asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made a decision about the proposed rating revaluation; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for amending the present rating system; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he is having on the reform of the domestic rating system.

As we made clear in our manifesto, it is the Government's longer-term intention to abolish domestic rating, though reductions in income tax must take a higher priority in the immediate future. We are considering alternative approaches to the problems of local government finance and will expect to have wide consultations about this at the appropriate time. Meanwhile, there would be no purpose in proceeding with the revaluation for rating, and we have decided to cancel it, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) on 22 June.

I view it as a grave discourtesy that the answer to my question should have been given in a hidden form, in a written answer on a Friday to one of the Minister's hon. Friends. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the decision not to have the revaluation will perpetuate the inequalities and inequities which have arisen in the present rating system since the last revaluation? If he meant to make a decision on revaluation, he should have awaited the Government's long-term proposals for restructuring the rating system.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that the forms had already been issued. Therefore, it was a matter of urgency—to prevent unnecessary trouble and inconvenience—to give the public the earliest possible indication that the forms need not be completed.

Does my right hon. Friend realise the widespread apprehension among householders, particularly widows and pensioners, that councils will be seeking to get round the cuts in public expenditure by increasing the rates? Does he understand that this will inevitably undermine the credibility of the rating system, and in particular the domestic rate, and that therefore it will be necessary to introduce some reform?

We are very much aware of the considerations that my hon. Friend raises. They are among those that we are bearing in mind.

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on abandoning the revaluation. Does he accept that the matter is determined by a constructive and definite policy to do something about the domestic rating system within the period of this Parliament? Can he make an announcement or say something about the Government's plans during this Parliament for the domestic rating system?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the decision. He will understand that, so early in the life of the Government, it is not possible to indicate exactly when we shall make proposals, but I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being studied urgently.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue the system of making announcements in answer to written questions rather than following the time-honoured tradition of circulating local authorities? Does not he accept that it is a gross discourtesy to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the first it knew about the announcement was when it read it in the press on Saturday morning?

That is not correct. I telephoned all the local authority associations to advise them of the decision before the announcement was made. I have already frankly apologised to them, because this Government intend, whenever possible, to carry out the fullest consultation on matters of importance. Our difficulty was that there was a need for speed in advising people, as they already had in their possession forms with the instruction that they must be returned within 21 days.

Irrespective of the Government's plans for the rating system, will they give urgent consideration to an early extention, during the next year or so, of the rate rebate scheme, to include water charges? Is the Minister aware that they are calculated on the rateable value basis in the same way as general rates and are causing financial hardship to many people, especially now that water authorities are increasingly using direct billing for those charges?

We are concerned about the hardship represented by the whole rating system. Water charges are also a matter of great public concern. I believe I am correct in saying that the previous Government refused to take any action on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. But we are looking at the question of rate rebates. There will be an announcement in due course, although I would not like to hold out too much hope on the water rebate side.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a finite number of ways in which the rating system can be reformed? Will he assure the House that the Government will take a conservative view of what is long term?

I cannot add anything to what I have said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). We hope to have further information for the House in due course.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Government postponed revaluation before it began? Is it not correct to say that over £5 million of public money has been wasted so far by the Government? Will he say what replies he has received from the local authority associations following this decision? What will happen to the valuation staff? Is it not grossly unfair on people who have not had improvements carried out to their homes that they have to pay the added burden of rates for those who have undertaken improvements?

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the recognition that he has received. I point out, in respect of anomalies and difficulties, that even if this rating revaluation had gone ahead it would not have been introduced until 1982. The local authority associations have made clear that they would have preferred revaluation to have gone ahead. We took their views into account, but felt, on balance, that in accordance with our general policies on domestic rating it was not sensible to proceed. On this question of the postponement of rating revaluation, I do not propose to take any lectures from hon. Members on the Labour Benches. It is a historical fact—hon. Members may be surprised to know—that the only rating revaluations since the war have been carried out by Conservative Governments. The record of Labour Governments has been continually to postpone or cancel, whenever they had the opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of (a) housing starts, (b) improvement grants in England and Wales during 1979– 80 and 1980– 81.

