To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the Government's response to the recommendations from the Government-appointed ozone review group of scientists; and, in particular, if the Government support that group's recommendations for an 85 per cent. cut in the output of chlorofluorocarbon gases.

The Government will be studying the full report carefully as soon as it is available. In the meantime we have taken very careful note of the summary and its warning about the need to strengthen the Montreal protocol.

For the first time in 23 years and four months I have question No. 1 on the Order Paper. I am delighted to ask the Minister whether he accepts that it is time that the Government realised that, despite their usual reluctance to take appropriate analysis and the necessary action, in the coming years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] No. I want to get my facts and figures right. Some of us like to be precise in what we say and not as vague as the Treasury Bench usually is. In the coming years there must be an 85 per cent. cut in the output of chlorofluorocarbons just to stabilise the atmosphere. The Government really cannot daily dawdle any longer on this question.

The hon. Gentleman having question No. 1 on the Order Paper, it is indeed a glorious revolution.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than listening to the ritual kick at the chemical industry from the Labour party, he should encourage the industry to do the research to bring in the necessary products to replace chlorofluorocarbon gases? Will he take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of companies such as ISC in my constituency, which is trying to find such replacements, for the benefit of our people?

I recognise and applaud all those United Kingdom producers who are actively engaged in research and development work. It is essential that we give those companies time to test for the toxicity of the replacements. The Government have grant-aided a United Kingdom firm to develop a recovery and recycling process for the production of polyurethane foam.

Because of a lack of time the Minister was unable to respond to all the points raised in the debate the other night. Will he take this opportunity to tell us what his attitude is towards the so-called greenhouse effect, which will be caused by the depletion of the ozone layer? Does he believe the scientists who say that there will be tremendous problems in terms of food growth, diminishing water supplies, and so on? Does he take the matter seriously?

We certainly take seriously the scientific evidence on the greenhouse effect, but the hon. Lady will know that that covers a range of emissions, not just chlorofluorocarbons and halons. It is important that we consider the other emissions, which we are doing, not least through recent negotiations in the European Commission. I undertook to respond to all the points raised during the debate, and today I have cleared a four-page draft, which will be sent to all hon. Members who spoke in that debate.

If we are concerned about the upper atmosphere, can we not use our international influence to conserve the great rain forests from short-term privation? Will the Minister confirm that that is important?

That is important, and that is why the Overseas Development Administration is actively involved in projects to minimise the effects that have occurred as a result of the depletion of the rain forests. I welcome the ODA's initiative in that respect.

Does the Minister accept that we have only one ozone layer and that, if it goes, as the policy makers and scientists at the Toronto conference in June said, we could have been gambling with an unintended globally pervasive experiment, the ultimate consequences of which could be second only to a global nuclear war? We are talking about saving mankind from the destruction of the ozone layer. [Interruption.] We are certainly talking about recent significant increases in skin cancer, which have resulted from the depletion of the ozone layer. Why will the Government not accept the findings of their own appointed ozone review group of scientists, who say that an 85 per cent. reduction is needed? Will he confirm also that the Montreal protocol talked about a cut of only 35 per cent. in production and a 50 per cent. cut in consumption? Will he confirm also that we do not have to attack the chemical industry to want substitutes to be developed to replace CFCs?

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that there is only one ozone layer. For that reason, it is important that the protocol has as many signatories as possible. To be too stringent and to lose major signatories, such as the Soviet Union, would be a great mistake. That is why it is essential, first, to get the protocol in place and then to ensure that within it there are review measures and appropriate machinery calling for more stringent measures when we need them. That is provided in the protocol.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent estimate he has made of the number of people liable to pay the poll tax in Lewisham.

Almost all of Lewisham's adult population of 179,000 will be subject to the personal community charge.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency many households consist of three or more adults? Does he acknowledge that 99 per cent. of those households will be losers, even with the safety net masking the real effects of the poll tax, and that 74 per cent. of all the population of Lewisham will be losers? Will he take this opportunity today to show generosity of spirit for a change and reassure the 11,000 people with disabilities in Lewisham that he will accept the Lords amendments and give rebates of 100 per cent. to them?

