asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to announce when he expects to make a statement on his review of the future of domestic rates and possible alternative sources of local revenue.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to announce when he expects to publish the White Paper on rate reform.

I shall announce our decisions on the review as soon as possible.

Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government have not the faintest idea how to deal with the future of rates or, indeed, the whole local government financial structure? This is a very urgent matter. What plans for reform does he intend to introduce in the very near future to put local government on a better and more satisfactory financial basis?

I note the hon. Gentleman's feeling that changes need to be made. As I made clear, I cannot announce anything today. I do not accept the first half of his question, and we intend to announce our decisions on the review as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the last Conservative manifesto made it plain that rate reform could not be given a high priority, many thousands of ratepayers in the country voted Conservative in the belief and hope that we would abolish the domestic rating system? Will he therefore ensure that when the White Paper is published it will propose complete abolition, instead of only tinkering with the existing system?

In the interests of accuracy, although the question refers to a White Paper, I referred to our decisions, and the form that they might take is not yet decided. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I, of all people, am more than aware of the interest in this subject and of my responsibility to produce satisfactory answers.

Does the Secretary of State realise that local government financing will now affect Manchester so much that some 20 community centres will be closed and that that will affect the young, the elderly, the single parents, and the mums and toddlers club? Does he realise that what he is doing to the financing of those projects in Manchester will result in riots on the streets again? Will he, like his predecessor, come to Manchester with crocodile tears when the riots start?

I was proud to be able to announce two major new schemes for Manchester from this Dispatch Box last week, which I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciated. I hope, too, that instead of making speeches, which are now pretty obsolete, about the "bleeding cuts" that are necessary in various areas, he will look at the ways in which economies could be made in other services to ensure that essential provision is made. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in local government. There may be a question later on the Order Paper showing one or two areas in Manchester where that could be done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled Essex county council is proposing to increase rates by 5 per cent., whereas Labour-controlled Basildon district council is proposing to increase rates by between 30 and 40 per cent? Is he further aware that the leader of the Labour group on the county council proposes next Tuesday to try to increase the Essex county rate by 2p in the pound more? Is not the real reform one that people can make for themselves in the May elections by electing Conservative administrations to county and district councils?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the pattern is now well established and well documented, on any statistical basis that one chooses, that Labour-controlled authorities have consistently gone for far higher rates increases, often with catastrophic results for employment and jobs in their areas. I note the stark contrast that my hon. Friend mentions between the Conservative-controlled Essex county council and. Labour-controlled Basildon.

Will the Secretary of State's statement, when it comes, honour the Prime Minister's personal and specific promise to abolish the domestic rating system?

I shall give exactly the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I have nothing to add to what I told him the last time he asked exactly the same question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how water workers' pay has compared with that of local authority manual workers over the past 10 years.

A strict comparison is not possible because of the wide range and different natures of the jobs performed by the two groups.

As there is no earthly reason why the pay of water workers should be compared with that of power workers, local authority manual workers, or even their probably harder working, less well paid and certainly less secure brothers in manufacturing industry, will my right hon. Friend undertake so to constrain the finances of the water authorities that yesterday's decision can be paid for only through productivity increases?

My hon. Friend is correct. He will know that the chairman made no finding in support of comparability with other groups of workers in his statement yesterday. He will also be aware that the vast majority of authorities have now established their water rates for the coming year. Therefore, the only way in which any increases can be paid for is out of productivity, greater efficiency and cost economies.

If the Minister is to make the comparisons that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wants, will he also bear in mind that there are about 800 men and women receiving 10 and 12 times as much in tax free expenses in another place as are hon. Members here?

That goes a little wider than the original question and, in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I think that the purpose of his question was to make clear that there is no such thing as comparability in this sphere.

rose—

Order. There will be a statement at the end of Question Time on the broader issues of the water dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the speed with which planning applications are being dealt with.

There has been a welcome improvement. The latest statistics, which are for April to June last year, show 70 per cent. of planning applications being determined in eight weeks, as against 62 per cent. a year earlier. I hope we can improve further on this.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the second quarter of last year, the period to which he referred, 23 per cent. of the planning applications to the Peak district national park joint planning board took more than 13 weeks to determine, compared with 5 per cent. of the applications to the Staffordshire Moorlands district council and none of the applications to the Newcastle borough council, the other two local authorities in my constituency? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the performance of the Peak district national park joint planning board and, if not, can he do anything about it?

