asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many employees of the Property Services Agency have been required to resign for professional incompetence in the past five years.

:Fourteen staff who failed to meet accepted standards of efficiency have been retired. The services of another 41 have been terminated for failing to reach the required standard during probation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Can he tell us whether included in that number there were any members of that splendid organisation responsible for spending £93,000 of taxpayers' money on providing the Welsh Office with pot plants? If not, does he agree that on the Admiral Byng principle there is little prospect of getting much efficiency out of that organisation in future?

I remind my hon. Friend that that was part of a consultant's design carried out and finally executed under the Labour Administration. My right hon. Friend and I have made it plain that we wish to see much tighter financial control over all projects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing starts were made in the public sector during the months of April, May and June.

The figures for June are not yet available. The provisional, seasonally adjusted, figures for April and May show that there were 5,300 public sector starts in that period in England.

Does the Minister agree that that is an abysmal figure when one considers the problems of those who need housing? Will he examine the areas under greatest stress and provide the necessary resources for authorities with growing waiting lists to provide houses for those who need but cannot afford to purchase them and are being priced out of the private rented sector?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the system of allocation is as far as possible directed towards authorities with the greatest need. There is very careful analysis as to the basis of the allocation. I certainly cannot accept that there is not scope for authorities to do more by making use of the substantial number of low-cost home ownership initiatives that we have introduced and of the private rented sector, which would be materially helped if the Opposition would withdraw their repeal commitment on shorthold.

Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities would get better value for money by using their existing housing stock and, in particular, reducing the number of voids in that housing stock?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a later question on empty dwellings. He will know that we have introduced a substantial range of measures to assist local authorities to reduce the number of empty dwellings.

Is not the Minister's policy virtually ending all council house building, except for the elderly and the disabled? What does he propose to do for the other families, comprising 45 per cent. of the population, who cannot afford to buy, even with the aid of a mortgage, and whose prospects are daily worsened by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in addition to the basic allocation, we have given authorities substantial scope for increasing their capital allocations by the use of capital receipts. He will see, for example, from the housing capital receipts which arose in the course of last year that in many constituencies represented by Labour Members who complain about the insufficiency of housing allocation money capital receipts were nil, whereas other authorities had capital receipts last year of £1 million and more which can now be used for the housing capital programme.

Will the hon. Gentleman place before the House the calculations upon which the Secretary of State based his statement to the Housing Consultative Council on 15 June that it is far cheaper in public expenditure terms to keep building workers on the dole? Does he accept that, in the light of the disgraceful figures that he has announced today, that statement by the Secretary of State is particularly obscene to the 1·2 million people on council house waiting lists and the 25 per cent. of building workers who are on the dole?

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, if he will table a specific question we shall endeavour to assist him. I revert to what I said previously, however. There is substantial scope for local authorities to increase their allocations through the use of capital receipts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local councils to study the possibility of privatising local services such as refuse disposal and road sweeping.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in what way he is encouraging local authorities to consider the privatisation of services.

We consistently stress the importance of obtaining value for money in every local authority service and the need to investigate the most satisfactory means of providing these services, including privatisation. To provide more information about this, an independent study, commissioned by us, of different methods employed and charges made for a range of local authority environmental services in selected local authorities in England will be published shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there are considerable advantages, such as reduced costs and increased efficiency, for the ratepayers by way of privatisation and that this has been shown in the excellent example of Southend? Is it not therefore important for the Government to emphasise how valuable that can be for the ratepayers?

That seems to be the evidence of Southend council. I hope that every local authority will look objectively at every service that it provides in the interests of its ratepayers and electors to see that those services are provided in the most cost-effective way.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that privatisation offers the best hope of permanently reducing the cost to local government? Has he considered practices in the United States, and will he consider even legislation to ensure that local authorities put their services out to private tender?