I do not accept the figures given by the hon. Lady. They seem wholly to ignore the effect of rebates. It is through rebates that those who suffer from disability can best have their needs recognised in relation to their liability to the community charge.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that what will most concern those 179,000 people will be the amount of the community charge in Lewisham when the safety net goes? Is he aware that one further year of rate capping has reduced that notional figure from £675 to £575? Does he agree that Lewisham council could easily find savings over the next five years to cut that by another £300, so that when the safety net goes the charge would be about £250?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Lewisham and the ILEA spent what they should be spending to cater for the needs of their residents, the community charge in Lewisham would be £202 on the current year's figures, as it would be in every other local authority in the country.

Does the Minister accept the figures published by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently, which show that the average domestic rates bill per household or family in Lewisham is £575 per annum and that the poll tax for Lewisham is £577 per person? There can be no better exemplification of what a rotten deal for Lewisham the poll tax is.

The figure for Lewisham, with the safety net, is £320. The purpose of the safety net is to allow authorities, such as Lewisham, time to bring their spending down from the unjustifiable levels at which they presently spend.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government are to consider the banning of two-star leaded petrol as part of their campaign to promote the use of lead-free petrol.

We continue to consider the banning of two-star leaded petrol, but our current policy is to use the market to secure the change to unleaded petrol. In his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer adjusted the duty differential so that unleaded petrol is on sale at a price comfortably lower than both four-star and two-star leaded fuels. We are, however, carefully monitoring the uptake of the new fuel.

Is the Minister aware of the success of the decision in West Germany, which has resulted in 25 per cent. fewer emissions and 2,000 fewer tonnes of pollution in the atmosphere? If the Government are serious about removing such pollution, instead of simply pleasing the big petrol companies, will they take a more realistic approach to excise duty than that displayed in the Budget? Will the hon. Gentleman make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the West Germans started from a 30 per cent. consumption level of two-star as opposed to 8 per cent. here. While the banning of two-star has been successful in West Germany, many of those who were previously using two-star leaded were queueing at the pumps for four-star leaded, so there is no direct correlation between banning two-star and moving across to unleaded patrol.

In conjunction with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, will my hon. Friend persuade car manufacturers to ensure that, at the point of sale, all vehicles for use in this country can take lead-free petrol rather than requiring adjustments as they do now, so that those who wish to drive on dirty fuel will pay for the privilege?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that all new models from 1990 onwards will be able to run on unleaded petrol.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for new towns he is aware of; and if he will make a statement.

I am aware of some 15 planning applications for free-standing settlements which might involve more than 1,000 houses. We have made it clear that such proposals must be subject to normal planning procedures and must be considered within the framework of existing planning policies.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable concern that arises when rural areas are faced with a planning application for a substantial new town, because of the expense and the delay of the planning procedure. Will he attempt to short-circuit that process by issuing guidance on the scale of the development that he considers appropriate in rural areas that are not within the green belt?

Local planning matters are for local planning authorities, unless the application is of national or regional importance and is subject to call-in or appeal. It is for the local people first to express a view through their district council. I issued guidance recently recommending the possibility of much smaller settlements than the one to which my hon. Friend refers as a way of rejuvenating life in the more rural areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies he is considering to encourage the development of derelict land.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider the present arrangements and conditions concerning the making of derelict land grants.

I am maintaining support for the derelict land grant programme. Resources for 1988–89 stand at £77·4 million and priority is given to schemes for the reclamation of urban sites intended for private sector industrial, commercial or housing development.

Will my hon. Friend's Department establish a land use survey of all land, derelict and otherwise, that is developable? Should there not be a presumption against the development of green field sites on a county by county basis until all the developable land has been used?