The public sector provision for the current year is sufficient to maintain last year's level of new building tender approvals and to allow an increase over last year's level of improvement work. The present level of private starts will, I hope, be improved as we continue to remove constraints on the house building industry.

Will the Minister undertake to make a study of the effect on his figures of high interest rates, high land prices, cuts in public housing expenditure and cuts in the rate support grant, and high unemployment? Will he publish his conclusions in a White Paper?

All those points are relevant. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the housing programme is essentially what we inherited. The house building programme is now at its lowest level for 30 years and improvements achieved last year were not much more than a third of what the Conservative Government achieved in 1973. Local authority mortgages are less than half of what we achieved in 1973. The programme is at a very low base as a direct result of the policy of the previous Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the experience of local authorities in the past three years in dealing with the Department of the Environment has been wholly unsatisfactory? Does he realise that local authorities are now looking forward to a much more flexible approach from the Department of the Environment?

I shall try to achieve the greater flexibility for which my hon. Friend asks. As part of that approach, we are carrying out a major review of all the elements of departmental control over local authorities.

Did not the Labour Government make resources available for 100,000 new council houses a year even though the local authorities did not take up those resources? Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will encourage local authorities to revert at least to the 100,000 figure as a target rather than make a cut of £180 million a year, maintaining a target of 60,000 new council houses a year, which is quite intolerable?

The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that, in so far as there have been cuts, they do not represent cuts which reduce the build of the public sector. New house building tender approvals in the public sector last year amounted to 91,500. The provision we have made this year, which is still extant, shows a slight increase at 93,000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Sports Council and the terms of its Royal Charter; whether he has considered recent criticisms of the role of the Sports Council and its relationship with the Central Council for Physical Recreation; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, the Sports Council is working effectively. I am glad to be able to say that representatives of the Sports Council and of the Central Council for Physical Recreation met last week under my chairmanship to discuss their difficulties. Some progress was made in a spirit of great goodwill towards better mutual understanding and co-operation. Further meetings will be taking place.

I welcome that reply if it means, as I think it does, that the future of the Sports Council is assured and supported on both sides of the House. At the same time, I acknowledge the proper place of the governing bodies of sport and their independence in the sports world. Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny unfounded criticism in the press, particularly the suggestion that there may be a full inquiry into sport? Will he ask everyone in sport to get on with their development work rather than involve themselves in sport politics?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful approach I note that there is no difference between the Opposition and the Government towards support for the Sports Council. The Central Council for Physical Recreation has an important role. I am sure that we shall resolve the difficulties ahead of us.

Despite these amicable discussions which are now taking place, will the Minister agree that there is a case for stating that a duplication of functions and an overlapping of bureaucracy exists between these two bodies? Bearing in mind the need to channel more money directly into sport, will he reconsider the possibility of holding an official inquiry into this issue?

It is not my intention to hold a full inquiry. That would set up even more bureaucracy. I believe that the chairmen of the Sports Council and the CCPR, and their colleagues, under my chairmanship, can resolve the difficulties at our meetings, and there is no need to have a special inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives from the local authority organisations.

I am maintaining close contact with representatives of the local authority associations. Meetings of the housing consultative council and the consultative council on local government finance have been arranged for 4 July and 9 July respectively.

What will the Secretary of State say to those local authority representatives who point out that the savage cuts in the rate support grant will mean a reduction in nursery provision and a reduction in a range of local authority services while his Government have handed over £50 million to the independent schools run for the sons and daughters of the rich? What will he do about the £3 million cut proposed by the local Tories in Bradford, which will almost certainly mean a reduction in local authority services and redundancies? Does he welcome redundancies in local authority services?

