Home Page

Column 267

House of Commons

Wednesday 23 May 1990

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Finance

1. Mr. David Martin : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received encouraging him to replace the community charge with a tax on property values.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo) : As far as I am aware, no one has made a representation tme in favour of a roof tax based on capital or site values.

Mr. Martin : I welcome my honourable--soon to be right honourable-- Friend to the Dispatch Box at his first Environment Question Time. If he manages to extricate himself from his present job with the same high distinction with which he served in the previous two he will deserve the title of the Houdini of the present Government.

Any reversion to domestic property values would mean a return to all the anomalies and unfairnesses that we knew under the rating system, and that would bear down heavily on the elderly, who stay for many years in houses that gain in value around them but whose incomes often do not rise in relation to that value. Would not such a return act as a wealth tax and would not there be a great cry after a while, exactly as there was before we abolished domestic rating?

Mr. Portillo : My hon. Friend's opening remarks were very kind. He is exactly right : the trouble with the rating system, as all parties recognise--at least they did at one time--was that property is no proxy for the means that a person has, and any taxation system based on property will be unfair for that reason. One must assume, in the absence of any details, that Labour's new plans would be as unfair as, if not more unfair than, the rates.

Mr. Orme : Does not the Minister recognise that the change from rating to a poll tax has meant that Salford needs to employ 300 extra people to collect the poll tax and to spend about £110,000 on an extension to house them? How does he justify that?

Mr. Portillo : The cost of collecting the community charge is about double the cost of collecting the rates, and the number of people paying the community charge is about double the number who were paying the rates. The correlation is exact ; the cost per head of collecting the

Column 268

community charge is the same as it was under the rates. This is a fairer and broader-based tax, and that is a price worth paying.

Mr. Knapman : Will my hon. Friend try to provide just a little more detail about the roof tax? I must declare an interest, in that I have been fortunate enough to buy an old mill and a few acres in my constituency, but it is not in very good order--10 years ago the roof fell in. Should I repair it or leave it as it is?

Mr. Portillo : I wish that I could help my hon. Friend. He must, I am afraid, address his appeal to the Opposition. It is for them to supply the details of the new roof tax and, in particular, to explain who will pay it. We understand from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that who pays it will be based on maximum choice, and we now have interesting evidence from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who says that whether one pays the community charge is a matter for the individual. Presumably that begins to elucidate what maximum choice in payment is about.

Mr. Gould : I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new task and to the bed of nails that is the poll tax. I accept that, given the work that we understand he is doing on changes to the poll tax, he cannot yet tell us what his alternative will eventually be, but can he at least give us a clue about the features of the poll tax that he finds objectionable and intends to change? Is it the unfairness ; or is it the administrative and cost complexity to which he referred ; or is it the fundamental principle of a head tax which, as he knows, is shunned in every country with the single exception of Papua New Guinea? Will the changes that he proposes require legislation and, if so, when does he propose to introduce it?

Mr. Portillo : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome to me in my new job. If it were a bed of nails the hon. Gentleman would have cushioned the impact considerably by providing me with the opportunity to attack the Labour party, which criticises us without providing any alternative or any details of its policies. The Labour party is about to make announcements about policy. The Government have no plans to make new announcements on policy this week, and we will look with great interest at what the hon. Gentleman produces tomorrow. My policy since I took on the job from my distinguished predecessor has been to listen carefully to my hon. Friends to discover what anomalies there may be in the present operation of the tax.

Water

2. Mr. Hague : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums of investment are planned in improved water standards over the next 10 years.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten) : On present plans the water industry will be investing £26.3 billion over the next 10 years to improve standards and to repair and renew its infrastructure.

Mr. Hague : Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is the strongest proof that water privatisation has been extremely good news for the environment? Can he

Column 269

confirm and emphasise that in contrast to the days of state control, such expenditure is no longer subject to the uncertainties of the annual public spending round?

Mr. Patten : My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is now a massive investment programme in the improvement of the water environment. We look forward to hearing tomorrow the Labour party's plans for renationalising the water industry. I am sure that that programme would enable Labour, if it were ever in office, to do what it did on the last occasion when it cut investment in water and sewerage by 50 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Will not the Minister admit that the Government's record on investment in the water industry has been pitiful and is one reason why there are a number of cases pending in the European Court of Justice? Would not it be far better for the Government to make sure that more investment was put into the water industry so that those cases may be withdrawn?

