asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now received the results of the national survey on river water quality carried out in 1980 by the National Water Council; and if he is satisfied with the conclusions reached on the quality of rivers.

Yes, Sir. The survey shows an encouraging improvement in the quality of our rivers, especially some of the worst ones. But others have a long way to go.

Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the National Water Authority believes that we have reached the point of no return? Does he agree that, in view of the large scale unemployment in the North of England and the fact that sewers are collapsing in inner city areas, he should improve the time scale that he has announced? Is he not being a little complacent?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the North-West and on Merseyside there is a real problem of pollution. However, he should be aware that the North-West water authority has started a major 15-year project costing about £85 million in order to clean up one river. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has very much in mind the need to proceed with such a development.

What is the Minister's response to the part of the report that says that unless there is further investment there will be a deterioration in standards? In view of the breakdown of the sewerage system in some parts of Britain, will the Government commit more money to try to eradicate river pollution?

I accept that there is a great need for further investment, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that all the water authorities have major investment projects to improve pollution and river control. It would appear from the report that the worst category of rivers has been halved in the 10 years between 1970 and 1980.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to monitor population changes which affect the number of children and adults moving from Liverpool or other parts of Merseyside to St. Helens for council housing and private housing, respectively.

No, Sir. Monitoring such population changes and the implications for local housing and other policies is essentially a matter for the local authorities. In common with other authorities, St. Helens sends an annual housing needs appraisal to the Department as part of its housing investment programme submission.

Is the Minister aware that when I made inquiries of the local authority about the movement of population from Liverpool and the Merseyside area in general into council and private properties, it was unable to help me because it kept no figures and there is no monitoring of people taking private accommodation? As the matter is important in making a case for special development area status, will the Minister give it more serious consideration?

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the figures. The estimates from his local authority suggest that the population will fall from 191, 300 in 1981 to 187, 500 in 1986. The evidence shows that the migration flows between St. Helens and the rest of Merseyside are broadly in balance. I take on hoard the hon. Gentleman's points and will write to him.

Dean asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were started in 1981.

About 21, 000 dwellings were started in English local authorities in 1981.

Is the Secretary of State aware that those are the worst figures since council house building was started in Britain? Is he further aware that if one is underprivileged, badly housed or homeless, under his present policies the possibilities of being rehoused are worse than in the period of Rachmanism? When will he give some hope to the three classes of people that I have mentioned and do what not only the trade union movement but the CBI has suggested and start more public sector house building to alleviate the problem?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that Rachmanism was a phenomenon of the private rented sector and would wish the Labour Party to withdraw its embargo on shortholds, which are an attempt to improve the position. The lack of council house building is in part a reflection of many Labour-controlled councils' decisions to improve and repair rather than to build new houses.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this may be the time to introduce more legislation to allow the private market to produce more accommodation for rent? At the moment the private sector is not pulling its weight, because it is waiting for the Government to make the right moves.

I support my hon. Friend's instincts in the matter. However, he will be aware that we have introduced legislation to initiate assured tenancies and provide for shorthold tenancies. It is not the lack of confidence in the private sector that concerns me, but the deliberate attempts by the Labour Party to make it impossible for the private sector to find a way to do this and to protect its own investments.

Will the Secretary of State stop trying to put the blame on local authorities? Does he not realise that many local authorities want to build more council houses but that the Government are preventing them from doing so? Will he confirm that, if the Government run their full term of office, in five years of Conservative Government fewer council houses are likely to have been started than in 1975—just one year under the Labour Government?

I hope that the hon. Lady will now devote her attention to encouraging Labour authorities with significant under spend on their capital accounts for housing to get on and spend the money that they are authorised to spend.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that members of the Labour Party are wrong to assume that the people who are looking for homes necessarily want to wait on a council house waiting list? Does he further agree that his Department's initiative to encourage local authorities to homestead, build homes for sale, improve existing housing stock and release land that they have locked up for years will go some way to meet that demand?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will welcome, as I do, the fact that private sector starts in England were up 22 per cent. over last year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local urban authorities to give priority to utilising existing vacant land within cities rather than develop green field sites.

