asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of footpaths have been closed in the past five years; and how many miles of footpaths have been created in the same period.

The figures are not available.

Will the Minister accept that that is a disappointing answer? Will he also accept that more and more people go walking and that they want more and more facilities for walking and that these can be provided only if more footpaths are created? Would it not be a sensible use of the large numbers of people who are unemployed at the moment to use them to clear obstructed footpaths, to drain or provide better drainage on many of the footpaths that are over-used and generally to improve footpath amenities?

I dare say that you, at least, Mr. Speaker, were pleased with my opening remark.

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and I certainly accept that there might he some interesting aspects to the final part of his question, but the important thing to remember is that on 28 February part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 concerning public rights of way comes into force. Everybody will acknowledge that this can give tremendous help in ensuring that existing procedures for both the creation and stopping up of footpaths are acknowledged by all.

I recognise the important part that footpaths can play in recreation and leisure, but does my hon. Friend agree that footpath societies and ramblers associations should be more flexible when farmers and other individuals whose property is affected apply for a diversion of a footpath but not a closure? At the moment they seem to oppose everything just for the sake of opposing it.

I am not certain that I would echo my hon. Friend's sentiments entirely. The Ramblers Association has an opportunity to produce figures from time to time if it so wishes. I do not want to comment on that dispute today.

Will the Minister take up the latter point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about the improvement of footpaths? Will it be possible for the Minister to press the national parks authorities, or perhaps send them a circular asking them to make it a deliberate act of policy to employ people to try to improve footpaths in areas where they are badly worn?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be observed in the fullness of time. Local authorities have the necessary powers to enable that to be done. It is up to individual authorities to decide, in the light of the total recreational needs of the area and the resources available, whether that footpath provision is adequate or should be augmented. That is the best way to approach the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities against which he is currently contemplating action for their failure to comply with the law relating to the sale of council houses to sitting tenants; and if he will make a statement.

With permission I will publish in the Official Report the authorities under formal warning that my right hon. Friend is contemplating use of his powers of intervention under section 23 of the Housing Act 1980 either on behalf of their tenants generally or on behalf of a specific tenant or tenants who are experiencing delay. Progress on the right to buy is now generally satisfactory and I estimate that since the Government were elected the number of sales in Great Britain is now approaching half a million.

To encourage my hon. Friend to do what he can to ensure that the will of the House is carried out and that the benefits of the legislation that has been passed are made available to those who are still being deprived, may I, on behalf of many of my constituents thank him for and, indeed, congratulate him on, the diligence and perseverance with which he has seen through the House and put on the statute book what is perhaps one of the most significant pieces of social legislation that we have seen for a long time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what he said about the immense social importance of emancipating financially so many hundreds of thousands of families in this country.

Will the Minister give the figure for the number of council house starts to replace the 500,000 council houses that are being sold?

We shall come to that in a later question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial increase in public sector housing starts this year.

Is my right hon. Friend looking, in his current Housing and Building Conrol Bill, at the onerous restrictions and covenants that are placed by many local authorities on the ability of people to buy their council houses?

My hon. Friend is on to an important point. A provision in the Bill before the House makes it clear that the criterion of reasonableness applies to all covenants and conditions that are imposed on council tenants who exercise their right to buy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in his review of the operation of provisions relating to the rating of empty industrial premises.

Whilst I am continuing to keep this under close review, my hon. Friend is aware that local authorities already have full discretion either to reduce further or to waive rates on empty industrial premises. I hope that all authorities will take this into account in the light of the difficult problems faced by industry at the present time.

As many local authorities have disregarded that advice, does my right hon. Friend not think it absurd that owners of factories and warehouses are having to remove the roofs of their premises to avoid a continuing and crippling rate burden? Will he promise to complete his review and have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in good time before the Budget on 15 March?

I am well aware of the concern over these matters. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to it before in the House. I shall be talking to my right hon. Friends on this and other matters. I am prepared to give that undertaking.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many local authorities—not all Tory controlled—which would like to help in this respect? However, the legal advice that is being given to them is that they can opt for the three-month relief or knock off rates altogether. It appears that a local authority cannot opt for a six-month release or a nine-month release, which to some of us are periods that make sense. The effect on authorities is that they lose income by granting this relief. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that aspect?

