To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has now received concerning his plans to introduce a flat-rate community charge in England and Wales.

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.

In considering the representations, will the Secretary of State take time to reflect on his party's manifesto pledge that it would replace rates with a fairer system of local taxation? Will he also consider the constitutional reality that as he has been unable to convince even his own Back Benchers that the poll tax is a fairer replacement, the other place will be perfectly justified in amending his legislation so that it reflects, not the will of an embattled minority inside the Downing Street bunker, but the will of the real majority in England, Wales and Scotland, who are united in opposition to the unfairness of the tax?

I remember the manifesto on which we fought the 1987 election as setting out clearly every aspect of our proposals for the community charge. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that is true if he takes the trouble to examine it.

As the majority of the population will not be eligible for rebates, is it fair that the poorest should pay the same as the richest?

We debated that matter on Monday. My hon. Friend knows full well that the poorest will not pay the same as the richest because of the very extensive and expanded system of rebates, which takes nine million people out of paying the full community charge.

Given the Secretary of State's comments on the radio yesterday about the role of the other place in this matter, and the subsequent revised advice that the other place can indeed consider both the flat rate community charge and other schemes, what representations does he expect to receive from the other place in the next three months?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has studied my comments on the other place, which were given not yesterday but the day before. I advised the other place that since the electorate elected a Government with a majority of 101 over all other parties on the basis of the proposals set out extremely clearly in the manifesto, I hoped that their Lordships would not feel inclined to change the principle of a matter which had been approved by the British electorate.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to reply to the Labour party's request for exemplification of its system of capital value rating and of local income tax as a means of financing local government?

Yes. I have written to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) giving preliminary exemplification for the Labour party's proposal of a mixture of capital value rates and local income tax, on the basis of assumptions.

The right hon. Gentleman's assumptions.

I made those assumptions clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him to tell me whether any of them were wrong and, if so, in which way the Opposition would seek to change them. I have yet to have even the courtesy of a reply from the right hon. Gentleman.

I have replied.

I am talking about the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. As soon as I have a reply from the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I shall send a complete analysis, putting right any errors in the ones that I have already sent.

How does the Secretary of State square his determination to plough ahead with the flat-rate poll tax with the responses given by his colleagues, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in Westminster Abbey today to the questions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, launching the Church urban fund, when he asked:

"What is he sending us to do?"

"To share our wealth with those in our cities who are poor, powerless or disadvantaged, and to help them to build a new future for themselves and for us all."

By not imposing capital value rates and a local income tax on the people in whom the hon. Gentleman is interested.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have notified him of their intention not to increase their rates for 1988–89.

Fifty-one.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Sedgemoor district council is not increasing its rate this year, whereas Liberal-controlled Somerset county council is increasing its rate by an unnecessary 12 per cent.? Does he agree that this contrast is partly disguised by having a single rate demand that adds together the two figures? Will he change the rules and insist on separate rate demands from separate local authorities? It might cost more in postage, but it would bring a big benefit in terms of accountability and public awareness.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is odd that freedom of information is Liberal policy except when it comes to telling the electorate by how much the rates have been increased. The answer to the problem will be the community charge. The new charge demand bill will set out extremely clearly the overspending or the underspending of the county and the overspending or the underspending of the district. Every charge payer will be in full possession of the information and will know why he has to pay too much, if he does.

Would the Secretary of State care to calculate by how much the authorities in question would have had to increase their domestic poll tax if that system had been in effect when there was an interrelationship between the uniform business rate and the domestic sector of their income?

I should not like to make that calculation on my feet, but if the community charge had been in place I bet that they would not have increased their spending by so much.

How many of the authorities that my right hon. Friend has mentioned are controlled by one party, and what proportion of them are Conservative controlled?

Of the 51 authorities to which I referred, 17 are Conservative and 28 are rate or precept-limited in one respect of another. The others are controlled by the odds and sods brigade.

As the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are interested in rate increases this year, has he heard from the top 10 Tory district authorities in England with the highest rates? They are Gillingham, West Wiltshire, Melton, Suffolk Coastal, Wokingham, Dover, North Wiltshire, East Northampton, Havant and Stafford. All are Tory controlled, with rate rises of 42·3 per cent. in Gillingham, 41 per cent. in West Wiltshire, 41 per cent. in Melton, 39 per cent. in Suffolk Coastal, 29 per cent. in Wokingham, 29 per cent. in Shepway, the constituency of the Minister for Local Government, who is not here today, 26 per cent. in Dover, 25 per cent. in North Wiltshire, 24 per cent. in East Northampton, 21 per cent. in Havant and 21 per cent. in Stafford. For good measure, Tory Lincolnshire is up by 14 per cent., Tory Kent by 12·5 per cent. and Tory Surrey by 10·5 per cent. What has happened to the Secretary of State's promise to the House that this year rates would not go above the rate of inflation?

