To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on local authority rent arrears in London.

Rent arrears to local authorities in London rose by 24 per cent. in 1987–88, from £84 million to £104 million. They are mainly concentrated in a small number of Labour-controlled inner-London boroughs. One third of the total arrears in England and two thirds of the national increase last year was in the worst 10 authorities, nine of which are London boroughs.

In the light of those staggering figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that if local authorities were more efficient in collecting their rents not only would their housing revenue accounts be in better shape, but they would be less assiduous in making ever-increasing calls on the taxpayer for more and more money?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. For instance, in Labour-controlled Barking and Dagenham, arrears constitute 3·2 per cent. of the rent roll. In Brent, the figure is 46·9 per cent. in terms of rent and if rates are added it is nearly 100 per cent. That may, of course, be because three Brent Labour councillors together owe amounts of rent which must add up to £8,000.

Is the Minister aware that in the Labour-controlled London borough of Waltham Forest rent arrears have been more than halved from the level under the previous Tory-Liberal controlled council and that the only reason for rent arrears across London increasing has been the cuts in social security benefits, especially housing benefit?

That last comment is not true. It is interesting to note that the 10 authorities with the highest rent arrears are Brent, Lambeth, Southwark, Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Liverpool, Waltham Forest—the eighth highest—Greenwich and Camden. They are all Labour authorities, they are all a disgrace and they should all be put right.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leader of Brent council owes £2,000 in rent arrears, and that the vice-chairman of the Lambeth housing committee owes £1,500 in rent arrears, having collected £29,000 in council attendance allowances in two years? When will my right hon. Friend put into the Local Government and Housing Bill a clause which bans people from remaining councillors if they wilfully owe rent and rates to their local authorities?

I understand that my hon. Friend is a member of the Standing Committee on that Bill, so he will be able to express his views on that matter. I think that he is wrong about the leader of Brent council who I believe is not now in arrears—[Interruption.] I do not want to go into the history of this as it would be embarrassing. I agree with my hon. Friend about the Lambeth example, in respect of which my comments in the House were attacked by the Opposition but supported by the local representative of the National and Local Government Officers Association.

Before Conservative Members turn their hatred on other councillors, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Secretary of State's own research shows that council housing is far better managed than housing associations? Why has the Audit Commission commended Brent council on its rent collection procedures and recommended that the Government help by recognising that those arrears have accrued over three different Administrations—including Conservative ones—and that it should have the burden lifted from it? Does the Minister agree with the housing movement generally that the reason for increased rent arrears is housing benefit cuts, or does he agree with the former Under-Secretary of State for Social Services, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who said that the real reason was that rents had been put up by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, wrong. On housing management, the Maclennan report states:

"In general, tenants regarded housing associations as better providers of management services than councils".

What action has been taken through the courts—by fellow councillors who do not belong to the loony Left, by fellow ratepayers who resent district councils cheating them, or by the district auditor—to prevent the scandal from continuing?

People should be taken to court by the councils to which they owe the rent. The problem is that if councillors do not support their officers' attempts to take people who do not pay their rent to court, the officers cease to be able to do their job properly. The trouble is that all those who do not pay their rent put a burden on others who may be much less well off. In a world of generous housing benefit, those who need help get it through the housing benefit system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available figure for homelessness; and what was the figure in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available extra moneys to local authorities, to assist them with any increased housing or advice needs consequent on the rises in mortgage interest rates and the report of the Audit Commission on bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for homelessness in England and Wales.

In the 12 months to September 1988 English authorities accepted responsibility for 116,220 homeless households; in 1979 the figure was 57,200. For Welsh figures I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Does the Minister appreciate that the leading cause of this distressing social problem is repossession due to mortgage arrears? Quite apart from the situation in London, is he aware that in Wales the rate of repossessions due to mortgage arrears is seven times higher than it was in 1979? Is it not time that the Government took active measures to tackle this problem, first by lowering interest rates and secondly through a major public housing drive?

