asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals have been placed before him by the British Waterways Board in connection with additional investment for repairs and maintenance consequent upon recommendation 1, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the fourth report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Session 1977–78; and if he will make a statement.

Since the Fraenkel and Select Committee reports, the British Waterways Board has approached successive Governments for increased grant-aid to deal with the backlog of repairs and maintenance. It has been possible to continue grant-aid at nearly constant real values and it amounts to £28·5 million this financial year.

Has the Minister read the recent statement by the chairman of the Inland Waterways Association that it will he necessary to spend about £120 million to get rid of maintenance arrears? Is the Minister aware that, in real terms, more money was spent in 1978 than is being spent by the Conservative Government? Does he understand that thousands of people, including craftsmen, are out of work and that over 5,000 could be employed repairing and maintaining the canals? May we have an assurance that more money will be given to the inland waterways?

I am aware that the current estimate for the backlog of maintenance is about £120 million. I am also aware of the Select Committee's report of June 1978. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that the previous Government considered that there could be no commitment to provide large-scale finance for a period of 12 to 15 years. The provision of additional grant is under review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Blisworth tunnel is at the heart of the inland waterways navigational system and that it has remained closed for more than a year? May we have an undertaking that that key part of the system will be given priority in the programme for the year ahead?

My hon. Friend will recognise that the British Waterways Board determines the priorities that it gives to any individual structure. I agree with my hon. Friend that the closure of the Blisworth tunnel is a major blockage in the system. My right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when considering the review for next year.

Is the Minister aware that, contrary to what he has just said, the previous Government accepted the Fraenkel commitment to provide £60 million and that the additional funds thus provided were withdrawn immediately the Conservative Government came to office? Will the Minister comment on the most extraordinary auditor's report on a public undertaking that I have read, by Coopers and Lybrand? Is the Minister aware that in the caveat to that report to the Secretary of State the auditors state that they were

"unable to assess the sums needed for maintenance and repairs and the inspection of bridges and reservoirs."

"sufficient to meet the obligations laid on the Board"—

Order. The right hon. Member must not quote when asking a question.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was quoting from the auditors' report.

I understand that, but quotations are allowed only if the right hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Government Front Bench.

I shall put the quotation to one side and conclude my question. Is it not a fact that the auditors made it clear in their report that they were not able to provide a true audit because the Government were denying the board the resources to carry out its obligations under the law? Is that not scandalous?

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at current prices the amount of grant-in-aid to the BWB in 1978–79 was £19·9 million. In 1979–80 it was £22·6 million, in 1980–81 it was £25·4 million and in 1981–82, £28·5 million. So, I dismiss the first accusation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority staff and operatives have been declared compulsorily redundant in the last five years.

No information is collected centrally on the number of staff made compulsorily redundant, as opposed to natural wastage and voluntary redundancies. However, we believe that there have been only a relatively small number in the overall reduction of 92,000 full and part-time workers since June 1979.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be one for the private sector and another law for the public sector? Is he aware that there are large engineering, architectural, planning and direct labour staffs throughout the country with little or no work to do? Does he consider that the Government should try to encourage local authorities to offload some of the labour, as will be the case in the private sector?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have been urging local authorities to pay particular attention to those aspects, and in that connection our proposals about the publication of information on manpower have undoubtedly been helpful. I understand the reason why my hon. Friend makes that point. It is true that since the Government came to office we have reduced the central Civil Service by 6·5 per cent., and that in the Department of the Environment by 12 per cent. The current reduction in local government is only 3·2 per cent., and we are looking for a significant improvement on that.

Will the Minister either give the figures or make an estimate of the figures for the total number of local authority staff five years ago and today? He said that there had been a reduction in local authority staff. Does that refer to last year, and what was the reduction?

The figure that I gave was 92,000 full and part-time workers since June 1979. I would need to check the exact figure for five years ago. When the Government came into office the number of local government employees was at an all-time record level, and it had increased by over 1 million full and part-time workers in the previous 20 years.

Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who was in charge of a direct labour scheme, might be telling a different tale if he were still employed in the public sector, as he was before entering Parliament?

