What representations he has received opposing his plans to divide councillors into those with an executive function and those with a scrutiny function; and if he will make a statement. [116141]

We have received many representations both supporting and opposing our proposals for new constitutions for councils. The evidence is that local people want directly elected mayors to lead their communities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that it is not her intention to have a single monolithic model imposed on all councils and, in particular, that, as long as councils achieve the aim of greater transparency in their dealings, the Government agree that that is an effective way to run local councils?

My hon. Friend is right. The reforms in the Local Government Bill will open up many opportunities for councils to run themselves in the way that is most appropriate to their local area, after consultation with local people. Greater efficiency, transparency and accountability are at the heart of the Bill—as the Joint Committee recognised when it considered the Bill in draft. The traditional committee system does not meet that aim; that is why we want to move forward.

Is the Minister old enough to remember the words of the old Erasmic shaving soap advertisement? Does she think that £58,500 a year for three days work a week on Cardiff council is a bit too much, not enough or about right?

I am concerned that we should have a local government system that local people feel is really effective and is working for and with them. I do not know about shaving soaps—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but the matter is not one that I spend much time worrying about. However, I do spend time trying to ensure that local government is open, accountable and working with local people.

Will the Minister explain how, on the one hand, the Government are in favour of devolution of power, but, on the other, in relation to local authorities, they seem to be concentrating on the centralisation of power in the hands either of a mayor or a leader and a cabinet? Does the Minister accept that, if a councillor does not fit into one of those categories, his or her role will be minimal? Will she accept the amendment from the other place that gives local authorities the option of maintaining the status quo?

There is a slight problem with the amendments from the other place; three or four were accepted—all are contradictory. The status quo does not allow for scrutiny. It does not allow local people to find out what is really happening in their council; what the effect of any of its decisions would be on the ground; and how they would be implemented. The present system was right for 150 years ago, when few people had the franchise and were allowed to sit on councils. That system does not meet the needs of modern society or the demand from local people to have a better look at what is happening in their council and at the consequences of its decisions.

As the Labour leader of Cardiff receives £58,500 a year, as we have heard, and leaders of London boroughs are likely to receive £45,000, is there not a real danger of creating two classes of councillor? After the clear-cut vote in the Lords recently, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to remove the freedom of local councils to choose their own structures? Will she listen to the voices of people such as her hon. Friends, the Local Government Association and councillors of all parties, including the Labour campaign for open local government—with 1,000-plus supporters, of whom 500 are councillors from 80-plus councils? Is it not high time that she and her friends gave up this control-freakery?

We are trying to emerge from an era when only one system was possible. At present, only the committee system is legal. The Bill offers a wide framework; those councils that have begun preparations to introduce it are coming up with widely different forms of governance. They are doing so after consultation with local people. Of course, it is important that I consider and scrutinise what the Lords have said. I am discussing matters with the LGA; I met the LGA again last week. However, the Government have the right to ensure that the basic integrity of the Bill is preserved; we shall make sure that scrutiny—far from having a second-tier, less important role—is properly recognised as essential to good local government.

What plans he has for reform of the management of London Transport. [116143]

I have reformed the London Transport board and appointed a new chairman and a new managing director of London Underground and a new chief executive. The Government have also decided to introduce the public-private partnership. This will tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog, provide a stable funding environment and secure long-lasting improvements for the underground.

I support the changes to London Transport that my right hon. Friend has announced, which will make it more dynamic and effective in delivering better public services. However, with two French and one US-dominated consortiums shortlisted to run the deep-level underground, and with several other arrangements involving the private sector, what special arrangements will the Government make to ensure that there is effective public service management at London Transport? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will not end up with a situation similar to the one involving Railtrack and the train operating companies, in which they blame each other for performance failures?

