published by the Government in September 1986.

Is the Minister aware that the argument on the Tory Benches will make very interesting reading? It seems that the two strong interests within the Tory party — first, City financiers and developers and, secondly, farmers and those who represent the rural interest—are having a battle royal. Opposition Members, happily, are in favour of planning, but I must say that we look on this skirmish with more than a little amusement.

I cannot comment on any specific proposal for a new settlement for which an application may have been made, or is being prepared. [HON. MEMBERS: "No one asked the hon. Lady to do so."] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned new consortia.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals, when they come forward, need to include developments by gipsies? Does she recall, from correspondence that I have had with her on behalf of Taunton Deane borough council, that the borough council and my constituents are embarrassed and affronted by the fact that, under existing regulations, gipsies may make developments which other citizens are prohibited from making?

It is for county councils to make provision for the number of gipsies in their area, and to bring to the Secretary of State proposals to find appropriate accommodation for them.

Whether or not we have a new planning Act, what is the purpose of planning controls if the present Secretary of State for the Environment, having followed the procedures, then overrules the decision of inspectors? That has happened twice recently. The first instance was in Cumbria, at North Stainmore—an area of outstanding natural beauty — when the right hon. Gentleman overruled the inspector's report from the inquiry and allowed the Ministry of Defence access to and use of land, against the inspector's specific recommendation. More recently, in county Durham, when the inspector reported that it would be entirely against the environmental interests in the area to allow an application for opencast mining, the right hon. Gentleman again acted contrary to the inspector's recommendations and report.

We have made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of dismantling any planning system. Our approach is purely to simplify and improve the system. Every application is decided on its merits. The inspector's role is to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the ultimate decision lies with him.

On the theme of taking local views into account, will my hon. Friend consider the reform of the planning procedures? When local authorities give themselves planning permission for a particular development, should there not be a right of appeal to her Department if, say, 20 or 25 local electors wish for one? Should not local authorities and private individuals be considered on an equal basis in that regard?

As I have already informed the House, the future of development plans is under consultation and consideration, and no doubt those points will be taken into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to privatise legal services provided to his Department.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 14 January that Sir Robert Andrew will undertake a review of the Government legal services. Sir Robert will take account of our policies of privatisation and contracting-out, and will cover legal services provided to my Department.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, for once, I had no notion of the answer to my question? Could he be a bit more explicit about the Andrew terms of reference? What exactly does he mean by "take account"? What is to be the future of the parliamentary draftsmen? Whereas nobody in his right mind would begrudge the Secretary of State the services of the best counsel —heaven knows, he could have done with it in the past and might need it again—is there not a real problem for civil servants in the legal services available to the Government? What is their future?

I understand that the terms of reference are:

"To consider: what legal services are needed by the Government; how those services can most effectively and economically be provided and organised, taking account of the Government's policies of privatisation and of contracting out; what changes are needed in the management of legal staff in Government service, including their recruitment, retention, training, deployment and remuneration, so as to make best use of them".

As my right hon. Friend's Department is responsible for the legal services provided by local government, does he share my grave concern at the length of time that a number of Left-wing Labour local authorities take to reply to local search inquiries by solicitors? Is he aware that the Law Commission suggested that 10 days is a reasonable time, but that the London boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Camden and many others take up to three months to reply to simple inquiries? Is that not an affront to nurses, teachers and first-time buyers who want to buy their own homes simply and without delay? Will my right hon. Friend consider imposing sanctions or possibly privatising such services when local authorities offend the code?

I agree that it is very important to reply to searches as quickly as possible. I shall consider my hon. Friends suggestions. They could even be the subject of the contracting-out policy in the Local Government Bill I shall have a look at what my hon. Friend has suggested.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of installing water meters in multi-storey flats and in properties on a common supply pipe.

No such estimate has been made. One of the objectives of the proposed metering trials is to help the industry assess the costs and practicality of metering multi-storey flats and properties served by a common supply pipe.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that discussions which are presently taking place about the future of the water industry are causing a great deal of concern in constituencies such as mine where there are common supply pipes in multi-storey flats? Will he therefore give me an assurance that any costs associated with converting those properties—should the devastating proposals concerning water and privately-owned meters go through—will not be borne by the consumer?