Mr. Patten : I am more than happy to stand on the record, which is that since 1980 investment in water has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms. Under the previous Labour Government investment in water fell by 50 per cent. in real terms. In so far as I understand the Labour party to have any plans for the water industry, it wants to spend taxpayers' money on buying back water shares.

Mr. Charles Wardle : To facilitate future capital investment more than £5 billion of water authority debt was written off ahead of privatisation. How will the taxpayer bear the cost of that write-off? The obligation to repay £5 billion does not disappear into thin air. How will the taxpayer be required to meet that obligation?

Mr. Patten : The taxpayer has made an important investment in the improvement of water quality. We were able to secure a green dowry for the water industry when we privatised it. As I said, we shall spend over £26 billion on investment in water quality over the next 10 years. It will be interesting to see whether Labour plans to increase that investment programme or whether it will follow past practice which is, whatever it says about infrastructure investment, to cut such investment.

Sulphur Emissions

3. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to attain the targets for reductions in sulphur emissions in the United Kingdom set by the directive from the European Community.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier) : The Government set out their general plans for implementing the directive in a consultation paper published in August 1989. A further consultation paper setting out more detailed figures will be issued shortly.

Mr. McAllion : In her speech to the United Nations the Prime Minister boasted that Britain had a £2 billion programme of flue gas desulphurisation which would reduce acid rain emissions from our power plants. Why within six months of that speech has the programme been slashed by at least a third, and why is Britain turning to the much less effective but cheaper alternative of importing low-sulphur coal which has the added disadvantage of threatening thousands of jobs in the British mining

Column 270

industry? Is it because the Government give a higher priority to cutting public spending and boosting private profits than they do to protecting the environment or the jobs of British workers?

Mr. Trippier : The Government give a higher priority to the environment than the Labour party ever could. I detect from the hon. Gentleman's question that not only is he in a mess, but so is his party. The Labour party seems to wish us to burn as much coal as possible, but at the same time to reduce CO levels. It will be interesting to see how it squares that circle with the release of its policy document tomorrow. Labour's concern for the environment is not worth the paper it is written on. Its order of priority is the National Union of Mineworkers first and the environment second. That illustrates perfectly why the Labour party will never be a credible party of the environment.

Mr. Butler : What will be the relative cost to the consumer in attaining those targets, of flue gas desulphurisation and of the importation of low-sulphur coal?

Mr. Trippier : I hope that the consultation paper that will be issued shortly will give the informaton on costs that my hon. Friend requires.

Mr. Allen : Will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Energy why it supported British Coal's programme of closing the pits that produced low-sulphur coal? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to reinstate the programme to ensure that our power stations are cleaned up so that they can use British coal rather than cheap imports, and we can retain jobs in the Nottinghamshire coalfield?

Mr. Trippier : I am certain that the overriding concern of British Coal is economics. The hon. Member knows that its strategy is aimed at achieving a competitive coal industry. That is the best guarantee of mineworkers' jobs. Keeping uncompetitive pits open will destroy jobs in the long term.

Rural Housing

4. Mr. Colin Shepherd : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assess the need for new housing in the rented sector in rural areas.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer) : There is a requirement for low-cost housing for rent and sale in some rural areas. That is why we introduced our rural housing initiative, including a special Housing Corporation programme and new planning rules enabling additional land to be made available for low-cost housing for local people.

Mr. Shepherd : Is my hon. Friend aware that the shire district councils are experiencing acute frustration in discharging their function as facilitators of housing in rural areas, having made their assessments on requirements for both rented and for-sale accommodation? Is he aware that, for example, time and time again South Herefordshire district council has had a housing association interested in a project but has received no money from the Housing Corporation? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the balance of distribution within the Housing Corporation's resources properly reflects the real

Column 271

requirements of the rural areas which, in view of demographic changes, have exactly the same needs as the urban areas in terms of homelessness?

Mr. Spicer : I hope that the Housing Corporation will give priority to rural schemes where local authorities have provided their own resources, including cheap land. At least five initiatives specifically relating to rural areas have been taken. The Housing Corporation is placing special emphasis on housing for rent in rural areas. The others are the low-cost home ownership programme, the Rural Development Commission's start-up programme, the low-cost shared ownership programme and the special planning arrangements for low-cost homes. I hope that authorities in rural areas will take note of those schemes and make the best use of them.

