To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new steps he is taking to control over-development in the south-east.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a new planning circular to give clearer guidance to local planning authorities about applications affecting scale and density in existing residential areas and other associated matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will examine possible reinforcements to the existing planned legislation to reflect over-development of land and buildings in the south-east.

I issued new planning policy guidance in draft on 15 June, for consultation. It urges authorities to extend the coverage of local plans, particularly in the pressure areas, and gives advice on the use of phasing and density policies for residential development.

As no more than token development around most of the towns and cities of the south-east can he tolerated, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has considered the possibility of revising the idea, prevalent in the 1930s, of developing garden cities, thereby concerntrating development in specific areas of the south-east? In conjunction with the encouragement of further development in areas away from the south-east, would that not, at least in some small way, help to prevent the onset of the concrete jungle?

I hope soon to agree with SERPLAN future housing need in the south-east. SERPLAN accepts that some extra housing will he needed to house the population of the south-east. My hon. Friend may know that, in response to an appeal about a new town, I made it clear that I saw no objection to new settlements in any part of the country, provided, of course, that they were not in the green belt and were suitable and in accordance with structure plans and other guidance, so I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, but does he appreciate that there is a feeling, not confined to local planning authorities, that since circular 22/80 was issued there is a need for clearer guidance, particularly about out-of-scale developments in existing residential areas? Does he further appreciate that if he were to issue a new circular, with clearer guidance, his Department would benefit, because fewer applications would come to him on appeal?

As I said on 15 June, I have issued a new circular which includes, where appropriate, policy guidance on residential densities in rural villages and suburban areas. I think that that is the answer that my hon. Friend wanted to hear.

In an effort to reduce overdevelopment in the south-east, will the Secretary of State consider a separate use class for second homes? Does he agree that one of the pressures in London, rural areas and towns is for second homes, which leads to excessive development and therefore the problems of which he is well aware? Moreover, does he further agree that it reduces the number of affordable homes for rent and sale available to local people.

I agree that there is a growing number of second homes, but many of them are well away from the south-east and in the more attractive holiday regions. I do not think that it would be possible to make a rigid distinction between what is and what is not a second home, because sometimes it involves two homes for a couple who may have split. It would be very difficult to make such a definition, but, as usual, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of the considerable pressure which understandably now exists to protect living standards and the quality of life for people who live in the desirable areas of the south-east, it would be sensible to revise his policies towards investing in, and allowing municipal enterprise to react to, the needs of people in the north of England, so that people are encouraged to move to the north to take advantage of lower-cost housing and increased employment there, including that in the public services?

It is important to put the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question into perspective. In 1981, 12·6 per cent. of the south-east of England outside Greater London was built up. Even if our projections for future needs are fulfilled by the year 2001, that figure will have risen to only 13·7 per cent., which is a very small percentage of the land area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this storm is blowing not just in the south-east but around many of our big cities and that the complaints arise as much from the rate of development and the lack of infrastructure as from sheer housing numbers? Will he consult his colleagues, particularly those in the Department of Transport, to see whether anything can be done to maintain the quality of life, which is what the argument is really about?

I agree that there is anxiety about how to find the land needed for the houses which the social changes we are going through require us to find throughout the country, particularly in rural areas in the north and the south. The population has to come to terms with the fact that this is an expansion, not of population, but of the requirements for homes of any set number of people. I also agree that there is anxiety about the infrastructure and road system necessary to support a fast-growing economy which is going through a period of great success. As always, I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who, I am sure, shares my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).

What guidelines will the Secretary of State be giving to planning authorities in regard to land adjacent to cemeteries owned by Westminster city council, sold for £1 and now worth between £5 million and £10 million? Is that affair not the scandal of the decade? Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that no deals on planning permission will be done with the current owners of the land that will allow Westminster city council off the hook, when it has clearly been negligent?

The main point of the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise on this matter, but he knows perfectly well that Westminster city council has carried out an internal review and that the police and fraud squad are involved. It would be quite wrong for me to comment. No planning application in relation to this matter has come anywhere near me.

Does not the shortage of housing in the south of England and the high prices that we are seeing as a result make the problem of controlling inflation, which is relevant to the whole country, more difficult?

I differ from my right hon. Friend, because I think that the way to control inflation is to keep control of the monetary aggregates. If one price goes up—the price of houses in the south of England is most certainly going up—that does not mean that there is inflation across a whole range of goods and services.