I think I am right in saying that the vast majority of refuse collection is done by private contractors in the United States and that that is the normally accepted practice there. Only a tiny proportion of refuse collection is done by private contractors in the United Kingdom. The majority of it is done by council employees. It is not at all clear whether there is a logical reason why that should be so. That is why we want the matter to be examined as carefully as possible.

Is the Minister aware that in various parts of the country people who want to buy council houses are being ripped off by a combination of estate agents and Tory councils? Is he further aware that these private services which are foisted upon prospective buyers are totally unnecessary, because local authorities, if they want to sell council houses, could ensure that they did not add burdens through the use of estate agents?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that housing is not my responsibility. I am sure that he will direct his allegations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. However, my own observation is that the most severe rip-off of all relates to those Labour councils which are denying people the right to buy their own council homes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will play his part to ensure that the Ipswich council considerably improves its perormance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proportion of rented housing available for people in housing need has practically dried up as a result of the antics of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)? If the House could agree that landlords who were now prepared to rent houses would not have them snatched back by the Opposition's antics, more housing would now be available.

I seem to be taking over another portfolio. I am aware of the notorious activities of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). From my own observations in my constituency, I know that this increases the number of homeless people who could otherwise be properly housed.

We are aware of the Government's propensity to flog off valuable public assets, such as dockyards, ordnance factories and gas showrooms. Instead of encouraging local authorities to flog off valuable public services, why do the Government not respond to the anguished cries from Conservative councils, such as that in Enfield, which are being forced to lower even further their already low level of services?

I am sure the House would agree that many areas of public provision are at an inadequate level which we would like to see improved. However, part of the reason is that for far too long the State has tried to do far too much and has done it pretty badly. With the limited resources available, it is vital that we restrain the public sector so that those things which only the State can do are done properly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to take any new initiative to reduce the number of council dwellings which are empty.

We have already taken a substantial number of initiatives to help local authorities to reduce the number of empty dwellings. These include the new improvement for sale scheme, the consents issued to authorities which wish to waive the interest payment for a period on mortgages granted for homesteading, the new powers for local authorities to guarantee building society mortgages, the consent given both to district and to county councils to sell vacant dwellings at discounts of up to 30 per cent. to priority groups—such as any first-time buyer— and the extension of subsidy to improvement expenditure on dwellings less than 30 years old.

Which councils have more than 2 per cent. of their stock empty? Which councils report regularly on empty housing to their housing committees? When the HIP applications reach my hon. Friend's Department, will he subsequently print the number of empty houses that they bring to light?

My hon. Friend will be aware that in an answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on a previous occasion, I listed those local authorities which had more than 100 dwellings standing empty for more than 12 months. I do not have the figure for councils that have more than 2 per cent. of their stock empty. However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, according to the last HIP returns that we received, seven authorities reported more than 1,000 dwellings vacant for more than a year. They were Manchester, Islington, Knowsley, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth and Camden.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 1,000 houses are empty in the county of Norfolk—more than 600 in the city of Norwich alone? What action will he take to ensure that these properties are either let or sold?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have given local authorities substantial powers to reduce the number of empty dwellings. I hope that in every local authority area the ratepayers and electors will exert the maximum pressure to make certain that such empty dwellings are either sold or otherwise occupied. If the Opposition took a different attitude on shorthold, Norfolk would be the sort of area where one could create a considerable number of additional dwellings at no public expense.

rose—

Order. I called two Conservative Members in succession. I shall now call two Opposition Members.

Will the Minister admit that he has lost control of the situation? Why will he not be frank with the House and explain that the policies that the Government are pursuing and the arguments that he has put forward are not filling the void of empty houses in many local authority areas? Is not that due primarily to lack of initiative and support from the Conservative Administration?

The primary difficulty is that certain local authorities would rather keep dwellings empty than sell them.