The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his supplementary question before he read the report from the Building Societies Association, which was widely covered in this morning's press. I am pleased to note that figures published today by the BSA show that mortgage arrears and possessions in the second half of 1988 continued to decline. The director general of the BSA, commenting on those figures, said:

"Statistical analysis shows no relationship between interest rates and either possessions or arrears. In general an increase in interest rates, even a substantial one, does not change a good borrower into a potential possession case."

As the plight of those who languish in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not a matter of party political controversy but is accepted by all, will the Minister assure Members in all parts of the House that he intends to undertake the review recommended by the Audit Commission of the regulations relative to leasing arrangements, which prevent councils such as my own, which the Minister has commended, from entering into arrangements with the private developers to provide other accommodation for people who otherwise languish in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he also accept the Audit Commission's recommendation that those boroughs which have a particular problem in relation to people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation should receive a special allocation of resources so that they can deal with the problem? Will the Minister give specific assurances on those matters?

I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman as I believe that policy on bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a matter of political difference both within the House and outside. The latest figures for London show that there are some 23,300 empty council dwellings, which is three times as many the number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There is a direct correlation not only between those figures, but between the number of empty dwellings in London and the number of people registered as homeless. It is hypocritical for the hon. Gentleman to give the Government advice on housing when he should be spending more of his time giving advice to his local authority to improve its housing management as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. Until that authority has cleared up the mess in its own backyard, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should try to specialise in an area in which his own local authority is not an embarrassment to him.

Has the Minister yet had time to examine the Barnardo's report and to consider the plight of young people coming out of care and joining the ranks of the homeless because they cannot afford to live and to pay rent? Is it not time that the Minister liaised with the Department of Employment about the position of those young people in regard to YTS? They cannot exist on the money provided and they are being treated as though they lived at home when they have come out of local authority care and literally have nowhere to go?

The hon. Lady's specific point is directly a matter for the Department of Social Security, but I have seen the report to which she refers. It certainly contains some messages that we should examine carefully in our current review of homelessness, which is nearing completion and on which we are almost ready to make a statement.

Is it not a national scandal that more than 130,000 council-owned properties were empty last night, of which more than 30,000 have been empty for more than 12 months? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Audit Commission has produced a damning report on the inefficiency of certain local housing authorities? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Brent and other Labour-controlled councils apply the efficiency suggested in the Audit Commission report?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I said, we found the report by the Audit Commission—and Professor Maclennan's report which was released only this week—helpful in that regard. There is an inescapable correlation between the total number of empty properties in Britain and the number of those registered as homeless, particularly as the figures are almost the same. Until local authorities improve their efficiency in managing public housing stock, the position will not improve.

My hon. Friend will be aware of substantial investment by his Department in hostels in London which have provided shelter for people who would otherwise be homeless. Will he liaise with his colleagues at the Department of Social Security to see whether relatively minor changes can be made in the income support regulations to safeguard the revenue flow which underpins those hostels?

I know that my hon. Friend has raised that issue in the past and I understand the message that he seeks to convey. I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the earliest opportunity.

Does my hon. Friend agree that because of homelessness many families with children in south London live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in quite appalling conditions? Does he agree that we should be moving towards the abolition of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and in the meantime considering legislation to force landlords of those bed-and-breakfast places to improve standards and conditions for families who have to live in them.

I recognise the important contribution that my hon. Friend has made to that subject, both today and in the past. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is incredibly expensive.

It is inefficient.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—it is inefficient. We should like more Labour-controlled authorities to use their empty housing stock. Greenwich seems to deal with the matter most satisfactorily, in contrast to more extreme Left-wing authorities which quickly use bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I welcome the joint Association of London Authorities and London Boroughs Association working party report which is providing tighter controls on hotels used by London boroughs.