If my hon. Friend had substituted the words "green belt" for "green field site" I could have met his concern. There is such a thing as the national derelict land survey. I expect the preliminary report to come to me before the end of the year, and I hope to publish it early next year.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the present regulations governing payment for derelict land militate against the recovery of land and the enhancement of the environment in colliery and coalfield areas such as mine, where 1,000 acres of land may be unimproved and unrecovered? Will he look again at the hard use requirement under the existing regulations, to give areas such as mine a chance of a decent prospect?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, particularly about the Dearne valley part of his constituency. As a result of the representations that he and other hon. Members have recently made to me I am prepared to consider the after use criteria attached to the derelict land grant. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will he pleased to hear that I have announced today that there is to be an urban development grant of about £454,000 to support a housing programme scheme in the Rawmarsh part of his constituency.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). He stressed the green belt versus green field site difference. From his reply, am I to assume that it is definitely not the policy of the Department of the Environment to encourage the development of new towns in existing green belts?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that in the Civic Trust's report, entitled "Urban Wasteland Now," which is to be published tomorrow, there is a recommendation that the Government should commission an urgent study of the taxation of derelict land? With the abolition of rates, will the Minister seriously consider taxing derelict land, which people can hold idle at no cost to themselves, so that local and central Government can benefit from additional revenue to bring back life in the inner cities?

I should not think that that proposal would meet with favour within the Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is wholly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposal to tip 7·5 million tonnes of domestic waste from the cities of New York, Boston and Philadelphia on the derelict site at Arpley near Warrington new town? Is he further aware that it is entirely unacceptable that the north-west should be made the world's dustbin?

My hon. Friend is aware that, in the first instance, that matter is the responsibility of the local authority, but he may draw comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport recently met a delegation. I understand that an announcement will be forthcoming in the near future.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), the Minister said that he would look at the regulations and conditions that apply to the derelict land grant in mining areas. In view of the rapid rundown of the mining industry—the Minister is aware of the conditions that apply in the Wakefield area—will he ensure that there is sufficient finance to meet the needs of local authorities in areas in which, because of the mining industry, there has been extensive dereliction?

When I replied to the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) I referred to his and other representations. I included representations that were compellingly made to me by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of all parties on the local council. As a result, I am prepared to look again at the fairly narrow criteria that we have had in place for some years now regarding the soft or hard after use, which is within the criteria of DLG. I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I could not consider that matter until I had the initial results of the derelict land grant survey, which, as I said earlier, will be in my hands prior to Christmas.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the draft planning circular regarding the development of unused public land.

The draft planning policy guidance note on local plans were issued on 15 June. I have had very few representations so far. The consultation period continues until 10 August.

In furtherance of the initiative for inner cities, and to assist in the continued refurbishment of the urban infrastructure, will my hon. Friend extend the directions, which now apply only to local authorities, to public utilities and Government bodies generally, so that they list their unused land and ensure that it is brought on to the market?

I can reassure my hon. Friend. Under the inner cities initiative, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister six months ago, not only local authorities but public utilities and Government Departments should be responsible for maintaining and publishing records of unused and under-used land in their possession.

Does the Minister accept that such guidance to Government Departments should say that what is needed is not just money but facilities for young people? Does he accept also that the money spent on the Stranmillis training college ground at Shaw's Bridge could be better used on a sports complex in Northern Ireland, along the lines of Billy Bingham's imaginative scheme?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office. We must be specific about what we are discussing. We are talking about an audit, not only of land, but of buildings, supplied by local authorities and by other public utilities and Government Departments. The direction that it is within our power to issue is another matter, which we shall discuss later.

Has my hon. Friend noticed the number of questions that are being tabled on this subject, showing the close interest in it—not least my question No. 62? Is he aware that a more robust attitude towards unused derelict land is likely to go a long way towards easing the housing shortage about which we all hear?

My hon. Friend is right. It was for that precise reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the initiative on this audit of property owned by local authorities and other public bodies. We are conscious of the fact that many public bodies are land hoarders and are not pressed to bring that land back on to the market. That intention lies behind the new initiative, and we are determined to see it through.

Why do we concentrate on land owned by local authorities and public bodies and never think about the private landowners, who often sterilise huge chunks of land which are over-priced and consequently never developed? That leaves many spots in major cities that could be developed. Why does the Minister not do something about that land as well?

It would be extremely difficult for us to do that. The hon. Gentleman should think about his suggestion. His back garden would be regarded as private land. Is he suggesting that the Government should register all pieces of private land? That would be unthinkable, and certainly impracticable.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority swimming pools, sports halls and playing fields there are in England.

There are more than 1,030 local authority swimming pools, including school pools in full public use, and approximately 1,500 local authority sports halls. No figures are held centrally for playing fields.

Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that his borough, Lewisham, has described his proposals for the privatisation of these facilities as

"bad for the public and retrograde for sport"?