Mr. Bermingham : Further to the question of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)--[ Hon. Members :-- "Reading."] At long last, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has shown that he can count fingers. That is an advance on his previous state, when he could not even count.

Does the Minister agree, in the light of the relevant question from the hon. Member for Hereford, that unless we keep young people in rural and semi-rural areas, the drain into the cities will put pressure on them and will diminish the work forces of rural areas? Does he also agree that, without further initiatives, there will be no hope of providing the homes that are needed for youngsters in those areas?

Mr. Spicer : I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on this matter, and that is why we announced the initiatives. I think that we should let the initiatives go through and see how they work out.

Mr. David Nicholson : Would not the encouragement of young people, or people of working age, to remain in rural areas through the provision of low-cost housing, to which I think we all attach importance, help in the retention of village post offices and village shops generally which are threatened--I make no complaint about this--by high interest rates and a combination of the uniform business rate and the community charge? That is definitely a problem in rural areas, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to it.

Mr. Spicer : I agree with my hon. Friend that if people live in villages, especially people with young families, they will spend money in the local post office, and that that will be good for those businesses.

Mr. Soley : The Minister has developed an unenviable reputation for not answering questions on housing, and his performance today has been no exception. I shall ask him a nice easy question today to help him regain his reputation. Why are Lady Anson and the

Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, as well as nearly every Conservative-controlled local authority in rural areas, saying that the schemes that the Minister has introduced do not begin to touch the problem and that a major change of Government policy is required if the housing crisis that is the result of a lack of affordable accommodation for rent or sale in rural areas is to be reversed? Why, in the hon. Gentleman's judgment, is Lady Anson wrong?

Column 272

Mr. Spicer : I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly. Five initiatives have been introduced only recently. If an initiative has been introduced in the past few months, which in some instances is true, the best course is to see how it works out and to make a judgment later. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, all the signs are that low-cost houses are being built in rural areas, and that did not happen under Labour Governments.

Local Government Finance

5. Mr. Yeo : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the way in which community charge is levied on owners of empty property.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope) : I have received a large number of representations about the level of standard charge which some authorities have set and the degree to which they have used their discretionary powers.

Mr. Yeo : Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the insistence of many local authorities on levying a standard charge on the owners of empty properties which are awaiting resale following the removal of the owners to a new permanent address? Will my hon. Friend make it clear to local authorities that, as Parliament has given them the power to levy either a personal charge or a nil charge on some properties, they should consider making wider use of that power?

Mr. Chope : I share the concern that my hon. Friend has stressed. That is why we shall write to local authorities to ascertain how they have been exercising their discretion. If we are dissatisfied, we shall have to consider whether we should specify the maximum multipliers that they can use in certain cases.

Mr. Battle : Will the Minister explain why poll tax, if it is not a property tax, is levied on second homes? Why is it levied on empty properties? Why is it levied on caravans, with the result that people in Leeds who own a modest caravan can no longer afford to go on holiday? Is not it a property tax?

Mr. Chope : Domestic rates used to be levied on empty property. My recollection from sitting in Committee with the hon. Gentleman is that the Labour party is in favour of a contribution being made by owners of empty properties towards the cost of local government expenditure. That is why we have a standard community charge.

Mrs. Peacock : Is my hon. Friend aware that many young people in my constituency and throughout the country who have bought a home in a bad state of repair to renovate are now being charged double standard community charge as well as their personal community charge? It is a disgrace. What will my hon. Friend do about it?

Mr. Chope : I share my hon. Friend's concern. Responsibility must lie with individual councils. They have discretion, and some have not used it as I would have done. That some local authorities have found a reason to exempt their own empty council properties from the standard community charge shows the sense of priorities of some local authorities.

Column 273

Mr. Blunkett : Why, if the local authorities are to blame, was the scheme introduced by the Government in such a way, and why were 100 per cent. collection rates presumed, on the presumption that the money would be made up from the standard poll tax and the grant distribution would be assumed to have a standard poll tax collection rate of two per empty property? Is the Under-Secretary of State willing, in the review that we hear so much about, to ensure that local authorities are properly funded so that they can use their discretion to help all the people that Opposition Members believe should be assisted? Will he tell us why a property tax that is not a property tax needs a property tax to catch up on those who own second homes, who need to pay for local community services but cannot pay a property tax because the Government have abolished it?