With the experience that my hon. Friend brings to the House he is, perhaps, more aware than any other hon. Member of the importance of direct labour organisations being operated efficiently and competitively. There is no justification for such organisations continuing if they are not able to operate competitively and efficiently.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1970 local authority manpower has increased by approximately 500,000, and that in the same period the House has enacted over 100 Acts of Parliament which have either amended or increased the duties of local authorities? Does he agree that if we are to get back to the staffing levels of 1970 there is an urgent need for the review or repeal of much of that legislation?

My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the first actions that we took on coming into office was to make it an absolute requirement that any circular issued to local government should be scrutinised for manpower and financial implications, because not only legislation, but the impact of circulars, can have a major effect on manpower. In that connection, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased about the substantial reduction in circulars, as well as legislation. In their last year of office the previous Government issued 1,800 circulars to local government, and we reduced the figure to 600 in our first year of office.

Does the Minister not realise that his pressure in that respect has resulted in a deterioration in local services? Is he aware that in the London borough of Enfield, and in many other London boroughs, staff cuts have led to a reduction in the quality of services in refuse collection, libraries, social services and education? Although the Secretary of State may congratulate Enfield on reducing its overall work force by 2·3 per cent. in the past 12 months, does he not appreciate that Enfield, like many other authorities, is simply putting out more and more work to private contractors and small local firms? Where is the efficiency and saving in that?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should mention refuse collection as an area where the Government are putting on appalling pressure, leading to dangerous cuts in services. It has become increasingly apparent in the last few years that there are substantial economies to be made—often accompanied by a better standard of service—by the better operation of refuse collection. In many of those areas private contractors have played an outstanding part in ensuring better value for money for the ratepayer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities and the organisations who have written to him opposing the suggestion for new rating proposals in response to the technical memorandum issued by his Department on 30 September 1981.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about his proposals to change the financing of local government; and if he will list these representations in the Official Report.

My Department has received many representations from local authorities and other bodies about our proposals for new rating procedures—too many to list. While a majority of them expressed opposition to our specific proposals, many representations have urged the Government to take action to reduce the level of rates.

Why has the Minister not mentioned the figures? Will he confirm that the memorandum states that it is up to the Secretary of State to determine the level of spending of local authorities? Is he aware that while the level of local authority expenditure over the last few years has remained more or less the same, Government spending has risen by about 5 per cent? Now that the Government have adopted the maxim "The man in Whitehall knows best", why does he not change his criterion on overspending and allow local authorities to spend up to the 5 per cent. increase of Government expenditure?

The hon. Gentleman's question contained most of the distortions that are prevalent about our proposals, and it is clear that there has been considerable misunderstanding of them. Some of the propaganda that has been issued, much of it at the ratepayers' expense, is a total distortion of what we said. I have with me a leaflet published by a Labour-controlled council, which states:

"If you are a housewife you can expect rubbish piling up outside your door because bins may be emptied only twice a month."

Does the Minister not accept that in Staffordshire the Tory Opposition is in complete agreement with the Labour-controlled county council in its opposition to the proposals because it believes that they will destroy the essence of local government? In view of that all-party opposition, will the Minister now abandon these absurd suggestions?

I am aware that there has been considerable misunderstanding about our proposals, and I am also aware that there are reservations on both sides of the House about certain aspects of them. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I undertook to examine and consider alternative proposals that hon. Members might wish to put forward. We are now considering those suggestions.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the time that they are taking to consider the submissions from both local authorities and Conservative Members? May I continue to assure him that solutions that rely on greater centralisation are unlikely to be the best solutions in the long term?

I am not sure whether I should accept my hon. Friend's congratulations. He will know that my right hon. Friend and I always like to consider these matters carefully before reaching well measured conclusions. I know that my hon. Friend will accept that the proposals that we put before that House did not depend on a central solution to the problems, but, ultimately, left the resolution of them to local people. For that reason, he will understand that. I support his central tack and believe that, as far as it is possible to do so, decisions should be reached locally by local people, who are best able to decide.

Is it not a fact that local authorities, far from misunderstanding the Government's proposals, have understood them very well and, whether they are Tory or Labour-controlled, have opposed them strongly? Is the Minister aware that Norfolk county council almost unanimously rejected the proposals? Is he further aware that representatives of local authorities throughout the country are coming to London tomorrow to express their strong opposition? When will he tell the House that he is withdrawing these absurd proposals?