No, I cannot be satisfied with the performance of the Peak district national park joint planning board, because its performance, although it has improved in recent quarters, is substantially below the average of other national parks. I recognise that many planning applications in areas of outstanding natural beauty take a considerable time to be dealt with, but some further improvement can certainly be made.

Although I recognise that there has been an improvement in this area, does the Minister agree that time is money, jobs and investment? Will he please encourage planning committees, so that they may reach decisions more quickly to meet more frequently than once a month when they have to deal with big applications for which people are paying sizeable sums?

I entirely accept that it is vital that local authorities recognise the importance of speedy decisions, and I am happy to say that most now do.

Although I welcome the more speedy processing of planning applications, is that because local planning authorities' procedures have been improved, or simply because fewer applications are being made?

There has been a decline in the number of applications, but I should like to think that some improvements have also been made. A considerable effort has been made by my Department and, I might even say, by myself, to speed up such matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now seek to require unused and vacant public land under one acre to be included in the vacant land registers.

I have no plans to do so at the moment. I prefer to concentrate for the time being on promoting the more effective use or disposal of land already registered, but I shall keep this question under review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the land already registered as unused and derelict totals no less than 94,000 acres, much of which is in the hands of state-run industries and local authorities? Will he do his best to release that land to create employment and also to add to local authorities' rate revenue?

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. The objective of the land register scheme is to provide information about available sites, some of which have clear potential for development.

The House will be pleased to hear the Minister's answer today, but has he seen the survey that was conducted by the House Builders Federation, which showed that the 26,000 acres listed on the land registers included roadside verges and a six-mile rail embankment, and that only 11 per cent. of the land on the register was suitable for house building? Therefore, will he have no truck with the idea of bringing in the smaller areas?

The hon. Gentleman's point should be fully and correctly answered. Although 11 per cent. of the land is available for house building, a large proportion of registered land will not be suitable for development. That has always been the case. However, it must be important that we are trying to bring every development site into productive use as soon as possible. Smaller sites will be too costly to introduce at this time.

As the Government already have the power to direct local authorities and the nationalised industries to dispose of this land, why is that power not being used and why is the land not being sold so that the construction industry can be put to work?

I am prepared to take action where circumstances warrant it. In recent weeks we have written to the owners of about 78 sites inviting their comment as to why they have not disposed of the sites in question. I must remind my hon. Friend that the present state of the construction industry is such that not all sites available for development are being taken up even now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates for the rate of inflation were used in calculating the recent rate support grant levels.

Like all other public expenditure programmes, the local authority expenditure provisions for 1983–84 were planned in cash. They reflect the Government's view of what the country can afford.

As the water workers' award may well have a spin-off effect for other public sector employees, and as the rate of inflation could well increase, how will the Secretary of State help local authorities which find that they do not have sufficient resources at the end of this year to maintain existing services?

It is becoming clear that local authorities have been considerably advantaged in the present year by the fall in inflation and interest rates. Despite an admittedly tough rate support grant settlement that reduced the rate support grant by 3 per cent., the overwhelming majority of responsible authorities are now making very low rate increases and I expect that to be maintained. I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman in looking at every possible problem that can be dredged up.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rapid fall in the rate of inflation has enabled many councils to impose low rate increases in the coming year, which is a further proof of the success that can be achieved if we continue our fight against inflation?

I certainly endorse that. However, there will be some unfortunate exceptions to the low rate increases. One notices the sorts of projects that the Greater London Council has for its expenditure. It is no wonder that it is threatening Londoners with yet another substantial rate increase.

Is it the Government's view that, compared with industry, domestic ratepayers do not pay a high enough proportion of local government expenditure?

We have no proposals to change the balance between the domestic and industrial ratepayer, as I made clear in the original discussions and in the Green Paper.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the reports of his speech to the Conservative party's local government conference last weekend, when he said that he was about to scrap targets and penalties?

I told the local authorities and delegates at that conference that I would very much prefer to see a system in which targets were not necessary. The challenge is with local authorities. Targets were introduced to try to obtain a better achievement on Government expenditure targets overall and if we were able to secure that I would be delighted to see whether it was possible to get rid of targets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, of the 61,000 acres of vacant and derelict land in local authority ownership and included in the vacant land registers at 1 July 1982, how many acres have now been brought into use by the owners.