Has the Minister considered the analysis of HIP returns published in the July issue of the housing magazine "Roof"? While it is true that 2 per cent. of local authority dwellings are standing empty, 4 per cent. of dwellings in the private sector are standing empty. Has the hon. Gentleman also observed that of the 23,000 local authority dwellings that have stood empty for more than a year, 15,000—or 64 per cent.—are awaiting repair? Is not the Government's policy of cutting housing expenditure to local authorities contributing to the existence of empty property?

I cannot accept that a local authority is justified in keeping a dwelling empty simply because it needs to be repaired, given that the Conservative-controlled GLC had enormous success when it sold empty dwellings for homesteading to many of those in housing need in London. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of dwellings empty in the private sector. I should be grateful for his wholehearted support in ensuring the rescinding of the irresponsible commitment to repeal shorthold given by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman).

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to replace the temporary security railings in Westminster Hall.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that those ugly and inelegant railings thoroughly mar the beauty of a great and glorious building? Although the Minister is doing what he can to find resources for repairing the Palace of Westminster, when will these horrible objects be replaced?

On several occasions I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not a matter for my Department and that he should raise it with the Services Committee.

I have listened with avid interest and some embarrassment to my hon. Friend's final words. On the subject of the beautification of Westminster Hall, may I, as someone who does not always approve of turning harpsichords into cocktail cabinets, ask my hon. Friend to consider a new design for a functional standing microphone for use in Westminster Hall? The present microphone clashes disgracefully with the otherwise perfect Gothic background.

I should be glad to examine that possibility and to see whether some of the original Savoy Hill microphones are still available.

I may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, but, if the safety of those visiting the Palace of Westminster is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, is it not time that we looked after the parties of schoolchildren and others outside the building? If we do not do something soon to make things more orderly, some of them will undoubtedly be killed.

I shall ensure that that possibility is examined by those responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current financial allocation of funds by the Sports Council to sporting facilities for the disabled.

The Sports Council does not specifically allocate a proportion of its grant aid for expenditure on sports facilities for the disabled.

Will my hon. Friend urgently consider requesting the Sports Council to allocate more funds in the International Year of Disabled People to facilities for the disabled? Is he aware that the medium of sport gives the disabled enormous pleasure as well as social benefit? Will he also try to encourage organisations, such as the Kerry Packer organisation, to put more money into sport for the disabled?

I agree that we must do all that we can to help the disabled. The Sports Council is playing an important part. This year it is giving £70,000 in the grant allocation. In addition, an estimated £15,000 will go towards Riding for the Disabled and £8,000 to the Amateur Swimming Association for specialist teaching services. The regional councils for sport and recreation are playing a full part in many of the programmes taking place throughout the country in this International Year of Disabled People.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances, under existing or contemplated legislation, a local authority can become insolvent.

None, Sir. Local authorities are required by law to meet all their liabilities—whether debt charges or current liabilities—either out of revenue or by borrowing.

Will the Minister give an assurance that in any legislation that his Department contemplates, particular care will be taken to ensure that, even if a local authority is, in the Secretary of State's view, being perverse and not fulfilling its commitment to its electorate, it will not become insolvent? Will he bear in mind that if a local authority became insolvent, that would affect the capacity of every other local authority to borrow money at favourable interest rates?

Yes, Sir. I am conscious of the importance of maintaining the creditworthiness of local authorities. Although I am able to give that assurance about local authorities, I cannot give it about their ratepayers. It is quite possible for commercial and industrial ratepayers to become insolvent, and many of them have faced that situation as a result of the demands being made on them by several local authorities. Given the hon. Gentleman's concern, I hope that he will recognise the need to moderate expenditure and consequent rate demands.

Nevertheless, may I endorse part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann)? Regardless of any possible change in legislation, a number of potential lenders to local authorities have become concerned as a result of the scare headlines that have been seen. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the situation is exactly as he has set out?

I confirm what I have said. It is important that this matter should be put on record. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, there have been scare headlines, and it is understandable that lenders may be concerned when they see some local authorities apparently paying scant regard to the rateable resources and capacities of their areas.

