To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to state his policy towards the transfer of the management of state-owned national nature reserves to voluntary bodies or the private sector.

The Nature Conservancy Council is conducting a review of its national nature reserve policy, which is due to be completed later this year. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 13 January, in which the Government's policy towards the ownership of land by non-departmental public bodies, including the NCC, was set out.

As the NCC is funded by the Secretary of State, through the Treasury, is it not more likely to bend to his will, even though no voluntary organisations could possibly buy land from it? Is the Secretary of State not concerned that, last year alone, over 200 privately owned sites of special scientific interest were destroyed? Why does the Secretary of State not drop the daftest idea that he has yet had?

I hope that, as the NCC is funded by the taxpayer, it will bend to the will of the taxpayer, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The loophole to which he referred was closed by legislation, as he should know.

Whether or not such rights are eventually transferred from the state to some other body, will my right hon. Friend make absolutely sure that public rights of access that already exist are preserved in future?

Yes. A year ago, of the 160,000 hectares of national nature reserves only 43,000 were publicly owned. It is important that public rights of access should be preserved, and they are preserved under many different statutes.

The Secretary of State must be aware that important bodies, such as the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others, have expressed grave reservations about the wisdom of the proposal to dispose of national sites and parts of our national heritage. If he is to ask such bodies — many of which manage such sites efficiently and have a proven track record—to take responsibility for more of our national heritage, will he clearly and unequivocally provide the necessary funding for them to do so? If he does not do so, their job will simply be beyond them.

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have quite got it right. Three quarters of the sites are in private ownership and are well looked after by private individuals at their own expense. If there is to be a supplement from public funds to the management of nature reserves, t can be done through the SSSI management agreements. That system is proceeding satisfactorily. However, I do not believe that the Nature Conservancy Council should be a way of achieving the nationalisation of land.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the state has no particular flair for managing nature reserves, any more than it has any particular gift for making motor cars? Will he not get better value for money out of genuine enthusiasts, anyway?

I tend to agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. All that I have asked the NCC to do is to review its holdings to see whether, perhaps, some should be added to or substracted from them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from members of the public (a) in support of the community charge and (b) opposed to the community charge.

A summary of the 1,271 responses received by 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since then my Department has received a large number of letters commenting on specific aspects of our proposals and requesting further information.

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I believe that there is unanimous opposition from the whole spectrum of political thought in this country. In my constituency, the totally unjust tax will mean that an average household of three adults will pay £770 as against £322 now. How will low-income families find that extra £450?

The hon. Lady should put that question to Calderdale, because that council is currently spending about £83 per adult over the average for the country. It has time to reduce its costs and charges, because we have instituted a safety net that will limit the impact on Calderdale. The only opponent is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does not think that Birmingham should contribute to Calderdale.

Will my hon. Friend inform the House how many of those letters said, "Can we please keep the rating system and, while we are about it, can we have the rating revaluation that would otherwise be necessary?"

In the original consultation exercise the responses favouring abolition of domestic rates outnumbered those favouring retention by two to one. We have not analysed the letters after that, because they do not express clear opinions, but make limited points or ask questions.

Have any of the Secretary of State's correspondents asked whether it would be in order for the voters' list to be checked against the poll tax list in order to aid prosecution?

Those matters have been discussed extensively upstairs. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the voters' list is a public document, and I have no doubt that community charge registration officers will see it, just as they see many other bits of evidence in arriving at registrations.

With the greatest respect, was that not a rather silly and stupid question? Is not the weight of correspondence dependent on the activity of the lobbies? Is not the Government's responsibility to introduce policies that are effective and will be popular, not what people might think according to some biased question put in an opinion poll before a policy is introduced?

We have received about 5,000 letters on this subject, and 35 million people will be liable to pay the community charge. The statisticians in the House will recognise that that is an insignificant proportion.

Would it be a good idea if, even after the legislation has passed through the House on the conveyor belt after the guillotine, the Government put this issue to the people again, because of its substantial constitutional importance, to determine whether they would prefer the tax to be based in the way in which the Prime Minister originally said it would be on people's ability to pay?