The hon. Lady will be aware that in the Committee considering the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill we are discussing amendments to ensure that the cost burden moves from owners to undertakers, thus reforming the Water Acts of 1845 and 1951. The major changes will require owners to have separate joint supplies explicitly for the purpose of metering. I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that the burden will not fall on them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those in privately owned sheltered accommodation who have opted for water metering have achieved substantial savings?

Some consumers have indeed benefited from metering. One of the important issues involved with the compulsory trial schemes that are being proposed is the effect of metering on a range of consumers in a certain locality. Schemes will enable undertakers to identify technical difficulties associated with putting meters in properties.

The Minister knows that there are tremendous cost and technical difficulties associated with putting meters into multi-storey flats. How does he square that with the fact that, for 70 hours or more of consideration of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill, he has tried to convince us that water meters will be fairer because consumers will be able to control how much water they consume? Is he not getting himself into an awful problem and a difficult contradiction?

I am glad to say that we have encountered no problems so far in the 70 hours of Committee proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Indeed, I thank him for his perceptive and useful analysis of the problems, including the problem that he has just mentioned. A lot of satisfactory work has been done on the matter that he raised. In reply to his first point, undertakers will have to consider the effect of metering and the effect of charges on metering, which will range beyond the single option referred to by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee yesterday.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums he has allocated to local authorities for the relief of homelessness in the current financial year and the next.

Gross provision for local authorities' capital expenditure on housing will rise from £2,920 million in the current financial year to £3,048 million next, an increase of 4 per cent. It is for local authorities to decide what resources to devote to the homeless, but the Government have urged that priority should be given to those in special need, and £25 million of the special supplementary allocation announced in December last was targeted on authorities with the greatest homelessness needs.

Has not the cost of housing the homeless rocketed over the past year to well over £100 million? Has not the Government's response been much too late and much too little? My borough, which is in the top 20 boroughs with housing problems, according to the Department's survey, has allocated all its available homes to homeless families at the expense of desperate waiting list families and it has not received an extra penny from the Government. Are not the Government hopeless with the homeless?

While there has been a reduction in local authorities' allocations, from £136 million in 1987–88 to £129 million in 1988–89, that is more than offset by the increase in capital receipts available to local authorities. Overall, local authorities' capital spending will increase by 4 per cent. Many councils have only themselves to blame for such a high cost of meeting their obligations to the homeless. Often they place the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation needlessly when there are cheaper ways to deal with the problem. Authorities should be spending more of their receipts from the sale of council homes on bringing empty properties back into use. It is a scandal that 112,000 council homes are lying empty of which about 28,000 have been vacant for more than one year.

As a considerable percentage of the homeless people in Britain, and as many as 50 per cent. of the young homeless in London, come from the Irish Republic, will the Minister seek to raise at the next meeting of the Anglo-Eire Conference the question of conditions in the Republic which force so many in the Republic to seek sanctuary in Britain, where indeed they are welcome? Will the Minister also raise the question of a financial contribution towards accommodation in Britain for those young people?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the notice of my right hon. Friend. However, I must stress that it is for a local authority to decide how to carry out its statutory duties regarding the homeless.

Will the Minister concede that her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was an insult to the many homeless people in London who are forced to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or, where they are denied such accommodation—as many are—are forced to sleep on the streets of this capital city? My council received only £800,000 towards its costs for bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Will the Minister assure the House that in future the full extra burden of bed-and-breakfast costs on local authorities will be met by the Government, instead of the Government imposing penalties on councils that seek to alleviate the problems of homelessness?

It is for local authorities to decide how to accommodate the homeless people for whom they accept responsibility. Our code of guidance advises the use of bed and breakfast accommodation only as a last resort. That accommodation is extremely expensive. On average it costs £30 per family per day and it is particularly unsuitable for families for any length of time. It is very surprising that some authorities such as Camden, Brent and Tower Hamlets use bed and breakfast accommodation extensively, while others, such as Greenwich, which suffer similar problems, manage to avoid it.

Does my hon. Friend recall the thoughtful speech made by the Minister for Housing and Planning at the party conference? He said that he was considering an extension of the transferable discount scheme to make more impact on tackling homelessness in London. When does the Department hope to come to a conclusion on an extension of that scheme?

I remember the comments that my hon. Friend made at the party conference. We are still considering that proposal.