Mr. Chope : Perhaps my answer will be too brief for the hon. Gentleman. The Government make no assumptions about income from the standard community charge when calculating revenue support grant. Therefore, there is no pressure on English local authorities to set the maximum multiplier in all cases. There is absolute discretion, and many Conservative Members are concerned that local authorities have not been exercising that discretion reasonably.

Storm Damage

6. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the Government's package of aid to replace trees lost in the recent storms.

Mr. Trippier : In February I announced a £1 million package of aid to Task Force Trees and English Heritage to help to replace amenity and historically important trees lost in this year's storms. We shall consider the provision of further aid as part of this autumn's public expenditure survey. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently anounced special cash help to assist planting of broadleaved trees in woodlands damaged by the storms.

Mr. Townsend : Although I pay tribute to the Government, the Countryside Commission and English Heritage for the work that they are doing to restore the widespread damage following the storms, does the Minister agree that it is now perfectly obvious that more needs to be done? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to get him a little more interested in restoring damage and planting acorns--concepts that should not be utterly alien to the Treasury?

Mr. Trippier : I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's underlying point. It is perfectly clear from the way that the Government have responded, especially with the near £30 million that has been spent following the incredible tragedy of the 1987 storms, that our commitment is total. Obviously, we shall have to wait for the negotiations in the public expenditure survey round later this year, but I have sympathy for the underlying point.

Mr. Tony Banks : Is the Minister aware of the storm devastation that still exists in the south-east? A number of trees still have not been cleared, never mind new planting. I echo what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said. Much more money is needed. How many

Column 274

trees were lost in those two major storms and how many trees have been replanted, given the small amount of money that the Government have made available?

Mr. Trippier : We have had a substantial number of applications from various bodies, including local authorities, and it would be impossible for me to catalogue the total number of trees affected, but after the recent storms we received 148 applications which I believe are eligible for grant aid. Some of that money will be forthcoming this financial year and some more next year in the public expenditure survey settlement. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I admit that the bulk of the cost is not in planting but in clearing fallen trees.

Local Government Finance

7. Mr. Day : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a person on average male earnings would pay in local income tax in 1990-91 in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge in Truro.

Mr. Portillo : If we had a system of local income tax which raised the same amount as the community charge nationally, a single person in Truro on average male earnings could have paid up to £888.

Mr. Day : I thank my hon. Friend for that most interesting and illuminating reply for which I am sure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is grateful. Would it be even more helpful if roof tax figures were available for Truro and the rest of the country? Does my hon. Friend agree that the expected publication of Labour's mini-manifesto tomorrow is likely to throw no more light on the subject than Labour has shed on it in the past? Do not the public have a right to expect an answer concerning the Labour party's proposals?

Mr. Portillo : I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be helpful to have authoritative figures from the Labour party on the roof tax. My hon. Friend speculates that tomorrow's policy document will not provide much illumination on that subject. I can hardly believe that that is true. Labour party spokesmen--Mr. Peter Mandelson in particular--have more or less assured us that the details will be spelt out in tomorrow's document. Therefore, my hon. Friend must be mistaken if he says that they will not be forthcoming tomorrow.

Mr. Matthew Taylor : I assure the Minister and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that Truro has absolutely no interest in the Labour party's roof tax. It is, however, interested in the local income tax proposals. Although the Minister is new to his job, he ought to be aware that his figures are not based on the kind of local income tax system that we would introduce. The local income tax figure for an average household in my constituency is £317, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £622. Cheadle constituents may be interested to know that the average local income tax bill for each household there would be £365, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £798. The hon. Member for Cheadle lost his seat as a councillor to the Liberals and no doubt will lose his parliamentary seat at the next general election.

Column 275

Mr. Portillo : All I can say is "abracadabra." The SLD has come up with a system under which everyone everywhere pays less. Today I can reveal how that trick is achieved. Part of the trick is to take last year's figures, thus raising only £7.2 billion in local income tax in England whereas this year £10.8 billion is being raised from the community charge. Immediately, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's figures are out by a cool 50 per cent. Furthermore, my figures compare what a person on average male earnings would pay in each constituency. We are looking at what a person on the same level of earnings would pay in each constituency, which seems to be the only valid comparison.