I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The gross period cannot be altered, but the percentage can of the rate that is charged. That will have exactly the same effect over a year. It is open to a local authority, at its discretion, to reduce the percentage rate that it chooses to charge. The Government thought it right, in the most recent local government legislation, to reduce the liability to 50 per cent. However, it is in a local authority's discretion to reduce it further or to waive rates altogether. I understand that 156 authorities waive rates altogether.

Was that not a non-reply? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear whether he is prepared to offer guidance to local authorities on this subject? If he were to do so, would the guidance cover Scotland as well? What would be the estimated total loss of rate income at current prices?

It is not possible to make such an estimate, because we do not have the necessary figures. I made it clear in the main answer that I hope that all authorities will take into account the difficult problems that are being faced by industry. Whether this will apply to anyone in Scotland must depend, I suppose, on whether anybody in Scotland is listening.

When my right hon. Friend is considering the reform of domestic rates, will he bear in mind the crippling effect of industrial rates? Will he ensure that that is not made greater by transferring an extra burden from the domestic to the industrial sector?

My main answer made it clear that I am conscious of the impact of industrial rates. There has been some discussion in the House about the impact on industry. I note that the rating proposals of the Birmingham city council and the reduction in the rate will save British Leyland £676,000 on its rate bill in the coming year. I am sure that the House, recognising the problems faced by British Leyland, will welcome that. Equally, I hope that the House will condemn the likelihood that that reduction will be more than lost by the increase proposed by the Labour-controlled West Midlands county council.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the existing £225 rateable value limit for eligibility for home improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.

The rateable value limits are kept under review, but there are no present plans for an increase.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in country areas especially, property such as former vicarages, farmhouses and amalgamated cottages play an essential part in meeting local housing needs? Will he recognise that these houses are essentially old and often in need of repair? Therefore, the limit should be increased.

My hon. Friend will be aware that it has been the view of successive Governments that improvement grant expenditure should be concentrated on lower value properties because of the likelihood that the owners of such property will be most in need of public expenditure. I assure my hon. Friend that rateable values have not changed since 1977, when the last rating revaluation took effect. Therefore, there has been no effective deterioration in the number of dwellings that are eligible. A high proportion of the dwellings that are in need of improvement fall below the rateable value limits and are therefore eligible.

Does the Minister accept that one of the problems revealed by the English house condition survey, especially in London and the south-east, was a deterioration in the condition of many of the homes belonging to elderly owner-occupiers? Clearly, pensioners have particular problems in negotiating the complexities of the improvement grant system. What action is he taking to deal with this problem?

We have to help the low-income groups, including the low-income elderly. We have extended the 90 per cent. grant until the end of the 1983–84 financial year. An important issue is raised in helping people to get the necessary advice and to take advantage of the available grants. We are encouraging the building societies—I did so at a Building Society Association seminar last Friday—to work with local authorities in helping to provide agency services for the elderly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the football authorities.

There is no fixed agenda at this moment, but, as the House will expect, uppermost in my mind is violence associated with football.

Will the Minister arrange a meeting with his Scottish counterpart and all the football authorities to discuss the vexed question of charges for the policing of football grounds, which have to be met out of the limited resources of the clubs? As the problem is even worse in Scotland, where, for example, the SFA had to fork out £17,000 to police only 25,000 spectators at the Scotland v Wales international at Hampden last year, will the hon. Gentleman consider providing free police cover for public meetings, or does he want a situation to develop whereby some of the policemen strolling around the park will be paid more per hour than some of the players on the field?

I suspect that in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question he was dealing with the exception rather than the norm. I do not undertake to promote the view that he has presented. It is a sad reflection on the level of violence that most people expect at some football matches nowadays, certainly in the professional game, that there has to be a large police presence. These are matters that will have been taken on board by my appropriate colleagues in the Scottish Office. However, they are predominantly matters for the Home Office in England.

Some of the recent outbreaks of hooliganism among soccer crowds may cost a lot of money to correct, because money will have to be spent on taking appropriate safety measures. Will my hon. Friend consider approaching our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Budget with a view to easing the burden of VAT and other taxes on some soccer clubs?

Those representations have been made to me by various representatives of the football authorities and the pools promoters. I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

What advice will the Minister give to the football authorities to deal with the louts who are threatening the very existence of a great football club within 12 miles of my constituency?