It is important to ensure that the outputs of the infracos, or infrastructure companies, can be measured and that we have the proper management to measure them and make proper checks on the financial contributions that are made. Of course, incentives will be built into the system. If the organisations achieve their targets, they will do well. If they fail, they will face a penalty. That point will be built into the contracts. It is my belief—this will be subject to the public sector comparator—that public-private financing will be cheaper than the bond issue that is talked of. Those matters will be settled later, but I have no doubt that Londoners will benefit from a long-term approach to investment in the modernisation of the underground. That will be in contrast to the difficulties that we have faced from the stop-go economy which has reduced the necessary public investment in London Underground.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister have confidence in the management of London Transport, given that the money that it has spent on private consultants has gone up two and a half times since the Government came to office? Could that money not have been better spent on repairing the 55 escalators that are currently out of action on London Underground? Is that really the fault of the management—or is it not perhaps the fault of the Government for persisting with their ill-advised and costly sell-off of the underground?

The problems with the escalators and their age are a function of disinvestment in the underground over many years. We are attempting to establish an entirely different financial framework for the underground, so that it is publicly owned and publicly accountable. That will guarantee a proper maintenance programme, so that there will not be breakdowns as there are at the moment. If we are to achieve that, consultants must give advice. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to make a judgment without proper and informed advice.

I am a London Member, and my constituents are looking for a modernisation of the tube that will achieve two things. First, they want reassurance that it will remain in the public sector. Secondly, and perhaps more important, they want value for money for the public purse. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that both those aims will be achieved?

It is clear that, under legislation, I have an obligation to the House to subject whatever ideas I have for the financing of the underground to the public sector comparator. I have to provide best value. That is what I am required to do by the House and that is what I intend to do. We have received the bids in the past few days, and I believe that those aims will be achieved. My hon. Friend will be able to judge whether we achieve them.

As the Secretary of State refers to the £100 million spent on consultants, can he recall any time, when he was in opposition, when he supported any money being spent on consultancies? He talks about disinvestment, so will he explain why in every year that he has been in charge less Government money has been spent on the tube than under the previous Conservative Government? Is not the chaos on the tube the result of the PPP being more than a year behind schedule, and is that not another emblem of the right hon. Gentleman's own personal failure? As he boasts about an extra £280 million from the Budget for transport, will he come clean with the House and explain that £100 million of that has been cut from his roads maintenance budget?

The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. There is more core investment going into the underground than went in under the previous Administration. I defy him to find any instance of my complaining about spending money on consultants in such matters; all Governments have to take advice. Considerable criticism was made of the sums that the previous Administration spent on consultants—up to £500,000 in respect of rail privatisation—and there was a legitimate argument about that. We shall produce an underground that receives proper investment to deal with the problems left to us as a result of the Conservatives' disinvestment in the underground.

What recent representations he has received on the level of the standard spending assessment for Southend for 2000–01. [116144]

Southend-on-Sea borough council wrote to the Department on 22 December, during our consultation period, commenting on the local government finance settlement for 2000–01. We also received inquiries from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Is the hon. Lady aware that, a few weeks ago, I was invited by the Labour/Liberal-controlled council to meet a Health Minister to discuss the crisis in social services in Southend? When the delegation told the Minister that the council was having to close old folks' homes, introduce charges for people with learning disabilities and increase charges for home helps, the Minister helpfully suggested that representations be made about the standard spending assessment. Will the hon. Lady advise Labour councillors on how they can stop further cuts in Southend?

My information does not accord with that of the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that a meeting took place and that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), asked the council to submit plans for extra money to deal with social services issues. However, Southend did not request extra funding from the budget; in the end, it informed the Department of Health of an underspend of £31,000 from the partnership fund, which it was able to use.

What plans he has to increase housing density in the south-east of England. [116147]

Planning policy guidance note 3, which we issued on 7 March, makes it clear that local authorities should plan for quality development and more efficient use of land. They should avoid housing densities of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net and encourage developments of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net. Those policies are also reflected in the draft changes to the regional planning guidance for the south-east, which we published on 27 March.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to increase housing density in areas such as my constituency in the heart of the Thames valley, in the interests not only of sustainability, but of affordability, so that key workers such as nurses, teachers and bus drivers can afford to come and live in such areas?

My hon. Friend makes two valid points. First, she highlights the importance of concentrating development in brownfield sites and of contributing toward urban renaissance, both of which form a crucial part of our planning policy guidance on housing and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Secondly, she emphasises the importance of doing more to house people in need, who have difficulty obtaining housing in areas of great pressure, such as the Thames valley. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is shortly to make a statement on our housing Green Paper, in which we expand on our policies to meet those objectives.