I do not believe that the proposals were properly understood. I take a measure of responsibility for perhaps failing to explain them as fully and clearly as we should have done. Many of the representations and much of the opposition were based on fundamental misunderstandings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would have been no necessity to publish the technical memorandum if the Labour Party, when in Government, had grasped the nettle after the publication of the Layfield report and undertaken a root-and-branch reform of the rating system? Does he recognise that there is widespread support for a move to iron out anomalies in local government financing by bringing forward rating reform as a matter of considerable parliamentary priority?

I well understand that. The attitude of the Labour Party, if I may coin a mixed metaphor, was to chicken out of grasping the nettle because it was a sacred cow. The attention that has been given to the rating system and the problems that it poses has been real. As a question that appears later on the Order Paper will elicit, we have proposals that will shortly be put before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his Green Paper on rate reform.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress on his consultation paper, "Alternatives to the Domestic Rating System."

A Green Paper on alternatives to domestic rates will be published later this month.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how grateful Conservative Members are to him for making that announcement, especially those who have constituencies in Lancashire and whose ratepayers bear an enormous burden because of the supplementary rates that have been levied upon them? Is he further aware that, in addition to that burden, the ratepayers of Preston have had to bear an enormous rate increase since the change in local authority control? Does he realise that the early publication of a Green Paper, with the implications that that has, will be greatly welcomed?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I sympathise with the irritation that is felt by ratepayers who have to bear the burden of supplementary rates. I know that my hon. Friend's views will find a wide audience.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inherent unfairness of the rating system has multiplied as rate demands have escalated in recent years? Does he further accept that there are now millions of households that are suffering real hardship in paying their rates and cannot qualify under present legislation for rebates? Will he push forward with determination and confirm the prospect that there will be a great rating reform Bill during the lifetime of this Parliament?

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed to the possibility that such a Bill could be introduced in the time scale that we have in mind. I support his view that increasing pressure is being placed on ratepayers. That is happening largely in the areas represented by authorities that are prepared to disregard the burdens that they place on the private sector to protect the over-high levels of expenditure in the public sector.

Why are the Government proposing to bring forward a Green Paper on domestic rates only? Why are they not taking the opportunity to examine the entire rating structure at the same time?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the challenge of finding alternative taxation to replace the £4·7 billion worth of domestic rating is challenge enough. To add to that the burden of replacing even larger sums from industrial and commercial rating would be a task too large to tackle in the short term.

What is the alternative that the right hon. Gentleman would personally prefer that would hurt no one and raise over ·10 billion, which is the sum now raised by the rating system?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that no Secretary of State has a personal view on these matters. It is for the Government to reach a collective judgment.

Bearing in mind that we have had the Layfield report, how long does my right hon. Friend propose to allow for consultation on the Green Paper?

When we publish the Green Paper, I hope that we shall look for representations and consultations to end in the early spring.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to increase the number of dwellings renovated with improvement grants.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Housing Act 1980 introduced the improvement-for-sale scheme and made some extremely important changes to the improvement grant system. These included making private and public sector tenants eligible for improvement grants, introducing a new form of repairs grant, and extending the priority rate of grant of up to 90 per cent to all dwellings in major need of improvement. That priority rate of grant of up to 90 per cent. will also be extended as from 1 January to all works required because a person is disabled. I hope that local authorities will give a high priority to improvement grants in the use of their capital allocations and capital receipts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we could get the construction industry off the floor and reduce unemployment substantially and cheaply if there were a crash programme of improvement work of the sort that took place between 1971–73? Is he further aware that if there were to be any hindrance to such a move after half-past three this afternoon, some of us would take a dim view of it?

I agree with my hon. Friend that improvement activity, especially with the additional means that we have provided for financing it, is an extremely cost-effective use of public finance for housing purposes. I remind my hon. Friend that under present legislation the installation of bathrooms and internal WCs is subject to mandatory grants. As a result of the changes in the Housing Act 1980, the grant rate is 75 per cent. and increases to 90 per cent.

Does the Minister accept that new measures are necessary on improvement grants because of the dramatic decline in improvements under the Government? Will he take the opportunity to apologise to the House for his statement on 11 February, when he boasted that the number of improvements was increasing? On 11 February was he not using completions that were started under the Labour Government? Now that we have the figures of improvements started under this Government, it is clear that there has been a dramatic decline and that the decline will continue unless the Government take some measures to reverse it.