How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that paying rates makes businesses insolvent when a survey carried out in the Manchester area, at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), showed that companies in that area paid 0·67 per cent. of their turnover in rates? Surely that is not a great burden.

If profits stand at 0·5 per cent. of turnover, that percentage could he a devastating amount.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a major proportion of the rate burden falls on the shoulders of the industrial and commercial ratepayer, who has no voice, no vote, no say and no sanction about how profligate local authorities spend their money? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all businesses should be able to pay their rates by instalments, notwithstanding the measures introduced in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act? Given that the cash flow of businesses is more important than the cash flow of councils, should not that form of relief be extended right across the commercial sector?

We introduced proposals in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act so that businesses with a rateable value of up to £5,000 in London and up to £2,000 outside London could pay their rates by instalments. In some areas in which companies are in difficulties, local authorities have voluntarily entered into arrangements to help them. They have done so because they have been concerned to maintain employment and the security of companies in their areas. I wish that all local authorities showed the same concern.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he expects to meet the leaders of the Association of County Councils to discuss the allocation of block grant.

I expect to meet the leaders of the ACC, together with the other local authority associations, in the consultative council on local government finance on 30 July.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if a hard-pressed county, such as Northamptonshire, can meet its target, many other counties should be able to do so? Will he bear in mind that there is something wrong with the system when low per capita spenders, such as Cambridgeshire, find themselves facing a heavy penalty while some of the high per capita spenders, such as Cheshire, need to make only a marginal transfer back to the Government?

For the vast majority of local authorities it was not intolerable to request that they should meet the target of reducing the record level of local authority expenditure by 5·6 per cent. over three years. In the revision of budgets, I hope that most authorities will show what is possible. I recognise that there are problems about the way in which we have set the targets. That is why, when I spoke to a conference of local government treasurers, I invited them to put forward an alternative proposition. The Government made it clear that they were willing to entertain other targets if a better system could be introduced. Unfortunately, local government has been unable to suggest an alternative.

When the Minister discusses grants for the next settlement, will he consider revising his procedures? The last round moved resources away from large cities, where the pressure points are, in favour of county councils which vote Tory. Might that not have some bearing on what is happening in some of our cities?

In the new system of grant-related expenditure assessment, we have tried to get a fair and objective measurement of grant. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has put its views to us about the need to take into account the position of inner city areas. That is being considered in the grants working group discussions. The Government will have to take their view later for this year's rate support grant settlement.

When the Minister is considering the problems of local government finance, especially in relation to the inner cities, will he consider the problems for cities, such as Liverpool, which now have to face the consequences of the riots and the enormous costs involved—possibly millions of pounds? The invocation of the Riot (Damages) Act is not of real help to the city, because the cost will have to be borne by local ratepayers. Will he therefore consider, within the terms of the block grant payment, making special provision for additional Government finance to help those who have suffered riot damage?

We have a difficult problem in trying to assess a fair distribution of the grant. Everyone is aware of the problems to be faced in Liverpool and other cities. The hon. Gentleman is calling for extra funds, but I am sure he will accept that there does not appear to be an immediate direct correlation of the kind that he makes that it is necessarily the most deprived areas where the problems exist.

When my right hon. Friend meets council leaders, will he take into account the fact that the Birmingham city council, though Socialist-controlled, feels that it is being harshly dealt with? Will he comment on the fact that as many Conservative leaders as Labour leaders of local authorities believe that the present system lacks common sense?

That is why I made the proposal that if any hon. Member or any member of local government would care to suggest an alternative or more satisfactory system, he should suggest it. I am disappointed that we have had no satisfactory response.

When the Minister meets the Association of County Councils and other associations, will he discuss the threats that his right hon. Friend made on 2 June about what he will do with local authorities in legislation in the autumn and listen to their views about the threats?