That is a disgraceful response. The Government should be ashamed of their attitude to homelessness. They know that 6 per cent. of Government-owned properties are empty, compared with 3·1 per cent. for housing associations and 2·5 per cent. for local authorities. The Minister knows that the figures that he gave for building societies are misleading because building societies are not the only lenders. One in 10 homeless families are homeless because of mortgage repossession. He also knows that the real reason why homelessness has doubled in Britain and men, women and children have to sleep in cardboard boxes is the lack of low-cost accommodation to rent or for sale. That is what is wrong with the Government's policy.

It is strange that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) should even comment on this issue as his local authority has not used the £27 million that it has drawn in capital receipts to carry out repairs to existing stock although it has a significant number of dwellings awaiting major repairs. [Interruption] It is hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to suggest, as he has today and on previous occasions, that there should be an increase in money for public housing when in their last three years of office the Labour Government cut public housing expenditure—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us try to settle down a bit.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of Gloucestershire county council; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

I have no immediate plans for a formal visit, although I frequently meet local councillors.

When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of Gloucestershire county council—which, as he will know, is controlled by the Liberals with the support of Labour—will he ask why, in the past three years, the council has increasd its rates more than 50 per cent. while Gloucester city council which is controlled by the Conservatives, plans to reduce its rates by 18 per cent. this year.

I will certainly ask those questions, but I can answer some of them now. The spending by Gloucestershire county council under the control of the Liberal and Labour parties over the full four-ear period has increased by 46·2 per cent. against an RPI increase of 20·8 per cent. In addition, the council's debt has increased by 70 per cent. and it is planning this year to take £10 million from balances to try to disguise the necessary rate rise on the eve of the elections.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to call in the application for the Covent Garden opera house extension.

No, Sir.

In the light of the current farcical circumstances in which an internationally renowned institution is being squeezed between a car park and art office development, and bearing in mind that the royal opera house has no intention of proceeding with its existing application and has budgeted for a planning inquiry in its second application, is it not time that the Minister called the application in? Is it not time that the Minister put an end to the deception and deceit of the operatic manipulators and ensured that the development which finally takes place will be in the interests of the opera house and the surrounding area?

The hon. Gentleman has made some rather hysterical comments about a matter which is well within the competence of the local authority.

Very quickly, does the Minister agree that the royal opera house—[Interruption.] I am being as quick as I can. The royal opera house now admits that the extension scheme does not provide for the type of improvements that are needed—in fact, there will be only 17 extra seats, but 300 extra parking spaces. In the light of those facts, given that this is a sensitive conservation area of national significance, will the Minister agree to call the application in?

The local council is well aware of the possible changes. That is why it has not granted planning permission and is having further discussions with the royal opera house. That seems perfectly reasonable.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on recent meetings held by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) with the chairmen of the Football League clubs.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the football authorities on the appointments to the Football Membership Authority.

My right hon. Friend and I had a useful and constructive meeting with the chairmen of many of the league clubs about the Football Spectators Bill on 17 January and I met them again on 26 January. I met the president of the Football League and chairmen of the Football Association on 10 February to discuss aspects of the Bill and the wish of the football authorities to form the Football Membership Authority.

In view of the overwhelming opposition to the scheme and the decision in another place on Monday, will the Minister tell the Prime Minister that it is a non-tarter and that many league clubs are already in serious financial difficulties? Will he make a name for himself by standing up to the Prime Minister?

On the first point, the answer is no. On the second point, there is no good reason to believe that the scheme will have an adverse financial impact on clubs, even the smallest. A number of companies have already offered to set up and run the scheme at no cost to the clubs or the supporters. If the football authorities and clubs take a positive approach to marketing the scheme, financing it will not be a problem and the scheme can produce an income stream to football.

Does my hon. Friend recall the words of Mr. Ted Croker, then secretary of the Football Association, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last summer to remove her tanks from his lawn? Is it not extraordinary that Opposition Members, the football authorities and a few misguided Conservative peers now seek to frustrate legislation which will remove hooliganism in and around football for ever?

Yes, and I firmly believe—as I am sure all my hon. Friends do—that Britain, the home of football, must set an example to the football-playing world.