The Government have already given such advice to all local authorities in circular 22/80, which specifically advocates the priority of using existing sites within cities and towns. The registers of under-used public land, which are now being extended to the whole of England, should greatly help in this.

Will my right hon. Friend explain why 100, 000 acres of good agricultural land are being lost each year, according to his Department's information, when 250, 000 acres of vacant, dormant and derelict land in the principal urban areas are still unused?

It was precisely to tackle that problem that we introduced the registers. We have established in 33 districts registers of 21, 000 acres of under-used or unused publicly owned land. The first 500 acres have already been sold and a considerable amount more is coming forward for development.

Does the Minister agree that whether houses are built on green field sites outside cities or on sites within cities, the number of starts is now at its lowest level, not since the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) became Prime Minister, but since she was born?

I shall not enter into the housing aspects of the matter which seem to have arisen on the previous question. I am sure that the whole House supports the need to use derelict sites in inner cities to avoid further encroachment into the countryside. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has sought to distract attention from that important matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that areas of green land within city limits are important to the quality of life within cities and that to resist development on them is one of the duties of those who are responsible? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on refusing development in the Hardwick Farm area at Plympton, which is designated as an area of outstanding beauty, but I caution him that yet another attempt to develop that area is under way.

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the second part of his question if there is to be an appeal to the Secretary of State. The suggestion about using inner city sites is not intended as an attack on existing open space—parks and other amenity areas—but it is no asset to any town to have derelict or rubbish sites in the middle of it. We want such sites to be given back a useful purpose.

Is it not true that open spaces and derelict land patches in cities are often in private ownership? For example, in Manchester, the old Central station site, which covered 26 acres, was privately owned and stood vacant for 10 years.

The majority of publicly owned land on the survey is owned by local authorities, but a substantial amount is owned by nationalised industries. Our concern relates to our economic pressures, which make it difficult for private sector developers to afford to leave sites unused. However, sometimes those economic pressures are not so keenly felt in the public sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about his last meeting with the football authorities to discuss the arrangements for the World Cup.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—[Vol. 17, c. 462.]

As well as concerning himself with the conduct of fans, will the Minister concern himself with the related matter of the conduct of some of the travel agent sharks, who are trying to exploit some of the football fans with questionable standards of travel and accommodation for the World Cup in Spain? In view of the recent advertisement in the Spurs programme, proposing to herd the fans into camps with four in a tent at £275 each, does the Minister honestly think that that kind of exploitation is conducive to good crowd control and good behaviour?

As this is such an important subject, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make sure that any such information reaches my office, because I should like to know more about it. At this stage it is too early to know how these arrangements will shape over the next few months. My officials will watch the matter closely. As I said in the House a few weeks ago, a committee is now reviewing all aspects of the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have any information that he has.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we are glad that he went to Spain recently and met officials there? Did he visit the grounds where the preliminary rounds are to be played by the three home countries? If so, did he feel that the standing spectator accommodation was adequate for crowd control, as it is in this country?

My officials visited all five centres where the three United Kingdom teams will play their first phase matches. They have also had discussions with all the relevant authorities in those five centres. We have discussed crowd segregation and the elimination of the provision of alcohol, as well as many other aspects. There are still other matters that I want to discuss with all the various authorities over the next few months.

Is the Minister aware that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House support his efforts to ensure that British travellers to the World Cup behave in a sensible and civilised manner? However, does he realise that there is likely to be considerable difficulty because of the intense holiday trade and traffic which will be going on quite legitimately at the same time? Does he agree that the key to the matter is to ensure the use of passports and immigration control to make certain that at the point of sale of tickets for matches, transport and hotels only genuine supporters receive such facilities?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I take note of what he said. There are many issues that we have yet to discuss with all the interested parties. Four million people from this country go to Spain every year and enjoy the hospitality that is offered to them. I can only hope that the good relations and co-operation that currently exist will be maintained over the next few months.

When my hon. Friend was in Madrid, was he satisfied that the Spanish authorities realised what a vicious, ugly and unpleasant animal the British football hooligan is? Is he satisfied that the Spanish police will be able to cope with this particular type of hooligan, if he offends?