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister back to the House after four weeks' absence. Now that we know what was in the Budget, we understand why he disappeared to Brazil. We also understand why, unusually, there was no Budget debate on Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions spending—there is to be hardly any DETR spending.

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box? He has shown a certain reticence about appearing since his appointment. He has clearly misunderstood the main thrust of PPG3 and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Predict and provide, which was the hallmark of his party's Government, is dead. We are no longer producing 20-year projections of housing.

The figures are not mine—they come from the House of Commons Library. They are the Minister's figures, and it is a matter of pure arithmetic. He has not attempted to answer the question, so let me answer it for him. The answer is 54 houses per hectare—higher than the figure that he cited, and higher than the density achieved in London. That target is regarded as wholly unachievable by every council leader in the south-east. Incidentally, it is no good the Minister speaking about five years, since every local council has to produce a structure plan for 10 years or more.

fancy dancing with figures is counterproductive.

It seemed to be quite a long time before the hon. Gentleman got to the point. May I remind him that what he is suggesting comes a little rich from the party that was represented by greenfield building all over the south-east, out-of-town shopping centres, motorways driven across countryside, and by the contempt for the environment in the south-east which characterised the term of that party in power?

Will my hon. Friend comment on the view that a greater density of housing requires a lower land take? Has his Department done any work on the relationship of higher density to lower land take, particularly in the light of the various figures put forward for housing in the south-east, and in view of the land that has already been allocated for housing in local authority plans?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken action where the previous Government did nothing, by publishing the national land use database to give us basic information about the availability of land on which plans can then be drawn up for development on brownfield sites. We will take that forward, as the NLUD needs to be improved over time. It has made an important start, but we can do better. Through capacity studies, we will also develop a closer analysis of what can be achieved. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the key objective is to produce high-quality housing where people will want to live, in order to enhance our urban renaissance policy and to protect the countryside from unnecessary development.

What estimate his Department has made of the increase in the number of single person households over the next 20 years. [116148]

The latest, 1996-based, household projections suggest a net increase of 3.12 million households in England over the 20-year period from 1996 to 2016. Of these 2.13 million, some two thirds of the total, will be made up of one person living by him or herself.

With those figures in mind, does the Minister agree with me that local people should determine their local housing requirements rather than the Government setting arbitrary figures? What consultation has he had with Purbeck district council, which has written to me today, and with Poole and East Dorset district councils in my constituency, about this matter? Without consultation, the Government's proposals mean the wrong houses for the wrong people in the wrong places.

Wrong people?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the regional planning guidance for the south-west is undergoing examination in public. Clearly it would not be proper for me to respond on a detailed point, which will come to us for decision after the examination in public.

Is my hon. Friend in dialogue with the Treasury over possible fiscal opportunities to reduce the proportion of single-person households, especially in respect of housing benefit rules that encourage adult children to leave home prematurely and in terms of taxes on second homes, equal VAT treatment for both conversion and new build, and multi-occupancy incentives for retired people, for example? Will my hon. Friend consider a portfolio of possible fiscal measures to encourage higher levels of occupancy?

My hon. Friend raises a number of matters that will be expanded on by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when we come to the statement on the housing Green Paper. It is integral to our entire approach that we ensure that we create a planning framework that allows mixed and balanced communities in which single people can live side by side with families. We do not intend to repeat the mistakes of the past—of social stratification, with areas of exclusively large executive houses on one side and social housing on the other. We want mixed and balanced communities that will allow adequate provision for single people.

If the Minister's figures are correct and the bulk of new housing is needed for single-person households, will he reconsider the decision to build 10,000 houses on the green belt in my constituency, given that little of that housing will be suitable, either in type or in location, for single people?

The right hon. Gentleman sounds rather like a gramophone record on this subject. He shows an inability to understand the basic framework on which Hertfordshire county council came forward with its proposals. He will know that there are no detailed plans at this stage for the composition of the housing stock and the proportions that will be single-person units, family units, and units suitable for the elderly. The right hon. Gentleman's ridiculous suggestion reveals something—the attitude of mind that was characteristic of the Conservative Government he served, under whom executive homes were encouraged to proliferate throughout the greenfield land in the south-east. We are ending that nonsense, for which the previous Government were responsible.