The Secretary of State may like to know that we welcome his willingness to beat a strategic retreat on this matter, but, before he simply caves in to those Conservative Members who are worried about the impact on their boundaries, will he consider the question implied in the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), that the real problem in the south-east is the lack of low-cost housing for rent or purchase by local people? What will happen to those local people? When will the Secretary of State come to the House with proposals that will increase the supply of good quality low-cost housing for rent or purchase by people who want to stay in the areas in which they were born and brought up?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by beating a retreat, but I shall be bringing forward proposals of the sort that he requests before we rise for the summer recess. I shall refer to that at 3.30 pm, or whenever I happen to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in the debate this afternoon.

Regardless of any incentives that may be offered for more investment in the north, is it not a fact that there is a need now for planning for a greater number of households in the south-east? Will my right hon. Friend avoid being stampeded by colleagues who refuse to recognise that self-evident fact?

I have not changed the basic policy, that in the south-east, as in every other region, we should make provision for as many homes as the best forecasts and estimates that we can obtain suggest will be needed. If those forecasts are wrong, we can adjust as we go along. My hon. Friend is right to say that those forecasts suggest that there will be a need for more house building, including a great deal in London and on the eastern outskirts of London, and some in each of the home counties.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to assist council tenants who cannot afford to buy their property under the present discount system to do so.

I have no such plans at present, but I am always interested in ways of encouraging the spread of home-ownership.

I shall help the Secretary of State. If he sells all the council houses that are left, where will future generations find houses at prices that they can afford? Why does he not bring forward proposals to help first-time home-buyers to buy their own homes, instead of playing Bingo with people's homes?

I found the thrusts of that question working almost in opposite directions, but I should tell the hon. Gentleman that there are still 4·5 million council and half a million housing association homes to rent. The more of those that are bought by their owners, the happier I shall be. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have major plans for expanding the housing association movement and providing a new social rented class of house for the very people whom he has in mind.

Instead of playing Housey-Housey with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), does my right hon. Friend agree that, beneath the skin of every ardent Marxist, there is someone who would rather own his own home than be a serf of the local authority? Will he therefore continue to pursue his policies to expand home ownership and so enrich the lives and environment of those 1 million council house tenants who have already bought under the right to buy?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that the Housing Bill includes proposals to limit the effect of the cost floor rule on tenants' discount entitlements, measures to enable tenants to counteract delays by landlords and to speed up sales, and amendments to clarify local authorities' powers to assist tenants to move out of their council houses and to buy homes elsewhere. In addition, the £35,000 cash limit on discount is being reviewed.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties in Bradford and elsewhere involved in buying or selling Dennis-Wild type houses? Will he intensify his efforts to persuade building societies to give mortgages on this type of property, and will he urgently revise the home improvement grant rules so that money is made available to local authorities and others to carry out the necessary repairs on these homes?

I prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman about the first matter, about which I cannot be expected to know, not having had notice of it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of undeveloped land are registered as being publicly owned by local authorities in the northern region.

Some 7,450 acres are currently registered.

There is no point in councils in the north-east sitting on this land and not developing it. Equally, there is no point in my hon. Friend sitting on powers that were taken in 1980 to order councils to dispose of land. How many acres have been disposed of by order of my hon. Friend, and why have not more been disposed of in this way?

The answer to the latter question is that 2,470 acres have been removed from the register. In Darlington, as a result of action that we have taken using section 99 notices, the local authority has been minded to respond positively, by selling land that would otherwise not come into the private market. The first notice to be served in the whole of the country was served in Darlington, so clearly the system works. I am prepared to accept that we have not gone far enough, and that is why, on 7 March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced new initiatives in this regard under the "Action for Cities" banner.

Is not part of the answer to the question that the Department will not allow local authorities to make use of moneys that have resulted from the sales of council houses and other properties? Is not any condemnation by Conservative Members simply a move to mislead the electorate on this point?

The hon. Gentleman is not correct, because local authorities are allowed to spend up to 20 per cent. of their assets on a cumulative basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was referring to the problem of local authorities which are becoming known as land hoarders. We are determined to stop that practice.

Would my hon. Friend care to support the campaign for the building of a motorway to the north from the south on the eastern side of the country, to enable sites to be opened? For example, he has announced that one such site, in my constituency, Hemlington Hall farm, is to be disposed of after being held by Middlesbrough council for many years.