When the Minister met the football authorities, did they help him to unravel a problem, of his own making, for thousands of Northern Irish citizens who have Irish passports and who support Manchester United or Celtic Football Club? They will have to show their passports when they go to Old Trafford, but not when they go to Celtic Park; they will have to show their passports when Manchester United plays Celtic in a friendly, but not when Celtic plays Manchester United in a friendly, and they will have to show their passports when England plays Eire but not when Scotland plays Eire even though Eire is managed by an Englishman. If that problem was unravelled at that meeting, will the Minister now unravel it for the rest of us?

I will certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If anybody wishes to see two league teams playing against each other, he will either have to be a member of the national membership scheme or a guest of the club. In those circumstances, there is no need for the use of passports.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment passed in the other place to the Football Spectators Bill is nonsense and unworkable? Does he also agree that if Liverpool were in the scheme and Tranmere were not, a Liverpool fan who was banned from his own ground and from watching his country abroad would be able to go to Tranmere and cause mayhem?

My hon. Friend has raised two important points. The Government will give careful consideration to the impact of the amendment. On phasing, the Government have made it clear on many occasions that the position that my hon. Friend has just outlined is accurate. Phasing would require Charlton, a first division club which shares a ground with Crystal Palace, a second division club, to install and dismantle the technology at Selhurst Park every week, according to which team was playing at home. That would be nonsense.

Why is the Minister so grudging in his acknowledgment of the steps taken by Football League clubs to combat hooliganism in the past three or four years? If he thinks that those steps are insufficient and his own proposals are self-evidently correct, will he allow a free vote when the Bill come back, in a much emasculated form, from the other place?

On the evidence of the last point, I am convinced that if it were not for the Whipping of the Labour Benches, more Labour Members would support the Government on this important issue. I have made it clear on many occasions that the Government welcome the moves that the football authorities have taken, not least in building on the package of measures announced in February 1987. We saw last season that that was simply not enough and that we needed to come forward with additional measures to tackle a problem that has tarnished our image abroad and which continues to have a major detrimental effect through hooliganism being associated with the sport in this country.

If we must proceed with the scheme, may we at least have an assurance that the members of the Football Membership Authority, to which Question No. 7 refers, will be selected from people who attend football matches in places other than the directors' boxes?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I was grateful to the representatives of the FA and the League whom I met at my last meeting, who said that they wished to be approved as the Football Membership Authority. The Government keenly wish to see that and I am glad that the football authorities do too.

Was it with the Minister's authority that, following the Government's defeat in another place on Monday, the No. 10 propaganda department yesterday called the press to a briefing to the effect that unless football ignores the will of Parliament as expressed in the Lords, sanctions will be taken against it, including refusing to allow the football authorities to operate the football membership scheme? Is not that contemptible blackmail? Furthermore, is it not a serious contempt of Parliament and a possible breach of privilege? What explanation can the Minister provide for that scandalous behaviour?

The only time that I would have used the word "contempt" yesterday was with reference to the contemptible nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman spoke on Radio 4 when he was defeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans). The right hon. Gentleman's account of the press briefing from No. 10 is absolute nonsense—[Interruption.] We have made it clear that we shall consider carefully the effect of the amendment passed in the Lords and make a decision on that, and we shall, no doubt, announce it shortly—[Interruption.]

Order. Members should come into other Question Times which are always held in silence. I cannot think what has gone wrong today.

Has my hon. Friend seen the letter from the president of the Football League, Mr. Dunnett, to the Football League clubs? Is he aware that the letter is full of distortions and half-truths and, in some cases, downright lies? The letter states:

"Football supporters will be the only people in the country"

I regret that many of the statements made in that letter were misleading. I understand that a number have already been taken up, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield. I am certain that on another occasion I shall be able to respond in full to that letter, although it was not addressed to me.

May we now proceed in good order?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the cost of full implementation of the European Economic Community directive on bathing water and the date when he expects the directive to be fully met.