In the 12 months to June 1981 the level of improvements has been higher than for most of the years under the Labour Administration. On the present indications of spend for this year, it seems that a number of local authorities may not be making full use of existing capital allocations and capital receipts. I hope that they will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he intends to announce the full details of the 1982–83 rate support grant and to communicate these to local authorities.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a statement later today, which will make proposals for the main elements of the rate support grant settlement. I will also see today the leaders of the local authority associations. Further proposals on more detailed issues should be made before Christmas.

Can the right hon. Gentleman justify the staggering loss of grant that has been suffered by new town local authorities that have taken over their housing assets, as Harlow has? Is there any proposal to make any change in the formula to provide for these authorities? Does he realise the chaos that he is producing by not making clear what resources will be available to all local authorities even for next year?

I hope very much that if the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience these matters will be rapidly resolved.

Is not the timing this year causing a great deal of uncertainty to local authorities, bearing in mind that at rate-fixing time most authorities will have 10 months or a full year when they will be unable to engage in forward planning? As rent payers must be given four weeks' notice of the intention to increase rents, is not the timing this year entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of all local authorities?

My hon. Friend will understand that I have had an especially complex settlement to determine this year in view of the high levels of overspend in certain authorities. It seemed right to consider the matter carefully before reaching a decision. I hope that the announcements that will be made later today will enable authorities to have a clear picture of what the Government will expect of them. In that context the delays and dates are not that far out of accord with previous practice.

Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has created enormous uncertainty among local authorities by his introduction and then his pigeonholing of the Local Government Finance Bill, by his cancellation of the statutory meeting on rate support grant and his intention to hold a non-statutory meeting, by the shambles that he has created as a result of his housing subsidy policy because he cannot relate it to the GREA policy and by the fact that he has not announced the housing investment programme? Surely it is intolerable that local authorities should be plunged into this turmoil because of the right hon. Gentleman's total incompetence.

The right hon. Gentleman is always seeking alibis for the high-spending authorities that the Labour Party temporarily represents. If he is able to cast his mind back to the days when he was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, he will recall that these decisions rest upon the Government's public expenditure decisions and not on the individual decisions of the Department. Given the high levels of overspending with which I am faced, the settlement has been especially complex this year. The only alternative would have been to rush forward to impose an unfair burden on the authorities that have been co-operating with me.

When my right hon. Friend communicates with Liverpool, will he remember that 350 typists have been on strike for six months, bringing the council's business programme to a halt? Does he agree that those typists should be dismissed and replaced by people who are prepared to work?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. A wide number of dispassionate commentators would take the view that, for those who have secure jobs in local government, to prejudice the good working of that city, which contains one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country, is deeply regrettable. However, it would not be appropriate for me to give specific advice on how that should be remedied.

Is the Secretary of State saying that today's statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will transcend and bypass the normal consultations that take place with local authorities regarding the rate support grant settlement? If that is so, is he not also saying that that is another fait accompli forced on local authorities? The right to determine how people who elected the authorities shall live in various facets of life is being completely removed from them.

The hon. Gentleman disappoints me by the way in which he is being swept away by the prejudices of his own rhetoric. Every Secretary of State has a balance to strike between informing the House and consulting the local authority leaders coincidentally. The proposals are today, as they have been in the past, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his statement and I shall talk to local authority leaders to begin the consultative process, attendant on the figures concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of new housing starts in 1948, 1978 and to the nearest convenient date in 1981 at an annual rate.

The figures for England for the respective years are 142,000, 227,000 and, for the first nine months of 1981 expressed as an annual rate, 137,000.

Do not those figures conclusively show that we now have the worst Government for 40 years?

When the right hon. Gentleman makes such a comment, he should bear in mind that in 1979, the last year of the allocations by the previous Government, starts in the public sector were the lowest since 1945.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the most negative Opposition for 40 years? Were it not for their blind prejudice and mongrel dogma in opposing the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act, and were it not for their outright opposition to the short tenancy proposals and their total inability to understand my right hon. Friend's tenants' charter, they would realise that these provisions will do much to relieve homelessness and reduce the number of people waiting for council houses, people who would just as soon rent in the private sector and have the freedom of choice to rent where they want to live?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the basic paradoxes of the Opposition is that on the one hand they complain about the insufficiency of starts in the public rented sector, but on the other hand they do all that they can to destroy the privately rented sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached in seeking a revised formula for control of local authority rate fixing procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternatives have been put forward to his proposed referendum on supplementary rates; and if he considers any of these to be a practical means of limiting the increase in the burden of the rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the opposition expressed to the proposals contained in the Local Government Finance Bill, he will now withdraw the Bill.