I shall say to the local authority associations much the same as the hon. Gentleman would have said to them after 22 December 1976 when he voted for substantially the same sort of cuts.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, although reform of our rating system is important, it is a matter for the long term and has occupied Parliament's attention for the whole of my time here? The revision of the rate support grant formula is urgent. Will he consider particularly the views of the shire counties, with a view to removing the inequities and anomalies which have so far prejudiced their position?

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have consistently attacked the drift of RSG settlements. I have made it clear that this Government will not allow that drift to continue further.

When the Secretary of State meets the representatives of the County Councils Association, will he be able to tell them whether there is any truth in the rumour in the press this morning that he is considering scrapping the Development Commission? Does he realise how much the county councils value the work of that commission, particularly those councils controlled by the Conservative Party?

I spend a considerable part of each day reading in the national press about the decisions that I am supposed to have taken. It is a helpful way of keeping abreast of what I am supposed to do. The trouble is that usually it is not accurate.

When the Secretary of State meets the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, will he explain how he will penalise individual authorities which increase rates more than the Minister wants them to? Will he stop making punitive statements attacking local authorities for having to consider increasing rates as a result of the cuts announced in the Budget?

No, I shall not stop doing that. I have made it clear that the Government's view is that we must reduce public expenditure. The local authorities must play their part, along with all other public sector bodies. That is an important part of our strategy for releasing resources to the private sector in order to bring about national recovery.

When examining the rate support grant, will the Secretary of State do something about the resources element, which gives more money to those who spend most? It is a profligates' charter. Will he also examine the problems of expanding countries, where the rate support grant is based on a historic population and has little to do with today's population?

I shall certainly take into account all the factors that my hon. Friend and others have raised with me when I come to decide what I should recommend to the House about the composition of the rate support grant. I am also prepared to look at what my hon. Friend referred to as the profligate authorities. But to deal with the profligate authorities, which spend regardless of national priorities requires a profound change in the relationship between national and local government.

The Secretary of State described some authorities as profligate That might not be the view of some of us. Does he recall that on 13 June newspapers quoted him as saying that he proposed to take punitive action against those authorities which used their autonomous powers to protect their services against the proposed cuts? Does he propose to introduce legislation to give him that power, or has he decided that that threat is pointless and that he will, therefore, withdraw it?

I am considering legislation for that purpose.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that my question No. 10 was linked with this question. Is it now intended to take that question later?

The hon. Member may have been misled. His question is not linked.

In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply and the grave discourtesy to the House in its inadequacy, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

May I appeal to the House? All hon. Members must use the formula that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, they propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment. If they do not do that, it will be untidy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many circulars his Department has issued since 16 May.

Three circulars to local authorities have been issued by my Department.

Does the Minister remember 13 May, when during the debate on the Queen's Speech he assured the House that no circulars would be issued unless they contained a clear statement of the financial and manpower implications to local authorities? Does he remember that the day after that he issued a circular to local authorities about the sale of council houses and flats which contained not a scintilla of detail about the financial and manpower implications of that circular? Will he stop misleading the House and start telling the truth. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw"]

The Government are responsible for initiating a wide dialogue with local autthorities, some in the form of numbered circulars, which I described in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member, and others in the form of circular letters—which I was not describing. I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to what may be an absence of control over the profligacy of central Government. I shall certainly take his advice and look at the matter urgently.

For the sake of the record, I must say that all right hon. and hon. Members speak the truth.

My right hon. Friend has spoken of the rural areas. Has he issued any circulars on the distribution of the rate support grant to those areas, bearing in mind his acknowledged concern? Is my right hon. Friend willing not only to go no further in adversely affecting the deprivation in rural areas with the rate support grant but to give some positive help by way of distribution to the rural areas?

I have issued no circulars on this issue. It is a matter for consultation with the local authority associations. I cannot at this stage tell the House that I shall be able to move significantly to reverse the trend of the recent years because of the time constraints. But certainly we shall not be proceeding any further in the direction chosen by the previous Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present basis on which water charges are levied.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the extension of metering of domestic water supplies.