I do not think that anybody underestimates the severity of the events of last Saturday. They were deeply depressing and I do not suppose that anyone wants to see a great club go under because of the actions of fewer than 1 per cent. of the spectators on that occasion. I can only hope that the football commission, which is investigating the occurrence, as well as my officials, who visited the ground last week, will unearth exactly what went wrong. A problem is coming this Saturday, when there will be four major cup ties in our capital city. No amount of planning and preparation by the football clubs, the football authorities and the stadium authorities will ensure that these wretched louts are eliminated.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the football clubs that are to blame for this ridiculous and disgraceful hooliganism? The courts do not appear to hand out the right sentences to those who are convicted of hooliganism and vandalism. Will he make the strongest representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that our judiciary deals with the issue in a much more forceful and robust manner?

I am grateful to have my hon. Friend's support. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 gave the courts greater power and authority than they had ever had before. I can only wish that the magistrates courts will use some of the 120 attendance centres.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the house condition survey 1981.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the English house condition survey 1981.

I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on 14 December.

Does the Minister dispute the findings of the survey, which shows that one house in 10 is unfit to live in or is in a serious state of disrepair? Does he dispute the finding of the House of Commons Select Committee inquiry that we shall be short of more than 420,000 houses by 1984? Is he aware that in cities such as Liverpool people are living in houses that are unfit for human habitation and that many council house tenants inhabit houses that are damp or in a serious state of disrepair? What will he do about that?

I do not dispute the findings of the English house condition survey of 1981, which the Government have published. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the five-year period which the survey covered included the time of the Lib-Lab pact, when the Opposition had some responsibility for these matters. I also remind him that the present level of improvement grant is way in excess of any level that was achieved during the Lib-Lab pact.

With more than 1 million homes being unfit and about 900,000 houses lacking one of the basic amenities, is the Minister aware that, instead of the housing cuts of the past few years, what is required is an emergency building programme to ensure that all our people can live in decent conditions? Does he agree that it would make much more sense to employ people now on the dole queue, especially construction workers, to do the work for which they were trained in the first place?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider what is now happening with regard to home improvement. The expenditure on home improvement grants is more than doubling this year. For example, grants for the disabled are three times higher than when the Government came to office, and repair grants are 70 times what they were in 1979. For last year, we look like having the highest number of improvement grants in any year since 1974.

What about unemployment?

Is my hon. Friend aware that Liverpool city council has accumulated 5,000 empty council properties? Is he further aware that the council is refusing to allow people on the waiting list to move into those houses and pay for the repairs themselves? Will he tell the leader of the Liberal council that unless he allows people to help themselves, the Government will stop aid to the city?

We regularly encourage all local authorities to make use of their empty properties by selling them, so that the purchasers can make the improvements themselves with the aid of improvement grants. Homesteading is an important part of our policy. I hope that the council in Liverpool will use homesteading with the same enthusiasm as many Conservative councils have done.

Does the Minister agree that the real rate of increase in the number of unfit properties recently is 41 per cent.? By what method and by whom were the 1976 figures for unfit houses changed? Does he agree that the report explains why those figures were changed, but not how they were changed? Were those changes made by technically qualified officers? If not, by whom were they made? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was an exercise in cooking the books to disguise the effects of Tory cuts?

The hon. Lady has scored an own goal. The 1981 house condition survey shows that the 1976 house condition survey, which was carried out by the previous Government, seriously underestimated the quantity of unfitness and disrepair.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for the central collection, under different headings designed to show the reason for the inability, of the numbers of former council house tenants who purchase council houses but are unable to meet mortgage repayments.

No. Sir.

Is it reasonable to conclude from that answer that, for political reasons, the Minister is anxious to conceal the number of former council tenants who are unable to maintain their mortgage repayments because of break-up of marriage, injury at work, unemployment, separation and other factors, and are faced with homelessness because the council cannot rehouse them? What advice does he give to councils that are faced with that problem?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are perfectly happy to make available the statistics that we have on the subject, but they are not available in the form for which he has asked. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave the figures in answer to a written question. On the basis of the evidence that is available, we are not satisfied that it is such a substantial problem that a completely new type of form should be introduced, both for building societies and for local authorities, to collect the type of information for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

The advice must be that if people are suffering hardship they should be reminded that supplementary benefit is available to help with their interest payments and that they should talk to their lending authorities to see whether arrangements can be made to help them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some former council tenants who exercised their right to buy obtained their mortgage from the local authority? Is he aware that they may now meet some difficulty in making their repayments, because they are paying perhaps 2½ per cent. more in mortgage interest rates than they would if they transferred their mortgage to a building society? Will he confirm that his Department is doing all that it can to encourage local authorities to re-fund their mortgages with building societies?