This will not be the first time that I have strongly disagreed with Lewisham council. These proposals will yield better value for money for local authority expenditure. We shall have more effective management and better marketing of facilities and greater sensitivity to the community's needs.

Will my hon. Friend look into the practice of Haringey council, which is to close its open air swimming pools and allow the sites to be occupied by so-called gipsies, or travellers, much to the disturbance of the local population?

I greatly regret that my hon. Friend's council should have made such a priority in spending its resources. It is very important that local authorities up and down the country should continue to make provision for sport and recreation facilities and to make that provision a high priority.

Surely the Minister recognises that it is not true to say that local councils will have discretion on charging policies. They will be bound by other sections of the Local Government Act 1988 and they will be affected by the poll tax Bill, which we shall finalise later today. The Bill will force local authorities to increase charges—or at least the people operating those facilities will put charges up. That will lead to reduced use and many people will be deprived of the sporting facilities that are now available.

I repeat that it is nonsense to suggest that prices will rise. Local authorities will continue to retain discretionary control over pricing, if they so wish. For the first time, local authorities will be required to identify the specific costs of operating their facilities. That must be good for the community charge payer and for the users of the facilities.

The need for sports facilities—which add greatly to the quality of life—is not in dispute. Is it not the case, however, that there is a world of difference between the capital cost of such provision and the cost of proper maintenance and use of them? Do not local authorities have a duty to recognise the revenue consequences of their capital investment and a duty to ensure continuing value for money?

Yes, they do.

Will the Minister accept that, in addition to the figures that he has just given to the House, local authorities and the ratepayers have provided 650 athletic centres, 700 golf courses, 8,700 bowling greens and 33,000 tennis courts? Does it make any sense to prise away the management of 45,000 local authority sports facilities worth £5 billion to £6 billion? Has the Minister gone mad, or will he take away this ideological nonsense and assure the House that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not impose his pricing on local authorities, as he is empowered to do under the recent Act? Can the Minister name a single local authority association in this country—Left, Right or Centre—which supports this nonsense?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's list of different sporting facilities, the answer is that each and every one of them should benefit from competitive tendering for management contracts. When the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to review the responses to the consultative exercise that we did on the proposal, he will note that 216 local authorities have now had their specific concerns eased by the provision of discretionary price control. Ninety one local authorities were concerned about the implications for disadvantaged groups, and their concern has gone as a result of discretionary price control. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the name of one local authority that supported the proposal. If he looks at the list in the Library he will find well over 200 authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Building Societies Association; and what was discussed.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning met the chairman of the Building Societies Association at the meeting of the committee on private finance for housing held on 14 July. The committee discussed various ways in which private finance could be introduced into the provision of public sector housing.

The Secretary of State knows that his own bungling over housing and planning and the Chancellor's bungling over interest rates have meant that 9 million home owners face a massive hike in housing costs starting next week. At least he can say—as the officers of Britain's largest building society said yesterday—that he feels sorry for new lenders in this position. When he is in Newcastle tomorrow, will he call at Ridley place, named after his ancestors, to explain to the people there why people with large mortgages get a subsidy organised from the extra paid by people with small mortgages?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be no more aware of the difference between lenders and borrowers than he is of the difference between losers and gainers. Perhaps he would like to look in Hansard and see what an extraordinary question he asked. As he knows, matters to do with mortgage interest relief are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Did the chairman of the Building Societies Association acknowledge that more first-time buyers are realising their lifetime's ambition of home ownership than ever before? Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the scourge of gazumping, and how practical and immediate steps might be taken to eliminate it? Is he not disturbed by the report of the Public Accounts Committee, published yesterday, that Land Registry delays are at an all-time high, and will he take immediate steps to ensure that all local authorities reply to requests for local searches and so reduce the delay in house purchase procedures as far as practicably possible?

On my hon. Friend's first question, I am glad to be able to tell him that in 1979 the number of first-time buyers was 390,000, whereas last year it was 620,000. I can also tell him that in the first quarter of 1987 there were 34,000 fewer loan approvals for first-time buyers than in the first quarter of this year. The most up-to-date figures show a large increase in first-time buyers. I have nothing to say about gazumping on this occasion, and it was not discussed at the meeting to which I referred. I share my hon. Friend's concern about Land Registry delays, but they are a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Will the Secretary of State tell the building societies that the massive increase in interest rates facing those with mortgages is a direct result of the overheating of the economy triggered by this year's Budget package? What hopes does he hold out to the building societies of a more stable and even policy on interest rates in the future.