We are still considering possible alternative approaches in this matter, in accordance with the undertaking that my right hon. Friend and I gave to the House on 12 November. We shall inform the House as soon as possible as to how we intend to proceed.

To which options does my right hon. Friend refer?

My right hon. Friend gave an adequate answer to that question earlier.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the referendum proposal has been dropped or is merely being kept in reserve in case any of the alternatives prove equally unacceptable? Will he bear in mind the need to give reassurance to industry and business that some action will be taken to limit the burden of rates?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that the sentiments that he expresses are echoed widely around the country, particularly in industry and commerce, which have been hard hit by the supplementary rates imposed by a number of new Labour authorities. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we shall inform the House as soon as possible.

Is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement this afternoon will increase rates willy-nilly? Will the Minister take some responsibility for that when he talks to industry? Is it not a fact that part I of the Bill is a dead duck, that part III is unnecessary, and that the whole thing should be withdrawn? Both he and the Secretary of State should now put their trust in the local authorities and not continue the totally unnecessary war.

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make me trespass on a subject that I have made clear I will not comment on, and has invited me to comment on another subject that I am unable to comment on—the substance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. If he is patient, he will find that some of the comments that he made are not entirely justified.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of his hon. Friends would prefer a thoroughgoing reform of the rating system to any of the interim measures contemplated in the Bill?

I well understand that view. My hon. Friend will recognise that a major reform that will require legislation will take time to enact and will involve an interim period. The Government must reach a judgment about the best forms for those interim measures. I hope that the House will support the Government in that.

Is it not a fact that part of the problem for the Government is that every solution that they have tackled has not worked out politically satisfactorily? Can the Minister confirm or deny the report in today's Financial Times that the Government have had to abandon a key part of their housing subsidy strategy—for example, the development of local government finance—because a large number of Tory authorities, including the authority in the area represented by his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, would have been heavily penalised as a consequence?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the changes made concerning the statutory right of district councils to representations on national park boards and committees are adequate.

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of my constituents who live in the Peak District national park think that the board will be no more sensitive to their interests after the change has been made? Why cannot the Peak District national park board be directly elected by those who live in the area?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety about matters that affect his constituency. If he reflected deeply, I believe that he would accept that elections are impractical. Many hon. Members have expressed concern that proper account should be taken of local interests in the administration of our national parks. I am confident that section 46 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act provides for the first time a statutory right of representation on such authorities by district councils. I hope that the local problems to which my hon. Friend referred will be resolved.

Does the Minister accept that, whichever way national park boards and committees are constructed, unless they have the necessary finance they cannot do the job? When does the Minister expect to announce the next financial commitment to the national parks? Will he give the House an assurance that that will be adequate to meet the increasing demands upon the national parks?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his job as shadow spokesman on the Department of the Environment and welcome him to these deliberations. I know that it is not his first time on the Front Bench. The points that he made are matters on which we shall be having consultations progressively over the next few weeks. When any legislation is enacted, there are many things to be ironed out. Those are some of the things that I shall be discussing with the representatives, and my right hon. Friend will also do so.

I acknowledge that the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have materially helped the situation. Nevertheless, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing mood in some of the national parks that there should be direct representation of district councils on the planning committees of the national parks boards?

I am aware of those comments, which have been made in some areas. I am anxious to point out that two-thirds of the members of all national park authorities, whether boards or committees, are appointed by the county councils concerned, and in virtually all cases are democratically elected members of either those councils or the district councils involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses he estimates will be started by 31 December compared with starts in each of the three previous years; and whether he proposes to take any steps to increase this number in the forthcoming year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any plans under consideration to increase the public sector building programme in 1982–83; and if he will make a statement.