We must be careful to retain a sense of balance, because 99. 9 per cent. of British spectators at football matches behave themselves thoroughly competently. However, I am concerned about the hooligan minority. I can only hope that the Spanish football authorities and all those who are responsible will take note of the requirements of spectators. I am confident that they will do that, judging by the dialogue that has taken place so far. Behaviour off the field and away from the arena is a matter for the Spanish authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities and their associations following his announcement of the 1982–83 rate support grant settlement.

About 50 authorities have made written representations to the Department since the announcement of our proposals for the main elements of the settlement on 21 December.

Does the Secretary of State realise that in the history of local government he will have the privileged position of being Scrooge, without the last redeeming chapter? Does he not realise that throughout the country local authorities are at their wits' end to know how to provide services for people and how to carry out their manifesto promises—for example, the Greater London Council and Sheffield? Will he take note of that and see that enough money is given to those authorities to carry out their manifesto promises without bringing in a group of tame judges, such as the Official Solicitor, to impose surcharges on them and blackmail them into carrying, out his wishes?

I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he learns to moderate his language—

Pick up the Mace and swing it round.

might feel that those who are at their wits' end are the ratepayers of Sheffield, who, in the last two years, have had to find the cash to pay a 45 per cent. and a 41 per cent. rate increase to help to finance a local authority that does not appear to recognise the depth of the recession and its effect on the private sector.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate support grant will always remain controversial while the Government provide such a large proportion of local government expenditure? In his present review of the rating system, will he endeavour to produce a system that ensures that local authorities raise a larger percentage of the money that they subsequently spend?

My hon. Friend will know that I am consulting widely about alternatives to and the reform of domestic rates. It is appropriate that I should wait until that consultation period is at an end before I express my views about the direction to which we should switch.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many of the 50 authorities that have made representations have told him that, as a direct result of the rate support grant, they will have to increase their rates, and how many are Conservative authorities?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to see a contrast between the rate increases in Labour and Conservative authorities, he has only to look at what is happening in the shire counties, where the largest rate increases are levied by authorities taken over by Labour last year.

Will my right hon. Friend try to move towards a system whereby the rate support grant is determined well in advance—a few months before the beginning of a council's financial year—to give it the chance to do more effective planning and allow people in the area to put forward their views on what balance of rates and services they want?

The Government, at the beginning of their period in office, stated the level of public expenditure that they expected. Therefore, it has been possible for local authorities to plan the reductions in services and expenditure that were necessary. However, it is not possible—I do not want to give the impression that it is—for the Government to reach decisions about the rate support grant until they have conducted their detailed public expenditure review every year. That must be relatively late in the day.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the proposed increase in council rents.

My right hon. Friend has received 173 letters on the subject of council house rent increases.

What justification can there be for the continuing outrageous Government-imposed rent increases, which will have amounted to 117 per cent. in three years against a rate of inflation of 53 per cent.? Is the Minister aware that what is now required to follow the substantial rent increases imposed by the Government is a rent freeze? Why have the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Construction refused to receive a deputation from council tenants to discuss rents?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that a 22 per cent. increase in rents is outrageous, what adjective from his colourful and well-stocked vocabulary would he select to describe what his colleagues in the GLC did last night, which was to increase Londoners' rates by 91 per cent?

Council rent increases are worrying, but what proportion of council tenants receive help in rent subsidies or supplementary benefits towards the payment of rent? Does my hon. Friend agree that a fairer yardstick would be to compare today's average rent levels and average earnings with those of eight to 10 years ago?

Almost 50 per cent. of tenants in England and Wales receive help towards their rents and almost 27 per cent. receive supplementary benefit, which would cover 100 per cent. of any increase. Almost 23 per cent. receive rent rebates. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that approximately half the tenants will not have to pay the proposed increases.

In view of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, will the Minister confirm that council house tenants are now paying a higher proportion of their income in rent than ever before? Many council house tenants are having to apply for rebates or are falling into arrears for the first time ever. Does that not prove that the burden that the Government are imposing on council house tenants is too great?