My hon. Friend will understand if I do not join him in a campaign that obviously concerns the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The notice to which my hon. Friend has referred, which I signed and sent to him, has proved that the system works. However, because there are development problems with some of the land that is under-used or unused, the Teesside development corporation, which operates near to his constituency, will bring back into use a tremendous amount of land that had been under-used.

The Minister's statement that local authorities are land hoarders could be substantiated if he would tell the House how many appeals against local authority planning refusals he has received. Will he do so?

We are talking about ownership of land, not planning. It is a proven fact that local authorities, public bodies and, in certain cases, Government Departments, have been holding on to under-used land. We are talking about bringing that land back into use. Planning is a different matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans Her Majesty's Government have to combat the incidence of graffiti; and if he will make a statement.

Under the urban programme, over £500,000 will be spent this year on anti-graffiti and anti-vandalism projects. A further £18 million will be spent on cleaning up buildings in town centres and improving council estates, including graffiti removal. The estate action programme is also helping to combat graffiti on run-down council estates. UK 2000 will be launching a number of anti-graffiti initiatives this year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend's Department for the work that it is doing to combat a scourge that is sweeping the country. With graffiti on London's tubes and buses costing £2·5 million per annum on Birmingham's buses £2 million per annum, and at an estimated cost to the country of £1·5 billion, which is £23 for every man, woman and child, is it not time that the criminal law took the gloves off to deal with those who spread graffiti? What about banning the sale of aerosol sprays to anyone under the age of 16 years?

I share my hon. Friend's disgust at those who perpetrate such uncivilised behaviour. I shall draw his suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is essential that I should remind the House that under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 penalties for vandalism include up to 10 years' imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, on conviction on indictment.

Is the Minister aware that there used to be a rule that, when people bought weed killer, the chemist had to take their names and addresses, and that that drastically reduced the number of poisoners? Will he introduce a similar rule that when people buy a can of spray paint they must give their names and addresses to the auto-parts shop, for example, from which they buy it, so that the police can swiftly chase those in the neighbourhood who have used it for unlawful purposes?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not my responsibility, but I shall happily draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to what he has said.

Will my hon. Friend take more seriously the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during this short exchange? Does he agree that it is unacceptable that retail outlets are not asked to accept any responsibility for the sale of aerosol sprays? My hon. Friend's Department, with other Government Departments, must seek to obtain the co-operation of the retail sector. Names of purchasers of aerosol sprays should be taken. If any are found guilty of acts of vandalism we should impose a bit of hard labour and get them to remove what they have done to desecrate the community.

I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being taken seriously. It is clear from my substantive answer to the question that the Department is doing a great deal. The issues that have been rasied in supplementary questions must be directed to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I know that there is concern that legislation should act as a deterrent. In my answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) I referred to the legislative provisions that are to be found on the statute book. I cannot interfere with sentencing, and I would not wish to do so, but there are legislative provisions that could act as a deterrent.

Despite the amount of money that is spent on eradicating graffiti, the fact is that graffiti is still with us. Will the Minister undertake to go with one of his civil servants to the underpasses at the Elephant and Castle to inspect the graffiti there and then ask himself whether the money that is being spent on the eradication of graffiti could be used in a better way? The underpasses at the Elephant and Castle are indescribable. They are smothered in graffiti, yet nothing is done.

I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It is clear that we must tackle the problem on a number of fronts. I have dealt at some length with one of the cures. We must tackle more carefully the task of carrying the local community with us. A number of the programmes for which we are responsible actively involve local residents in anti-graffiti campaigns. That may be appropriate in this particular instance.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received relating to his proposed modifications to the central Berkshire structure plan.

I assume that my hon. Friend intends to refer to the countywide replacement structure plan for Berkshire. My right hon. Friend has received approximately 2,500 representations to his proposed modifications to that plan, together with petitions totalling about 30,000 signatures.

Has my hon. Friend noted in those representations that every Member representing a Berkshire constituency, every local authority, every parish council and, I suspect, virtually every member of the public, is opposed to the proposed modifications to the structure plan? This is not because they are against any further development in the area, but because they have already experienced the building of many extra houses. Equally, they are not suffering from the NIMBY factor. They wish to protect their environment and to encourage development in the hard-pressed regions.