In 1978 there were 67,637 local authority starts in England; in 1979, 47,465 and in 1980, 27,925. No estimates have been made of the number of council house starts in 1981 or any future years. Decisions on capital allocations for 1982–83 have yet to be made, and it will then be up to local authorities to decide how much, within their total expenditure allocations, supplemented by their capital receipts, they spend on council house building, and how much on other ways of helping those in housing need.

Will the Minister reverse these cuts, thereby reducing the present total of 440,000 unemployed in the building, construction and related trades? Are not the overwhelming majority of the 1·4 million families now on the waiting lists entirely dependent on council housing because they cannot afford to buy?

The hon. Gentleman will have to await announcements on the HIP allocations for next year. A massive public sector house building programme, based on accommodation for rent, may not be the most cost-effective or popular way of tackling the housing problem.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether these questions should have been linked, because one relates only to house building while mine concerns the public sector as a whole.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if, unwittingly, his question has been inappropriately linked. I note that in the first six months of this year the Leeds council had spent only 36 per cent. of its revised allocation for the current year. I hope that there will not be any underspending in Leeds on the HIP allocation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends support his view that there are more cost-effective ways of providing housing? Will he confirm that the number of private house building starts has increased in the same three years?

I note that in September this year the number of starts for new housing and flats was 16,000 compared with 13,000 in the previous year. I confirm that there are other ways of tackling the real problems of those in housing needs—for example, more partnership schemes, more improvement for sale, more low-cost home ownership and greater mobility. One needs a broader range of solutions than the obsession with public sector accommodation for rent.

Will the hon. Gentleman ignore his doctrinaire disagreement with public sector housing and admit that the only real way to solve the nation's housing crisis is to build more homes, whether for rent or for sale? Will he also admit that the measures he has just outlined, which provide a small number of dwellings, are only a palliative and that we need a public sector house building programme financed by Government supported moneys?

I feel that in this policy area the dogma is on the other side of the House. I note with great regret the fact that yesterday the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that should he ever be returned to office he would cancel the options available to tenants to buy their own homes. I consider that a short-sighted, doctrinaire decision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the light of the reports by the Environment Committee on the impact of public expenditure decisions in the field of housing.

I refer the hon. Member to Cmnd. 8435, published last Friday.

Does the Minister consider that the Government's reply to the Select Committee report was a disgrace that should prompt him to consider his resignation? Has he noted the recent report from the Housing Centre Trust? It confirms the Committee's assessment that there will be a shortage of 500,000 homes by the end of this Parliament. Has he noted the article in The Times yesterday on Shelter's findings, which also endorse the Select Committee's report? Has he also noticed the editorial in The Guardian confirming the views expressed by the Select Committee that the consequences of the Government's failure to respond to the need for housing is creating a potential disaster from which future generations, like the present generation, will suffer?

Our view is that our response to the Select Committee was positive and constructive. We shall see whether the Select Committee as a whole takes the same view as the hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend continue to bear in mind the importance of uprating the value of our housing stock? In the context of Government expenditure, will he look in particular at the large number of houses and units that are currently in a state of disrepair and are housing people who expect to be in better accommodation?

As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot anticipate the statement that will be made shortly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I repeat what I said earlier. During the current financial year I hope that local authorities will make full use of their capital allocations and receipts because, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), there are indications that a number of authorities may not be making full use of their available resources.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his name and that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be cursed by present. and future generations of young people on the housing waiting lists as the housing crisis develops during the rest of this decade? Bearing in mind that 300,000 building workers are on the dole, and that thousands of building firms are going into bankruptcy, will he now reverse his policy and again put housing on the map?

If the hon. Gentleman really wants to get additional money into housing, I hope that he will join me in encouraging many Labour authorities to get on with the business of selling houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council.

I have met the Sports Council chairman on five occasions, the most recent being on 30 November. I intend to meet him again on 9 December.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the provision of sporting facilities for the unemployed? Does he agree that that service might go some way towards combating soccer hooliganism, thereby making England's trip to Spain next summer a little happier?

The House may like to know that already the director general and chairman of the Sports Council have given fairly detailed consideration, as has the Central Council of Physical Recreation, to how they can help the unemployed; for example, by encouraging more motivators and initiators. From what I have seen so far in my travels to five of the regions, I am much impressed by the facilities that local leisure centres are providing for the unemployed. At present, it is pure speculation whether that will have a beneficial effect on how the 0·1 per cent. of our so-called soccer hooligans behave in Spain.