No, it proves not such thing. The hon. Lady would do well to look at an opinion poll, published today inThe Guardian, which shows that more council house tenants favour the policy of £2. 50 rent increases than the Opposition's policy of a rent freeze. It seems that many tenants have a clear understanding of the need for that. I remind the hon. Lady of what her hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) said about 10 minutes ago when he called for more investment. Every penny that goes towards subsidies is a penny off housing investment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. We usually take points of order at the end of Question Time, in order to speed up questions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled East Northamptonshire council has announced that there will be no increase in council house rents next year? Will he join me in congratulating that council and commend its good housekeeping to other local authorities?

I am sure that the electors in my hon. Friend's constituency will take note of the action outlined by his authority. It is worth reminding the House that a number of local authorities propose to increase their rents by more than the £2. 50 suggested by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress made so far with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants.

Between April 1979 and September 1981 almost 200, 000 council dwellings were sold in Britain, and we estimate that a substantial further number of dwellings will be sold this year and next. However, my right hon. Friend is continuing to take steps to accelerate progress in certain authorities where progress has been unsatisfactory.

Which local authorities are still dragging their feet?

I shall be glad to write to my hon. Friend. The list is extensive, so I cannot give it here.

Will the Minister now give tenants with three years' standing the right to buy their houses at a discount from private landlords?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear earlier this week, we believe that transactions in the private sector should be by voluntary negotiation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities, such as Coventry, which claim that they do not have enough staff to process backlogs of valuations and conveyancing, could speed up the process by appointing outside solicitors and valuers, thereby getting rid of some unhealthy waiting lists?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the energetic way in which he has been seeking to support those of his constituents in Coventry who want to exercise their right to buy. In that city we are looking to a significantly greater rate of progress. It is open to local authorities to make use of private sector surveyors or solicitors, and also of district valuers, as has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the Norwich case.

Is the Minister aware that, apart from the principle of council house sales, which is a matter of political controversy, a satisfactory feature of the transfer arrangements is that mortgage costs are limited by statute to £50? Will he have urgent discussions with the Lord Chancellor to extend that limitation to the private sector, where people paying conveyancing charges are being robbed because of restrictive practices? Will he extend the limit provided in the 1980 Act for the public sector to the private sector?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, conveyancing issues are for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. We considered that a necessary protection for tenants exercising the right to buy was some form of statutory limitation upon the maximum mortgage costs that could be passed on to tenants by local authorities. To judge from the way in which certain authorities in East Anglia and elsewhere have sought to exercise their responsibilities with regard to the right to buy, that precaution was well justified.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what criteria he assesses the need for public sector housing; and what assessment he has made of such need in England and Wales for the years 1982–83 and 1983–84.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Government's views on assessment of need and demand for housing set out in its replies to the first and third reports from the Environment Committee.

Is that not another way of saying that the Department has no interest in ascertaining the extent of the need, as its reply to the Environment Committee certainly gave no such information? Would it not be more honest for the Government to say that they do not collect the information because they do not wish to know, that they are not interested in the 500, 000 or more families who are homeless or in acute housing need, and do not care about them because they are not likely to vote Conservative in any case?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, through a system initiated by the Government of the party that he previously supported, we collect annually from each local authority, through the HIP system, its assessment of housing need. The somewhat speculative nature of the assessments of demand and need to which the hon. Gentleman refers was amply borne out by the Labour Government's experience, as, although their Green Paper was published in June 1977, its projections for public sector completions were met neither in 1978 nor in 1979.

Does the Minister accept the conclusion of the 1980 study group that 125, 000 houses are required this year to deal with homelessness and disrepair, and that the rate of obsolescence is now estimated to increase to some 90, 000 per year? Is he aware that that means that the number of people who are inadequately housed will increase by one-third to 4 million by the end of the decade? If that is so, do not the figure of 21, 000 that he has announced and last year's figure of 36, 000the lowest ever recorded—constitute a gross obscenity and an increase in human misery and despair that no Government should tolerate? How does he intend to reverse that disastrous position?

The first necessity is for local authorities throughout England to spend the allocations made available to them. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, substantial numbers of local authorities seem unlikely to spend in full their allocation plus their housing capital receipts in the current financial year. I hope that they will devote the maximum attention to ensuring that they use those funds in full and also take advantage of the increase by a further 3 per cent. in real terms in gross provision for local authority housing capital expenditure next year.