No, Sir, I shall not be telling the building societies any such thing, nor would I dare to enter into territory that is not my responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Building Societies Association a problem felt acutely in my constituency, namely, the difficulties faced by people on average earnings who wish to become first-time buyers but cannot find a house at a price that they can afford? Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important contribution to solving the problem can be made by approving a slightly faster rate of residential development, especially in areas where there are plentiful employment opportunities?

The figures that I have just given the House do not bear out my hon. Friend's assertion that fewer people are able to become first-time buyers. There has been a phenomenal increase. However, I admire my hon. Friend's bravery in urging upon me that I should be more liberal in granting planning permissions in the south-east of England. Perhaps one reason for the current high level of house prices in those areas of the country is that I have not been as liberal as some people seem to suggest.

When the Secretary of State next meets the building societies, will he discuss with them the fears and difficulties that may arise with the introduction of mixed funding for housing association schemes? There is fear that because values in the inner cities and outer estates have fallen, but costs are high, that will prevent the introduction of housing association schemes for people in housing need. Will the Secretary of State discuss those difficulties, because there are real fears?

Those problems have been discussed on many occasions with the building societies and others. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of private finance that is suitable for any given housing association scheme will be adjusted between the higher and lower figures. It is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that attracting private finance to supplement housing association grant can only mean that there will be less money in total for the provision of low-cost housing to rent, which I believe to be important, even if he does not.

As a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the truth that the surest way of curtailing inflation is to have interest rates at an appropriate level that will restrain inflation? Has he pointed out to the building societies an elementary truth—that one way in which we shall be able to halt the increase in house prices is to build more houses in those parts of the country in which people want to live?

As one former Treasury Minister to another, I believe that it behoves neither of us to go far into the question of economic policy on an occasion such as this because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might feel that that would take us beyond the question. The other question asked by my hon. Friend can only be answered by saying that the supply of land for new housing must have a bearing on house prices. If there were to be no more planning permissions granted, at one extreme, or if there were to be an abandonment of planning control, at the other extreme, I cannot believe that there is anybody in the House who would not accept that that would have an effect on house prices, either up or down. There must be a connection.

Is it not a unique combination of achievements that the Secretary of State's policies have brought us to record homelessness, huge housing waiting lists, spiralling house prices, huge mortgage increases, and the return of Rachmanism and gazumping? Is that not failure just by any test but failure by every test? Before the Secretary of State replies, perhaps he will tell the House whether his reply has been drafted by Sir Alan Walters or by Bernard Ingham.

My reply has been drafted by no one—nor do I accept the hon. Gentleman's premises. Those who do accept those premises, as the hon. Gentleman does, will perhaps deduce the obvious lesson, that we are pursuing a very tight land use planning policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his latest estimate of the level of poll tax that would be payable in Coventry under the terms of the Local Government Finance Bill; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Could that possibly be because people in Coventry are only just becoming aware that were this the first year of the operation of poll tax every adult would be paying £267; that 70 per cent. of all adults would be paying more; that of the 18 electoral wards in Coventry, residents would be paying more in 14 of them; and that those wards that will be hit the worst, such as St. Michael's, and Foleshill, are also those that have the highest unemployment, the worst housing, and the most overcrowding? Finally, may I give the Minister due notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Could I give the Minister due notice that it is solidarity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Could I give the Minister due notice——

Order. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—[Interruption.] It sounded as if the hon. Gentleman used an interrogative term.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Name him.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that points of order are taken after Question Time.

rose——

Name him.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I hope that he will not persist. He knows that, following the practice laid down——

rose——

The hon. Gentleman must not persist in challenging my ruling or I shall have no alternative—[Interruption.] Order. This is a serious matter and I hope that hon. Members will recognise it as such. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, he must do so at the end of Question Time.

May I give the Minister due notice that, irrespective of what happens in today's deliberations, in solidarity with the mass campaign of non-payment, which has begun in Scotland and which will develop in England, Wales and Coventry——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. I call the Minister to answer.