We have asked water authorities to assess the feasibility of bringing all their bathing waters up to European Community standards by 1995. The detailed .compliance programmes and the resulting cost to water consumers are not yet clear.

Will the Minister confirm that the cost of complying with the bathing water quality directives and of getting rid of all the dangerous derogations in the drinking water quality directive will be about £2 billion? Will he also confirm that the report in The Daily Telegraph today that the Minister had achieved the agreement of Brussels to 1995 being a reasonable time by which we should comply with the bathing water directive is absolutely untrue? When I telephoned Brussels this afternoon, I was told that when officials there read the report in The Daily Telegraph they laughed because they felt that the reporter was not telling the truth all the time. Would not 1992 be a far more reasonable date?

I am afraid that I am not responsible for what the hon. Gentleman reads in the newspapers. However, I can give him some information. The Welsh water authority plans to spend £100 million to improve its bathing beaches in the next six years to bring all Welsh waters up to standard. That £100 million will have to be serviced and paid for by Welsh consumers. The total annual spend in England and Wales is currently over £100 million. Over that period, the hon. Gentleman can estimate the total cost of the operation, which does not include improving the quality of water so that it meets the drinking water standards, which will cost considerably more. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's figure was probably an underestimate of the total cost. I make it clear that these costs will have to be borne by water consumers and are nothing to do with privatisation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is also great concern on the Conservative Benches about the condition of some of our beaches and that many of us will be watching with great care the debates on the Water Bill to ensure that the mechanisms in that measure provide as powerful an incentive to the new water authorities to clean up the beaches as those which exist under the present arrangements?

I can, happily, assure my hon. Friend that the new arrangements, with the National Rivers Authority in place, are infinitely preferable to the older arrangements under which there was no proper control of the investment and standards achieved. I can also comfort my hon. Friend by telling him that the savage and massive cuts in sewerage investment made by the last Labour Administration have been completely reversed and that there are now major programmes in place to finance the necessary improvements.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the south-west about the condition of the beaches in the area? Is he aware that in that one area, 54 beaches are being investigated for pollution of the water, that 23 regularly fail to meet European bathing water standards and that there is a strong demand for the Government to provide adequate investment nationally to clean our water, our beaches and our environment rather than to follow the massively unpopular path of simply privatising for profit?

We have got there already; the massive investment programme for which the hon. Gentleman calls is in place, restoring the cuts made by the Labour Government.

Bearing in mind that it costs money to clear up our seas and drinking water, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that it is wholly in character for the Opposition to be demanding that clean-up and, at the same time, complaining about increased charges to pay for it?

The difficulty with the present situation is that Opposition Members are demanding higher standards, with which I agree, and at the same time denying the resulting financial consequences, which they try to blame on something else.

Why have the Government deliberately understated the scale of the problem of polluted beaches by designating only 391, when the Royal Commission on environmental pollution recognised that there were 600 beaches in Britain popularly used by swimmers? Why did the Minister for Water and Planning stupidly mislead the public today on Radio 4 by saying that there was no health risk unless people could see sewage in the water? Will the Minister admit that colliform bacteria, salmonella, entero viruses and pathogenic micro-organisms are invisible to the naked eye?

The question on the Order Paper concerns meeting the European Community directive, and that is the question I answered. The number of beaches that qualify under that directive is contained in the numbers that were given in a written answer yesterday.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for city grants his Department has received to date.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of funding his Department has made available to date for city grants.

Since city grant was launched on 3 May 1988, my Department has received 86 applications, of which 31 have been approved, with a total grant requirement of £25 million.

The interest shown so far is proof that the Government are operating a good scheme and keeping their promises. Does my hon. Friend agree that action and achievements are the best test of success? If so, can he give the House any good news about the number of jobs created by the scheme? Also, does he have any evidence that Labour local authorities are behaving in their usual way, by whingeing and whining, rather than taking every opportunity to do all they can to help?