The Minister seems not to realise that his answer to this question wrecks the case that he made in answer to the previous question. Does he not accept that, on the basis of the Government's household projection figures, more than two thirds of the homes that are needed are required for single and mainly elderly people? His plans to build tens of thousands more homes than local authorities say they need will inevitably encourage developers to build more profitable three or four-bedroomed homes, which are just what single-person households do not need. Will the Minister not acknowledge that his policy attracts working-age people out of inner cities, threatens our green fields and ensures that, as long as he is in charge, we will continue building the wrong houses in the wrong places?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his answer before hearing my reply to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). I made it clear that we are not following Conservative party policy, which encouraged the proliferation of three and four-bedroomed executive homes.

What plans he has to improve safety at sea. [116149]

With regard to international shipping, the Government continue to play a leading role in efforts to enhance maritime safety through their active involvement in and support of safety initiatives that are being taken forward by the International Maritime Organisation and in the European Union. With regard to the United Kingdom fishing industry, the Government are determined to improve poor safety standards through a mixture of regulation and education to foster a culture in which safe practice, such as wearing automatic lifejackets while working on deck, is taken for granted.

I am sure that the Minister would wish to offer his condolences to the family and friends of Daniel Kebble, a young fisherman from Polperro in my constituency, who lost his life fishing earlier this year. Does the Minister accept that safety equipment such as lifejackets that are available to fishermen are either user friendly but do not fulfil the necessary buoyancy standards, or have the buoyancy but are bulky and not easy to use? Will he consider funding the relatively modest amount of research and development to marry the necessary qualities so that fishermen can obtain lifejackets that are user friendly and fulfil adequate safety standards?

I join the hon. Gentleman in extending condolences to the family of the young man in question. I agree with his wider point: immersion suits are designed for use in abandon-ship circumstances, not for continuous wear. Under an EU directive on a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels, all new vessels of 24 m and over must carry lifejackets. However, we are not persuaded that the United Kingdom should go further and require immersion suits to be carried on all vessels, regardless of size. There are anxieties in the industry about their practicality. However, the Government strongly recommend that fishermen should wear an automatic single-chamber inflatable lifejacket while working on deck and we have published standards for such garments.

I offer my condolences to the family of the young man lost from the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), and also to the families of the two Lewis fishermen who were lost at sea at the weekend.

I join my hon. Friend in offering condolences to the Lewis fishermen who were lost at sea at the weekend. My hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign about the availability of immersion suits. I reiterate that the Government are not persuaded that they are appropriate in all circumstances. However, my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the need for enhanced safety measures at sea. We believe that much can be done to improve the appalling safety record of the fishing industry, which is 10 times more dangerous than the next most dangerous industry, which is agriculture. Improvements can be achieved partly through equipment and partly through safety training.

In the fishing industry, three vessels are lost and 11 sailors are killed a month. Both sides of the House will welcome what the Minister said about maximising safety standards. We would have welcomed what the Deputy Prime Minister said about safety grants last week, or last month—or last year rather. He said:

speaking for the Government as a whole, I have made clear that the fishing vessel safety equipment grants would continue.

It was to the end of that year.

As my right hon. Friend has accurately stated from a sedentary position, he was referring to the end of that particular year. My right hon. Friend obviously has a clearer sense of time than does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who did not seem to know what time of the year my right hon. Friend had spoken.

Which five local authority areas in England have the highest percentage of public and private housing stock built before 1919. [116150]

The five local authority areas with the highest proportion of private sector housing built before 1919 are Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea, and Pendle. The five authorities with the highest proportion of pre-1919 council housing are Camden, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, and Kensington and Chelsea. We are committed to improving the housing conditions of the poorest households, and today's housing Green Paper will set out some new ideas for tackling those needs in both the public and private sectors.

I knew the answer to my question before I asked it. Is the Minister aware that there is a unique cocktail of housing problems not just in Pendle, but next door in Burnley and in east Lancashire? Pendle ranks third in the entire country when it comes to unfit housing, and sixth in respect of empty housing. It is beyond the resources of local authorities in my area to tackle decades of neglect. I hope that, as a result of the housing Green Paper, of which we will hear details in about 20 minutes' time, the necessary resources will be pumped into the area to bring crumbling, useless housing up to a decent standard.