The present system of basing domestic water charges on rateable value has the advantage of being comparatively cheap and easy to administer and has stood the test of time. However, it does perpetuate certain anomalies and I have received 12 individual representations suggesting extending metering to domestic water supplies.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the anxiety about the cost of water charges to householders? Is he aware that people can see no basis upon which these charges are levied in terms of the amount of water that they use? Does this not logically point to the introduction of metering rather more speedily than he has suggested? Will he look at the matter urgently?

Of course I am aware of the anxieties about the high charges. But the cost of introducing metering is a frightening proposition. Although that is not ruled out in the long term, it is being considered with other alternatives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the unit cost of installing metering has fallen so dramatically recently that it should be possible to give a wider airing to the experiment in domestic water metering which has been carried out in my constituency for 100 years?

My hon. Friend's proposition is questionable. However, I shall look into it. My information is that the cost of metering would not make water bills lower. Perhaps the most disturbing factor is that the people who are least able to afford water charges will be charged more.

Is it not crazy that people have to pay more for water service charges than for their general rate because one is subject to rebate and the other is not? Will he move speedily to introduce a rebate system for water service charges?

The previous Government decided that it would be wrong to introduce rebates for water charges. The water authorities have a statutory duty to charge the cost of the service that they provide. The Government have no intention of changing that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional financial assistance he plans to allocate to the Nature Conservancy.

I have no plans at present for additional funding.

Is the Minister aware that the Nature Conservancy asserts that it has been obliged to bear the cost recently of certain items such as the building of a dam for electricity on the Isle of Rhum and part of the cost of purchasing the Ribble estuary, which it believes should not be its responsibility? Is he further aware that that body fears that because of the lack of funds part of our national heritage will disappear for ever?

The right hon. Gentleman will accept that the grant to the Nature Conservancy has not been cut this year. It is the same as it was in the Estimates drawn un by the Labour Government. I am aware of the problem in Rhum. I am considering it carefully. The Nature Conservancy is making a reappraisal of its policies and functions, bearing in mind the possibilities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to advise elected representatives of local authorities how best they may assist the Government to implement reductions in local authority expenditure.

A joint departmental circular will today set out the overall reductions the Government are seeking. It is for individual authorities to decide how best to make savings in their expenditure plans.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many of my constituents ask me what I can do to stop what they regard as extravagant expenditure by local authorities in our part of the world? Does he recognise that while the circular brines these matters to the attention of the officers, something has to be done? Can he say something today in this direction to draw these matters to the attention of the elected councillors in our constituencies so that they may know that our constituents expect local authorities to cut their expenditure just as central Government are cutting their expenditure?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand what I mean when I say that I have never found it necessary to give him advice on anything in terms of communicating with his local people. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will lose no opportunity to communicate with their local councils on the need to implement Government policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his advice and circulars so far have provoked the Wiltshire county council into announcing that there will probably be a 30 per cent. rates increase in April and the Thamesdown borough council to announce that there will be a 40 per cent. increase in the rates next year? Will he send them further advice on how this Government's policy—the Robin Hood policy in reverse—will help services for ratepayers and how it will help to keep their bills down?

The hon. Member may not have been in the House when I said much the same as he is saying now in a speech that I made from the Opposition Front Bench in December last year when the former Secretary of State was urging local authorities to increase their expenditure. I made it clear that I thought that this was an impossible ambition for the local authorities to harbour. It has now transpired that the previous Government, had they succeeded in being re-elected, would have been forced to reduce local authority and all other public expenditure. It must be clear that we face the danger of a substantial rates increase next year if urgent decisions are not taken now. We have taken many decisions early in order to avoid the worst of the difficulties that would otherwise arise. Right hon. and hon. Members will shortly find, when I announce the figures, that the number of people employed by local government is now at an all-time high.

When my right hon. Friend advises representatives of the local authorities, will he bear in mind authorities such as mine in Preston which, in three years of Conservative control, has reduced the rates from over 30p in the pound to 8p in the pound? The view that these authorities hold is that their good housekeeping should not be penalised by any major cutback in local government expenditure.