The latest returns are still being analysed, but it is provisionally estimated that by 1 January this year some 3,800 acres of local authority land had been released from the registers, of which over a third had been brought into use by the owners since registers were published.

As the Telford area has a total of 2,175 acres on the register, will the Minister consider trying to persuade the development corporation to de-designate and sell any surplus land, although I appreciate that new towns have an above average amount of spare land?

I would certainly be willing to take up my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it is important that those who seek to use land that is on that register should make the application. If it is not being effectively dealt with, I should very much like to know about it, but the local demand must exist.

Will my hon. Friend now do something more than merely say that he will persuade nationalised industries and local authorities to do something in the fullness of time? Is he aware that 3 per cent. of all land in Britain is now vacant and that 1·5 million acres are wasting? Bearing in mind that we import more than 50 per cent. of our food, is it not time that we auctioned off some of the derelict public land which is still in ownership and is unused?

I accept my hon. Friend's conclusion that we must apply every possible pressure for the development and disposal of land. With regard to the public register, however, we are dealing with what certain categories of owner possess, for which there is no plan beyond a two-year date. I plead with my hon. Friend to recognise that we will seek to secure disposal, and we could be substantially aided and abetted in this when circumstances improve locally, which would increase the demand for such development to take place.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that often when local authorities sell land, land sharks take over and make a tremendous profit out of it? Will he ensure at all times that when a local authority sells its land it does so for the benefit of the community as a whole and not for the benefit of a few individuals?

It will be enormously to the benefit of the community if land for which it has no planned development is allowed to be sold and developed, thus producing a greater rateable value for the local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in privatisation within local authorities.

A growing number of authorities are testing the efficiency of their services by putting them to competitive tender, and an increasing number are finding that significant savings can be made by awarding contracts to specialist outside firms.

Is it the Government's intention to put pressure on local authorities to sell off or put out to private enterprise such things as sports centres, allotments, playing fields, swimming pools and even cemeteries?

I am anxious that every local authority should test every service to ensure that it is being provided in the most cost-effective way. As the hon. Gentleman decided to ask this question—perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) will be interested in this—I checked on Manchester's refuse disposal service. Manchester now has the most expensive refuse collection service per capita, outside any London borough, in the country. On a rough estimate, it now appears on the new proposal that Manchester's refuse collection cost is twice that of Birmingham, and that if Manchester could make an equivalent saving to Birmingham, £2·5 million would be available which might go to deal with some of the difficult problems with which the hon. Gentleman has to reckon.

I welcome the good sense of the increasing number of local authorities which, in the interests of their ratepayers, are using private enterprise for there services, but is my right hon. Friend aware that we are still a long way behind many other countries in this respect? Will he follow the excellent example of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and issue a powerful circular to local authorities along the lines of the one issued by his right hon. Friend in the case of the Health Service?

I am upset by that question. I thought that we were well ahead of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We have been advocating and encouraging this approach, and my noble Friend Lord Bellwin, the Minister for Local Government, has also been extremely active in this area. I believe that no council, no councillor and no council official can honestly claim to be properly discharging their duties unless they have established and checked whether services are being provided in the most cost-effective way. The only way to do that is to put them out to tender.

The Secretary of State continues to make snide remarks about refuse disposal in the city of Manchester. Does it ever dawn on him that refuse disposal sometimes costs some cities hundreds of thousands of pounds because they have no tipping space, which means that tons and tons of refuse have to be transported out of the city? What about that aspect?

That is absolutely correct. That is why I was referring not to refuse disposal but to refuse collection. If the hon. Gentleman is dismissing the fact that it costs twice as much to collect Manchester's refuse as it does to collect Birmingham's, that is the most classic example of a closed mind that the House can ever have seen.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pressure to privatise local authority services is motivated by a desire to give the ratepayer the best value for money rather than being simply an ideological exercise?

If we are to see services of the type that the House would wish to see for the handicapped, for the elderly and for the disadvantaged in our society, it is essential that main services are provided in the most cost-effective way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sheltered housing starts he expects in 1983.