I fully recognise the points that my hon. Friend made about the condition of the housing stock and the problems of vacant property in his constituency. Pendle's allocation in 2000-01 under the housing investment programme was some 30 per cent. up on 1999–2000, and, as he anticipated, when he hears the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make in a few minutes' time, he will realise that the Government are very serious about extending the help available to improve conditions in areas such as his.

What measures he can take to increase the number of trains stopping at Euxton railway station. [116151]

Services at Euxton Balshaw Lane railway station are provided under a separate contract between Lancashire county council and First North Western. I understand that two additional services to Preston will call at the station at 11.20 and 13.20 from the beginning of the summer timetable in May this year. The franchising director is considering a bid from Lancashire county council under the rail passenger partnership scheme, which, if approved, would further enhance peak hour services.

I am pleased to learn that there will be an immediate increase in the number of trains stopping at the station. Is the Minister aware, however, that the first train heading north leaves at 8.15 am, although most commuters need to catch a train at about 7 am? Is he also aware that Euxton is the only railway station in Chorley that is on the west coast main line, and that no direct trains to Glasgow or London stop there? What can he do to provide better services and get people off the roads?

My hon. Friend is an indefatigable campaigner for his Chorley constituency. I thought that I was giving him genuinely good news in announcing the extra services, but his appetite for further improvements for his constituents seems to be bottomless. I shall, of course, take account of his demands for further improvements in services to Euxton and Balshaw Lane stations.

Before the Minister devotes too many resources to Euxton, will he bear in mind the plight of rail services in north Lincolnshire? Last weekend, I had to spend—

Order. This is a specific question.

If he will estimate the number of new council and housing association dwellings to be built in London in the next 12 months. [116152]

Although no new-build council homes are planned for next year, some replacement homes will be built as part of regeneration schemes. In addition, 5,400 new housing association homes are planned for London next year, of which 3,940 will be for rent.

Does the Minister realise what a depressing answer that will be for thousands of people in London who are on housing waiting lists or transfer lists, or living in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation? If we are to deal with the housing problem that affects anyone on an average or below average income in London, there must be a significant increase in the number of properties made available for rent by councils or housing associations. Especially in inner London, people look to the Government to ensure that money is spent not just on improving existing estates—although that is welcome and necessary—but on purchasing and providing new homes for rent. Failing that, London will become an increasingly socially divided city as poorer people are forced to move out because there is nowhere for them to live.

I certainly acknowledge that there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in London, but I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the housing investment programme for London has increased dramatically under this Government. This year it will be £613 million, which represents a 54 per cent. increase on the previous year.

Something else that has grown dramatically under this Government is the number of asylum seekers in London. How much of that social housing will be taken up by people who have been on waiting lists for some time, and how much will, of necessity, have to be put aside for new arrivals and asylum seekers?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are making provision to disperse asylum seekers around the country.

When he will respond to the urban taskforce report. [116153]

We propose to publish a response to the recommendations in the urban taskforce report later this year, at the same time that we publish our White Paper on urban policy.

Given that one of the recommendations of the taskforce was that it should have an influence on the comprehensive spending review so that urban policy became a term of reference, may we have a date for the report's publication before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review? Also, may we have a guarantee that sustainable communities will be at the heart of the policy, and that in every instance regeneration will put first the interests of those who live in the urban communities that are to be regenerated?

It is precisely because we want to take into account the urban taskforce's ideas—some of which we are already implementing and getting on with, but specifically those relating to the Government's wider policies, including our policies on regeneration and urban renaissance—that they will be considered as part of the spending review. We shall therefore respond to the ideas following the review. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined that we shall have regeneration that really means something, that changes the opportunities of those who live in such areas, and that ensures that those people are able to benefit from the advantages of regeneration. We are also determined to build sustainable communities, which are at the heart of our policy.