I realise that there are local authorities which have tightened up on recruitment of additional staff. But the House must accept the implications of the fact that the number of people employed in local government is at an all-time high. That means that recruitment has been proceeding apace throughout local government on a scale which the national economy cannot sustain.

In his reply to the original question the Secretary of State said that it was up to the local authorities to decide how they implement his policy. In his answer to a supplementary question by me 10 minutes before he said that he was contemplating legislation to circumscribe their choice. Which does he mean?

I explained quite clearly that I want local authorities to reduce expenditure as opposed to passing it on in the form of higher rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy with regard to the urban partnership schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about Government policy with regard to the future of the partnership committees and the urban programmes.

We are holding discussions with local authority leaders about the achievements of partnership, and will make decisions about future plans in the light of these.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he can still adequately finance the scheme? At a time of growing restraint in public expenditure, is there not a case for a more selective approach which would produce more equitable results?

I certainly want to discuss with local authority leaders throughout the partnership areas what alternatives are available. We have introduced very small reductions in the present urban programme, but I am considering a whole range of measures in order to release resources, particularly land resources, from the public sector.

When my right hon. Friend comes to Liverpool on Friday to chair the partnership committee, will he bear in mind that over £100 million has already been spent on research studies and discussions into the problems of the urban areas, and that precious little has been done to revive those areas? Will he consider implementing the charter to revive Liverpool—prepared by senior Conservatives in the area—which will do a lot to bring prosperity back to Liverpool and which includes such proposals as a free port, an old town corporation, and the selling-off of some of the 70 per cent. of derelict and dormant land which is owned by the nationalised industries and local authorities?

I believe that it is necessary to look at all of these alternatives. My preliminary view, and the one that is pressed upon me by local authorities on all sides, is that recent urban policy has been very long on research and discussion and very short on decision and action.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of some of this past research the Government set up the partnership schemes which were hailed, even by political opponents in Liverpool, as being one of the best things ever to happen to inner Liverpool? Can he give those of us who represent Merseyside and Liverpool a clear assurance that those parts of the scheme that will go ahead will be adequately financed and will be developed further?

The hon. Member, whose concern for Merseyside I very much share, will realise that the partnership schemes were born of the inner urban area studies by the Department of the Environment. Since I was the Minister who initiated and sat on the working parties which were originally set up in 1972, it is clear that we share the common objective of geting a new sense of purpose into the inner urban areas. I shall be spending Friday in discussion with the local authority representatives in Liverpool in order to decide what more can be done.

In view of the attacks that are being made today on the inner cities and on the rate support grant, and in view of the many grave problems of the inner cities, will the Minister give a clear indication that he intends to see through the 10 year programme as it was originally designed?

I believe that a new range of policies is needed in order to get a new and different momentum in urban areas such as the one the hon. Member represents. I do not believe that the present reliance on public expenditure and public sector-led activity will provide either the right balance or the right momentum to bring about a genuine revival. The inner cities were built because people wanted to live there and because it was profitable to work there, neither of which condition now applies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to make private rented accommodation more freely available; and when these will be introduced.

Our proposals for short fixed-term lettings will be included in the forthcoming housing Bill. Under shorthold, tenants will have security of tenure for the duration of their tenancy agreement, and landlords will be able to let with the certainty of regaining possession at the end of the fixed-term if they wish to. Shorthold will not apply to existing tenants.

Since I sought to introduce two Bills in the last Parliament to amend the Rent Act, may I say how pleased I am to hear of the Government's intention in this regard? Will the Minister think again about the new shorthold provisions not covering existing tenants? Will he be including in the Bill a review of the present rent tribunal system?

We are grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution that he made to this issue in the last Parliament. Our shorthold legislation will not apply to existing tenants. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are conscious of the need to examine afresh the existing rent legislation.