I have already had meetings with local government representatives on this matter. We are awaiting the revision of budgets. Those are not due until the end of this month. We shall have to consider what action is necessary. It will take time to assess those revisions of budget, but, if they do not achieve the economies we need and it is necessary to proceed with a consultation document, we shall do that at the earliest possible date to allow us to consult the local authorities. We shall need to press on with that, and it will probably be in early September.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications to buy council and new town houses have been received since the Housing Act came into force up to the most recent convenient date; and how many of these applications have resulted in sales.

In the first six-month period after the Housing Act came into force, the number of right-to-buy claims received by local authorities and new towns in England was approximately 263,000. Of those some 2,200 sales had been completed by 31 March. In addition to the sales being carried out under the right-to-buy procedures, a number of authorities are processing additional sales to sitting tenants under the voluntary arrangements permitted by the general consents for the disposal of local authority dwellings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when all the rhetoric has died down and all the academic analyses have been written the figures that he has announced are the true measure of the success of our policies?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, the fact that more than 250,000 council tenants have applied to buy their homes, coming on top of about 140,000 completed sales since the Government came into office, totally vindicates our policies.

Does the Minister realise that selling the much-needed stock of houses is legalised robbery of taxpayers' money? Is he aware that in my city the waiting list is as large as the number of council houses being built in a year under this Government? Does he not realise that by selling those houses cheaply he is taking what he calls taxpayers' money? He is also selling the best houses. That leaves the remainder for those living in high rise flats, for example, who want to move out of them. The housing that is being sold should be available to those tenants. What will the Minister do to stop the robbery that is going on in the name of his Government?

The so-called robbery to which the hon. Gentleman refers was endorsed by the British electorate at the last election.

Where are the tax cuts?

I am certain that the 3,700 council tenants seeking to exercise their right to buy in Sheffield completely support the policy. I look forward to the action of the Sheffield city council in implementing the timetable that it has agreed to set for implementing the right to buy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that almost a year after the Housing Act came into force not a single offer notice has been sent out to over 1,000 families who have applied for the right to buy in the borough of Watford? Will he take it from me that although the letter that he has recently sent to the chief executive of Watford borough council has been of encouragement to my constituents, they want to hear his assurance that if he is not satisfied with the reply received he will not hesitate to use his powers under the Act to intervene on their behalf?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his robust defence of the interests of his constituents. As a result of his representations, which have drawn my attention to the serious delays in Watford, the Department has now formally written to the local authority about the inadequacy of its present progress.

Will the Minister confirm that, because of the Housing Act, local authorities will on average have to sell 12 council houses to obtain the capital receipts to build one new council house? What advice can the Minister offer to the 1¼ million people on the waiting lists who see councils selling houses and the Government stopping council house building?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she has confirmed that, for example, if the city of Manchester, which has 6,000 right-to-buy applications, had made greater progress earlier with the right to buy it would be in a position to build 500 more council houses.

What a fool.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce further measures to protect ratepayers from the consequences of the high spending policies of some local councils.

As I told the House on 2 June, I am considering further measures, including the possibility of legislation next Session, to bring home to individual authorities and their electorate the consequences of high spending policies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that following the recent county council elections Lancashire county council, by its new policies, is levying an 18p supplementary rate? Does he realise what effect that will have on businesses and householders? Will my right hon. Friend accept that the ratepayers and electors will fully support any measures that he wants to take?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's view that the incidence of supplementary rates of the sort to which he refers will lead to further worsening of an already difficult economic situation. That will undoubtedly worsen unemployment.

Is it not a fact that the crisis from which local government is suffering is not so much to do with its spending policies as with the savage cuts of the rate support grant and high interest rates—another factor introduced by the Conservative Government?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that interest rates throughout the world are higher than we have been accustomed to. The real crisis facing large parts of local government is that they are not prepared to accept that, Britain's ability to maintain present living standards has been seriously eroded by the world recession. The longer that they refuse to accept that the longer it will take this country to recover.