Will the Minister ensure that before the Secretary of State goes to Wandsworth on Friday, presumably to investigate housing problems there, he examines a publication produced by a member of his Department—the inspector who reported on the Wandsworth borough plan—which states that the council's policy of selling council houses is severely prejudicial to the interests of the poorest families 1n the community and is liable to contribute to social unrest?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider any relevant documents. Whether that document is relevant to his visit, I am not sure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in order to ensure a good response from the public to his invitation to let him have their views on his Green Paper"Alternative to Domestic Rates", he will publish a shorter popular version, which should be both cheaper and more readily available.

We have no plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at £4. 75 this useful but somewhat slim Green Paper is grossly overpriced and that I and my constituents can buy the complete works of William Shakespeare for rather less? If, as I hope, this useful document is to be discussed, can it not be produced at a lower price?

:"Overpriced" is not an expression that I would use in connection with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), but I understand his concern. We were anxious to see whether it would be possible to produce a shortened version for more widespread distribution, but the issues are complicated and it was difficult to condense them in a way that would be equally valuable to those studying them. I am concerned at the price of such publications, but substantial sums and major interests are involved. Against that background, I do not think that the price is too unreasonable.

Will the Minister explain why, when the Government so much deplore increases in rates, they apparently support increases in rents?

The payment of rates applies right across the board, although there seems to be some illusion that council tenants do not pay them. The impact of the very high rate increases, which are well in excess of the proposed rent increases, are a major burden for council tenants as well as for industry and commerce.

Although we do not yet know whether the Green Paper will become a best-seller, or even perhaps a film, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever representations are received, any long-term reform should be such as can be sustained for a long time and not be overturned in five years or so?

As we have made clear, we are anxious to listen to the widest representations on this important issue. I take note of my hon. Friend's comment.

In order to gain that good response, and in view of the earlier reply of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, will the Government produce the document in cartoon form and publish it inThe Guardian alongside the public opinion poll on council tenants' attitudes to rents?

If anyone wishes to readThe Guardian, I recommendThe Guardian Diary of yesterday.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to require that vacant and derelict local authority land should be sold at auction if not fully utilised.

My right hon. Friend has power to direct the disposal of under-used public land registered under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, and he is prepared to exercise that power in any case where he considers that land is being unreasonably retained. Whether disposal in such a case should be by auction would depend on the circumstances.

Do we really need registers for this? Would it not be better and easier to tell local authorities to auction 25 per cent. of vacant land, allowing them to choose which land should be sold?

That approach might be most unfair in some cases. We consider it more satisfactory that the land should be registered so that everyone may see which land has been determined as unused or under-used and consider whether there are purposes for which it could properly be used. An important aspect is that the register does not apply only to local authorities. In some ways this will help local authortities, as in some areas there are major problems with land belonging to nationalised industries—British Rail, the Post Office, electricity boards, and so on—and local authorities have in the past attempted to obtain land from nationalised undertakings but have lacked the power to do so.

Will the Minister direct that vacant, neglected and empty private property should also be put up for public auction? Is he aware that in almost every town there is empty property, but that local authorities cannot deal with it because money has been withdrawn from their municipalisation budgets?

I have already answered that question in part in relation to the pressures on private sector land. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities also have powers in that respect.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when land is sold, by his direction or otherwise, the proceeds flow direct to the local authority, nationalised industry or other body such as the National Health Service?

That is correct. In many cases there has been willing acceptance of the register and co-operation by local authorities. The majority of undertakings welcome this approach and are willing to co-operate. For example, British Rail disposed of a considerable amount of land before the registers were established, although there are other areas that many people feel could have been disposed of sooner. That is to the financial benefit of the authorities concerned, which otherwise have assets lying idle.

Does that not reveal the double standard of the Tory Government? They and their Back Benchers always want to attack local authorities and public utilities and force them to take action, yet they will not take the same powers to force private sector land to be sold, even though it is under-used, because they are too concerned with the rights of private property. In exactly the same way, they will not force private landlords to sell houses in the way that they are forcing local authorities to sell houses.