My hon. Friend has done the public a service by reminding them that they can switch their mortgage from a local authority to a building society when there is a differential in the interest rates. The figures show that of 5½ million building society mortgages, only 3,660 were substantially in arrears at the end of 1981. That puts the problem more into perspective than did the emotive remarks of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens).

Does the Minister agree that his answer was complacent? He mentioned the number of people who faced foreclosures, but there are many thousands more who are extremely worried about the problem. Does he agree that the Government have a special responsibility to those who have been caught by the two prongs of the Government's policy, by which they have been encouraged to buy council houses and then been affected by the Government's deliberate creation of unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman has left out a very important prong of the Government's policy, which is to bring down interest rates. The substantial fall in mortgage interest rates is of real benefit to those who are buying their homes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were built in the city of Leicester in each of the past five years for which records are available.

In the five years 1977 to 1981, 1,154, 1,127, 960, 678 and 297 dwellings, respectively, were completed by Leicester city council.

Is the Minister aware that that catastrophic drop in council house building has been caused entirely by the Government cutting off the necessary funds? Is he further aware that about 30,000 people in Leicester are on the housing waiting list and that not only is he causing great hardship for those who are least able to bear it, but he is supervising the demolition of our local house construction industry?

The hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to direct his indignation towards Leicester city council. Towards the end of last year my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made it clear that he would entertain additional bids from local authorities that wanted to supplement their HIP allocation for the current year. As he has said, another £160 million has been made available. Sadly, we did not hear from Leicester city council.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware—if he is not will he have a word with his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, to whom I wrote on the subject last week—that recent investigations into an estate in the city of Leicester reveal structural defects in just under 1,000 houses? Will he give the city council two undertakings? First, will he authorise the city council, if demolition is required, to have an increase in the HIP allocation to cover rebuilding the houses? Secondly, will he assure those who have exercised their right to buy—27 people are involved—that they will be extended the same conditions as the Government announced for Airey houses earlier this week?

I assume, or rather I hope, that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Saffron lane estate, information about which came to light fairly recently and too late to be included in next year's HIP allocation. We shall be in touch with the local authority to see how that problem can be overcome.

As the rate of building seems to have declined rapidly under a Labour council in Leicester, will my hon. Friend consider writing to the council to remind it of its duty to the public in general and the need to maintain a suitable council house building programme in its area in particular?

The figures that I gave were for completions. The figures for starts are more encouraging. There were 720 public sector starts in the first nine months of 1982 in Leicester, compared with 467 for the whole of 1979.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress local authorities are making in reducing their staff numbers.

Total local authority manpower in England has been reduced by approximately 174,000—6·9 per cent.—full-time and part-time staff since 1979 and is now back to the level of 1972. But the rate of reduction has been slowing recently. I believe that there is scope for further reductions to reverse that tendency and I look to all local authorities to continue their efforts.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are still many councils—most of them Labour-controlled—which employ people in ridiculous jobs, such as minders for prostitutes and play leaders, at highly inflated incomes? Does he agree that many authorities should do more to reduce their manpower—for example, by putting out the sale of council houses to private enterprise?

There is continuing scope for further reductions in local authority manpower. I hope that all authorities will realise the importance of that. I hope that my earlier illustration of the assistance that one council—I cited Birmingham, but there are others—gave to industry by reducing rates will be noted by everybody. The number of authorities that have large budgets and increasing staff in an attempt to support industry will find that the best contribution that they can make is to restrain their expenditure.

What evidence has the Minister that, by creating unemployment in the public service; he has created any additional employment in manufacturing industry?

I find that question, coming from an hon. Gentleman who represents the city of Sheffield and who knows the state of rates in that city and their impact on industry—

I also know the state of industry.

The hon. Gentleman knows their impact on industry and also the retail sector. It is staggering that he stands before the House and makes such comments.

Does the Secretary of State now accept that the introduction of the most complicated and disastrous unified housing benefit scheme will add greatly to the costs of local authorities, which are bound to employ additional staff to run the scheme?

It is recognised that there might be some additional staff required to run the scheme, as there is a saving in staff at the DHSS. I thought that the House basically agreed that the scheme was a more sensible approach. I hope that it will be appreciated by its recipients, as it will avoid the confusing position that previously existed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that private manufacturing industry, which has cut its numbers to the bone, looks with amazement and dismay at the still high staffing levels in local authorities—which are responsible for the high rates that industry must pay?