Given that, in the name of urban regeneration, Lord Rogers recommended a cut in VAT on residential renovations, has the right hon. Lady complained to the Treasury that such a helpful measure was not forthcoming in the Budget?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear all of the Budget, which showed that the Government believe that there is a strong case for stamp duty relief for new build on brownfield sites. We intend to consult on the matter. We shall demonstrate again that we recognise the important distinction between development on greenfield and brownfield sites. It really is a pity that the hon. Gentleman and the previous Conservative Government did not do that. We shall be dealing with the need for urban renaissance through the tax system.

What plans he has for a common age of entitlement to concessionary fares for older people. [116155]

The Government have a strong commitment to concessionary travel for elderly people. In the Transport Bill, we are introducing a statutory minimum for local authority concessionary travel schemes, which will provide at least half-fare travel on buses. After the recent Budget, we announced that the bus pass will also be available free of charge. Those two measures will benefit up to 5.3 million senior citizens. Under the terms of the Pensions Act 1995, the age of entitlement for concessionary travel for both men and women will be equalised at 65 by 2020.

The statutory minimum scheme will be greatly welcomed by very many pensioners across the country. However, given that fact, and given that the statutory minimum scheme will effectively make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of age, will not the Secretary of State take the opportunity to introduce a common age of entitlement to travel schemes for everyone based on the age of 60?

I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As he will know, there have been a number of court judgments in Europe on the matter, and those judgments have not held against our differential at 60 and 65. It is therefore a matter of resources. It would cost about £65 million to meet his request. When considering expenditure, we have to make a judgment on priorities, and the 1p Liberal tax would not necessarily pay for a common age of entitlement.

Many pensioners in my constituency have warmly welcomed the Government's decision on concessionary fares for older people—although, quite rightly, they still complain about the lack of bus services in many areas. However, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider extending the scheme to include young people in full-time education and those who are under 18, who still have to pay full fares?

Those matters are affected by cost resource and priorities, which have to be determined. I note, however, that the Labour candidate for mayor of London has made a similar suggestion.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen to extend concessionary travel for older people, but how would establishing a common age for concessionary travel, which was the intention of the original question, help older people in many parts of the country where there is little or no public transport at all? Is it not important that the Deputy Prime Minister should consider the problems faced by many elderly people who do not have their own cars and live in remote rural areas—such as some of the villages in my own constituency of Macclesfield?

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but under the Conservative Government there was a massive decline in public transport provision, particularly in rural areas. Our £170 million of rural grants has led to 1,800 new services in rural areas. It may not cover everywhere, but it is a major step forward. I suppose that I should also be grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the Manchester airport eastern link road, as he often does.

What steps the Government are taking to secure the restoration of a ban on the international trade in ivory. [116156]

There can be no further international trade in ivory unless the 11th conference of parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species, which opens next week in Nairobi, agrees a specific proposal to permit that. The Government believe that any change to the conservation status of elephants under CITES would be premature. We are therefore urging all the proponents to withdraw their proposals on elephants. If they are not withdrawn, the UK, together with our European partners, will oppose all the proposals including those seeking further trade in ivory.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he, like me, seen the excellent article in The Mail on Sunday last week, entitled "Why killing elephants is again all the fashion"? It was about not just ivory, but a revival in trading in elephant skins. Will he assure me that the Government will do all they can at the talks in Nairobi later this week to support the position of Kenya and India, which want to ban that evil, wicked trade?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we do not want a return to the large-scale poaching and full-scale ivory trading that characterised the 1980s; but for all trading in ivory to be ended and for elephants to be uplifted to appendix 1 of CITES, two conditions must be met. The first is that there must be evidence that the limited, experimental, one-off trade has led to an increase in poaching. The evidence is confused and there is no convincing proof. Secondly, the numbers must justify such a move. Elephant numbers are not small, their distribution is not restricted and they are not in decline. In the three countries concerned with the trade, over the past 15 years elephant numbers have quadrupled in Botswana, gone up sixfold in Namibia and nearly doubled in Zimbabwe. We are concerned to prevent any increase in ivory trading. That is why we have required all parties to withdraw their proposals so that we can monitor the illegal killing of elephants and provide convincing evidence for further action.

What plans he has to introduce a single tenancy agreement in the social housing sector. [116158]

I invite my hon. Friend to stay and listen to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making in 10 minutes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that kind invitation. I recognise that it might be a bit late to put in a bid for issues to be included in the housing Green Paper. However, does he agree that the introduction of a single tenancy would help to reassure council tenants and enhance their rights when they are offered transfers to community housing organisations, as those organisations are currently unable to offer secure tenancies?