We put that issue to the people in June last year, and the hon. Gentleman was lucky to retain his seat.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to reduce planning restrictions in towns and inner cities.

We have a substantial programme of work to simplify and improve the planning system. In particular, we have introduced provisions for simplified planning zones by which general permission can be given for specified types of development in an area.

I am grateful for that reply, which clearly recognises the need to reduce planning restrictions in UDCs and special planning zones. Does my hon. Friend agree that the relaxation of planning restrictions should also be extended to towns and cities, such as Colne Valley and Huddersfield, which have no special status and where the planning restrictions do more than anything else to restrict and stifle the growth and prosperity of small businesses?

That is why we have introduced 16 planning measures since the publication of the first White Paper, "Lifting the Burden", which contained a form of deregulation that will benefit the smaller firms to which my hon. Friend referred. The most notable of those measures is the extension to the general development order to promote exemptions from specific planning permission and the modernisation of the use classes order. There is no lack of recognition in the DOE of the fact that the planning constraints that affect the growth and enterprise of small businesses obviously apply outside the inner-city areas and in Colne Valley also. The 16 measures that we have introduced will help that process.

Did not the report "Faith in the City" detail most objectively with the polarisation, poverty and decline in physical conditions in the inner cities? Is not the embarrassing nature of that report one reason why the country is having to put up with the vindictive and malicious attacks on the Church of England from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on that specific detail. I clearly remember reading "Faith in the City". We recognise some of the problems that the report has identified, and it is relatively easy for people to agree about the nature of the problems. However, the solutions suggested in the document were, in the main, unacceptable to the Government. The Government clearly recognise the problems of the inner cities. Our policy on that point has already been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it will be developed further. That policy reveals our concern for the inner cities, and we will develop the policy to regenerate them.

While removing unnecessary restrictions on businesses, will my hon. Friend pay close attention to the existence of historic covenants and the strength of public opinion that supports them?

Yes, Sir.

One of the most controversial proposals for inner-city redevelopment at the moment relates to the Chelsea football ground at Stamford Bridge. What has been happening about that? Clearly something very odd, funny and questionable has been happening in the Department about the proposal. On 20 November the Minister for Housing and Planning, in a written answer, said that it "would not be justified" to call in the application. Although the council has followed the proper procedures by notifying the changes to the local plan in public notices, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), as recently as 11 February said that the Department had changed its mind and was calling the planning proposal in —[Interruption.] Yes, this is a very important matter and I intend to get it on the record.

Order. Very long questions deprive Back Benchers of time.

Something very odd is going on in the Department of the Environment. There is a very nasty smell about it. The public, the people of Hammersmith and Fulham and the people at Chelsea football club and its supporters are entitled to know what is happening.

The hon. Gentleman has made some disgraceful allegations and he deserves to be reprimanded for making them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 11 February that the planning application was notified to him as a departure from the Greater London development plan on 8 January.

That is not true.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing that remark later.

Does my hon. Friend agree that public land hoarding, planning restrictions and the attitude of some local councils are still unduly restricting development in towns and cities where it is much needed? Does he agree that, as he tries to find ways through the red tape, he and the Department should reduce the over-rapid rate of growth in places such as Berkshire, which is picking up the tab for the failure in the cities?

We have to try to achieve a balance in the Department of the Environment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier about development in the southern regions, which has certainly been higher than was previously expected, the Department must consider these matters with the planning authorities in reviewing development plans. However, I understand my hon. Friend's points.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase housing mobility amongst owner-occupiers; and if he will make a statement.

There have been a number of welcome changes which make it easier and cheaper for people to buy their own homes. These have included reductions in stamp duty, increased competition in conveyancing —which has led to a drop in charges—moves to speed up local authority searches, and an end to mortgage queues.

I am surprised at the Minister's response. Does he not recognise that, because the Government have allowed over-development to continue apace in the southeast, a terraced house there costs about three times as much as one in the north? That means that there is no possibility of mobility between the regions amongst owner-occupiers, as there is no real possibility of the south-east housing its own population.