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. I have never ceased to emphasise that it is important that everybody, whether in the public or private sector, realises that they have a joint concern for the prosperity of their own areas. I am anxious that there should be the closest consultation between the private sector and local authorities. A number of local authorities of all political pursuasions are now recognising the importance of that. I hope that the message is getting across that it is important to keep rate levels to the minimum.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many district and borough councils have reduced their rate poundage over the past three years; and what has been the average increase over this period.

Between 1980–81 and 1982–83 there were reductions in the reported average local rate poundages of 30 districts and boroughs. General rate poundage in England rose by an average of 37 per cent. over the period.

Some councils, such as Southend-on-Sea, have a remarkable record in reducing their borough rate. Does my hon. Friend agree that some horrific increases in other areas are destroying jobs and causing a great deal of hardship? As Southend has shown that rates can be reduced, would not my hon. Friend be justified—in anticipation of rating reform—in putting a maximum increase on all rate poundages?

There has been a substantial increase in precepts and rates, which have offset in almost every case the reductions that districts and boroughs have made. Of the 30 boroughs that have achieved such reductions, 23 were under Conservative control. However, the precept increases more than offset the reductions. My hon. Friend will recognise that supplementary rates have already been made illegal by an Act of Parliament last year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled Essex county council has forecast a rate increase this year of 5 per cent., whereas the Labour-controlled Basildon district council has forecast a rate increase of 40 per cent.? Will my hon. Friend give firm advice to Basildon district council that it should reduce its spending to save jobs in Basildon?

There can be no more eloquent testimony than my hon. Friend's remarks to the policy that my right hon. Friend has sought to pursue in making this year's rate settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a statement on the terms for transfer of assets from development corporations to local authorities.

We are establishing guidelines on the terms of transfer for community-related assets in the light of our discussions with district councils and, as I told my hon. Friend on 8 December, I hope shortly to be resuming discussions with the association on the terms for future housing transfers.

Will there be any income-producing assets—such as commercial and industrial—included in the balanced package on community-related assets to ensure that no undue burden is placed on local authorities arising from the need to maintain other community-related assets?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The transfer will take place on terms that do not impose an unacceptable burden on district councils. The aim is that it should be broadly neutral on revenue accounts. Assets that cost money will be balanced by assets that are revenue earning.

Will the Minister state clearly what assistance he will give to local authorities if they take over assets that are disposed of by the Commission for the New Towns when that is wound up—especially car parks and other assets that lose money? Will he make a better arrangement than that which he made for the houses affected by design defects, when he refused fully to honour promises made in the House?

I do not for one moment accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation. I hope that the offer that was made on housing at the end of last year to district councils will be acceptable to them all. The aim is to find a fair balance between the ratepayers taking over the assets and the taxpayers who originally created them.

Will my hon. Friend agree officially to consult hon. Members who represent third generation new towns about the detailed proposals for the transfer of assets within their constituencies before the proposals are affirmed?

I shall ensure that hon. Members who represent the areas concerned are kept fully aware of the negotiations as they proceed between my Department and the district councils.

Does the Minister intend to learn from his previous mistakes? Does he recall the bitter resentment caused by the dictatorial and disgraceful terms that he imposed on the transfer of housing assets? Does he now accept that the forced sale of housing, industrial and commercial assets on less than fair terms will have disastrous consequences for new towns and their residents?

My Department has no powers to force local authorities to take over housing. We have made it clear to the new towns that housing must be in good shape before it is offered to local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a statement on the future of domestic rates.

I shall announce our decisions as soon as possible.

Is it not ironic that the Government, who came into power talking about the abolition of domestic rates—

Ask a question.

I said "Is it not". That is a question. Is the Secretary of State aware—as he obviously is—that since the Government came to power they have shifted the amount of rate support grant from 62 per cent. down to 53 per cent. in the next financial year, with the result that instead of abolishing domestic rates they are imposing a burden on the domestic, industrial and other hereditaments involved in rating—which is the exact opposite of the policy on which they were elected? Has there not been a shift away from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, even though the Government said that they would abolish rates?