I accept that the Minister has not had very long to learn about the realities of the privately rented sector. Will he study the minority report of the Francis committee and the technical volumes of the housing policy review? If he does so, he is likely to learn that the effect of what he is proposing, even if it does not apply to existing tenants, will be to reduce the stock of privately rented houses. The only reason that lettings continue is that no practical use can be made of the property except by letting under the Rent Acts. When all those lettings cease the property will be sold.

Experience is completely the converse of what the hon. Gentleman has said. For example, the experience of the past five years, during which the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, was that the privately rented sector lost 125,000 dwellings a year. It is in order to arrest that decline and to create additional rental opportunities that we believe it essential to create a vehicle such as shorthold to increase the availability of rented accommodation.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent estimate that there are about 400,000 units of accommodation in London which are not being let because of the Rent Act 1974? Does he agree that the early implementation of the shorthold tenure arrangements will be a major contribution to the alleviation of homelessness in central London?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when there are substantial areas of housing stress, it makes no sense not to create the legislative framework to bring into use all the accommodation that is potentially available for renting. That is precisely the purpose of our shorthold legislation.

If the hon. Gentleman cares so much about private tenants, why will he not legislate to give them the right to buy the houses that they rent?

It is precisely because we care about housing need and are conscious of the fact that about ½ million dwellings have been lost from the privately rented sector that it is not possible statutorily to give private sector tenants the right to buy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because about ½ million privately rented dwellings become available for re-letting each year, and if a statutory right existed they would not be kept available for renting. It is precisely because those dwellings are needed that we cannot extend a statutory right to buy them.

If the sale of private rented houses is not a good thing because it will reduce the number available for renting, how can the Minister justify the sale of council houses—which will have precisely the same result?

Because the effect is different. Local authority houses become vacant only every 16 years or so. One is simply transferring dwellings available for renting into dwellings that are available for owner-occupation. We put that policy of extending the right to buy to all council tenants in our manifesto, and made it clear at the election, and the country gave us a decisive mandate to carry it out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will refer to his working party on football violence the recent problems in connection with the Scotland-England football match.

The working party on crowd behaviour was a responsibility of my predecessor. It did not meet during the past year. Valuable recommendations were made, but unfortunately many problems remain. I am extremely concerned at events over the England-Scotland weekend and will be having discussions with my colleagues when we have considered reports within our own areas of responsibility.

Does the Minister recognise that his reply indicates considerable complacency on the Government's part? Is he aware that there is a great deal of concern in Scotland among genuine football supporters about the violence that took place on the trains from Glasgow to London, on the London Underground and in the streets of London? Will he reconsider his decision and arrange for an early meeting of the working party to consider the evidence that my colleagues and I can lay before him about what took place over that weekend? Does he agree that the working party should make recommendations for speedy action to make sure that such things do not occur again?

I have grave concern about what happened. That is exactly why my colleagues are looking at the reports in their own Departments, including the Home Office, the Ministry of Transport and the Department of the Environment. When we have considered those reports, we shall consider what action needs to be taken.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of violence at Scotland-England games also occurs at other games? Does he accept that one of the major contributory factors is the sort of transport that fans have on the way to games? Will he consider having discussions with his colleagues to alleviate that problem?

There were extreme difficulties on British Rail, between Scotland and London, and on the Underground to Wembley. All those matters are being carefully considered, and we shall decide what action to take in due course.

Will the Minister have discussions with representatives of the hotel industry in London, some of whom cancelled bona fide bookings at very short notice?

I have heard about that, and we shall look into it and bring it into the envelope of our discussions.

Is the Minister aware that the drunkenness, violence and public disorder associated with England-Scotland matches is a scandal of almost national proportions and must be eliminated? Will he therefore take up with the Football Association, which shares his concern, the question of the allocation of tickets for these games and with British Rail the serious breaches of the working party recommendations about the sale of drink on trains? Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Bill which was being prepared by Scottish Ministers in the previous Government to deal with football hooliganism will be introduced soon and will be extended to England?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially in regard to the working party on football behaviour which was set up by the previous Government. All these matters will be considered, especially that of rail travel, which concerned one of the recommendations of his own working party.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he plans to take to restore the city of Bristol powers transferred to the county of Avon at the time of the last local government reorganisation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he is considering transferring from county to district councils, or vice versa, in England; and if he will make a statement.