The hon. Gentleman does not give the base from which those figures spring. He may know that Gillingham has, over many years, had zero rate rises.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scurrilous leaflet that was sent out with the rate demand by Derbyshire county council, which claimed that the council's spending since Labour took control in 1981 had hardly risen at all? In fact, its spending had risen by 69 per cent. Does not this false and misleading propaganda, which is sent out with a rate demand, add insult to injury?

Derbyshire's rate for 1988–89, at 297·5p, is the highest of all county councils. I should tell my hon. Friend that since the Conservatives lost control in 1981, the council has sacrificed £50 million in central Government grant as a result of its overspending. That is a burden of £70 per head for each domestic ratepayer.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure for the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation in England and Wales.

The latest figure for England is 10,370.

Does the Minister accept that the figure is still unacceptably high? Does he understand that the system means that mothers and babies must frequently spend their days walking the streets, while large amounts of public money are diverted into the private pockets of the owners of bed-and-breakfast establishments? When will he allow councils to solve homelessness by providing proper homes for rent?

I agree with the hon. Lady that bed and breakfast is the most unsatisfactory form of short-term accommodation. That is agreed between us and councils. There is a very wide gap between the use that councils of all parties make of it. For example, Labour-controlled Greenwich makes virtually no use of it, although it has acute problems. The hon. Lady will welcome, as I do, the slight drop in the last quarter's figures, which is in response to the £25 million that we released to help with this problem just before Christmas.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would be a very good start if, particularly, Labour councils stopped keeping council accommodation empty at the expense of homeless families in their areas? Would it not be a good idea for councils to put homeless families in such properties and not pretend that they do not have the money or the resources to deal with the problem?

My hon. Friend is right. A couple of weeks ago we released another £28 million, which will be targeted on getting empty and void local authority properties back into use. We have had a very good response from local authorities bidding for such money.

If the Minister is so ashamed of the Conservative party's record, why did the Government allow the matter to get into such an appalling state in the first place? Previous Conservative and Labour Governments did not allow it to get so bad. Conservative councils are complaining because they have to make use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Only 2·4 per cent. of council properties are empty, compared with 6·9 per cent. of Government-owned properties. When will the hon. Gentleman take this problem seriously, so that we do not have families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for several years, families breaking up, families in poor health and children under-achieving in education?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the gap between the performance of the best and the worst councils—and the worst, I am afraid, are run by the Labour party—is so dramatic that there is no need to keep families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for months at a time. That is a fact which many Labour councils know well and show very clearly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of underutilised land, handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal, has not been sold after 12 months.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land has been handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal and has not been sold after 12 months.

As at 31 December 1987 a total of 2,558 acres of surplus landed property sites which had been passed to the PSA for disposal remained unsold after 12 months.

Am I right in thinking that most of the land is owned by the Ministry of Defence? Will my hon. Friend confirm that I would be right in having confidence in his being able, with his usual courtesy and irresistibility, to persuade the PSA to put its delicate feet on the accelerator and sell off its land so that it can be put to good use?

Almost all that land is surplus defence land. It represents less than 0·5 per cent. of the total defence estate of almost 700,000 acres. About 1,000 acres are agricultural and are subject to offer back to the former owners. That process takes longer than a straightforward sale.

Should not that programme have an even higher priority? Does my hon. Friend recognise the paradox and the frustration that I and several hon. Members feel when we see controversy over housing development in the green field sites in our constituencies, but whenever we travel, as I did recently, to the west midlands or the Greater Manchester conurbation, we see vast tracts of derelict and under-used land, which is owned by a variety of authorities?

I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the amount of under-used land that could be brought into development, especially when it could be brought into housing use. That is why the Government are giving a high priority to ensuring that they dispose of their own land quickly.

If my hon. Friend is, understandably, frustrated by the amount of land that is still on the register, will he explain why all Crown land is excluded from the register? Will he tell the House how many acres of vacant, derelict and dormant land in his own Department is not being used or put to good use?