My hon. Friend has made those representations before. I assure him that his views and those of all parties will be considered before a final decision is made. It is important that I should emphasise that Berkshire county council's proposals for 41,000 dwellings are not that far removed from the figure of 43,500 dwellings suggested by my right hon. Friend in his proposed modifications.

Given the fact that the Minister is answering for the Secretary of State for the Environment, I wonder whether he realises that the extra few thousand houses over and above the number already agreed by the county and district councils will be at the bottom of someone else's garden? As the Minister is replying on behalf of the Secretary of State, will he reaffirm that it is still his right hon. Friend's view, as expressed by him at the Dispatch Box, that people should be able to live where they want?

The House will forgive me if I take some offence, as my right hon. Friend probably takes offence, at the implication of that question, which was less than worthy of the hon. Gentleman. We are aware of the point that he makes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to ensure that motorists are getting enough information about the use of lead-free petrol.

The Department has produced an information pack listing cars that can run on unleaded petrol and the location of petrol stations selling it. I am sending copies to all hon. Members to enable them to respond to inquiries from their constituents. We have grant-aided CLEAR, the Campaign for Lead-Free Air, to increase public awareness and provide a public information service. Many other organisations have a vital role to play, and their work is co-ordinated at regular meetings of the unleaded petrol group, which I chair.

While welcoming my hon. Friend's statement, may I ask whether he agrees that, given what we now know about the harmful effects of leaded petrol on children's health in particular, the extent to which motorists in the United Kingdom have fallen behind those in other countries in switching to unleaded fuel is as shocking as it is shameful? Much of the blame must also be laid at the door of the oil companies for failing in their responsibilities to the community.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, since the price differential announced as a result of the Budget, a major step forward has been taken in terms of consumption. He will be pleased to know that we expect that there will be about 2,000 petrol stations—an additional 900—stocking unleaded petrol by the end of this year. I endorse my hon. Friend's point about the importance of oil companies playing a major part in promoting the use of unleaded petrol. I congratulate in particular Shell and Esso on advertising on television, and all the other companies on taking a very active lead both in the national press and locally.

Does the Minister agree that there is a classic chicken and egg situation in regard to the sale of unleaded petrol, because petrol companies face increased distribution costs for low sales returns, which are not offset by the lower rate of duty? The Minister has welcomed the action that Shell and other companies have taken, but does he agree that the Government should take an exciting new initiative by mounting a joint campaign with the petrol companies to highlight the benefits of unleaded petrol?

As a result of our involvement in CLEAR, we are participating in the information campaign, and I have been travelling around the country promoting the use of unleaded petrol, which I believe is significant in environmental terms. As to consumption patterns, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is right to draw attention to the importance of making people aware of the price differential. Of equal importance is referring to one's dealer, to ensure that one's car can either run on leaded petrol without modification or can do so with a minor modification, or whether it is a model that cannot run on unleaded petrol.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those petrol companies which are making vast profits from having motorway franchises should be made to install more than one unleaded pump at each of their stations —not next month or next year, but tomorrow? They could afford to take that action, and they should be made to do so.

There is no doubt that oil companies have an important role to play in ensuring that unleaded petrol is widely available. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that from 1990 all new cars must be manufactured to run on unleaded petrol. That, in turn, will have a major impact on the oil companies' attitudes.

Does the Minister accept that if the Labour party had won the last election we would have had a Ministry for Environmental Protection, which would have meant a comprehensive approach to the problem?

A lot more is being done by the Government than was done by any Labour Administration when it comes to the problems associated with vehicle emissions and unleaded petrol, and we shall continue to work energetically towards ensuring that cars can run on unleaded petrol and that every hon. Member can promote the use of unleaded petrol in his constituency. However, I regret that too few are promoting unleaded petrol through their constituency organisations and the local press. I hope that the letter that I have written to every hon. Member will assist in that direction.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, in addition to advertising the availability of unleaded petrol, his Department could contribute a great deal by emphasising to people, particularly through television, the ease and cheapness of converting some 7 million of the 18 million cars on the road to unleaded petrol?

I agree that we should continue with the active promotion of that sort of information, in which we are already fully engaged.