The argument is usually put the other way by northern Members—that they do not want a relaxation of planning controls in the south to bring down prices against the north. One of the comparative advantages of the north is its much cheaper prices. I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year there were a record number of first-time buyers—just under 700,000 — and many more first-time buyers even in the south than in 1979.

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the limitations on mobility applying to those who have engaged in the otherwise very desirable plans of part renting and part ownership? Has he any thoughts on how such people who may wish to move to another part of the country can be helped to do so?

We certainly support such schemes, both in the commercial sector and when subsidised by the Housing Corporation. There has been an increase in such schemes, and we welcome it.

That is an incredibly complacent response. Does the Minister realise that people are having problems buying for the first time and in trading up and renting, all because of the mess into which the Government have got themselves over housing finance? When will the Government respond to the very sensible request from the Duke of Edinburgh's committee, the Church's report and every housing expert in the country? The Government must grasp the nettle of housing finance and introduce a sensible reform of the schemes for both renters and owners which makes it fairer for both groups within and between the two systems.

It is rather extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should say that, when he spent a considerable time trying to prevent us from increasing the private rented market, one of the benefits of which would be to increase mobility. I remind him that the shift in the house-price-toearnings ratio in London and the south-east between 1979 and 1987 moved from only 4·66 times earnings to 4·80 times earnings. The catastrophe is not quite as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that many purchasers encounter is the increasing length of time that it is taking the Land Registry office to bring forward recognised plans so that conveyancing can take place? Is it possible for his Department to have a word with the Land Registry office to find out where the blockage is, and whether the problem is shortage of staff or of accommodation? This is one of the great handicaps in conveyancing.

My hon. Friend has made a good point, and I shall make the inquiries for which he has asked. Lord Templeman has recently introduced a Bill to open up the Land Registry, which is a sensible move and one that I believe will help.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the president of the Football League to discuss the membership card scheme.

My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is in regular contact with the president of the Football League. They will meet next on 21 March.

When the Minister with responsibility for sport eventually skates back from the winter Olympic Games at Calgary, will the Secretary of State concentrate his junior Minister's mind less on the problems of Eddie the eagle and more on the larger problems affecting our national game? In particular, will he tell him that membership card schemes are not working, that they are not the answer to the hooligan problem, and that more flexibility is needed at club level? Following the recent cup tie between West Ham United and Queen's Park Rangers, the chief superintendent of police said that the membership card scheme caused the club problems. Will the Secretary of State ask the Minister to reconvene meetings with the football authorities to ensure that a solution is based on common sense?

I would not dream of telling my hon. Friend what he should think or do. He is far more expert in these matters than I am. Let me include the hon. Gentleman in this general protestation of ignorance, because I have to tell him that in connection with the match between Queen's Park Rangers and West Ham on 30 January, the Metropolitan police said that the membership scheme was at fault. However, it was an all-ticket match. The problem stemmed from the circulation of forged tickets to West Ham supporters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is up to the Football League and the Football Association to put their house in order and that that is not the responsibility of the Government? We are pleased to see the police carrying out dawn raids, arresting people and seizing crossbows, truncheons, guns, pistols, and so on. If the Football League and the Football Association are not prepared to put their house in order, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would then be the responsibility of the Government to ensure that people are able to conduct their business on a Saturday afternoon in the way that they wish? May I remind my right hon. Friend that there is a membership scheme at a well-known football club and that there have been no arrests for 18 months —apart from the day when we allowed away supporters back?

I congratulate that football club on the success of its membership scheme. I commend that scheme to all clubs. Obviously, we would like the football authorities put their own house in order and continue to improve their record on crowd control, violence and hooliganism. If that does not happen, it will be very difficult for the Government not to take action. I hope that we shall very soon see the action that my hon. Friend mentioned and would like to see.