I will not pay the poll tax and I will advise my constituents not to do so.

Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats——

rose——

Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not misleading his constituents. The report on which his assertions are based left rebates out of account. Even that report disclosed that two out of three households in Coventry will pay less in community charge than they presently pay in rates. Are those the benefits that the hon. Gentleman seeks to deny his constituents?

Is it not true that Coventry is in a similar position to Derbyshire, in that the projected community charge is far higher than it needs to be because of the profligacy of the local authority?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When that profligacy is brought home to all the community charge payers of Derbyshire they will no doubt make full use of the remedies available to them at the ballot box.

Did not the same report, so gleefully quoted by the Minister, point out that 51 per cent. of adults in Coventry will lose, before the £20 a head surcharge?

Since the report left rebates out of account, that finding is completely valueless.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1974 the annual amount of capital spending on sports facilities by (a) English local authorities, and (b) the Sports Council; and if he will give his estimate of private sector spending.

Over the period since 1974 the figures for English local authorities on an annual basis in millions of pounds are as follows: 84·2; 87·5; 74·8; 64·7; 48·4; 71·6; 100·7; 89·7; 122·5; 122·2; 191; 143·4 and 166. For the Sports Council, the figures are: 2·7; 3·4; 4·4; 4·4; 4; 7; 6·4; 7·3; 8·5; 13; 11·4; 9·5; 9·8 and 13·4.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which he read with great feeling and understanding. May I suggest that those figures show that the public sector has invested in sport and recreation, and that it is because of the public sector that people in my constituency are able to use leisure centres, sports facilities and swimming pools? His lack of figures and his embarrassment about them show that the private sector has not invested. He and his ministerial colleagues now want to take the rich pickings from the public sector, together with the public sector's care and investment, and give those to the private sector so that it can make the profit and the public will lose as a result.

There is hardly a lack of figures, but the hon. Gentleman did not listen. If he had listened, he would have heard me say that private sector spending on the sponsorship of sport has risen from £60 million to £200 million over a period of eight years.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, from the end of this month, because of gross mismanagement, the Inner London education authority will be mothballing 250 acres of sports grounds, preventing the young people of London playing sport there. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that ILEA will work with the local authorities, the Sports Council and the governing bodies of sport to keep those grounds open?

With my full support, an enormous amount of work is now going on with the local authorities and community-based organisations to achieve management arrangements for all the sites. Since the Sports Council entered the scene, it is now optimistic that it will shortly be possible to settle management arrangements for 10 of the sites and negotiations are continuing in respect of the other two. I am sure that my hon. Friend will celebrate that news.

Does the Minister accept that an increase in advertising at sports events by cigarette companies is no substitute for investment by the public sector? Does he accept that his figures show that the public sector, local authorities and the Sports Council have invested heavily in sports facilities that are open to all and that, through privatisation, he is handing over the rich pickings to the private sector so that it can come along and make a profit out of sport? [Interruption.] Conservative Members find the exploitation of profit-making out of sport and the barring of people on low incomes very amusing, but it is a matter of great concern to us.

Of course I recognise that both the Sports Council and local authorities have invested in ensuring that we promote sport-for-all policies. I welcome that, but it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman not to give full credit to the substantial amount of private sector involvement in sport and recreation, which is much to be celebrated.

Where?

The hon. Gentleman asks, "Where?". He should look at the answer in Hansard.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some areas only one primary school in eight is teaching cricket, that the rest of the public sector is not picking up that problem and that we shall not win Test matches until something is done about that? Will he initiate a national scheme of coaching in the public sector, working together with the private sector, to do something about that, for the sake of the boys and girls of this country?

I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the Kwik Cricket development has helped considerably, not least with regard to inner city projects, and that the initiative being taken by the Test and County Cricket Board and the Sports Council is much to be welcomed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been established in England and Wales since their introduction; and if he will make a statement.

The provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, enabling local planning authorities to prepare and adopt simplified planning zones, came into effect in November 1987. So far, six authorities in England and Wales are known to be preparing schemes and two of those are near to adoption.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that simplified planning zones can help to cut out unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy and make a significant contribution to the regeneration of rundown urban areas? Will he tell me whether he has received an application from my council, Kirklees, and, if not, whether he would welcome such an application?