It would have been even more ironic had the hon. Gentleman not quite made it to the Chamber in time for his question. I congratulate him on the speed with which he constructed his supplementary question while not being wholly aware of the contents of his original question when he entered the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman said that we were imposing higher rate burdens. If he had been in the Chamber a little earlier he would have heard of Conservative councils up and down the country which, far from imposing higher rate burdens, are to make substantial reductions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the least that the House expects on the issue of domestic rate reform is a White Paper to be presented to the House and, in due course, a commitment in the next Conservative general election manifesto to the removal of this monstrously unfair—although I accept efficient—tax, which, incidentally, unnoticed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), was conspicuously absent from the last Conservative manifesto?

I am more than aware of what the House expects, even if the expectation is not always the same in every corner of it.

When do the Government intend to honour the Prime Minister's personal commitment to abolish domestic rates?

I have nothing to add to the answer that I have just given.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage increase or decrease in real terms—net of inflation—occurred in central Government rate support and other grants for all purposes to local government in England year on year in 1979–80, 1980–81, 1981–82 and 1982–83.

On the basis of the deflators normally used, central Government grants and subsidies to local authorities in England fell by about ½ per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1980–81, and by about 9½ per cent. between 1980–81 and 1981–82. Comparisons with 1982–83 cannot be made until outturn information for 1982–83 pay and price changes is available.

Do not those figures show that the Government have no intention of providing the resources that local electors are entitled to expect, to maintain and improve standards of health, housing, education and other civic amenities?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, but it is a fact that local authorities must share in the overall necessity to reduce public expenditure. It is also a fact that the Government have introduced a number of other grants to assist local authorities, such as the urban development grant, which in many cases have made a substantial contribution.

Why have the Government reduced the northern region's percentage share of total national allocation of HIP from 5·7 per cent. in 1981–82 to 5·4 per cent. in 1982–83, while, at the same time, they have increased the share for the southern regions? Why are we in the northern region being penalised? Do the Government believe in a divided society, north against south?

I reject completely the hon. Gentleman's final assertion. The object is to ensure that inflation is reduced and that under public expenditure policies every region will benefit. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction to write to the hon. Gentleman about the northern region's HIP allocation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he gave in respect of the proposed tour to South America in 1983 by the England football team.

Last September the Football Association chairman sought my advice on whether to include in a short two-match tour of South America in the summer of 1983 a match against Argentina. I told him that the decision was entirely for the Football Association but, in the circumstances prevailing at that time, I would advise against doing so.

Is it not also a fact that Brazil made it clear that the England team was not welcome? Is not the brutal truth that no British team will be welcome in South America until negotiations on the Falkland Islands start?

That is not necessarily the chronological order of events. The hon. Gentleman must try to understand, even if he does not understand all the other aspects of the matter, that it is not time to contemplate a match next June, although it is recognised that there has been traditional hostility aroused between England and Argentina in our footballing history.

Is the Minister aware that his advice on tours to Latin America or elsewhere by England's soccer teams will become increasingly irrelevant if he sits passively by while our national game is destroyed at its economic roots by violence? Therefore, will he reconsider his earlier remarks that he had no early plans—

Order. That is another question. The hon. Gentleman has gone back to an earlier question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available in the Library details of the arrangements between Mr. A. M. Alfred, chief executive of the Property Services Agency, and his Department.

Yes, Sir. I have today placed in the Library, and sent to the hon. Member, a note of the details of the arrangements that are particular to Mr. Alfred's limited period appointment.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he agree that it was wrong of Mr. Alfred not to reveal to the officials with whom he was negotiating the fact that the private company into which his salary was paid was set up only six days prior to his appointment? Does he not further agree that that brings into question the honesty and integrity of Mr. Alfred? Should he not be sacked forthwith?

I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's latter point. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman seeks to pursue it. The matter is not without precedent. A similar arrangement was made under the previous Administration. In this situation I do not presume to indulge with the hon. Gentleman, in a witch-hunt against someone taking on an extremely important post in the public sector.

Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to look at the operation of the Property Services Agency, whether under the aegis of Mr. Alfred or anyone else, in its relationship with the Ministry of Defence, among other Departments, particularly because of the difficulty of controlling the operation of the PSA or the MOD in given stations, bases and ship bases?

I shall have talks shortly with Mr. Alfred on proposals for the future organisation of the PSA. My hon. Friend is aware that I have not been closely involved with that part of my Department. I shall take a close interest in it, because it is an extremely important area of my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current level of council house building starts; and if he will make a statement.