Will the Secretary of State convey to the Minister with responsibility for sport on his return from the winter Olympics the view that the best hope for professional football in Britain rests in the provision of attractive and comfortable facilities for spectators and, in particular, in the attraction once more of families as spectators? Will he suggest to the president of the Football League that football in general would benefit very much if clubs applied those policies, which are undoubtedly in the interests of the clubs and of the game itself?

On his return, I shall certainly pass on to my hon. Friend what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I think that my hon. Friend and I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. What we are talking about is how to achieve it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, valuable as membership schemes are and could be, it would be even better if police and clubs did not admit to grounds anybody who was the worse for drink and if the clubs themselves did not sell drink to spectators? That would help enormously to overcome the very serious violence that continues at football matches.

I am subject to correction, but I think that certain measures are already being taken in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests.

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

I last met the chairman on 11 January, when we discussed the funding of housing co-operatives and the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1988–89.

When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the Housing Corporation, will he discuss with him the genuine concern of many housing associations about the implications of the Housing Bill? The Bill will mean that rents in the housing association sector will be raised to such levels that tenants will be paying half their incomes in rent. Will he also tell him that some low-paid tenants will be severely penalised and that some people will be deterred from working because of the substantial drop in income as a result of the loss of housing benefit?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about this matter. The new Housing Corporation for Wales, which no doubt he will welcome, like the Housing Corporation in England, will be able to have different percentages of grant alongside private money. That will increase output and maintain rents at reasonable levels.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of the excellent provisions of the Housing Bill will enhance the role of housing associations and give them a better opportunity to play their traditional role of housing people who are earning less than average wages?

My hon. Friend is right. The purpose of the new mixed-funding arrangements is to enable housing associations to carry out more of their traditional functions, helping the people whom they need to help by bringing in private money alongside public money.

Does the Minister agree that that is not the view that all the housing association movement takes of the Secretary of State's legislation? The housing association movement, and everyone associated with housing associations, want a housing association tenancy established to protect the nature of the housing association movement—everyone except the Secretary of State and the person whom he appointed, his friend, Sir Hugh Cubitt, to run the Housing Corporation. Why will the Secretary of State not allow the Minister to accept what everybody wants—a housing association tenancy?

Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has not got his facts right. My right hon. Friend did not appoint Sir Hugh Cubitt, who is an admirable chairman of the Housing Corporation.

A mere technicality.

The hon. Gentleman says that the facts are a mere technicality. I agree. The point about a housing association tenancy will be best met by the proposal for a chartered social housing sector, which we discussed exhaustively and exhaustingly in Committee.

Did the Minister discuss with the chairman the paradox of Government policy that the implication of the Housing Bill for the Housing Corporation, with all the approval of new landlords, the approval of landlords after the establishment of housing action trusts, the mixed funding and additional housing association funding, is that there will be a large centralised quango, much larger than any housing authority? Would not the best solution be to devolve the Housing Corporation's responsibilities regionally in England, as has been done in Wales, and democratise the Housing Corporation?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are effectively separate corporations in Scotland and Wales. I do not think that we would yet want to go down the route of dividing it up in England, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are directly employed by the Property Services Agency.

A total of 22,235 non-industrial and industrial staff at 31 December 1987.

Would not those 22,000 people be better off in the private sector? If my hon. Friend has no plans to do that at an early date, will he comment on the more modest proposal to introduce commercial accounting and put the PSA on a trading fund basis? I believe that the PSA has had a report on this matter for about a year, so perhaps my hon. Friend is in a position to announce a conclusion?

Sadly, I am not in a position to announce a conclusion to the recommendation of the Deloitte report, to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that we shall he able to put the PSA on a commercial footing with a trading fund.

Will the Minister say what weight the PSA gives to local authority representations when they put forward projects such as building courthouses, as in the case of Bradford, where the local authority made representations to allow land for a rail link between two stations? That was refused on the arbitrary decision of the PSA. Does he think that the PSA should take into account the people who know best — the people in Bradford, who were elected to do the job?