Is the Minister aware that we entirely endorse the recommendations of the Soccer Council and the comments just made, that the greatest social stresses in our inner cities, particularly in multiracial communities, can be helped and assisted by leadership and recreation and sports facilities? To that end, will he immediately accept the Sports Council's indenture for £2 million to train leaders who would otherwise be unemployed?

The right hon. Gentleman has made a series of important points that have embraced much of my dialogue with the chairman of the Sports Council in recent weeks. In addition to the Sports Council's activities, through the urban aid programme and other pump-priming activities, there have been many good examples of how this has been developed. In Merseyside we have introduced the pound-for-pound scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend a few months ago, which has also had a beneficial effect. These are some of the things that are now being embraced by the Sports Council, which is urgently preparing a strategy and role into the 1980s

Is the Minister aware that this is a problem for the local planning authorities that are building huge council housing estates with no sporting facilities? When he visits St. Helens, will he take special note of the New Street, Sutton, council estate, which I believe he is due to inspect? Will he find out why local authorities build hundreds of houses without accompanying outdoor or indoor sporting facilities? Is he aware that if they build indoor sporting facilities, the unemployed will be priced out in any event?

I have no immediate plans to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I shall be visiting the North-West fairly frequently over the next few months. This is a question of partnership between the local authorities, the planning authorities, the Sports Council, the regional councils on sport and recreation and the voluntary sector. They must come together to try to put this right. The pound-for-pound scheme in the inner city of Merseyside is designed to deal with some of these problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make any change in the policies of his Department in the light of the Scarman report.

Lord Scarman has made a major contribution to our understanding of inner cities. It is too soon to say what the full impact will be, but I am reconsidering a number of policies in conjunction with the report. First, I am examining the distribution of urban programme resources. Secondly, I am considering how best to involve minority groups in the work of the Merseyside task force and elsewhere. Thirdly, I have been considering the representations made over the last year about my decision to hold back some urban programme funds from overspending authorities, one of which has recently threatened legal challenge. I have decided that it would now be right to approve new urban programme projects in Lambeth, Hackney and Tower Hamlets.

That sudden change of mind is welcome. I hope that the Secretary of State has taken note of Lord Scarman's description of the very serious housing problem in Lambeth and the other problems faced there. Will he restore the £2½ million that he has taken away from Lambeth in penalties, as well as the cuts in the housing investment programme? If he had continued cutting the moneys of sick and hard-pressed authorities such as Lambeth, we might have thought that he was engaging in a form of municipal euthanasia.

I am aware of the comments made in Lord Scarman's report. Lambeth council will be able to proceed with its package of environmental improvement schemes for Brixton under the partnership programme. The rest of the question is a matter for detailed discussion with the authority concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major inner city needs is to involve the people in the decision-making process, and that they should decide how the money is spent and how they should work out their problems?

By his commitment to that aspect of inner city life, my hon. Friend has shown a significant way forward. I am much in sympathy with what he says, although in the end it will not be a possible avenue simply to abdicate from central Government or local authority decision making. However, we should, of course, seek to involve local people as much as possible.

Is the Secretary of State, from the Olympian heights of his Atlantic Tower hotel room, unable to do better than provide a bit of the Tate gallery or to talk about festivals for Merseyside? If he cannot do better than that or provide some of the housing money required to tackle improvement—[Interruption.] Is it not entirely missing the point to talk about the rights of minorities without saying what he will do to exert pressure on the Home Secretary to change the procedure for complaints against the police? I believe that that is to miss the point entirely. Will he assure the House — [Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Heseltine.

The one thing that the whole House can recognise and sympathise with in the hon. Member's question are the words "missed the point entirely", which he, uniquely, does so well.

Does the Minister agree that Lord Scarman's recommendations are a positive discrimination towards the black community? Does he agree that that means more public expenditure in inner city areas, in places such as Toxteth in Merseyside, and Brixton in Lambeth? Will he therefore restore to the local authorities all the moneys covering the inner city areas that he has taken away from them in the rate support grant cuts?

I am sure that before he advocates further public expenditure the hon. Member will want to ask how many of the existing public sector programmmes are recruiting their fair proportion of ethnic minorities.