Much of the land that we have been describing is on the register, although it belongs to the Crown. There is no legal obligation on the Crown to put land on the register, but, as a matter of practice, the Property Services Agency does include the land in the register.

The Minister has stated the Government's commitment to dispose of derelict land and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) commented on the vast tracts of land in Greater Manchester. Is it not a fact that in Greater Manchester Labour local authorities have one of the largest and the best programmes of derelict land reclamation in Europe? One difficulty that frustrates us is that the Government have not provided the additional resources to maintain the type of activity that promotes the regeneration of urban land in both the public and private sectors. If the Government make that commitment, will the Minister increase greatly the resources available to local authorities which have such programmes so that they can develop them, in conjunction with public and private enterprise?

The Government are aware of the problems in Manchester, which is why we have given extra priority and set up an urban development corporation there.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to set out a timetable for implementation of the provisions on competitive tendering of the Local Government Act.

Following extensive consultations, my hon. and learned Friend announced a detailed timetable on 30 March. The amendments to our original proposals should help authorities achieve the maximum benefits from the competitive process.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not necessary for local authorities to wait for the timetable, and that as competitive tendering is a desirable development they should get on with it now on their own initative?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Indeed, those authorities that have already submitted their services to competitive tender have substantial savings to show for it. As about £3 billion of expenditure is at stake in those services, the sooner local authorities put them out to competitive tender, the sooner the savings will materialise.

Does the Minister accept that local authorities are concerned about the possible extension of the Act to cover recreation and leisure facilities and that that would be harmful to the provision of sports facilities and many other amenities for local communities? Will he now say that the Government are no longer prepared to defer that decision and that they will not include those facilities in the Act?

No, I will not say that. It is a complicated matter, which is why we have been in consultation. We are considering the representations that have been made. The principle that massive savings will be made by submitting services to competition applies generally.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on making the progress that has been achieved? Will he now give serious thought to the remainder of local government services and bring forward another list that features administrative and financial services, which have had the least exposure so far to competition?

My hon. Friend is right in emphasising that there are similar savings to be made by submitting administrative services to competition. I hope that local authorities will go down that road voluntarily, rather than our having to compel them to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 25 March.

How is the public interest to be taken into account and how are severance pay and pensions to be guaranteed?

The public interest will always be taken into account in any privatisation project. Accrued pension rights will be fully protected, or transferred to the new pension scheme if the staff so wishes.

I hope that my hon. Friend will take into consideration the concerns of the Crown Suppliers' employees. Will he ensure that he listens carefully to the views of the unions that represent the work force? Will he ensure also that their pensions and terms and conditions of employment following privatisation are properly looked after?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall take into account the views of staff. On a recent visit to Hastings, where the Crown Suppliers employ more than 100 people, I had a face-to-face meeting with members of the staff.

Is the Minister aware that many of us do not believe that savings will be available from this privatisation? For example, the Minister decided to have Richmond Terrace valued by private valuers at a charge of £40,000, when there were officials within the Department of the Environment who were capable of making the valuation for £1,200? Is it not true that the Minister lost the taxpayer over £38,000 due to the stupidity of his decision, which was taken as a result of his obsessive attitudes to privatisation?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has his mathematics right. The decision that the private sector should value Richmond Terrace was taken in the best interests of government. It was the first time that there had been any new office development in the Whitehall area for many years and it was important to obtain an expert assessment of the rental value and the opportunity-costs of the offices.

It is clear that the Minister is not taking into account the views of the staff. Since his statement on the future of Crown Suppliers on 3 February, and the parliamentary questions that followed it, he has given neither trade unions nor the House any assurances about the future of the work force. Is the Minister aware that of the 171 staff who have requested a transfer, 138 have given privatisation as a reason for doing so? Given the low morale of the work force, is not the Minister's callous treatment of it utterly reprehensible?

No, it is not. Following the discussions which I had with members of the work force in Hastings, to which I referred, I understand that the work force has accepted that I am taking close account of its interests in this matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the number of acres of derelict and disused inner urban land sold by local authorities since the enactment of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1982.