In the court building programme, the PSA acts as the agent of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Welcome though my hon. Friend's announcement is that the PSA will move on to the basis of a trading fund, will he understand that it does not go nearly far enough, and that the best service that could be rendered by his Department would be to bring the PSA, at the earliest possible moment, into the private sector?

I understand my hon. Friend's strong views, which are based on experience and knowledge of the PSA. For that reason, they are held in great respect.

Is not the problem in the PSA the continuing reduction in staff—about 36 per cent. since 1979 — which has led to a growing backlog of £145 million worth of essential maintenance work? Because of low pay and conditions, particularly in London, there are problems of recruitment and retention of qualified staff to do that work, which has led to more expensive outside contractors and consultants being brought in. How much is that costing, and would it not be cheaper for the taxpayer to pay the existing staff a decent and appropriate wage?

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that staff numbers have reduced significantly in the Property Services Agency. There were 35,223 in 1979 and only 22,235 at the end of last year. But 85 per cent. of the maintenance work already goes out to private contractors. There is an expanded budget for maintenance work in the next financial year.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mini urban development corporations he proposes to set up to combat dereliction in inner-city areas; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend proposed four designations last December—three new urban development corporations in Bristol, Leeds and central Manchester, and the extension of the Black Country 1JDC area to parts of Wolverhampton.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's success in bringing derelict land back into use, increasing employment and improving the environment, is also giving skills to inner-city residents? What further plans has the Minister to designate areas as urban development corporations?

I welcome and agree with what my hon. Friend said in the early part of his question. We have plans to designate other areas as UDCs.

Before the Minister decides to set up more urban development corporations, will he tell us exactly what is going on with regard to the National Audit Office report on the London Docklands Development Corporation? There are strong rumours that the chief executive resigned after a very short period because he was concerned about the speculation and indeed, the misuse of resources in the Docklands area. In other words, there is a lot of fiddling going on in the area. Will the Minister tell us when he expects to get the report of the National Audit Office? Can he assure us that no fiddling is going on in the LDDC area?

I resent strongly the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made in his question. There are two points. First, the NAO report can neither be speeded up nor delayed by the Department of the Environment. The NAO is a law unto itself, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that there is no delay in that regard. It is nothing short of scurrilous that the hon. Gentleman should refer as he did to the resignation of the former chief executive of the LDDC, who resigned for purely personal and family reasons.

My hon. Friend will know that some cities have responded to the Government's lead by setting up, in effect, their own development corporations. Will my hon. Friend join me in offering every good wish and welcome to Mr. Michael Neale—recently adviser to LDDC — to Manchester and to Merseyside, as chief executive of Nottingham development enterprise? Will he join me in welcoming the initiative by Nottingham's Conservative city council?

I am delighted to have the opportunity to endorse all that my hon. Friend has said. It is usually through the initiative of Conservative councils or Members of Parliament that such proposals for economic development are made.

What about Birmingham?

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asks, "What about Birmingham?" He may choose to remember or not to remember as the case may be, that the initiative known as Birmingham Heartlands was the initiative of the chamber of commerce.

The hon. Gentleman cannot say that about Liverpool, because the regenerated areas in my city were developed by Liverpool city council, which is elected by the people of Liverpool. The Government have not given the support that they should to those areas. We do not need mini development corporations. What we need is Government assistance to the elected representatives who are trying to deal with the serious problems of those areas. It would be good if the Government were prepared to do that. The hon. Gentleman has been to Liverpool and seen what the council has done for the people. Is it not important to give aid to the local authorities and not to outside bodies that do not represent the people?

What I have seen in Liverpool is that the city council, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, has plunged the city into enormous debt.

The hon. Gentleman did.

No. It seems miraculous to me and to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment that other Labour-controlled local authorities within Merseyside have managed successfully to balance their books. Furthermore, the major urban regeneration that has taken place in Liverpool, transforming the area and reducing unemployment, has been done principally by the Merseyside Development Corporation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the procedures for conducting public inquiries into planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres; and if he will make a statement.