In view of the reply that the Minister gave me just before Christmas, that it was no longer the function of local authorities to build, is it not the case that there will be far more homelessness and more people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? The Minister criticises local authorities for putting homeless people into bed and breakfast accommodation, but where are they expected to go — on the pavement? It is absolutely essential that local authorities should once again be able to build accommodation for people who cannot afford mortgages. The only way that such people can have decent accommodation is through the local authorities.

Local authorities must make far better use of their existing housing stock. As I said earlier, local authorities now have more than 112,000 empty properties, and no fewer than 25 per cent. of those have been empty for more than a year. The number of local authority properties empty for more than a year is nearly three times the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have sought to help local authorities to take empty properties back into use through the estate action scheme. We have approved schemes totalling nearly £5·5 million for some 1,200 dwellings since August 1986, and, more recently, through our £25 million supplementary allocations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Camden, with its problems of homelessness, has admitted to paying out between £1 million and £5 million to the owners of bed and breakfast accommodation for accommodation that has never been occupied? What steps does she propose to stop that ineptitude, and worse, occurring in other Labour-controlled London boroughs?

I am aware of the press reports about the bed-and-breakfast problems in Camden. We are now awaiting the borough's official report on the matter. Clearly there has been a significant waste of ratepayers' money. Might I also add that that authority has more empty properties within its total housing stock than families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Indeed, 423—or 40 per cent.—of its empty dwellings have been empty for more than a year. Rent arrears in Camden were £4·4 million at the latest count. Those figures show that if Camden made better use of its housing stock by sorting out its housing management system it would be able to meet its responsibilities for homeless people without resorting to bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

The Minister's reply was a disgraceful insult to homeless people and to Conservative and Labour local authorities. Local authorities have a smaller percentage of their properties empty than have the Government, who have three times as many empty properties. When will the Government bring those properties into use? Local authorities have fewer empty properties than have housing associations or the private sector. What will the Minister do about that? What will she do about the fact that it is cheaper for the country to build a new home — the Government have cut housebuilding by two thirds since 1979 — than to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a year? When will she alleviate the crisis of homelessness in Britain?

Government Departments own residential property for operational reasons, and they need to preserve their operational flexibility. Those Departments with significant numbers of empty dwellings are urged to bring them back into use, and, when they are no longer needed, to sell them as quickly as possible. Where they have no immediate operational need for them, but where disposal is not practical, they are encouraged to let them temporarily to local authorities or housing associations to help with the problem of homelessness.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Leicester city council about the effect of the poll tax on the residents of Leicester.

Leicester city council responded to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". It has made no subsequent representations.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the poll tax, some 65 per cent. of Leicester citizens will pay more rates than they used to and that the average household, instead of paying £180 as now, will pay £220 —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—and that a household with two adults is likely to pay 21 per cent. more tax? In such circumstances, all the figures should be read out, not only by me, but by Conservative Members.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's point would have a little more force if it was not based on a report that was flawed in certain fundamental respects, as was the report recently produced by Leicester city council. The figures that I announced last week show that, over the country as a whole, 53 per cent. of households will benefit from the introduction of the community charge. The charge will be of wider and greater benefit to everyone in this country because it will introduce a much fairer and more accountable method of paying for local government.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to the consultation exercise on competition in the management of local authority sports and leisure facilities ; and if he will make a statement.

Three hundred and fifty two responses have been received to the consultation paper issued by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales on 28 September 1987. The paper invited comments by 11 December 1987 and the responses are now being considered in detail.

Will the Minister recognise the widespread concern among local authorities about the possible introduction of competition in the provision of such important services, bearing in mind also a parallel consultation paper that suggests that some local authorities may have to invite tenders for such services in April 1989? Will he give an assurance that he will reach a decision on this as soon as possible? Indeed, will he say now that the Government do not intend to proceed in that direction?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to consider all the representations that they have received, and for me to preempt chat consultation exercise would be wrong. However, I give him the undertaking that, as soon as possible, we shall make an announcement, and I hope that that will take place early in February.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of Conservative Members believe that competitive tendering can bring substantial savings to ratepayers? Does he further accept that the majority of leisure and sports facilities run by local authorities are losing enormous amounts of money? If that money can be saved my hon. Friend will be doing a great service to sport., ratepayers and the sports industry.

I fully endorse that view.