I recognise the need to retain local democracy, but will my right hon. Friend consider imposing an absolute ceiling on rates increases, thereby ensuring that the hard-pressed ratepayers of Labour-controlled authorities do not have to suffer increased hardship?

I am being pressed to take the sort of measures to which my hon. Friend refers. That is a possibility that the Governmnent must consider seriously. The difficulty that faces us is that a limited number of local authorities appear to feel that they can act outside the restraints of Government policy. Thus, they are changing the traditional relationship of freedom that has existed between central and local government.

Is it not a fact that of the local authorities that the right hon. Gentleman says are, according to his criteria, overspending, 70 per cent. are Conservative Party-controlled? Is it not a further fact that 14 councils of which Labour obtained control in May are, according to the right hon. Gentleman, overspenders to the extent of £186 million? That overspend is on Conservative budgets. Why should Labour councillors be penalised for Tory budgets?

The right hon. Member will know full well that the effect of the holdback arrangements that I have put forward is incidental to the party control of the authorities concerned. He will be aware that I have shown to each authority, irrespective of its political control, the level of holdback that is proposed if the budget should not change from the original submission, and I have acted in a totally non-political way in this sense.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the contents of the registers of local authority land which he has required to he compiled under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Registers of unused and underused public land more than one acre in extent have been published in 27 out of the 33 areas so far designated to have them. In total, the 27 now contain 1,723 sites amounting to 16,366 acres. Two more registers, for Birmingham and Sandwell, will be published this Friday.

Is not the figure of 16,000 acres of unused land absolutely disgraceful? Is it not clear that if local authorities do not take action to get that land developed quickly, my right hon. Friend should use his powers under the Act to require them to do so?

I very much support my hon. Friend's views. Nothing indicates more the misgovernment of Britain under the previous Administration than that they allowed this scandal of public sector land to go unchecked in the way in which these registers have now demonstrated.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the largest unused building site in my constituency, which is in the ownership of a private property company, has been unused for 15 years and that now, because of the Government's interest rate policy, it cannot be developed? What does he propose to do about that?

The right hon. Member will be aware that I cannot have knowledge of every site in his constituency. However, I am sure that he will want to examine the scale of other publicly owned land that might exist in his constituency and which could be made available for more profitable use at an early date.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the whole question of derelict land in relation to all public authorities—the gas board, the coal board and so on? This is a public scandal. These tracts of land are lying available. Why should they not be used?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because his question gives me an opportunity to make it clear that the 16,000 acres of land to which I have referred is not just local authority land but the land of public undertakers, too.

Will the Secretary of State undertake to place in the Library of the House details of all the sites to which he has referred which are suitable for building development but which have been subject to abandonment or postponement of local authority building schemes as a result of the Government restricting the money available?

It is an easy choice for the local authority concerned to let the private sector develop the land for housing at an early date.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pensioners will be worse off under the proposed unified housing benefit scheme outlined in the consultative paper "Assistance with Housing Costs".

It has been estimated that the housing benefit proposals referred to would result in about 1.1 million pensioners in Great Britain, with incomes above the needs allowance, being worse off, on average, by 26p a week. They would also result in about 900,000 pensioners, almost all with incomes below the needs allowance, being better off, on average, by 83p a week. This assumes the adoption of the topping-up scheme in the consultation paper. Fuller information is given in tables 1, 2 and 6 which have been placed in the Library, as announced in the reply given on 13 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire).

I am grateful for that reply. However, will the Minister confirm that the payments that he has mentioned, which will be paid to some pensioners, will have to be paid for at the expense of other claimants because of the nil cost condition of this scheme? Furthermore, will he confirm that the Department of Health and Social Security estimates that it will save, on 2,000 staff, about £17 million if these proposals are adopted? Will the Minister accept, therefore, that because of those two conditions and the extra burden that will be thrown upon local authorities, which are not in a fit state to cope with this burden, the present proposals are unworkable and unjust and ought to be reconsidered?