We are developing ways of grouping applications and staging inquiries into such schemes in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. New rules of procedure for inquiries and a code of practice for major inquiries produced in response to the Select Committee will both be relevant to large out-of-town schemes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of his inspectors is currently conducting an inquiry into a massive shopping development on the Prestwich hospital site in my constituency? Will he make it abundantly clear to that inspector that the plan is opposed by a vast number of my constituents both on environmental grounds and because it will have a terrible effect on existing shopping facilities?

My hon. Friend has made his own view very clear to the inquiry and the inspector and has made representations to the Department, which have, of course, been passed on to the inquiry. It would be wrong for me to comment on a proposal that is now the subject of a public inquiry.

Is it not irresponsible for developers to build massive developments outside established cities and towns that destroy shopping inside the cities? Thousands of jobs will be lost as a consequence of the greed of those who build out-of-town shopping centres that are not required.

It is not a matter of greed; it is a matter of the customers wanting them. The centres would not be built if there were not people who wanted to shop in them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the council of the London borough of Bromley and a number of local organisations are involved in considerable expenditure and a great deal of work in preparing their case for the public hearing in June of an appeal against an application for the development of an enormous leisure and shopping centre right in the middle of the green belt at Hewitt's farm? It would quite out of the question to allow this application, which would run contrary to all the policies laid down by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Would it not save a great deal of time and trouble if my hon. Friend were to make it clear straight away that such an application for a development in the green belt land is simply not admissible?

My hon. Friend will probably know that we recently re-issued our advice on large shopping developments, in green belt land and made it clear that it was very unlikely that any such applications would be approved.

Is the Minister aware that at the very centre of my constituency, called the Hillsborough centre, we now have major developments, with large numbers of small shops standing empty? Some of them are being taken over not by shopkeepers but by building societies and the like and people are writing to me about it. Is is not a fact that that is happening in cities everywhere and causing dereliction, and that people who have shopped in the centres of cities all their lives are now having to go outside to do their shopping? Is that sensible? It is inhuman.

I do not imagine that the building societies would be providing offices unless they were being used by customers. They must be serving someone. It is right that it is a material consideration in a planning inquiry or decision that the effects on local centres should be taken into account when new developments are being proposed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.

I have no plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country in which planning decisions are finally reached by people other than directly elected representatives? Why should those of my constituents who live in the Peak park have to put up with this undemocratic treatment?

I know well my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. In all the national parks, a sizeable proportion—about the same as that in the Peak district—of people who are not resident in the area serve on the parks committee. In my hon. Friend's case, of 34 members of the Peak board, 12 live in the park and a further six live within one mile of the boundary, including two councillors with electoral ward divisions lying partly within the park. I do not believe that it would be right to change the system of choosing national park authorities, because that would give rise to enormous complications in many areas.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that a great percentage of the county appointees live well outside the area of the park? This is causing grave concern for people who live in the national parks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) said, there is only one other area in the country where a person cannot serve on the planning authority if he is a resident and has been elected. This is very unfair. Will my right hon. Friend at least consider issuing new guidelines to local authorities about appointing people who live within the area of the national parks and have to abide by national park restrictions?

I understand my hon. Friends' concern about this matter, but people must understand how difficult it would be to change the system of those who are elected and then appointed to the board. We have already requested local authorities to ensure as far as possible that they appoint people who live in or near the area.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Local Government Bill to allow local authorities to use contract compliance to tackle sex discrimination and discrimination against people with disabilities.

No. Sir.

The Minister has already conceded the principle of contract compliance in respect of racial discrimination because of the duties imposed on local authorities by section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote equality of opportunity. I note that in an amendment made in the other place yesterday to the Local Government Bill the Minister has now been forced to accept the principle of contract compliance in respect of people with disabilities. Why, therefore, will he not accept the same principle in respect of discrimination on grounds of sex? Is the hon. Gentleman saying to the House that there is no discrimination against women in employment —if he is, he should look at the Benches around him—or is he saying that there is discrimination but Ministers do not care sufficiently about it to do anything?