My hon. Friend is well known as a strong and powerful advocate for this form of deregulation in that area of planning, and I compliment him on his tenacity.

Has not simplified planning in enterprise zones been a disaster in my constituency of Workington? Will the Minister comment on the fact that the only place in Britain where one can build houses freely without planning permission is in the Workington enterprise zone? Is that not disgraceful? Why have I repeatedly had to come back to the Government, and why have they repeatedly not taken any action?

What is disgraceful is that the hon. Gentleman should castigate the enterprise zone in his constituency, when I know for a fact that it has been an unmitigated success. Having officially visited his constituency three times in the past 18 months, I can confirm that that enterprise zone has physically transformed the landscape and had a significant impact on reducing the level of unemployment.

Is it not high time that England became a simplified planning zone, and is it not in the interests of objectors as well as applicants that we have a simplified and faster planning system in this country?

My hon. Friend's concerns could easily be met if I receive applications from every local authority in the land for simplified planning zone status.

Is the Minister thinking of making Horsham a simplified planning zone? Is he aware that Horsham seems to have taken that on itself by giving dispensation to Conservative councillors there to vote so that an empty council house is now used as offices for the Horsham Conservative Association? What is the Minister going to do about that? Does he agree that that is not only corruption but the theft of public property for the private gain of the Tory party? Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn that action and ensure that the council is prevented from pursuing it?

I am not aware of the specific instance that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he thinks that that is in any way connected with the substantive question on the Order Paper, he is stretching credulity to breaking point.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has recently received regarding the current levels of aluminium contained in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in Britain have water supplies with aluminium concentrations in excess of the European Community directive limit of 200 microgrammes per litre.

I have received a number of representations following the publication of some alarmist press articles. However, medical advisers assure me that current aluminium concentrations in water supplies are not a danger to health. The European Community directive limit was set in relation to the appearance of water. It was not set on health grounds, and the 2 million people in England who receive water with aluminium concentrations above 200 microgrammes per litre are not at risk. Programmes of improvement for these supplies are nevertheless in hand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who reside in areas where there is a high concentration of aluminium will welcome the news that he has given us in his answer? However, will he none the less agree to the establishment of an independent research facility to determine once and for all that there is no causal connection between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease, or does he believe that there is still a connection with drinking excess quantities of tea?

There are a large number of alternative theories about the cause of Alzheimer's disease, but only one of that large number suggests a possible link with aluminium, and that theory has not yet been published. It has not been possible to study it because it has not been received. It might further reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents if I say that, on average, people in this country take in less than 5 per cent. of the aluminium that they take in during a year from their water supplies, and that the other 95 per cent. comes from sources such as food.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is so much metal in our water supplies these days that it brings a new meaning to the term "Iron Maiden"? Will he go through the list of those areas where there are identifiable levels of aluminium in the water supply and tell the House where they are? From my point of view, is Newham on the list?

I cannot answer that question without notice, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have any information that I have. The aluminium is put there as part of a process to kill microbiological organisms, which are far more dangerous than the aluminium salts.

The House will be glad to hear of the advice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received from an expert body. Is he aware that two separate research studies have been carried out by eminent doctors in Southampton and Newcastle, which show a causal link between the aluminium content in water and Alzheimer's disease, and possible clinical disorders? Will my right hon. Friend further examine this matter and perhaps make a statement, written or oral, at a later stage?

As I have said already, the findings of the Southampton study have not yet been published. It is impossible to comment upon the study until its findings have been published and examined. My advisers will assess it when it is received. The reason for the European Community directive on this subject is to do with the appearance of water, which, with a large amount of aluminium salts in it, is rather unattractive for drinking purposes. The issue is not whether aluminium is dangerous to health. The issue is an appearance standard, not a health safeguard.

The Secretary of State is being especially complacent on this issue, and he should stop misleading the House. There are almost 4 million people drinking water that is polluted by aluminium. Much research shows a relationship between Alzheimer's disease and brain damage. Action should be taken immediately. Money should be made available to make our drinking water safe to drink. The Government can find plenty of cash for other things.

The hon. Gentleman is not right. He should be pleased with good news instead of calling it complacency