Would it not be utterly deplorable if Government money were to be spent only on areas where there have been serious riots? What about the rest of the United Kingdom, which, with its unemployment, has been law abiding? Why is there concern only with violence? Is that not utter cant?

I fully suppport my hon. Friend's view that it must not be a question of spending money only in areas where there were riots. One of the points that I made clear as a result of my appointment to Merseyside was that I am considering the whole community, and not one part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council house sales to council tenants have been completed since the present legislation came into effect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the latest figures of sales of council houses to sitting tenants under right-to-buy provisions.

In the nine months to the end of June 1981 local authorities in England sold 46,500 council dwellings, mostly to sitting council tenants, of whch an estimated 11,300 were completed under the right-to-buy provisions.

The figures are very encouraging, but is my hon. Friend aware that the city of Hereford has been selling council houses for about 30 years? If the same criteria are adopted this year as were adopted last year for establishing grant-related expenditure, Hereford city council would be seriously penalised. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that that will be taken into account and that council house rents or rates in Hereford will not be forced to rise as a result of that authority having followed Government policies?

I assure my hon. Friend that we have given detailed consideration to the make-up of the various grant-related expenditures, including the housing GRE, but I cannot now anticipate the proposals that my right hon. Friend will shortly be putting out to consultation.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but has he seen reports in the press today that a future Labour Government would not only deprive council tenants of their right to buy their homes, but would cancel options granted to them during periods of Conservative Government? Will he comment on that?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the vigorous and strenuous way in which he has been upholding the right to buy of Bristol council tenants. The statement made by the Labour Party yesterday was a legal and constitutional monstrosity. It represented a disgraceful commitment to tear up existing contractual options, and an equally disgraceful commitment to impose retrospectively, on council tenants who had already bought, a right of the local authority to buy back.

Does the Minister agree that all over the country, as a consequence of his policies, there are empty council houses awaiting purchasers? They stand empty month after month and are an affront to the thousands of people on housing waiting lists.

The hon. Member will find that the great majority of empty local authority dwellings are in the areas of Labour-controlled councils. As far as the hon. Member's general point is concerned, the effect over the country as a whole is that many tens of thousands of people have been given their first opportunity to obtain home ownership. Had it not been for this Government, they would not have had it.

As many housing officers throughout the country do not have sales expertise when selling council houses, does my hon. Friend agree that it would probably accelerate the sale of council houses if their sale were given to private enterprise?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are encouraging local authorities, where they wish, to utilise the services of private surveyors and private solicitors in expediting the sale of council houses. I am glad to say that at least some authorities are doing so.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents want a house and cannot get one because of the Government's policies? How many houses does he expect to build after existing council houses have been sold under the current procedure?

If the hon. Member is concerned about making more council houses available, and more accommodation available for rent, I hope that he will encourage the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to withdraw his monstrous commitment to repeal shorthold.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what problems have arisen over the construction of Airey houses; when the problem was first discovered; and what assistance and advice his Department has given to housing authorities and others on the matter.

In some Airey houses corrosion has occurred in the steel reinforcement of the concrete columns forming part of the walls. The fact that there was a potentially serious problem first came to my Department's notice last December. After detailed investigations the Department wrote to all local authorities in May giving advice on methods of inspection and asking them to warn private owners and prospective purchasers of the possible presence of structural defects and of the need to obtain expert advice. The Building Research Establishment held a technical seminar for local authorities and others last month.

Does my hon. Friend understand that the matter originally came to light in Barnsley in 1978, when the Building Research Establishment was called in? Why did it take so long from then until early this year to get the information out to other local authorities?

There is no record of the Building Research Establishment having been involved in that year. It first became involved in December 1980 after the matter came to the attention of my Department as a result of councillors and local residents writing to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why the statutory meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance scheduled for 20 November, in order to give details of the 1982–83 rate support grant settlement, was cancelled.

The meeting was cancelled because the details were not available at the time of the meeting.

I must confess that I hardly heard the reply, but, quite obviously, as it came from the right hon. Gentleman, it must be completely unsatisfactory. I do not know whether it confirms the arrogance that has been shown this afternoon, but it seems to show that the Government's policy in relation to local government and local government finance is in complete and utter chaos, which is exactly what the Government are in altogether.

I am not sure to what I am supposed to respond. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on letting his prejudices leak out so publicly. The reasons for the answer that I gave will be apparent very shortly.