By 31 March 1988, 4,400 acres of land owned by urban programme authorities had been removed from the registers of unused and under-used land because the land had been sold. The first registers were compiled in 1981 under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his efforts and those of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), in compelling local authorities, statutory undertakers and the Inner London education authority and others to dispose of the land they have sat upon for far too long has been impressive? Will he acknowledge that since much of the land is in inner city and inner urban areas, the cut-off point of one acre for eligibility on the public land register is rather ridiculous and should be eliminated? Will he also acknowledge that the procedure that has to be adopted to obtain a derelict land grant is cumbersome and bureaucratic?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I confirm the importance of the programme, which is vital to inner city regeneration. There is still far too much land in the inner cities lying idle in local authority control. I shall look again at the one acre cut-off point that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is now possible to obtain a derelict land grant through the city grant, which goes straight from the Government to the developer. It may be helpful now that we have introduced the city grant.

Does the Minister agree that, with the growing demand for single person and pensioner accommodation, particularly in the rented sector, it would make sense to give local councils an increase in their housing investment programmes so that they can utilise and buy derelict land in order to provide much needed housing in urban and inner city areas?

Many councils own a large amount of land that they could sell to obtain further spending power to build houses. Instead, they prefer to hang on to assets.

As my right hon. Friend has made it clear that local authorities are still holding on to land that is unused or under-used, and as that is a massive waste of resources, will he take further powers to speed up the procedures so that when he gives a direction there will be a much speedier level of sales by local authorities?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I must point out that in the Local Government Act 1988 we took such additional powers, and they will soon be available for use. They will be used in exactly the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister say why, over the past two years, the Department of the Environment has instructed only local authorities or ILEA, and no other public bodies, to dispose of land? Will he confirm that the land register does not include derelict and disused land in private ownership, including large tracts previously owned by the now privatised nationalised industries which have been taken off the register? Is he aware that a Town and Country Planning Association survey on waste land to be published this month shows that 62 per cent. of unused or derelict land is privately owned? What is he going to do about that?

If it is true that only local authorities have received directives, it is probably the case that the other bodies concerned have been found to have a reason for not selling the land. I am not prepared to take a step to direct private citizens and private companies to sell assets against their will.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole procedure would move much more quickly if local authorities were compelled to grant appropriate planning permission and then sell at auction, without reserve, on condition that the work be put in hand within two years?

I do not know what my hon. Friend means by granting appropriate planning permission. We would be getting into difficulties if we were to specify the use of the land for the maximum advantage of the receipt of profits to the local authority. The two issues of selling unused or under-used land and what planning consent is appropriate for the land are separate questions that should not be mixed up.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review safety relating to the disposal of radioactive waste at inland sites in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The radiological safety of all disposals of radioactive waste in England and Wales is kept under review by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and authorisations are revised if appropriate. Other safety matters are for the Health and Safety Executive.

Is the Minister aware that many hundreds of my constituents are alarmed and concerned about the proposals to dump radioactive waste at a quarry in Billinge in my constituency? What information can the Minister provide about the type of materials to be dumped, how radioactive it is and what steps will be demanded of the owners of the quarry to ensure that no radioactivity will leach from the quarry into the surrounding water courses?

The type of radioactivity mainly derives from medical applications in the University of Liverpool and the Royal Liverpool hospital. The radioactivity of the material is approximately the equivalent of a microSievert, which is one thousandth of a milliSievert. In practice, one would have to consume about 2 per cent. of the thousands of tonnes of waste to exceed the annual dose of one milliSievert. It is a very low-level waste disposal facility. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution conducted a full radiological assessment of the site before issuing the authorisations. I understand the public concern, but public consultation did take place and there will be constant monitoring, which will include a close working relationship with the waste authority.

Notwithstanding the safety regulations, there is considerable concern in my constituency that the only potash mine in the United Kingdom may be turned into a dump for nuclear waste. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to say that all the fears and apprehensions in the area are groundless and that that mine will be kept for potash and not used for the disposal of nuclear waste?

I have no knowledge of that site. Suffice it to say that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and the need to stay closely under the authorisations provided under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, both ensure the strictest possible control. I shall look into the question of using the potash mine and let my hon. Friend know the precise position.

May I refer the Minister to the consultative document issued by Nirex, which, as he knows, gives a range of options for public consideration and asks for reactions? The Minister will be aware that one option is missing, namely, the containment of radioactive materials which are produced on the sites of power stations at the surface, constantly monitored, and redeemable at source. Why has that been excluded? Will he ensure that it is included for future consultation?