I think that the hon. Member will want to consider carefully the tables to which I have drawn his attention. One thing that comes out clearly in the overall scheme, when one is bringing together two separate systems of housing cost support, is that under the present proposals there is substantial overall benefit to pensioners. We estimate the current net financial benefit to pensioners at some £23 million, so the overall balance is in favour of pensioners.

How can the Minister possibly justify putting additional hardships on many tenants as a result of proposals now being put before local authorities? Does not the Minister recognise that many of those who will be hard hit by the proposals will have no means of paying off the additional amounts that they will be faced with paying? What does he propose to do to help those people?

I hope that the hon. Member will analyse the facts. As a result of these proposals, we are producing a net increase in financial help to some groups, Including pensioners—

What about the others?

—and that must be taken into account. But, in bringing together two separate systems of financial support, it is inevitable that there will be some gainers and some losers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what replies he has received to his invitation to contractors to submit preliminary proposals relating to involvement in the nuclear waste test drilling programme.

There were 17 replies from bodies interested in carrying out geological fieldwork, of which four specifically mentioned research on crystalline rock. Any research which involves drilling will be dependent on the necessary planning consents being obtained.

Has not the Minister jumped the gun by issuing invitations, since there is nowhere where these companies can drill after planning permission has been refused, both at Kyle and Carrick in Scotland and in the Northumberland national park? Or has the Minister already decided to overrule the county council before he has seen the inspector's report?

The inspector has not yet submitted his report. Despite the allegations made in local media, no decision on this matter has, therefore, been taken. Those who are responsible for advising on these matters, such as the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, have recommended that, despite many other alternative sorts of storage, research work should continue. That is the present policy.

Does the Minister accept that there is widespread objection to any programme of drilling for the implantation of nuclear waste, because of the grave dangers which arise from the storage of nuclear waste, either at depth or in any other way? Will he give a complete assurance that this experimental programme in no way prejudges his decision?

I give the hon. Gentleman that total assurance. We are dealing here with research work.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters he discussed with officials of the Building Societies Association on the last occasion on which he met them.

Officials of my Department meet regularly with representatives of the Building Societies Association on the joint advisory committee on building society mortgage finance. Matters recently discussed include the net inflow of funds to societies and the level of mortgage advances.

What does my right hon. Friend think the building societies and their millions of borrowers will make of the suggestion that there should be a phasing out of tax relief on mortgage interest, as is evidently to be recommended to the national executive committee of the Labour Party as future party policy? Does he agree that if the report in The Times today is correct, a proposal ostensibly aimed at the so-called rich will have the effect of imposing a devastating increase on the average family budget?

I suppose that the detached observer would draw from the reports in the newspapers today the conclusion that the Labour Party is back in its traditional role of attacking private wealth and private house ownership.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the question put by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) is false? Is he further aware that the Labour Party is in favour of granting tax relief on mortgage interest on houses at the basic rate but not of allowing it at up to 60 per cent. on those of the very wealthy?

Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House which Labour Party he speaks for?

Would it not be right to review the present limit on tax relief on mortgage interest? It was fixed at a £25,000 borrowing level by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far back as 1974. The average price of a house in Greater London is now £30,000 and in constituencies like Twickenham more like £40,000.

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's point. We have had to consider this matter from time to time. We have felt, however, that in present circumstances it could not be accorded the level of priority that such an adjustment would imply.

In the event of interest rates being forced up by international conditions, what steps will the Secretary of State take to protect mortgage owners against increases in their present burdens? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a much more pressing question than speculation about Labour Party policy, on which the right hon. Gentleman is singularly ill equipped to pronounce?

I agree that there is little purpose in speculating about Labour Party policy, as there is no prospect of a Labour Government ever having to carry it out. Britain is not immune from the actions of the international economy. The best way to protect people from the dangers of high interest rates in this country is to keep down the level of Government borrowing, which must affect the national level of interest rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make any further increases in the level of council house rents in the next 12 months.