It is for each local authority to determine the balance between new build and improvement and how much of its single block allocation and its capital receipts it uses for housing. However, local authority starts up to the end of November last year were 32 per cent. up on the same period in 1981 and total public sector starts were 39 per cent. up.

Does the Minister recall that he and his colleagues frequently told me, when Labour was in control of Cannock Chase district council, that one of the factors that affected the house building programme was the council's failure to sell council houses? Now that the Tories and Liberals are in joint control of the council and are selling council houses like hot cakes, will the Minister explain why the council housing programme has virtually collapsed? Will he come clean with the House and accept that the Tory Government's financial programmes have virtually destroyed all hope for hundreds of thousands of people on council house waiting lists?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was a substantial increase in public sector house building starts last year.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the increase in public sector housing starts is a welcome development? Does he further accept that local authorities should now be seeking to concentrate those housing starts on particular sectors of the housing market rather than overall in the housing market, and particularly on single flats for old and young people? Is he aware that a further increase in activity in that area could make a significant contribution to increasing the level of activity in the economy as a whole?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is now policy in most local authorities to concentrate on meeting specialist needs. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have recently published an interesting and helpful book on housing initiatives for single people.

Bearing in mind that the number of new council dwellings remains the same as in the 1920s, why does not the Minister go round the country and see for himself the number of people who are waiting, desperately anxious to be rehoused by the local authority, and who, in the absence of being rehoused, are living in inadequate conditions? Why do not the Minister and his colleagues drop the vendetta against council housing?

The Government are taking a rounded approach to housing in looking at both the public and private sectors. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to look at the public sector, I remind him that since the Government have been in office the public sector stock has increased by over 300,000 dwellings. Public sector improvements have been carried out totalling over 400,000. There is now the highest rate of private sector home improvements since 1974 and private house building, notwithstanding the recession, has increased by 20 per cent. for the second year running.

What is the point of building more and more council houses when so many of those already built are standing empty? Should not the Minister spend his money on putting those that are empty into fit order rather than continuing to spend more public money, often building on green field sites?

My hon. Friend is right, and that is the conclusion drawn by a great many local authorities. To endorse what my hon. Friend has said, when local authorities have nearly 300,000 dwellings that are difficult to let and nearly 20,000 dwellings that have been vacant for more than a year in the public sector, it makes entirely good sense for local authorities to concentrate on better utilisation of existing stock.

Does the Minister recall his Government's decision in 1979 to cut spending on housing by half? Is he now advocating more spending because he recognises the folly of that decision, or because he thinks that an election is near?

The hon. Lady will recall that the public sector house building programme declined in every year under the previous Government since 1975. With regard to the immediate availability of finance, local authorities entered this financial year with £800 million capital receipts unspent, and half way through the financial year they had spent only 35 per cent. of the allocations, plus receipts. The Government made substantial provision in terms of allocations plus cash for local authority purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide special funds to local authorities so that they may give a higher priority to the installation of locks and entryphones in blocks of council flats.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make funds available to local authorities to establish caretakers in walk-up council flats.

It is for local authorities to decide their own priorities for spending the housing resources available to them. Special allocations for the items mentioned are, therefore, not necessary. The extra capital allocations recently made available for 1982–83 can be used for expenditure on security and entryphones systems and several of the allocations already made have been for those purposes.

Does the Minister agree that such locks and entryphones represent an extremely cost-effective way of reducing the incidence of crime and vandalism on council estates? Is he aware that such devices are welcomed by the police and are being increasingly demanded by council tenants of local authorities that do not have the money, because of the Government's policy, to provide those facilities? Does the Minister agree that his answer comes oddly from a Government who keep talking about law and order but are unable to do anything practical about it?

The first half of the hon. Gentleman's question was the most sensible to come from the Labour Benches this afternoon. With regard to the second part of his question, we have made additional resources available to his own local authority. For example, Wandsworth submitted a bid for £1·2 million in November. Of that, £181,000 has gone on eight security work schemes. Resources are available to carry out this important work.

Is the Minister aware that good caretakers can do more than anyone or anything to prevent vandalism? Since the Government have more than doubled rents in three years by removing over £1 billion in subsidy, could not the Minister make compensation for that in this very small way, which would ease the problem?

The Government have emphasised, through their priority estates project, the importance of local management, and in some cases local management presence has more than covered the extra cost because vandalism has been reduced and occupancy rates have gone up. It would be wrong to have a special allocation to local authorities for caretaking in the housing budget, as local authorities would not welcome that degree of interference by central Government.