The hon. Member will know well that that is for Nirex to answer. No site has been ruled out. As for the Billingham site, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on other occasions, the Secretary of State has said that he will take into account the commitments made by his predecessors. It is a matter for Nirex to consult on the method and to make appropriate recommendations.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the emotive word "dump"? For decades we have been storing low level and intermediate waste in the said power stations. All the proposals of Nirex are to make what is already a safe storage system even safer.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has made any estimate of private landlords' interest in purchasing council accommodation.

No, although we know that a number of housing associations are interested in responding to any tenant interest that may be shown.

Does the Minister agree that that answer is somewhat strange, considering how much effort the Department has put into encouraging private landlords? Can he explain how their involvement will benefit tenants? Will rents go down? Will the repair service improve? Will tenants get better value for money? In short, will the Government bring in legislation to force private landlords to give the same deal to tenants as council landlords would give?

I think the hon. Lady is in some confusion. Perhaps she does not know, but any landlord will have to be approved by the Housing Corporation. Indeed, if tenants wish to transfer it will probably be because they will get a better deal on some of the matters that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

In considering the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), can my hon. Friend say how many council properties are vacant in, for example, Glasgow? Does he not believe that it is unlikely that private landlords would allow property to remain empty for any period and that, therefore, homelessness would be addressed much more effectively under private landlords than it ever has been under council ownership?

One of my misfortunes is that I have no responsibility for Glasgow. It is noticeable that Glasgow city council—a council dominated not by the Conservative party but by the Labour party—has followed some very imaginative policies of devolving property to community-based housing associations. I believe that some tenants have found advantages in that system. The purpose of our Bill is to extend that very principle.

Further to the Minister's first answer, we in the London borough of Lewisham, particularly in my constituency of Deptford, are concerned about the interest of private landlords in our housing estates. Have there been approaches from private landlords about our council estates? Are the Government about to announce any programme for imposing housing action trusts on the borough?

It is too early, and unwise, for private landlords to canvass on these estates, because there will be a thoroughgoing system of approval, run by the Housing Corporation, and of tenant involvement in any cases where transfers are of interest to tenants. It is unwise of private landlords to carry out this sort of canvassing before that system is functioning. Housing action trusts are a separate matter and, as we have said, we shall bring forward a shortlist while the Housing Bill is before the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to repeal those parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 which give a planning presumption in favour of the developer; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating and helpful answer. Does he agree that planning needs and environmental attitudes have changed fundamentally since the days of war-ravaged Britain in 1947, when that legislation was introduced? Does he agree also that today's planning law should meet today's requirements and, in particular, should take account of the fact that parts of the country suffer from over-development, not under-development?

The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and its successor, the 1971 Act, have stood this country in good stead. They can deliver the kind of planning that we need. It is true that requirements change from time to time. In 1980 the Department issued a circular emphasising the importance of getting planning applications agreed and reminding authorities that they must always grant permission unless there are important reasons for not doing so. Since then we have drawn the inspectors' attention to the importance of taking account of up-to-date plans so that there is no over-development.

The Minister will be aware of the grave concern in my constituency about the Government's insistence that the Greater Manchester Residuary Body sell off parts of Reddish Vale. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that if that sale is pushed through planning permission will not be granted for any development that would deny the people of Greater Manchester an important area of rural land that could be used for recreational purposes? Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that that land will be protected for the walkers, fishermen and others who enjoy it?

It would be wrong for me to pre-empt a planning application, which should be considered on its merits. I am sure that the important issues which the hon. Gentleman has raised will be taken into account at the proper time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas that have suffered from excessive development, such as Berkshire, the democratically elected representatives on the local authorities particularly resent the large number of appeals granted to developers, which give the clear impression that there is a presumption in favour of developers.

There is a presumption in favour of development—that is the basis of the system. The British system is that people can do what they like with their property as long as an important interest is not damaged thereby. It is a good system. I remind my hon. Friend that more than 50 per cent. of appeals are for residential development and that there is a much lower success rate in such appeals. It is worth drawing that point to the attention of developers because, to some extent, they are overloading the system with appeals, the great majority of which will be turned down.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many consultation meetings Nirex has held in Britain concerning its plans for radioactive waste disposal.

I have no ministerial responsiblity for the day-to-day management of Nirex, but I understand from Nirex that between the launch of its discussion document on 12 November and the end of March the company held 34 meetings about its plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility. A further nine meetings are planned to take place before the end of May.