Environmental Conference, Bergen

8. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent international conference on the environment at Bergen, Norway.

Mr. Trippier : I led the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial conference on sustainable development in Bergen on 8 to 16 May which was attended by all member countries of the Economic Commission for Europe. It examined progress within the ECE on implementing the recommendations of the Brundtland report and allowed us to consider, from a regional point of view, the most crucial issues that will need to be decided at the United Nations conference on environment and development in 1992. It was also the first opportunity for western Environment Ministers to meet their newly elected colleagues from east Europe. The United Kingdom won praise for its constructive approach to the conference as whole, and in particular for its contribution to the forward-looking ministerial declaration which was adopted unanimously and by acclamation and a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Jones : Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that the conference failed to agree on even the modest first step of holding carbon dioxide emissions at their current level in 10 years' time? How can the Government say that they are committed to fighting global warming when all that they did at the conference was slavishly to follow the United States line?

Mr. Trippier : That is drivel. If the hon. Gentleman compares the Noordwy"k declaration with that which was agreed to at Bergen, he will see that a step has been taken in the right direction. The Bergen conference was not about carbon dioxide emissions but about sustainable development. The conference which is to concentrate on carbon dioxide emissions, their stabilisation and future reduction, is the second world climate change conference in Geneva, when the United Kingdom delegation will be led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is absolute tripe and demonstrably daft for the hon. Gentleman to suggest to me, of all people, that we adopted the American line when we acted as honest brokers in bringing the Americans together with all the other countries at the conference.

Mr. Bill Walker : When my hon. Friend and his colleagues attend conferences, do they ever discuss not just man-made problems but natural problems? Many of the difficulties and hazards to the environment are caused by

Column 276

nature. Is it not about time that we began to consider methods of rectifying the problems which result from natural disasters?

Mr. Trippier : I accept entirely that one of the most important issues that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to address is global climate changes which are caused by man-made problems and those which occur naturally. That will be the subect of the three reports which I hope will be made public prior to the final report from Professor Bolin in late August.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : Is the Minister aware that we welcome the seriousness of his approach to the problems in Bergen and acknowledge that he played a part in telling everyone how serious the problems under discussion were? Is he aware that we are disappointed, as were many of the participants, that he blocked some of the proposals, particularly the attempt to get agreement on an immediate commitment to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000? Is not it a fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State recognise the scale of the problems being discussed but are constantly undermined by other Cabinet Ministers, including the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy and the Prime Minister herself? When does the Minister expect to make progress with his Cabinet colleagues, or will this be another case of Environment Ministers saying, "abracadabra"?

Mr. Trippier : What a pity--I was most impressed and incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she commenced her series of questions, and I am most grateful to her for her kind words about me. I have said already that the conference was not about carbon dioxide. If the hon. Lady had been in my place at that conference, she would not have agreed to a target or to any level, and many other countries also would not reach such an agreement--it was not just Britain and the Americas--because those matters have to be addressed in Geneva in November. The Government have been a large subscriber to the IPCC process, both financially and in terms of human resources, so it would be ridiculous for us not to wait until the IPCC has reported before deciding targets. The point was effectively made by the Danish Minister at the conference, who said that she was fed up with having to attend so many international conferences-- seven in the past nine months--at which every main issue expected to be addressed involved carbon dioxide emissions. The hon. Lady must be a little more patient as it is only a few months until the Geneva conference.

European Environment Agency

10. Mr. Paice : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the proposed European Environment Agency.

Mr. Chris Patten : The aim of the agency is to provide the Commission and member states with objective, reliable and comparable environmental information at Community level. It will work by co-ordinating information from a network of national institutions and co-operate with other international bodies to avoid duplication. The regulation setting out the role of the agency in detail was adopted on 7 May 1990.

Mr. Paice : My right hon. Friend will agree that the agency will gather statistics, which will prove once and for

Column 277

all that Britain is well ahead of many other European countries in protection of the environment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour council in Cambridge has said that it does not wish the agency to be based in the city of Cambridge, thus displaying the council's real level of concern? May I assure my right hon. Friend that there are many suitable sites in my constituency close to the Cambridge city boundary where we would be pleased and proud to see the agency based?