Approved city grant projects will provide more than 500 homes and nearly 5,000 jobs, and will bring about 115 acres of land back into use. Labour authorities are improving, albeit slowly, but, in respect of economic development a number of them still suffer from delusions of adequacy. It is clear that they could play more of a proactive role with the private sector. Although they do not have to make a contribution, as they once did under urban development grant, I have made it abundantly clear that we shall not consider a city grant application until it receives planning permission.

Is my hon. Friend aware that businesses in Nottingham, where many of my constituents work, have been extremely successful in winning city grants, with less than £5 million of public money dragging in behind it more than £13 million of private money? That underlines the success of the city grant scheme and clearly demonstrates that Nottingham remains an attractive area for inward investment.

I could not agree more. I have been overwhelmed by the number of applications that I have received from the private sector in Nottingham and the surrounding area. That success should be carefully considered by other areas that have not been so successful in securing city grants, and have not recognised that, as the private sector can now apply direct to the Department of the Environment, bureaucracy has been cut to a minimum.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the urban development corporations have met jointly with his Department; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Representatives of urban development corporations often meet Ministers and officials of my Department and discuss a wide range of issues.

Does the Minister accept that the Government refused to accept the recommendation of the Employment Select Committee to widen the UDCs' remit or terms of reference? A report in The Economist on 11 February stated that the developers of Canary wharf can claim £1 billion in tax subsidy through enterprise zone concessions. The sum of £1 billion of taxpayers' money is equal to more than one year's expenditure from rates and balances by West Yorkshire authorities to provide services in that county area. What guarantees can the Minister give that UDC objectives will be better targeted towards the real needs of inner cities, and that public money will supplement local authority programmes rather than private developers?

It is untrue to say that the Department of the Environment did not respond to the Select Committee on Employment and failed to recognise that there is a need to develop community activity and training. Our response clearly emphasised that, in the UDC set-up at that time, we were doing precisely that. As to enterprise zones, I did not notice any Labour Member holding back from making an application to the Department of the Environment for an enterprise zone in his or her constituency. As the Opposition did not divide the House at that time, I should have thought that they would recognise the benefits that have accrued.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the new mood of confidence on Teesside where the urban development corporation has announced five major projects, including a major scheme to put a barrage on the River Tees and to bring a Ministry of Defence agency to the area? When does he expect to be in the region to see these successes for himself? Does he agree that the role of urban development corporations is to concentrate on bringing the private sector into inner-city areas and to break the stranglehold that the public sector has had for too long?

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. It is my intention to visit Teesside development corporation very soon. I hope that I will see my hon. Friend there. In addition to the successes that he has catalogued to the House, there is a joint venture with the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to develop the former Smiths dock in Middlesbrough into a centre of excellence in offshore technology. An estimated 1,000 new jobs will have been created by the end of 1989.

When the urban development corporation in Leeds is discussing important planning matters, such as a possible development by a Canadian organisation, which would transform a substantial area of south Leeds, why does it hold the planning discussions in private? Why should the press and the public not be invited to those meetings? Is it simply that the urban development corporations have something to hide?

The hon. Gentleman will know that many of the matters that are discussed in planning committees and in local authorities, too, are of a commercial and confidential nature. All development corporations would, in any event, liaise with the local authority and take its views on all planning matters. I must make the point to the House, if hon. Members are unaware of it, that we have appointed a number of Labour councillors to that development corporation, so they will have a say in what is going on.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to when the Commons Commissioners last met; and what was discussed.

The Commons Commissioners' function is judicial. It does not require them to hold meetings.

As I understand that the Commons Commissioners comprise barristers and solicitors of some seven years' standing, that the body costs £260,000 a year to run, with expenditure per case amounting to £712, and that just over seven cases per week are dealt with, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the organisation is offering value for money?

Indeed. Since the Commons Commissioners were set up as a requirement of the Commons Registration Act 1965 they have settled 13,000 cases arising from disputes on the registration of 1·5 million acres of common land. While the cases in the Isle of Wight have all been settled, there are outstanding cases with which the Commons Commissioners are dealing, mostly in south Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the plight of home owners whose houses were incorrectly registered as common land 24 years ago and who, since then, have had extraordinary difficulty in selling their houses?