That question only indicates the hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge of the true position regarding the ownership of unused and under-used land in our inner cities. This a major problem which must be tackled. That is why we have set up the registers, and that is why the scheme is already achieving results.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to increase the level of consumer representation on regional water authorities.

My right hon. Friend will be considering the arrangements for representing consumers in the light of responses to our consultation paper on the membership of regional water authorities in England and the consultative document on"Consumers' Interests and the Nationalised Industries", issued last December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all water consumers on the initiative that his Department has taken in issuing this consultative document? Does he agree that, to the majority of water users, regional water authorities are monolithic and bureaucratic, insensitive to their needs and deaf to their protests? Therefore, in order to increase democratic accountability in the regional water authorities, might it not be a good idea to increase council representation and perhaps establish a water users' consultative council?

Another quango.

The consultative paper makes it clear that there are a number of possibilities, including increased local authority representation, but we do not consider that directly elected bodies would be appropriate. How nationalised industry consumer representation transpires is a matter for the other consultative document to which I referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many water authorities have a bad image because of the remote democratic control that many people feel exists? Does he not feel that if there were more accountability we might get a better and cheaper service?

I share my hon. Friend's views. He will be aware that one of the results of the investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the Severn-Trent water authority has been to improve significantly the way in which that authority is organised. I look forward to other possibilities in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his answer of 20 January 1982, Official Report, column 145, he proposes to make additional resources available for the implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; and if he will give the figure.

As I said on 20 January in reply to a question from the hon. Member, the increased level of grant-in-aid to the Nature Conservancy Council for 1982–83 is £11. 27 million and takes account of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, it is for the Nature Conservancy Council to decide exactly how the grant is distributed among its various responsibilities.

Does the Minister accept that the main criticism of the Wildlife and Countryside Act was that it did too little, too late? Does he agree that the money to be made available this year barely covers inflation and does not provide sufficient resources to finance the"too little"?

I do not agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have been encouraged by the increasing recognition of the value that can flow from the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will abandon the ranks of those who keep knocking this important piece of legislation and try to ensure that it is effective for the objectives that I thought a considerable number of hon. Members shared.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most important conservation measures to be put on the statute book for many years? Does he agree also that in the countryside people are not necessarily financially recompensed for keeping the countryside in decent order in accordance with our undertakings and responsibilities to the public at large?

Clearly, it is the only major piece of conservation legislation to have been put on the statute book, and the Government are extremely proud to have carried it through the House to enactment. I very much endorse the second part of my hon. Friend's question, which queried the idea that there must automatically be compensation. During the passage of the Bill, we sought to emphasise the need for co-operation and good will. A tremendous amount can be achieved in the countryside through the co-operation of people who live there, who are not all rampaging around searching for grants. They live there and have a vested interest in preserving the amenity and beauty of their surroundings.

Is the money sufficient to cover the work that we gave the NCC in relation to sites of special scientific interest during the passage of the Bill?

We hope so. Obviously it is unproven at this stage, because we do not know what will evolve. We have made it clear to the NCC that we shall keep in close touch about this matter, but we believe that the money will be sufficient for the first year of its operation.

Atkinson asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the statutory responsibilities of local authorities.

The Government examined the statutory duties of local authorities very thoroughly shortly after taking office and have made proposals for repealing or amending many of them. In addition, we have already removed about 200 of the 300 central controls, which we promised in our White Paper of 1979 (Cmnd. 7634).

Does my hon. Friend agree that among the wealth of legislation that has been passed over the years and which imposes statutory responsibilities on local authorities, there still exists much that is out of date and no longer relevant to local needs which could be repealed, thereby reducing significantly the cost of local government?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are prospects for doing that. That is why consultations are now going on with the local authority associations. No doubt there will be a legislative opportunity to deal with this matter in due course.

Does the Minister agree that where local authorities have statutory duties, such as running an effective transport service for the benefit of their electorates, there is now a need to make those statutory duties so clear as to put their powers beyond peradventure and the reach of the Law Lords?

Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that no local authority duty should be carried out in defiance or against the wishes of the law. The fact remains that local authorities have the power to carry out their statutory duties.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the statutory responsibilities of local authorities might be extended to take greater note of advice from local business men and industrialists on the efficient working of councils? Is he aware that ratepayers in Peterborough face a 20 per cent. reduction in their rates next year because of that type of activity?

My hon. Friend is right. He will also recall the audit commission proposals in the Bill now passing through the House, which will go some way towards introducing management efficiency audits, which could have a great bearing on local government.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State is already guilty of shackling local authorities? I suggest that if he pokes his nose any further into this he will get it punched by local authorities. Indeed, I shall probably be the first one in.

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's observation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce new measures to make green belts more effectively subject to planning control.

The Government attach great importance to the protection of the green belt. This policy was clearly restated in circular 22/80, which is issued to all planning authorities and inspectors. We consider that these controls are adequate and would not propose any additional measures.

In view of the hundreds of thousands of acres that are being lost each year to urban sprawl, would it not be more practical and effective if my right hon. Friend called a halt to green belt development until city centre space was fully used?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are the strictest controls over developments in the green belt. We intend to maintain those very rigorously indeed. The circular that we issued to all local planning authorities and as guidance for all planning inspectors makes clear the importance that the Government attach to the use of the green belt to contain the sprawl of built-up areas.

Does the Minister recognise that the problem of non-conforming activities in green belt areas is sometimes considerable? Will he therefore encourage local authorities to provide adequate industrial estates where business men can develop reasonable activities, and strengthen the powers of local authorities to deal with objectionable activities that frequently continue for many years and ruin whole areas of the green belt?

Obviously that is a matter first to be directed to local authorities, which have their clear responsibilities. The determination to use proper arrangements and the desire to use inner city and existing urban land in preference to green field sites are related to the aspects that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

I appreciate the impracticability of introducing a planning requirement that, for example, third parties should have the right to appeal against planning permissions, but will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically the introduction of such a procedure where a green belt is affected? It would not require new legislation, because the practice could be made perfect by the Secretary of State calling in applications for a public inquiry in such special circumstances.

My initial reaction to my hon. Friend's suggestion is that I think real difficulties would arise. However, if he cares to write to me to put his suggestion in greater detail, I shall consider it.

Bearing in mind the Minister's reply to a supplementary question, why did his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so capriciously interfere with the Tyne and Wear county structure plan?

I do not know to which aspects the hon. Gentleman is referring. That being so, I cannot comment further on his supplementary question.

Mitchell asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will hold a public planning inquiry into the proposal to build a private hospital in Southampton adjacent to the Southampton general hospital.

My right hon. Friend can hold a public local inquiry only if he calls in a planning application for his own decision. He decided not to do so in this case because, although controversial locally, there were no issues of wider significance which would have justified his intervention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause dismay to hundreds of Southampton citizens? Does he accept that when the Southampton city council planning committee took its original decision to grant outline planning permission for the private hospital, it did not have all the facts at its disposal? Does he agree that the building of the hospital will add tremendously to the traffic congestion from which the area already suffers?

It is evident from the hon. Gentleman's comments that all the matters to which he has referred are essentially local matters within the purview of the local authority. He will be aware that the local council at Southampton took a decision recently on this issue in the light of all the evidence that was then available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the decision was taken in the Southampton council chamber, certain councillors were barred from voting because they happened to be members of BUPA? Was that not an infringement of their democratic right to make a decision? Can something be done about it?

I take note of my hon. Friend's observation. Prima facie it appears that a councillor was debarred from undertaking his normal duties as an elected councillor. That requires further investigation.

Is it not a sad commentary on the Social Democratic Party that, led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), it is prepared to throw overboard life-long principles of opposition to private medicine and support for the Health Service? Will the Minister condemn this piece of political chicanery, which is based on a new-found lust for votes and a departure from principle?

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is entering into special pleading.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further steps to encourage local authorities to investigate the introduction of private competitive enterprise in place of services provided by the councils themselves and if he will make a statement.