Mr. Patten : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whatever others may have done or said, he has consistently and vigorously pressed the case for Cambridge and the Cambridge area as the best base for this important agency. Cambridge has all the resources that the agency needs to operate successfully. It is the best candidate in the European Community, and I very much hope that the decision will take account of the overwhelming case for Cambridge and the surrounding area.

Mr. Maclennan : Will the Secretary of State also recognise the strong case that has been made by Aberdeen university to share in the work done by the environment agency and in the north of Scotland? As we do not wish to see centralisation, would not it be appropriate to steer some of the work north of the border?

Mr. Patten : If we had the opportunity at this Question Time, I have no doubt that more than 600 good cases could be made for the agency to be sited in different parts of the country--I will forbear to press the argument for Bath--but whatever the case for other universities, it is recognised well beyond our shores that Cambridge has an outstanding case.

Planning

11. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been set up since the scheme commenced ; and how many are in the pipeline for future approval.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan) : In England, simplified planning zones have been established in Derby and Corby. A further eight zones are at various stages of preparation.

Mr. Riddick : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing entrepreneurs trying to bring enterprise and jobs to inner- city areas are the obstacles placed in their way by unhelpful planning authorities such as Kirklees council? Does he agree that we should be doing everything in our power, including the use of simplified planning zones, to make it easier to develop in inner-city areas, thereby reducing the pressure to build on green field sites?

Mr. Moynihan : I recognise the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done in trying to persuade his council to use a simplified planning zone. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members laugh, but many Labour councils have recognised the benefits of simplified planning zones for regenerating areas where there has been industrial after-use and for jobs. I am surprised that Labour Members laugh at the prospect of councils working with Government to create jobs.

Mr. Hardy : Does the Minister recognise that many local authorities are extremely anxious that deregulation

Column 278

will lead to danger for the community and a risk to the environment? Will he guarantee that simplified planning zones will not give freedom to the irresponsible entrepreneur, who may be most interested in such development?

Mr. Moynihan : The hon. Member will know that a simplifed planning zone is established not at the direction of Government but at the request of the local authority concerned which, as with local plans, must undertake proper consultation, taking into account the important point that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mrs. Currie : Is my hon. Friend aware that in Derby we are thrilled to bits with our simplified planning zone, which has enabled the quick clearance of a derelict site and the erection of fine industrial units which have been let or sold, to the delight of the local business community? Will my hon. Friend come and see what we are doing in Derby so that he can assure Opposition Members that their fears are groundless?

Mr. Moynihan : It is always a pleasure to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to visit Derby. If I did so, I would see the 41-hectare site which, as a result of an imaginative response by the people of Derby and the simplified planning procedures, will enable an area of industrial plant to be brought back into active use in the interests of local people.

Mr. O'Brien : Does not the Minister's reply show that the simplified planning zone system is all to cock and on the whole not welcomed by local government? How well does it fit in with the present unitary development plan and the overall strategic plan? Has the Minister given thought to the planning problems that local authorities face and does he intend to help them by explaining how the scheme will fit in with unitary planning?

Mr. Moynihan : I am surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman does not know the answer to that question. The answer is that the zones fit in perfectly. When local councils draw up their plans they will look at the specific areas where they need the opportunity to allow planning to go ahead without cumbersome procedures. They can identify those areas, propose simplified planning zones and institute them within the overall remit of their unitary development plans.

Right to Buy

12. Mr. Gerald Bowden : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his Department has had with Southwark council about the level of capital repair charges which it sets for tenants who have exercised their right to buy.

Mr. Chope : The Department has recently written to the London borough of Southwark following representations by my hon. Friend and others about pre-sale estimates of service charges for repairs and improvements.

Mr. Bowden : My hon. Friend will be aware that those of us who take a close interest in the affairs of Southwark are convinced that Southwark council is using or misusing procedures under the right to buy to discourage people who are considering purchasing and, indeed, to demoralise those who have already purchased. Are the Government prepared to sit by and see their laws challenged in that

Column 279

way? More importantly, are the Government prepared to see the rightful aspirations of those who wish to purchase thwarted by those procedures?

Next Section

  Home Page