The Minister has no direct responsibility for Scotland, but will he take into consideration the fact that examples of the Government's financial strictures in Scotland include the possible closure of the only swimming pool on the Western Isles—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that is funny, but it represents an important local provision. Will the Minister state to the House how many local authorities in England and Wales, and possibly in Scotland, support the thrust of that particularly obnoxious policy?

I do not believe that the results from the proposals currently being considered by the Government will be those anticipated by the hon. Gentleman. For the record, I place before the House the fact that we have had many responses from a widespread group of interested parties, not least the governing bodies of sport. If one considers the views of those groups, it is clear that, from greyhound racing to sea anglers, from badminton to squash, from the Jockey Club to the Lawn Tennis Association, all are fully supportive of the Government's proposals.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the extensive sporting facilities at Luton Town football club are widely used by the local authority?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I should like to add a strong message of support to those who are now negotiating in UEFA if they are negotiating on the basis that re-admission of English clubs must be conditional on the behaviour of our fans, not only throughout the rest of the domestic season, but throughout the European championships, which will take place in West Germany. Any decision that is not conditional upon that is wrong.

Order. I appreciate that we do not often get sports questions, but the question is about local authority sporting facilities.

Will the Minister make a firm decision to stop the nonsense of privatising sports and leisure facilities, especially in view of the many submissions that he has had? Certainly he has had one from the Amateur Swimming Association, whose patron is no less a person than Her Majesty The Queen, which states clearly:

"Any attempts to make learning to swim more difficult and more expensive must be a retrograde step."

We have no proposals to privatise local authority recreational facilities. The privatisation of management contracts, as the hon. Member well knows, is sought to improve competition in the running of facilities. That has been our main task throughout the consultation exercise. The hon. Gentleman referred to a governing body whose patron is Her Majesty The Queen. I refer him—

Order. We do not bring the royal family into our arguments in the Chamber.

The Lawn Tennis Association, which the hon. Gentleman knows well, and which has widespread support throughout the country, is very supportive of the concept and would see it as an opportunity to increase and improve the utilisation of facilities in the public sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real unfairness between local authority provided sporting amenities, which do not pay rates, and privately provided sporting amenities, where rates are paid? Is this not totally unfair, and should not the position be rectified soon?

One of the important reasons for bringing forward the consultation document was to ensure that the private sector had an opportunity to bid for the management of local authority facilities. I am certain that the introduction of competition into the running of facilities would be a major improvement and would provide the answer to my hon. Friend's point.

Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of local authorities and sports organisations are opposed to the proposition that sports facilities and swimming baths which have been provided by the community should be handed over to private management? That is a prescription that will ensure that no local authority will ever again build another swimming pool or sports facility. Since this ludicrous policy was conceived before the hon. Gentleman took office, will he understand that he has our full support for burying it as soon as possible? Will he ensure that if schools opt out of the state system they should not take with them the dual use sports facilities which were provided by the community for the benefit of the whole neighbourhood? Will he seek in those cases to protect the use of those facilities for all sporting organisations?

The right hon. Gentleman will note that in the consultation paper it was specifically stated that it is not intended that the competitive tender regime should apply to sports facilities which form an integral part of educational establishments and which are provided principally for the use of pupils and students at those establishments. I fully appreciate the importance of the thrust of his argument with regard to dual use facilities. A sensitive reappraisal of the management of facilities in local authority control will lead to an increase in use.

While my hon. Friend is considering this problem, would he care to consider the ice rink at Billingham, which is currently run by private management under licence from the local authority? The local authority has said that it will not renew the licence, not because the rink does not provide a good service for the people—because it does—and not because it is making money—because it is not — but because it says that only councillors in the town hall can run a sporting facility for the local community.

If my hon. Friend cares to send me the details, I shall consider the matter.

Order. I have allowed a good run on that question. We must now proceed more rapidly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to combat property fraud within the areas of development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

Urban development corporations take all reasonable action to detect fraud. If cases of alleged fraud are discovered, it is a matter for the police.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been at least one conviction of a property developer dealing in docklands property recently, and that there have been at least two investigations by the Metropolitan and City police of allegations of complaints about property fraud and abuse in docklands'? Given that the Secretary of State is now setting up further development corporations and that there have been major abuses, will he have serious discussions with the National Audit Office, which is preparing a report on accountancy controls, to be published in April, with the police forces and with the corporations themselves, so that we can ensure that the regime for dealing with property and its handling in docklands and other development corporation areas is not subject to such widespread abuse in the future?