I am aware of the problem that has arisen in my hon. Friend's constituency, where some misinformation has been floating about. There is no practical difference between secure and assured tenancies apart from the right to buy, which is guaranteed under the transfer schemes. Some tenants have been misled on that. It is desirable in principle that there should be a single tenancy, but there are practical difficulties.

If he will make a statement on future housebuilding in the Chelmsford local authority area. [116159]

An illustrative breakdown of future housing provision within the south-east region, including an annual rate of provision for the county of Essex, was published for consultation with the proposed changes to the draft regional planning guidance on 27 March. Once finalised, it will be for the Essex county structure plan to determine the level of house building in the Chelmsford local plan area.

Will the Minister confirm that that fudge by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State means that there will be about 1,200 extra houses a year in Essex? Will he also confirm that his past statements on the Government's commitment to the green belt were sincere? If the answer is yes, what does he think of Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council's preferred option of building possibly 2,500 houses in greenbelt land in the village of Margaretting in the local authority area?

The hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The annual average for housebuilding in Essex under the existing south-east regional planning committee arrangement is 6,383 homes per year. The average number of homes built throughout the 1990s was 5,770, and the illustrative proposals that we sent out on 27 March, to which I have just referred, suggests that an average of 5,420 should be built. Therefore, it is simply not true that we are imposing an increase on existing Serplan arrangements, or on current levels of building.

What about the green belt?

I turn now to the green belt, which the Government are committed to protecting and extending, and whose area we have increased by some 30,000 hectares. There is a presumption against development in the green belt, which will be overruled only in exceptional circumstances.

What plans he has to abolish the 50 per cent. reduction in council tax on second homes. [116160]

We have no plans at present to abolish the council tax discount for second homes. Some respondents to our consultation last year on rural issues suggested ending the discount, and we are considering this along with many other proposals for tackling rural problems.

Does not the Minister agree that giving local authorities the right to raise the council tax on second homes would do quite a lot to reduce the problems of overdevelopment across the south-east? Would not it also give young people wanting to move out of the parental home a better chance of obtaining affordable accommodation?

The hon. Gentleman is being too simplistic. Sometimes there are good reasons for not raising council tax on empty properties, as such properties are empty for all sorts of reasons. Second homes come into that general category.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are many different views on the matter across the country? People in north Norfolk are often unable to buy a house because others are coming into the area and buying second homes—those incomers include Members of Parliament. Their presence contributes to the local economy, but the negative feelings of the local community would be somewhat diminished if they were to pay the full council tax. I understand that my right hon. Friend may want to introduce a broader package of changes to council tax, but will she assure my constituents that that particular change has not been ruled out?

I have made it clear that the change has not been ruled out, but that it has not been ruled in either.

The Minister may be aware that 600 new wooden chalet-type homes are being built in the Cotswold water park. The local Cotswold district council does not get the full benefit of the council tax on those homes, which are entirely second homes. Will the Minister consider giving local authorities a discretionary power to enable them to levy full council tax in certain circumstances?

I have given the assurance that we are considering that.

If he will make a statement about the move to resource accounting for housing revenue accounts and his plans to mitigate its effects on councils in negative subsidy. [116161]

Our view has always been that transitional measures would be justified for councils in negative subsidy. We propose to introduce such measures from April next year, to coincide with the introduction of the major repairs allowance. We shall consult on the detail of the measures in due course.

The Minister will be aware of the dramatic impact of this change on a number of local authorities, particularly new town authorities. Without mitigation, the change would involve a dramatic slashing of council services or a huge and unsustainable increase in the council tax. Will the Minister look carefully at the issue and, in particular, at the use of housing capital receipts for non-housing capital purposes which took place during the 1980s and which is the major cause of this problem in my local authority?

I have possibly taken my hon. Friend by surprise by saying that we are proposing to introduce transitional measures from April next year. We are aware of the problem—I met a delegation of leaders of councils that are affected, and am due to meet my hon. Friend in due course. I look forward to discussing the details with him then.