We shall carefully consider the implications of the amendment approved yesterday in the other place. Local authorities are part of the enforcement processes only in relation to racial discrimination by virtue of section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. That is recognised in the Local Government Bill, and that is why that provision is dealt with differently from sex discrimination.

Is my hon. Friend confident that the Government can devise a series of stock questions on racial discrimination which will not undermine the main purposes of the Bill, which is to prevent political interference by local authorities — Labour local authorities—in proper commercial activities? If my hon. Friend is confident, perhaps he could let us into the secret.

I am confident about that. Indeed, some questions have been prepared and are the subject of consultation at the moment.

Why do the Government not accept the representations of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has made it clear that, in respect of discrimination against women in employment, it would like the Government to take exactly the same approach as they are taking under the Race Relations Act 1976? Should not the Government now accept the defeat in the House of Lords and make it clear that, in respect of people with disabilities, they will change the legislation accordingly?

Both this House and the other place have rejected the arguments of the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the commission decides, as a result of consultations on its document, to press my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which includes a section 71-type duty, the Government will give careful consideration to such a proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate for the number of homeless people in Bristol; and how many are under 21 years.

Bristol city council's latest return to my Department showed that 343 households were accepted as homeless under the Homeless Persons Act in the period July to September 1987. The ages of homeless people are not reported.

Is the Minister aware that in Bristol not only is there the problem of homeless young people but it is estimated that more than 20,000 people are effectively homeless, 14,000 of them forced to live in accommodation that is legally considered to be unfit for human habitation? The Government's Housing Bill refuses to place on housing action trusts a legal duty to deal with homelessness. Will the Minister therefore agree to discuss again with Bristol city council its allocation of funds under the housing investment programme, with a view to giving more money to Bristol so that it can effectively tackle the problem of homelessness in the city?

The hon. Lady is unnecessarily critical of Bristol city council, which has done rather well in this respect. Of the 343 households that are homeless—not the thousands that she mentioned—only 76 were in bed and breakfast on 30 September last year. Their average stay was only 27 days. That is a good record, on which I congratulate the council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the growth of housing co-ownership schemes.

Co-ownership schemes can normally proceed without direct Government assistance, although my right hon. Friend is responsible for granting co-ownership societies entitlement to various tax reliefs if their rules meet the requirements of section 341 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that co-ownership schemes often provide the only route by which young couples on low incomes can achieve their desired form of housing—house purchase —especially in areas such as Bristol, where house prices have recently risen sharply? Will he do all that he can to encourage the provision of those schemes so that young couples have a chance to buy their own homes?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. A problem to do with a company which promotes such schemes and which is based in my constituency in Bristol has recently emerged. It has written to me about a technical problem to do with tax and we are trying to sort that out as quickly as we can.

Will the Minister consider amending the present proposals in the Housing Bill to ensure that before any private or other landlords can make a bid for council blocks, streets or estates, tenants are given the opportunity of setting up a co-operative organisation to buy those properties for themselves, or for themselves with others?

It will be open to tenants to do that, and I suspect that in many cases tenants will want to bring forward such schemes. When the Bill is passed, and following the publicity about what the proposals mean, which we shall ensure is put out, I hope that many tenants will come forward with such proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the performance of local authorities in reducing the level of their rent arrears.

No, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the main, it is Labour local authorities which have large amounts of rent arrears, and which, by not collecting their rent arrears, often claim to the Government that they are short of money and are always asking the Government for more money? Would it not be better if they collected those rent arrears first and so had more money to spend?

The facts speak for themselves. The 10 worst authorities, which account for a third of the total of nearly £200 million rent arrears, are Labour -controlled. Most of the top 20 are Labour. So I have to confirm what my hon. Friend has said.

Is the Minister aware that Oldham, a Labour council, was so fed up with trying to collect its arrears that it put the task out to private contractors on a commission basis? They soon gave up, because they could make no impression, either.

I suspect that the position there, as in some of the London boroughs, had been out of control for so long that it was beyond anyone's capacity to put it right quickly.