The Commons Commissioners are aware of the misregistration of houses to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. There are proposals to legislate on that when a suitable opportunity arises.

Is there any way in which the commissioners can investigate the case of the cemeteries that Westminster city council sold? Would those cemeteries be regarded as common land? Could they be restored to the council under the general auspices of common land? If so, the Government should be doing something about it. There is a scandal or two at Westminster, not only with selling the cemeteries but involving the £1 million that the council paid to the chief executive. I think that there is—

Order. I do not think that that has much to do with the question.

No, Sir.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to seek to improve standards of litter removal, street cleaning, refuse collection, the control of dog mess and the extermination of rats and other rodents; and if he will make a statement.

These are local authority responsibilities. They have the necessary powers, and it is for them to ensure that proper provisions are made to meet local needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that uncleared dog mess, uncleansed streets and uncollected refuse are bound to lead to a serious deterioration in the environment, and to the breeding of rodents? Will she also bear in mind that rats reproduce from two to 800—sometimes more—in a year? Is she aware that the people of Ealing, including my constituents, suffered the effects of no cleansing of any kind for two weeks, while the Labour-controlled Ealing council has increased the rates by 35 per cent. and intends to reduce street cleansing? Will the Government force Ealing council to act on this matter?

The Government are well aware of the predicament faced by the ratepayers of my hon. Friend's constituency where, even when there has been an £8 million increase in Government grant, they have to face enormous rate increases. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents would be much happier if Ealing council spent more time employing rat-catchers than setting up inquiries into the possible deprivation of Irish women in Ealing.

Can the Minister envisage a time when the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is likely to praise the Labour administration in Ealing? Is she aware that only recently, the Ealing authority won the London award for the cleanliness of its streets? Is she questioning the method of assessing these matters in the London area?

We hope that all local authorities will give proper care and attention to environmental health, cleansing their streets, dealing with litter and enforcing proper rodent control.

Will my hon. Friend get together with her hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to do something about the appalling amount of litter on motorways? Where does responsibility lie for cleaning up motorways? Does it rest entirely with local authorities? If not, will my hon. Friend ensure that more is done on that front?

I think that the responsibility rests with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. We are committed to improving the cleanliness of our surroundings. We are further increasing the funding of the Tidy Britain Group which is investigating a number of projects and analysing the most effective way of cleaning up various areas—including transport areas—so that we can learn the lessons which I shall then draw forcefully to the attention of my close and hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic.

Will the Minister confirm the suspicion that the question of her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raised, which is that there has been an enormous increase in rodent infestation during the past 10 years? Does the hon. Lady consider that the Government-sponsored initiative UK 2000 has had the desired or desirable impact? Does not the experience of that initiative lead her to accept that local authorities should be supported, encouraged and assisted to achieve the cleaner Britain that market forces alone cannot achieve?

Local authorities are receiving much more money this year. Their expenditure has risen to more than £28 billion, and they are receiving an extra £1.1 billion from the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, to deal with litter-dropping we need a much greater education programme, many more receptacles of an adequate size to contain it and a greater willingness by authorities to prosecute?

Tackling litter requires the active commitment and enthusiasm of many Government Departments and, above all, groups within the community. Education and the provision of litter bins both play a key part. We are investigating whether further steps should be taken on enforcement.

Mr. Jeff Rooker.

It is an outrage.

Order. There are no fewer than eight Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. If I call Front Benchers all the time I shall never be able to call any Back Benchers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. It is not a point of order. I reacted to the hon. Gentleman's comment of "outrage".

rose—

Order. I shall take it afterwards. Mr. Jeff Rooker.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to discuss protection of wildlife and field sports with the Nature Conservancy Council.

I recently agreed a concordat with the NCC which effectively protects both wildlife and field sports, as the hon. Member suggested.