I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that one of the proposed meetings is with the Shetland Islands council. Does he appreciate that Nirex will be told in no uncertain terms that burial of nuclear waste on a small island is not an acceptable proposition? Does he agree that one of the ways of getting away from the problem of the "not in my back yard" attitude is to adopt the suggestion made earlier by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to have on-site storage? The Minister said that Nirex was consulting, but it is not consulting about that. Why is it not consulting about that when it is acceptable for high-level waste, but not acceptable for intermediate-level waste?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am sure that Nirex will be most grateful for advance notice of the content of the consultation meeting that is due to take place.

When my hon. Friend receives information from Nirex on those consultations, will he urge Nirex to make it clear to everybody that there are certain parts of the country with, for example, a strong tourist industry, such as the Fylde coast, which would not be suitable for the disposal of nuclear waste?

It has been made clear on many occasions in this House, and quite rightly so, that no area of the country should be excluded from Nirex's detailed consideration and investigation.

The Minister will be aware, from the number of questions put to him today by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that there is considerable concern about Nirex's proposals. Will he tell the House when he expects the consultation procedure to be concluded and when he expects to receive Nirex's report on its proposals and to be able to tell us that either he or the Secretary of State can come to the House with a decision?

There are three questions and three answers. The consultative period will last until the end of May. Nirex's target for coming forward with a proposal is towards the end of the year and, obviously, a full parliamentary debate will take place as soon as possible thereafter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of increase in rates in 1988–89.

Domestic rates in England have gone up by an average of nearly 9 per cent., which is far too high. It should have been possible, on average, for rate rises to be held to inflation, and against this background the outturn is very disappointing.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the level of rates in Conservative-controlled councils compares with the level of rates in Labour-controlled councils? Does he agree that the great difference between those two levels explains the opposition of Opposition Members to the community charge?

I am delighted to have the opportunity to explain to my hon. Friend the difference between Conservative and Labour councils. Conservative councils have much lower rate poundages than Labour councils. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier quoted percentage increases. After those percentage increases, in Melton, for example, there is only a 5·8p local rate and in Gillingham only a 7p local rate, whereas in Harlow, a district council controlled by the Labour party, there is 92·9p local rate. There are almost invariably higher levels of rates in those areas controlled by the Labour party.

Will the Minister come clean about the Tory record on rates? In Labour-run counties in England, Labour has had an average of 12·4 per cent. rate income, Conservative-run counties have had an average of 10·3 per cent. and councils run by my party have had an average of 9·7 per cent.—in each case in councils controlled by a majority, single-party administration. Why is his party not at the bottom of any league table of rate rises in the counties of England this year?

The Owenites do not feature on this list—

Because they do not control any councils.

Exactly. The average rate poundage in the counties is 223p in the pound. The three highest county poundages are in Derbyshire, Cleveland and Humberside, all of which are in excess of 250p in the pound. The lowest rate poundages in the counties are under the Conservative-controlled councils of Hereford and Worcestershire, Norfolk, Kent and West Sussex. In all those counties the rate poundages are less than 200p.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour group on Lancashire county council increased rates by no less than 36·5, an increase of 18·5 per cent., which is one of the highest rises in the country? It started from a high base, having already increased rates by over 85 per cent. since it took control. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that places a tremendous burden on the National Health Service, industry and every citizen?

I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. Lancashire council is one of the worst examples of Labour profligacy in practice and I am delighted that she has been able to draw the attention of the House to it. Opposition Members are hard put to explain away the high levels of rates in Labour-controlled areas.

If 9 per cent. is too high, why is it that in Tory-controlled Wandsworth the rate is 31 per cent.? Why is it 15·6 per cent. in the London borough of Barnet, where the Hendon, South constituency is situated? That is the Prime Minister's local authority and it is on record as being against the poll tax. What is more, it has accused the Secretary of State of cheating over storm damage. Why have we not heard about the London borough of Barnet, which has twice the average level of rate increases among councils under Tory control?

To take individual percentage rate increases—[Interruption.] It is much easier for someone who weighs 20 stone to lose 25 per cent. of that weight than for somebody who weighs only 10 stone. The same is—[Interruption.]

Order. This is difficult enough to understand as it is.

To take the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in inner London it is still true to say that the two lowest levels of rate poundage are in Kensington and Chelsea and in Wandsworth. In Wandsworth the local rate is now 36·1 p in the pound, in Hammersmith it is 133p, in Hackney it is 134p and in Greenwich it is 136p. The same is true in outer London, where Barnet council, despite a high percentage increase, still has a much lower rate poundage than most Labour-controlled outer London boroughs.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will examine the potential for more housing development on derelict sites in east London.