Would my hon. Friend care to examine the records of the two local authorities in my constituency — Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh — and see how appalling Middlesbrough's record is compared with that of Langbaurgh? Middlesbrough is Labour-controlled and Langbaurgh has a hung council. Yet, in their turn, the Government treat Langbaurgh shabbily in the rate support grant and treat Middlesbrough as though they had too much money to give away. When the Government act in that way, how does it encourage local authorities to collect rents?

There is no direct relationship between outstanding rents and rate support grant. Arrears of rent are, however, a consideration in HIP allocations.

I wish to correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) concerning Middlesbrough council. Will the Minister accept that Middlesbrough council runs services to its community, has rates and rent in proportion to those services and has a record second to none throughout the country, let alone the north-east?

I shall not get involved in a civil war at Langbaurgh, if I can help it. The House should agree that it is scandalous that there are authorities that have up to 38 per cent. of their collectable rent outstanding. That is evidence of incredibly bad management.

Is it not the duty of local authorities not to curry favour with a small minority of non-rent paying tenants, but rather to carry out their duties to all ratepayers and to the vast majority of tenants who pay their rents?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Rent arrears are only one sign of bad management. Where there are rent arrears there are other symptoms of bad management, such as too many squatted properties and too many voids.

Creative statistics will not get the Minister out of this one. His Government have cut housing benefit, as he knows, seven times and will do so again in April. That means that a nurse will pay about 40 per cent. of her net salary before being entitled to housing benefit. They raised rents again by £1·60 yesterday. They have taken away all the benefits to the rented sector and wonder why it is collapsing. What right has the Minister to talk about choice for tenants in those circumstances? Why does he not tell the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who is so concerned about this, that his council is busy selling off an estate over the heads of the tenants, when they do not want their estate to be sold off? What sort of choice is that?

The hon. Gentleman wisely changes the subject as much as he has done because he is on weak ground on rents. He has not addressed himself to the question to which I would be interested to know the answer. Why does Walsall do so much worse than Bolton? I do not believe that there is any difference in housing benefit between Walsall and Bolton. There are some badly managed councils, and, as the figures show, the great majority are Labour-controlled.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of people who will pay the poll tax.

We expect that 35 million adults in England will be subject to the personal community charge.

Does that figure take account of the number of people who will not register and the number of people who are either unwilling or unable to pay the poll tax? In view of the statement on Monday by Mr. James Thomson, the regional assessor for Fife, that if a sufficient number of people refuse to register it would "choke up the works", and the helpful statement yesterday by the Prime Minister, who said that failure to register on the poll tax register will not in any way affect one's right to vote, does the Minister realise that many people, including myself, will initially refuse to register and pay, and will encourage as many people as possible to do likewise, so that we can scrap these vicious poll tax proposals?

The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Leader of the Opposition if his last remarks are to be taken seriously. Most people will register, and if they do not they will be subject to penalties, so it will not be worth their while not to register.

Is it not patently fair that people who are entitled to vote on the one hand, and to the services provided by the local authority on the other, should expect to pay a fair and reasonable share of the costs of these services? Where a tax is the law of the land, is it not reasonable to expect people to pay that tax, and to face the penalties if they do not pay?

My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about a community charge that will meet only one quarter of the total cost of local government expenditure. The remainder will be funded by business and by national taxpayers, and the one quarter that will be met by the community charge will not be met by an equal community charge paid by everybody. About 7 million people will be entitled to a rebate, so they will not have to pay the full community charge.

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

I refer to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

Is the Secretary of State aware that I am in a genuine dilemma, in that I oppose this wholly unfair poll tax, yet realise that this crazy scheme will undoubtedly be one of the factors that will help to remove his Administration from office?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's dilemma was that the Labour co-ordinating committee has stated:

"When the local council wants to carry out a programme of service expansion local people will no longer be cushioned by increasing business rates and rate support grant. They will want to know that increased expenditure is well spent."

Is it completely wise to be the only country in the world giving up some sort of property charge?

I would never claim a monopoly of wisdom, and I am always interested in my hon. Friend's views.