The only acceptable thing that the Minister has said is that he has been going up and down the country. That is true. But the Government's response to the problem is woefully inadequate. The Government are responsible for the fact that unleaded petrol is not readily available in Britain, unlike in other Western European countries. Is the Minister aware that the Motor Agents Association accurately estimates that any motorist converting his car to take lead free petrol at a low cost of £20 would take over 18 months to recoup that with the 5p a gallon concession that was introduced in the Budget? Is the Minister further aware that there would be no need to design new engines or adjust existing ones if the oil industry were to provide unleaded petrol of the quality needed by most cars—four star, premium grade, 97 octane? That has been available in the United States for years, but not a drop has been sold in the United Kingdom.

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not been going up and down the country, because many garages are offering free conversion to motorists. The cost of converting many vehicles is well under £20 and, in some cases, is free.

Since my part of the country is rapidly becoming a rally circuit for lorries, can my hon. Friend give us any encouragement about pollution from diesel lorries?

Pollutants from diesels are already low. Nevertheless, it is important for further work to be done on diesel particulate traps as well as looking at advanced diesel engine design. I hope that my hon. Friend will share with me the belief that there are many exciting new possibilities in this technology which will lower the incidence of pollutants from diesel engines.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to facilitate the purchase by leaseholders of flats of the freehold of their property.

The Government have no plans to give leaseholders of flats a right individually to buy the freehold. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 gives most leaseholders of flats rights of collective purchase in certain circumstances.

Since the Labour Government gave householders the right to buy their freeholds many years ago, is it not now time that the right was extended to people who live in flats to buy the freeholds of their properties in exactly the same way?

The Labour Government at that time did not give the right to leaseholders to buy flats, partly, I think, because they did not think it was desirable, but, secondly, because the freehold of the individual flat is not a satisfactory form of tenure under English property law as it now stands. The Law Commission has produced a report on commonhold, which proposes a statutory framework within which it would be satisfactory to own individual flats freehold. The report made no recommendation about compulsory conversion, but the Lord Chancellor has asked the Law Commission to prepare legislation to bring in a system of commonhold.

What information has my right hon. Friend about the rights that were given to leaseholders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to buy their property when it changed hands? Are those rights being used?

My hon. Friend is of course right to say that the 1987 Act gives leaseholders the right to collective rather than individual purchase in certain circumstances. I have no information on the extent to which it is being used so soon after the passage of the Act.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to review existing arrangements for the monitoring of water pollution; and if he will make a statement.

Arrangements for the monitoring of water pollution will be improved through the Water Privatisation Bill, which will allow for the establishment of a National Rivers Authority

In the light of recent studies suggesting a link between Alzheimer's disease and aluminium in drinking water, is the Minister not concerned that nine of the North West water authority regions are still supplying drinking water with limits in excess of those prescribed by the EC, when three years ago his predecessor informed the House that action was being taken to reduce the aluminium content? Why has nothing changed?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are taking seriously the specific study that has recently been published, and that we shall evaluate it in full when the report is available, probably later this year. I hope that I can allay the hon. Gentleman's concern about aluminium by pointing out that over 90 per cent. of the daily intake of aluminium comes from food, even when the water contains the maximum concentration allowed by the EC water directive.

In drawing up his future legislative thoughts, will my hon. Friend take into accout the delays in the implementation of the EC directive on bathing water quality, and the considerable scepticism felt by my constituents in the Ribble area about the North West water authority's proposals to reduce pollution levels in the Ribble estuary?

The majority of bathing waters in the United Kingdom already meet the requirements of the European Community directive on bathing waters, and some £70 million a year is being spent on improving the rest. spent on improving the rest. I assure my hon. Friend that we are assessing the implications of bringing all the remaining waters up to standard by 1995, and we have written to all the water authorities requesting detailed plans for each and every bathing water area.

Is the Minister assuring the House that after privatisation and the establishment of the National Rivers Authority adequate priority will be given, not merely to the monitoring of river and other water pollution, but to action by means of investment to ensure that those of our industrial area rivers that are open sewers will be improved, and that the rapidly deteriorating rivers of rural Britain, poisoned as they are by farms, will be brought back to health?

Yes, Sir.

Is it not a fact that the standard of water in this country is among the highest in the world? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues make it clear that some of the hysteria put out by various groups merely to worry hypochondriacs is sheer nonsense and should be countered?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Ninety per cent. of the rivers and estuaries in England and Wales are of good to fair quality, compared with 75 per cent. of the rivers and 85 per cent. of the estuaries in the European Community as a whole. There are now more than 100 species of fish in the Thames, which is the cleanest metropolitan estuary in the world.