We are not pursuing the previous Government's plans for the reallocation of certain major functions to selected districts such as Bristol. However, we are reviewing the 1972 Act to identify areas in which shared or overlapping functions may be causing unnecessary waste or duplication, and are currently discussing these matters with the local authority associations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 3 May the Labour Party in Bristol greatly increased its majority on the city council on a programme of the restoration of powers? Is he aware that such a restoration was promised by the previous Secretary of State, and that his answer will do him no good in the eyes of the citizens of Bristol?

I am aware that on 3 May the Conservative Party gained two parliamentary constituencies in Bristol on a programme of not introducing the organic changes proposed by the previous Secretary of State. However, we shall urgently tackle the question of duplication and overlapping of powers. We believe that that is the most sensible way to proceed, and that we should not start hacking up the whole system of local government again because that would undoubtedly cause great confusion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable duplication in planning matters between county and district authorities in England which could be avoided, thereby reducing expenditure? Given the Government's commitment to control local authority expenditure, should not either the county or the district be responsible for planning, but not both as at present?

That is one of the matters which we are looking at. The areas on which we are concentrating are planning, highways, traffic management and concurrent powers. We are having discussions with local authority associations on those matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the previous Parliament, the proposals for organic change, as they came to be known, had all-party support in local government in the big cities? What is happening to the working party, supposed to be operating from Conservative Central Office, which was set up by the Secretary of State when he was on the Opposition Front Bench? Only a few months ago a change of policy was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. What has happened to that working party?

We are having discussions with the local authority associations. They are able to draw on the preparatory work which was done when my right hon. Friend gave them notice last March that we should be looking at these matters when the Conservative Government came to power. It has, therefore, been possible for them to be that much further advanced in their consideration, and only this week I received advice from them on their separate views on these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce a general development (amendment) order to exclude more minor development proposals from the need to require a planning permission.

My right hon. Friend has said that we intend to simplify and speed up the planning system. We are looking at ways of doing so, and one possibility would certainly be to amend the town and country planning general development order.

Will my hon. Friend agree that, if such a proposal were implemented, up to 20 per cent. of planning applications could be eliminated from the system and this would mean that more significant applications could be processed and dealt with equally thoroughly but more speedily? Will my hon. Friend agree further that there might be greater acceptance for his predecessor's proposals if minor developments in conservation areas were excluded?

My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"]—as an architect he is extremely experienced—and I am glad to know that we have his support. We shall not, as the previous Government did, seek to amend these general development orders without the fullest consultation, giving careful attention to the views of environmentalists. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that our conservation areas and national parks are of great importance to us, but perhaps the most important factor of all is to get our planning system right, and this means to simplify it and speed it up.

When the Minister is taking advice on this matter, will he bear in mind that, although a number of the planning applications which we are now discussing are likely to be of a minor nature, in certain circumstances, especially in the inner areas of the big cities, they are often controversial? The businesses may be small but the inconvenience which may be caused by them to local communities is often the subject of a great deal of annoyance. Will the Minister bear that in mind?

The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is why it is not as simple as it might appear to come forward with amendments of this kind. Indeed, it is other people's interests as well as those of the person putting in the planning application, or perhaps seeking to extend his house without a planning application, which need just the same consideration.

Although my hon. Friend's answer is reassuring in general terms, will he bear in mind that all historic buildings are not in conservation areas and this also must not be forgotten?

As a supporter of this Government, my hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that we have that very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council about the future role of the council.

I have received a letter from Sir Maurice Sutherland seeking my views on the future of planning councils generally and, more particularly, the Northern Economic Planning Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming about his views? Does he share the opinion of those of us on the Labour Benches who represent Northern region constituencies that the planning council should be strengthened as an instrument of regional policy?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not able to be more forthcoming at this time.

Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are those of us who can recall the setting up of the Northern Economic Planning Council and our being told that it was to be the answer to all the North's economic and unemployment problems? Does he acknowledge that it has been nothing of the kind, that it has been nothing but a talking shop, and that we have too many advisory bodies? Will he do something about removing these quangos from the Northern region and set free businesses, small, medium-size and large, as they are the answer to our employment problems in the region?

As I said in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on 25 June, at the request of the Prime Minister we are examining all the public bodies to which the Secretary of State appoints members. I note my hon. Friend's comments on the role and activities of economic planning councils. I know that there are other views held and that much valuable work has been done, but it must be sensible in this area, as in others, to review the value and continuing relevance of all bodies on which public money is spent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has regarding the provision of winter training facilities for the British Olympic team.

Responsibility for training requirements for the British Olympic team up to Lake Placid and Moscow are primarily a matter for the respective governing bodies of the various sports involved. The facilities at Sports Council centres such as Crystal Palace, and at other establishments throughout the country, are available during the winter months for specialist training.

Is the Minister aware of the substantial amount of Government grant aid provided by other countries for the eventuality of a bad winter, and will he take heed of the real anger which would accrue if insufficient finance prevented training during a hard winter?

I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's view in mind, but he should realise that the Sports Council is providing about £700,000 for training up to the Olympic Games, and the Olympic committee and the Sports Aid Foundation are giving help as well.

Does my hon. Friend realise that public expenditure in sport will be one of the few areas in which the British people would be happy to see an additional amount spent? Is he aware that, if we are even more successful in the coming Olympic Games than we have been in the past, it will be a fantastic morale booster for Britain and can do nothing but good? Will my hon. Friend therefore give serious consideration to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)?

I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that the grant to the Sports Council has not been cut. I hope that he will agree that, although it would be a tremendous boost to the morale of this country if we did well in the Olympic Games, that can surely be achieved without additional expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is willing to take to ensure implementation of the recommendations in the report produced in his Department on the Park Lane council estate in Bootle.

The Department will shortly be publishing the results of research on certain estates with environmental and social problems, including the Park Lane estate. The implementation of any recommendations is for the local authority involved.

Is not the Minister aware that the local authority has discussed this report and refused to take action, and that the problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am not reading—the problems on this estate are a direct consequence of the most reactionary policies being pursued by the Conservative council in that area, which is one of the worst housing authorities in the country? Does the hon. Gentleman know that families with children on this estate are trapped in flats and cannot get a transfer because the local authority is refusing to build any council houses, and refused to take up the money which the last Labour Government made available? Is the Minister aware also—

Order. We might be better off if the hon. Gentleman were reading. I want to get in another question if I can.

Finally, is the Minister aware that families with two children on this estate are being told that they need to have a third in order to be considered for a transfer and are in fact doing so? Will he take action to force the council to build the council houses that are necessary?

I doubt that a question of that sort will give any help to the tenants living on that problem-ridden estate. I shall be delighted to see whether I can help the local authority, but it must first evaluate the recommendations and then come to see us.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total underspending by local authorities in England and Wales in 1978 on house building and improvements, respectively; and how many new or improved homes were lost as a result of this underspending.

English local authorities are provisionally estimated to have underspent their 1978–79 block 1 HIP allocation, which includes provision for new house building and improvement, by about £200 million. It is impossible to say how many new or improved houses might be represented by this sum because block I allocations include other items, such as slum clearance or land acquisition, on which authorities might have planned to spend their money.

Does the Minister accept that the underspending is frequently not the fault of local authorities? Will he do what he can to give more flexibility to the arrangements to prevent local authorities having difficulties? Above all, will he take the underspending fully into account before making any cuts in local authority housing expenditures?

As I made clear in answer to an earlier question, the announcements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not cut the spend for the current year. I have already said that we wish to give local authorities a greater measure of flexibility.