Yes, Sir. The Department is commissioning and announcing today studies by a consultant into the scope for housing development on five large areas in east London—the Greenwich peninsula, Barking Reach, the Lower Lea valley, the Stratford rail yards and the Beckton gasworks site.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging information. In the light of that, will he consider increasing penalties on developers who repeatedly appeal on green belt sites, such as in my constituency, so as to encourage them to turn their attention to developing inner-city areas to meet the housing needs of the south-east?

My hon. Friend is right. On several occasions we have warned that we shall use our powers to award costs against developers who fly in the face of clear planning guidance, and I have no doubt that there will be some examples of that. The sites that we are talking about could conceivably, at a broad guess, contain about 20,000 or 30,000 houses.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss sport in the inner cities.

I hold regular meetings with the chairman of the Sports Council on a range of sporting issues. The specific issue of sport in the inner cities is the subject of a review which I have recently begun. The membership of the review team is made up of business men, athletes and sports administrators, including two members of the Sports Council.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he discuss the poor provision for athletics in the inner cities, which must be a contributory factor in the importation of a South African runner, Zola Budd, and her acquiring British nationality in order to qualify for the Olympic games? Will the Minister stand by all those British athletes, many of whom come from the inner cities, who have toiled hard to qualify for the Seoul Olympics? Will he also back the IAAF's decision in the Budd affair and stand as firmly behind that decision as he did behind the Thatcher Government boycott of the Olympic Games in 1980?

The BAAB has upheld the Gleneagles agreement. The specific issue for its consideration with regard to Zola Budd relates to the IAAF's interpretation of "taking part". It is not a matter for the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Sports Council and the British Amateur Athletic Board have done admirable work in the inner cities, but that the reputation of both organisations, including the board, will be greatly enhanced if they stand firm in objecting to the proposal by the IAAF to ban Zola Budd? Many British athletes would support the British board if it took that step.

I am sure that the BAAB will have heard clearly what my hon. Friend has had to say.

Does my hon. Friend not agree—[Interruption.]

Order. We are listening to the hon. Lady.

Does the Minister agree that Zola Budd, far from being a poor little girl, as one Government Member said of her, is in fact a walking, talking and running public relations stunt for apartheid in South Africa? It would be a slap in the face for the hundreds of black athletes who run for Britain and the Commonwealth if the Government were not seen to support both the letter and the spirit of the Gleneagles agreement.

I strongly disagree with the hon. Lady's personal view of Zola Budd. As for the Gleneagles agreement, the Government are committed, along with Commonwealth countries, to uphold that agreement, which has nothing to do with the specific decision that the BAAB has to face on Sunday.

Will my hon. Friend accept that no good will be done for sport in the inner cities or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, or throughout the world, if an innocent but very talented young athlete is treated in a disgraceful way by any international board when she has committed no offence? Is it not wrong, as we have seen with terrorism, to give in to blackmail?

The House has clearly heard the comments of my hon. Friend.

I am always here when needed. May I ask the Minister to ensure that, in any discussions concerning Zola Budd, he will not repeat the Government's tragic mistakes of 1980 in respect of the Moscow Olympics, which has alienated international sporting opinion from this country ever since? Does he accept that the International Amateur Athletics Federation has an absolute duty to protect sport from any taint of apartheid? Does he further accept that the Government have a duty to protect the rights of every other British sports man and sports woman taking part in this year's Olympic Games?

The right hon. Member knows full well that the decisions to be taken on this issue are a matter for the governing bodies. That must be right, and that view should be shared on both sides of the House. We need to await the outcome of the meeting held by the BAAB on Sunday and we shall carefully consider the situation then, to decide whether, so far as the Gleneagles agreement is concerned, it becomes a matter for the Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had about the future organisation of the London marathon.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had recent discussions on the future organisation of the London marathon.

May I take this opportunity of congratulating the organisers, spectators and over 23,000 runners who made last Sunday's marathon the biggest and best in the world? So that it continues to be so, will the Minister use his influence with the London Residuary Body to try to ensure that the organisers are given the use of county hall for just one weekend every year, in accordance with the parliamentary petition presented last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), with more than a quarter of a million signatures?

I join the hon. Gentleman in offering my congratulations to all who participated and assisted in the organisation of the London marathon. It was a showpiece festival of national and international sport, and it was excellent to see the involvement at élite and participatory level of so many disabled athletes.