Is the Minister aware that the minutes of the meeting held by the Water Authorities Association on 18 May record growing concern over the link between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease? Does he not share our view that something should be done now, in accordance with the wishes of the association, to reduce the amount of aluminium in water? Will he take action and make available to the House as soon as is practicable the report from the University of Southampton, which is dealing with this issue? We ask for immediate action, not delay until the privatisation of water.

I have made it clear to the House that when the full report on the study is available it will be assessed by medical experts. In the meantime, we have consulted our medical advisers, who consider that too much weight should not be placed on the results of any single study. One should bear in mind that the European water directive, setting the maximum permissible concentration of aluminium at 200 microgrammes per litre, was based on the appearance of water, not on health grounds.

:To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made in setting up a National Rivers Authority.

I welcome the appointment of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell as chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee. This committee will advise on the outline schemes of organisation that have now been submitted by all water authorities for the restructuring needed to form a separate NRA unit in their areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the argument between the water authorities and the Government over the establishment of a national authority centres on river basin management? How does he plan to overcome that difficulty?

I had not realised that that discussion was continuing, although there was such a concern when I first announced the establishment of the NRA as part of the Government's plans. It is clear that the NRA will be able to control the flow and management of the River basin, and it will be given sufficient powers and money to do that work.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the committee the constant complaints that are made about the state of the River Soar, which passes through my constituency and which gets clogged up with weeds? Complaints emanate from fishermen and rowers. I am the vice-president of the Leicester rowing club,. Will the Secretary of State ensure that action is now taken?

As vice-president of the Leicester rowing club, the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously has a sore point here. When the National Rivers Authority is in being, following the passing of the relevant Act, I shall make sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks are drawn immediately to the attention of the chairman, who, I am sure, will wish to make it a top priority to clean up his river.

Although good progress has been made with cleaning up our rivers, will my right hon. Friend commend to the NRA the important need to improve the Rivers Cole and Blythe in the Severn Trent region?

Three rivers that need improvement have now been mentioned to me. I agree with hon. Members who have expressed the view that we should be doing more to improve the quality of our rivers. The new NRA, which will be responsible for the water environment and will have the necessary powers and resources to carry out those duties, will lead to an improvement.

Why is the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water in the other place, writing on behalf of the Department of the Environment to the water industry trade unions, refusing to meet those unions at a time when the Government are making expensive appointments and arrangements for the NRA? How can the Secretary of State justify that offhand treatment of trade unions? Would it not be eminently more sensible for future good working relationships to keep the trade unions informed and consulted at all stages?

I shall make sure that the unions are consulted, when it is appropriate, on matters that are appropriate to consult them about. I imagine that the instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers may not be in that category.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the criteria applied in appeals for planning consent for building in green belt areas.

Planning policy on development in green belts is set out in planning policy guidance note No. 2, copies of which are in the Library. Inside a green belt planning permission should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing building other than for agriculture and forestry, outdoor sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds, and other uses appropriate to a rural area.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will apply those criteria to the area around his own house? Will he also apply them to land owned by such bodies as area health authorities, which frequently own the land around hospitals for the mentally handicapped? Will he use those criteria to make sure that hospitals, such as Westwood hospital in my constituency, are retained for the benefit of the people who live there in rolling acres, so that the land is not sold off for profitable development, but is retained for people who need as much help as they can get?

I have anticipated the hon. Gentleman, because a circular issued deals precisely with the point of redundant National Health Service hospitals in the green belt and more or less follows the same advice as the main circular. Of course, I cannot comment on any specific planning application as the hon. Gentleman suggested I should.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft circular confirms that the green belt should not be eaten into? Will he also confirm that it is a draft circular and that green fields should not be built on if there is vacant derelict land in public ownership that could be built on first? Once the housing allocation in the local plan has been used up for the five-year period, will he confirm that planning inspectors will be told to refuse applications if the number of houses proposed is greater than the number scheduled in the local plan?

The circular about which I spoke in response to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) deals with the green belt. It is not a draft circular and has not been changed for many decades. My hon. Friend asks about the draft circular on local plans. As I said earlier, I confirm that where a local plan is up to date and formal my inspectors and I would be very likely to adhere to what is in that plan on appeal, even if the plan had no further room for development because all space had been used up.