When the right hon. Gentleman met the Nature Conservancy Council, did he ask whether its recent grant of over £70,000 to the Kent Wildfowling Association was the first ever state handout for the purchase of land for blood sports? The next time that he meets his friends on the NCC, will he take up with them their policy of not giving grants to organisations that genuinely seek to protect and conserve nature by refusing to allow blood sports on those lands? Surely the gunmen of Kent can buy their own land.

I understand that before offering grant the NCC satisfied itself that that grant would promote nature conservation and would give good value for money. I strongly support the general basis on which the NCC operates, which is that it is possible successfully to combine conservation and British field sports. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I bear no grudge against field sports.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the rubbish talked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does not understand the countryside? Does he agree that the best way in which to protect wildlife is to encourage field sports?

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right, and the NCC's concordat is testimony to the fact that it thinks so, too.

Is it true that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) plays in his car on his way home the sound of hounds in full—

Order. This question is addressed to the Secretary of State, not to the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).

But I want to know whether that is the general attitude. If the hon. Member for Crawley can go home playing the sound of—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a question like that.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) does as the hon. Genttleman claims, he is in very good company. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) believes that foxhunting should be abolished everywhere, except in his own constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's estimate of the number of local government councillors who are currently employed by other local authorities in positions which would he prohibited under proposed legislation.

The number of councillors in any local authority to whom the restrictions will apply will depend on the extent to which they have been disregarding the tradition of the political neutrality of senior local authority staff. This information is not collected by my Department.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, none the less, that there is clear evidence of widespread political abuse, particularly where a councillor is subsequently employed as an officer by another authority? Does he further agree that perhaps one of the saddest consequences has been a decline in the quality of chief officers in many authorities, with resulting damage to local government in general?

I am sure that if we want to encourage the best kind of local authority officers they must not feel that there are political reasons for the appointment of senior officers. Nor must they feel that people who are clearly involved in party political activities in one borough pretend to be independent in another.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the legislation being referred to, a psychiatric social worker receiving London weighting would fall into the category of "excluded from political activity"; would not be able to stand for election to say, the London borough of Richmond or a constituency such as the Isle of Wight; and would not be elected to Parliament for Surrey, South-West—unlike his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to whom all those things apply?

I confirm that in the country as a whole, people are quite clear. They do not believe that someone can be an independent officer on one authority, paid by the local ratepayers, and be a party political figure elsewhere. Universally, people condemn the Labour party for backing jobs for the boys and girls.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) could give the Government a great deal of advice about this abuse of local authority power? He could do that because Sheffield became the Socialist Republic of Sheffield and employed vast numbers of people from other local authorities. That practice spread throughout the north of England. That is an abuse and it is high time that it was stopped.

I have made it quite clear that whether Conservatives or Socialists do that, the practice is wrong. It is clear to the rest of the country that the public are wholly opposed to the way in which the Labour party is defending what has become corruption in local government.

I shall now take the point of order of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that Back Benchers have rights—[Interruption.] and my talent is that I have been a Back Bencher longer than I have been a Front Bencher. However, your ruling today implies that Mr. Speaker decides which subjects the official Opposition Front Bench should respond to. Not only that, but Mr. Speaker decides which Front-Bench spokespersons respond to Ministers' replies. I would like some thoughts or responses about this point.

First, let me say that every hon. Member must catch the eye of the Chair. However, I have an indication about the subjects in which the Front Bench would like to participate. As a general rule, it is only fair to Back Benchers that Front-Bench spokesmen should rise only once. I try not to call any hon. Member more than once at Question Time except perhaps the No. 1 spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is not the No. 1 spokesman and every time a Front-Bench spokesman rises, a Back-Bench Member is excluded.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that these are difficult decisions for you to have to take, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has an important point. It must surely be for Opposition Front Benchers to decide, in the light of answers and circumstances, who may want to seek to catch your eye—[Interruption.] Shut up, you fool.

Order. I hope that that was not directed at me.

No, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "Shut up, you hon. Gentleman."

That is a very good suggestion.