The hon. Gentleman makes allegations of widespread abuse and fraud which are not substantiated. I resented bitterly the last time that he raised this point, when he mentioned an individual by name. If he has any complaints against any individual and believes that there is any evidence of fraud, he should immediately tell the police, and not mention names in the House.

In view of the attempt by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to smear the London Docklands Development Corporation and the whole marvellous movement that has done so much for central London, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the development corporation has done a remarkable job? Many houses for local people have been built, many jobs have been created and a tube line has been built, all of which flies in the face of what was claimed by the Opposition parties. They claimed that none of this would be achieved, and all that they are trying to do now is to denigrate what is being done and what will be done in the future.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What has been done is striking and astonishing and has been done in the face of hostility from both Opposition parties. I hope that they will now recognise that the London Docklands Development Corporation has been scrupulous in ensuring standards of professional conduct at every level throughout its organisation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average poll tax bill in England and Wales that is likely to be faced by a young single person with an annual income of £2,500 compared with the figure for someone earning £25,000 per year.

If the community charge had been fully in force in 1987–88, the average charge in England and Wales would have been £219. A young single person with an income of £2,500 per annum would be likely to receive a rebate.

The Minister should know that the cuts which the Government are implementing make rebate schemes of very limited benefit. The Low Pay Unit has estimated that single people under the age of 25 will lose their entitlement to rebate when their annual income exceeds the princely sum of £2,380. Given that the Minister told the Daily Telegraph in July 1986 that, under the current system of local government finance, someone earning £25,000 per year would be paying 20 times as much as someone on £2,500 a year towards the cost of local services, how can he describe it as fairer that these two groups should now pay exactly the same, when it means that those earning £25,000 per year will pay much less and those earning £2,500 per year will pay more?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said in the article to which he referred. It is the case that the highest 10 per cent. of households by income will continue to contribute about 16 times as much as the lowest 10 per cent. of households by income to the cost of local authority services when the community charge is in force.

Has my hon. and learned Friend noted that the number of people who are unhappy with the community charge has apparently risen to nearly 70 per cent.? Is he satisfied with that level, or does he have any proposals to bring forward that will have some effect in reducing the community charge's current unpopularity?

I certainly saw the poll to which my hon. Friend referred. The conclusion was based on a clear misunderstanding of the effect of the proposals. Only 23 per cent. of those who responded to the poll thought that their households would be better off as a result of our proposals. In fact, 53 per cent. of households will be better off. If that fact had been more widely understood, the results of the poll would have been rather different.

As the legislation reads, it appears that a person with a dual residence or a static caravan will pay two poll taxes. In that case, does it mean that the Prime Minister will pay one charge for a residence in Dulwich, one for the tied cottage at 10 Downing street, and another for her holiday home at Chequers?

We have made it perfectly clear that people with second or third homes will pay standard community charges in respect of such homes to a maximum of twice the community charge for the local authority in the areas in which such homes are situated.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to give us some more details concerning the rebate scheme that will be available for people on modest incomes and for pensioners? Does he not believe that a £6,000 savings limit will hit those pensioners who have actually been prudent enough to save during their working lives? Will he reassure me that people in my constituency—for example, pensioners and those on modest incomes —will be properly protected under the proposals?

I cannot give my hon. Friend details of the rebates. We are talking about a scheme that will not be enforced until April 1990. He will not expect final decisions about such rebates to have been made at this stage. I can tell my hon. Friend that 80 per cent. of single pensioners will pay less under the community charge than they pay in rates.

Will the Minister therefore confirm that one in five single pensioners will pay more under the poll tax system than they pay under the rates system? Will he confirm what he said in answer to the original question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)? The Secretary of State said that a person who is earning £25,000 a year will pay 20 times as much to a local authority as a man on £2,500 a year. That is exactly the same figure as the Minister used in the Daily Telegraph article.

The hon. Gentleman's point is based on a misunderstanding. Those who, for security reasons, will be exempt from payment of the community charge will be obliged to make a contribution in lieu to the armed forces. That payment will be allocated in due course to the local authority concerned. It is not the case that they will not have to pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land are currently in the Government land register of public vacant land; and how many acres of public land have been removed from the register since its inception.

On 31 December 1987 the registers of unused and underused land owned by public bodies contained details of 91,000 acres. Since the first registers were compiled in 1981, 66,000 acres of land have been removed from them.