Does the Secretary of State notice how the interchange of green belt and green fields comes from his hon. Friends? Not every green field is green belt, and that point must be continually reinforced. If we had never built on a green field, no one would ever have had a home.

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is imperative for people to understand the difference between any green field and land that is in the statutory green belt. It is the latter that causes people great concern, and I have solidly adhered to the view that it should never be built on except for the reasons that I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his review of sport for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

My review of sport for people with disabilities was launched in February and should be completed early in 1989. We shall be looking at how best to enhance the opportunities for those with disabilities to participate in sport from local to international level. With the paralympics taking place in Seoul in the autumn, it is time that newspapers began to report the achievements of our disabled athletes on the sports pages, not the news pages.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware that there is great respect for his commitment to promoting sports for the disabled? We have many disabled sportsmen and sportswomen of great distinction and their interests are best served by focusing on their sporting ability rather than on their physical disability.

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point.

In the light of the Minister's justified recognition of the value to disabled sportsmen of international competition, may we take it that in any proposals to hold international competition for the disabled in the United Kingdom the Minister will do his best to ensure that adequate funds are available?

The hon. and learned Member knows well that the Sports Council decides on its priorities, irrespective of Government comment. He will also know that the intention of this review is to highlight the importance of such international events. I hope that that will encourage the Sports Council to look more favourably upon providing adequate financial support for these very important international meetings about which the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks.

Is the Minister aware that one sport in which this country excels is rifle shooting? Will he have words with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the retention of the self-loading rifle with integral magazine—

Order. The question is about disabled people.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The self-loading rifle with integral magazine for five rounds is the rifle most frequently used by disabled people.

My hon. Friend has asked me to refer the matter to the Home Secretary and I shall, of course, do so.

The Minister made a statement yesterday to the Central Council of Physical Recreation that he intends to privatise the management services of local authority sports centres and swimming baths, but he quite rightly expects provision to be made for the disabled and unemployed. How does he expect local authorities to do that when most of them are already rate capped or cash limited and he intends to impose upon them responsibility for meeting all the loan charges, maintenance costs and central services for sports facilities which they no longer control and which are being run by private enterprise for profit?

I have made this point four or five times in the right hon. Gentleman's presence. The Government did not announce yesterday that they intend to privatise management services. I made it very clear that the Government are considering whether to put out to competitive tendering the management contracts for local authority sports and recreation facilities.

Will my hon. Friend discuss with local education authorities how the welcome practice of making facilities in schools—especially swimming pools—available to the public can be extended to provide access for the disabled so that they, too may benefit from that increasing dual use?

I shall, and that issue has already been given full consideration by the review group.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for homelessness in England and Wales.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to reduce the level of homelessness.

In the first quarter of 1988 local authorities in England secured accommodation for 31,070 households accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985.

Is not the allocation that the Minister has announced a pathetic pittance when set against the extent of homelessness, which the Housing Bill will make worse? Does not that allocation come from the £141 million underspend of local authorities last year? What is the Minister doing with the rest of that underspend? Is he giving it to the rich to help them with their mansions, or to the Prime Minister to leave her property in Dulwich empty?

I am surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that £74 million is a pathetic pittance. I think that he has got his adjectives wrong. He may like to know that the London borough of Waltham Forest at the moment has 83 houses available for letting and 308 houses empty and being repaired, while the number of homeless households is only 235. The number of available houses is almost double the number of homeless households. That is the problem; it is not to do with more money.

I remind the Secretary of State that 1987 was the United Nations international year of shelter for the homeless. Does he realise that the Government's contribution was in inverse proportion to that effort to the extent that homelessness in this country has simply rocketed, not least in my constituency of Newport, East? Even at this late stage, will the Secretary of State give top priority to this great social evil, by releasing the moneys that are held after the sale of council houses?

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. Last year was the international year of shelter for the homeless. However, figures relating to his own town might interest him. I understand that in his town of Newport 130 houses are available for letting but are empty, and that the number of households accepted as homeless is 68—so there is no problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that absolutely nothing is done for the homeless or for the Housing Bill, which he mentioned a moment ago, if the deplorable practice of gazumping continues? Will he please call in the builders' leaders forthwith and tell them that it must stop?

All hon. Members dislike gazumping, wherever it takes place. However, no schemes have found widespread support as methods of bringing gazumping to an end.