My colleagues and I take every opportunity to impress upon local authorities the importance of considering the scope for using the private sector in this way. An increasing number of authorities are doing so. We have also commissioned and recently published a study by Coopers and Lybrand on"Service Provision and Pricing Policy in Local Government", which I believe will prove a most useful stimulus to further developments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Monday night, when the GLC was increasing its rate by 90 per cent., in Southend a decision was made to freeze the borough rate for the current year despite inflation and despite the cut in Government grant? Does he realise that this decision follows the cut last year in the borough rate? In view of Southend's proven success in saving money for the ratepayers and providing good services through privatisation, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea if he and his colleagues visited Southend to ascertain how its success could be applied in other areas?

My noble Friend Lord Bellwin, the Under-Secretary of State, has visited Southend. He takes a close interest in these matters. We have taken a keen interest in the developments that have taken place at Southend. I pay tribute to all that has been achieved, which demonstrates clearly that when economies in expenditure are mentioned it is rubbish to complain that that inevitably means cuts in services. Where there has been a positive approach to these issues, and where more economical ways of achieving improvements are sought, as at Southend, it has been to the great benefit of all concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at Southend the trade unions offered to review working practices, which would have reduced costs below those of the contractors, and that the council refused to take up that offer? Does the Minister accept that trade refuse charges have doubled and that the assets of the cleansing department were virtually given away to contractors? Is he prepared to allow public bodies to squander public funds and assets so disgracefully?

I do not know how much of that information the hon. Gentleman drew from an article in theNew Statesman, which I was interested to read. I took the trouble to have it checked and I found that there were many inaccuracies. I understand that the council is now in the process of correcting the figures. I understand, too, for example, that the figures given for overheads were incorrect. It is extraordinary if the hon. Gentleman is attacking a scheme that can provide better working conditions for employees, lower costs for ratepayers and a better service for the borough. If there is to be a serious approach to public expenditure in this place, the hon. Gentleman should consider seriously the benefits that can be achieved instead of taking a dogmatic and doctrinaire attitude.

Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing early legislation to give private enterprise the right to tender for council contracts?

This is a matter for councils to consider, and many councils are now doing so. One would have been more impressed by the supplementary questions by Labour Members if improvements had been offered in areas where there have been restrictive practices as an initiative by those concerned and not in the face of competitive tenders from outside.

Is it not true that this Tory-controlled council awarded the tender to Exclusive Cleaning Ltd., although it did not submit the lowest tender, and despite the provision in the tender that where extra houses were built, the company would charge the council—the ratepayers—£15 for every additional 100 houses for refuse disposal, an agreement upon which it reneged? When it was awarded the contract it claimed from the council not £15 for every additional 100 houses but £15 for every house, an increase of 1, 000 per cent?

I think that we have identified another reader of theNew Statesman. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in the truth, he should make some more serious efforts to obtain the real facts and not merely take the article at face value.

asked the Secretary of Stale for the Environment whether he is considering the abolition of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the description"consultative council" is inaccurate as applied to this body, given the delay in convening statutory meetings to announce the rate support grant order and the use of diktats rather than consultation? Does he agree that the lack of consultation is evidenced by the opposition of the three local authority associations to the 1980 Act and to the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill?

The hon. Gentleman does not follow the deliberations of the consultative council very closely. Following discussions, I increased aggregate local government expenditure in 1982–83 by £1 billion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with the consultative council the position of the Rotherham metropolitan authority, which he commended yesterday, which can demonstrate that it has complied with the law and operates with both efficiency and economy? However, in the next financial year it will suffer enormous disadvantage for so doing. Does that not illustrate that the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements are inadequate and need further revision by himself in consultation with the council?

I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in introducing the Rotherham authority into the question. I am sure that the local authority associations would be delighted to hold discussions about his authority. The difficulty is that 419 other authorities would want similar discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the average time taken by local planning authorities to determine applications and by his Department to determine appeals.

The welcome improvement in the proportion of planning applications determined within eight weeks—from 60 to 69 per cent. between early 1980 and early 1981—fell to 62 per cent. in April-June 1981 when changes to the general development order and fees for planning applications were introduced. However, the latest figure of 64 per cent. for July-September shows a healthy sign of recovery.

I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome trend and the up-to-date information.