As the planning process seems to create a situation in which more vacant public land continues to be placed on the register, does my right hon. Friend agree that, even at the present rate of disposal, which is commendable, and even if he speeds it up, which will be better, there will still be many tens of thousands of acres of public land on the register by the turn of the century? Is not some new initiative now required to get rid of surplus public land? I refer to initiatives such as privatising land, handing it over to private companies to market and sell, or handing to public authorities the lion's share of it once it has been disposed of.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is far too much vacant urban land. He will be encouraged to know that in 1986, 46 per cent. of all new development in England took place on previously used or vacant urban land, which was a good use of that vacant land. I am awaiting the report of the Audit Commission, which is looking into this matter, which may give some suggestions on how to proceed. Further powers that will speed up the operation of the registers are being sought in the Local Government Bill.

Does not the disposal of publicly owned land become absurd if such a policy leads to rapid housing development but the relevant local authorities are prevented from providing schools and other services that such development makes necessary?

If that conjunction of circumstances occurred it would be absurd, but it does not. There are many ways whereby such development can follow from the bringing into use of vacant land.

With regard to the figure of 91,000 acres—much of which is in urban areas but suitable for housing — does my right hon. Friend think that the bringing into use of that land is of great importance, particularly in relieving the huge housing problems and building on rural areas? Will my right hon. Friend take further powers to bring those acres of land into use?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Such powers as are necessary are being taken in the Local Government Bill. However, not all that land is in places where there is a demand for it. Some of it is. There is no point in acquiring land in an area where there is no developer or industrialist who wishes to use it. We must ensure that those who want to use the land can do so. Again, I advertise that if there is any developer, investor, housebuilder or housing association that wishes to use vacant land in the ownership of various authorities, all that he has to do is to apply to my Department and, if it is truly vacant, we will ensure that it is made available to him.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the management of nuclear waste.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, which have been referred to Nirex.

Is the Minister aware that when British Nuclear Fuels offered up West Cumbria as a sacrificial lamb in a quest to find a national facility for disposal of intermediate-level nuclear waste, it had no mandate from the district authorities, no mandate from the county authorities and no mandate for doing so from the industrial development auhorities responsible for creating jobs in West Cumbria? Will the Minister give an assurance that this decision will be taken on the most objective of criteria and will not be influenced by the whims of the monopolist employer and dominator of the West Cumbrian economy—British Nuclear Fuels?

I can give that categorical assurance.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and I, can imagine what his constituents must be going through? Will my hon. Friend draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if the Labour party were in Government arrangements would now be in hand for a low-level shallow facility for the disposal of intermediate and low-level waste? Have we not made some improvement, in that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have an opportunity of consultation and are being consulted at the present time?

There is no doubt that opportunities for full consultation in such an exercise are essential. I give a categorical assurance to my hon. Friend that there will be the fullest and most comprehensive consultation exercise once Nirex has come forward with a proposal for the Government's consideration.

Does the Minister recall the unanimous report of the Select Committee on the subject of nuclear waste, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)? It recommended that site—specific research was essential before any site could be properly indentified, let alone used? Does he recall that a great deal of waste is accumulating on the surface of the British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield and that the Labour-controlled Copeland borough council has made it clear to British Nuclear Fuels that the continuing proliferation of surface buildings to house intermediate-level waste is unacceptable to the council and the community? How can we ever develop a long-term strategy for the storage of intermediate-level nuclear waste if no research and discussions are allowed to get off the gound?

The hon. Gentleman knows that in no way would it be right or proper for me to pre-empt what Nirex will come forward with. All I can say is that I am certain that the consultation exercise that is under way will be rigorously looked at and that the proposals that come forward will take account of the sort of points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of Nirex; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of Nirex on 22 October 1987. They discussed a number of matters relating to Nirex.

In view of the massive opposition to the quest by Nirex to identify potential sites for the disposal of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste, is not the consultation procedure now undertaken by Nirex doomed to failure? In view of the Government's stated aim of saving money, does the Minister not think that it would be far better to cancel that consultation procedure?

No, I do not. It is vital that Nirex should fully investigate the three options for a deep, dual-purpose disposal facility — deep burial on land, tunnelling under the sea from the shore and disposal into the sea bed from an offshore structure. It is vital that as many technical assessments as possible are made so that Nirex can give full and comprehensive answers to the Government as soon as possible.