It is for local authorities to decide on their rent levels following my right hon. Friend's determination of reckonable income under section 100 of the Housing Act 1980. The determination for 1982–83 will be made later this year.

Are not compulsory rent increases of £5·35 a week in the last two years more than enough? Does the Minister intend to increase rents further in the next 12 months? The Labour Party believes in both council housing and owner-occupation. Is it not, therefore, grossly unfair that while the subsidy on council houses is halved, the subsidy on owner-occupation is raised to £2·2 billion a year?

The hon. Gentleman can be assured that no decisions have been made about the split between current and capital housing expenditure for future years. He must realise that this year's determination follows from a very low base. In our first year in office, rents represented only 6·4 per cent. of earnings, the lowest on record. Last year, the figure was 6·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour Party is the party of owner-occupation. That is not reflected in its attitude towards the right to buy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Labour Party, when last in Government, had not ignored, in its coward-like way, the recommendations of the 1977 Green Paper that council rents should rise in line with money incomes, it would not be necessary for rents to be increased to a realistic level now? Does he further agree that 45 out of every 100 council tenants do not meet their increases in council house rents either in full or in part because of the generous increase in rent rebate allowances initiated by my right hon. Friend?

My hon. Friend is right when he says that about 46 per cent. of local authority tenants receive help with their rent through the supplementary benefit system or through the rent rebate system. It is an interesting commentary on our earlier exchanges about capital investment that while the Labour Party, when in Government, increased significantly the amount of public expenditure, in real terms, devoted to housing subsidies, it halved the capital programme.

Is it not a mockery for the Government, while forcing councils to push up council rents by about 40 per cent., to say that they are fighting inflation? Why does not the Minister come clean and say that the Government intend, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to phase out housing subsidies for council tenants?

I have made it clear that one cannot look simply at the gross figures. Nearly half the total of local authority tenants receive substantial assistance towards their rent through rent rebates and through the supplementary benefit system. That has to be taken into account in the overall calculation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the resources allocated by the Government to sport are adequate to enable British sportsmen and women to compete effectively in international events.

All Government money for sport is channelled through the independent Sports Council. It decides, in co-operation with the governing bodies of sport concerned, how much grant aid each should receive to assist its sportsmen and women to compete in international events. I understand that the Sports Council has had no complaints that its grants are inadequate.

Does the Minister agree that the British men and women's athletics teams scored outstanding victories last weekend and that this success was partly due to the support that British athletics has received from the Sports Aid Foundation? Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the more disappointing performance of British tennis players? Will he examine, in particular, the stranglehold imposed on tennis by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon, which seems to put the interests of its members ahead of any consideration of devoting its vast resources to aid British tennis?

It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman should have spoilt his supplementary question with the second part of it. I agree that last weekend saw a triumph for British athletics in Scandinavia and in Edinburgh. Hon. Members will wish our team well in the final.

Does my hon. Friend agree that sportsmen are not so interested in money allocated to them as they are in being able to play in whatever country they wish throughout the world? Will he confirm that the Government intend to give them the freedom of choice to play wherever they wish, including South Africa?

My hon. Friend has raised another question. I offer all praise to the Sports Aid Foundation and its chairman, Paul Zetter, who have done a tremendous amount for this country in international sport.

On the question of resources for sport, does the Minister have regard to the social purposes that sport ought to be serving, particularly in view of massive youth unemployment, inner city deprivation and multiracial tensions? If resources were adequate, sport could play a tremendous role, but we know that resources have been cut, particularly to local authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman apply the Government's mind to the role that sport can play in that respect?

The right hon. Gentleman has raised three important questions. The Smith report is evolving rapidly through discussions with the LTA and the result will be beneficial to lawn tennis. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Sports Aid Foundation, He raised an important point about urban deprivation. The Sports Council is looking at that matter carefully and I am having further discussions with the chairman today. Sport and recreation have a part to play in the problems that are facing us, but we need motivators and people more than facilities.