Do not local authorities claim that they are spending millions of pounds a year on rectifying vandalism? If this is the case however, is not the money available, because if local authorities introduced security measures this would cut expenditure on vandalism, which would be a cost-benefit to the authorities?

My hon. Friend has made the point clearly.

Has the Minister noted the recent spate of television programmes, and other reports in the media, about violence and vandalism in deck access flats in London and elsewhere? Does not the House of Commons deserve some reply, so that hon. Members can assure their constituents that the Government accept that a problem exists, and thus reassure them about the future? Should not the Minister do something?

The Government have made available a range of advice and guidance to local authorities, but at the end of the day it is for the local authorities to decide what scheme is best for their own estates. The detailed knowledge of these is not available to Ministers and it would be wrong for us to interfere in this specific way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to ensure that land on the land registers suitable for house building is sold by local authorities and other public sector owners to the private sector.

Further action is now in train to secure disposal of registered land. Formal letters have been sent to the owners of 78 sites, both local authorities and some nationalised industries, asking them to declare their intentions for the use or disposal of the land. In the light of the replies my right hon. Friend will consider in each case whether he should direct disposal.

I welcome the progress revealed in my hon. Friend's reply, but may I press him to go as fast as he can? Is he aware that there are many local authorities and public sector bodies holding land that entrepreneurs would gladly take over and upon which they would build homes that people would want to buy?

I accept my hon. Friend's point that there must be proper disposal of land for which there is no present use. I remind my hon. Friend that about 6,000 acres on the national land register have already been sold or are under negotiation.

Does the Minister accept that there are local authorities, in my constituency and elsewhere, where the housing list is still very long, and therefore it makes sense for the local authorities to have some land up their sleeves so that they can continue with their public sector building programme, which is the only hope for many people?

There is no reason why local authorities should not have plans for the disposal of the land. This is land for which there is no present or forecast use.

Will the Minister ensure that a little note is sent to the Foreign Office—and make sure that the Prime Minister knows about it—on this matter of selling land, so that when the Foreign Office comes to consider all that land in the Falkland Islands, which is supposed to be British to the core, it can be treated in the same say, and sold off to the people who live there?

I scarcely think that that question is worth answering.

Try.

While it is true that the Government have seen that 6,000 acres on the register have been sold off, 94,000 acres remain. What plans do the Government have to sell off public land that is vacant—land that includes 3,000 acres held by my hon. Friend's Department?

The Department has a policy of seeking to dispose of all Government-owned land on the register. I remind my hon. Friend that about 66 per cent. of land register land is in the hands of local authorities, and about 19 per cent. is in the hands of statutory undertakers. I accept that a great deal remains to be done, but only about 10,000 or 11,000 of the 94,000 acres to which my hon. Friend is referring may be available for proper development for housing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce the new Maxis system into his Department.

Maxis budgeting is already under way with a view to full implementation from 1 April this year.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the development work that has gone on within his Department, and on his personal commitment to the development of this important management and accounting tool. What is his Department doing to ensure that this system and the Minis system are adopted in other Departments?

That is a difficult question for me to answer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, and I congratulate him on the close interest that he is taking. He may like to know that one of my first interests on taking over my new responsibilities was to look at the operating budget of my Department for the coming year. Thanks in good measure to the work of officials and my predecessor as Secretary of State for the Environment, I anticipate that the administrative costs of running my Department next year will be, in cash terms, 5 per cent. less than it was two years ago, and that is after absorbing 10 per cent. inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of first-time buyers who are not council tenants who have been able to buy through the Government's low-cost home-ownership initiatives.

We estimate that between April 1979 and September 1982, 23,000 dwellings in Great Britain were sold through low-cost home ownership initiatives involving local authorities, new town corporations and housing associations. In many cases, these will have been sales to first-time purchasers. Three-quarters of local authorities in England have indicated an intention to take up one or more of the low-cost home-ownership initiatives in 1982–83.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a most welcome development? Will he do all that he can to persuade other local authorities, which are not taking part in this initiative, to adopt it? Does he further agree that the schemes introduced by our hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction have made available a variety of opportunities for young people to become first-time house owners?

My colleagues and I will continue to do all that we can to persuade other local authorities to pursue this initiative, which can in many cases be geared to people on the waiting list and therefore prove of direct advantage to local authorities.

Statement. Mr. Peter Walker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I take points of order after statements.