My Department makes no such forecasts. It is for individual local authorities and housing associations to decide, in the light of local needs, what provision to make for sheltered housing from the resources available to them.

Has the Minister seen the Age Concern, Scotland figures, which show that the shortfall of sheltered housing in Scotland is 24,000? Is he aware that, if one extrapolates that figure for the whole of the United Kingdom, there must be about 250,000 old people who need sheltered housing but do not have it? Will the Minister therefore give some encouragement to local authorities to install dispersed community alarm systems so that, at the very least, old people at risk will have some immediate contact in times of emergency?

No, I have not seen those figures, because I have no responsibility for housing in Scotland, but I am happy to say that sheltered units started in England in 1982 were 40 per cent. up on 1981. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a wide variety of alternative provision, such as that which he mentioned, which enables many elderly people to stay in their own homes, which is what many of them wish.

In spite of the Minister's claim that sheltered unit starts are 40 per cent. up on the previous year, does he accept that the number is appallingly low and that it is not growing even at a rate to keep pace with the number of people aged over 75? Does he agree that what we need is a major improvement in the amount of sheltered housing so that people can have the type of housing that they need, thus vacating family houses so that others can use them?

The decline in starts began in 1977. I am happy to say that we have now reversed that slide. We are now on a steady increase. The important point is that one wants to provide a variety of choice and that sheltered units provided by local authorities are not the only answer. Substantial progress can be made through home improvement grants and through loans. I am delighted that the private building sector is taking a growing interest in making provision for elderly people and that there is an interest in the leasehold scheme for the elderly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what public funds were given to the Sports Council in 1982–83 and 1981–82; and what is his estimate of the sums available in 1983–84.

In 1981–82 the Sports Council grant-in-aid was £21,032,000. For the current financial year it is £28,002,000. That figure includes £1 million for Merseyside and two supplementary grants totalling £4·25 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather incongruous, when, rightly, we put a microscope on all areas of public expenditure, that the Sports Council deems it right to give £90,000 by way of grant to the David Lloyd regional tennis centre, which is no doubt a profitable and flourishing tennis club? Does my hon. Friend think it right to have a thorough review of the Sports Council's activity and the accountability of the Sports Council to the Minister for its expenditure of these massive sums of public money?

The Sports Council is an independent body and is obliged to refer to my Department only when it is anticipating providing capital of more than £200,000. We look closely at these figures, but the Sports Council is an independent body. I do not accept that this centre will be the success that my hon. Friend thinks it will be and, in that a large amount of private money is invested in it, I can only hope that it will do much to restore tennis in this country.

Has the Minister noted the excellent work of the Sports Council in contributing to racial harmony and integration? Has he noticed that, as a result of the work of the Sports Council, Great Britain is receiving a large amount of kudos from events all over the world where Caribbean ethnics and other British citizens are able to gain medals in sports and athletics on behalf of Great Britain?

I pay tribute to the success of all our athletes and sportsmen and women. It shows that there is great integration in our cities and counties. I can only hope that it will continue.

Despite the tone of the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), will my hon. Friend the Minister send the congratulations of the House to Mr. Dick Jeeps and his colleagues on the tremendous amount of work that they have been doing for the unemployed in the inner cities? Will he tell the House that large sums of money from the urban aid programme have gone towards helping the unemployed and providing facilities for them?

I willingly do that. I am always anxious to save my Department's money, so I would sooner tell Mr. Jeeps that than send him a telegram. I pay tribute to the work that has been and is being done, which is most important. The first facility for the pound-for-pound scheme on Merseyside opens in Toxteth tomorrow. We have endorsed that with further pound-for-pound schemes in Bristol and the north-east, the details of which I shall announce in due course. The urban aid programme, together with the inner city partnership money and derelict land grant mean that in the last full financial year the better part of £60 million was dispersed towards the inner cities.

What part did the Minister play in the enforced resignation of the director general of the Sports Council?

I am responsible only for the appointment of the chairman, vice chairman and members of the Sports Council. The appointment and rejection of any persons in the Sports Council is a matter for the chairman, the vice chairman and the council, not for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange to meet trade union representatives to discuss the problems of the civil engineering industry.

Department of the Environment Ministers regularly meet representatives of the civil engineering trade unions at meetings with the group of eight and at the economic development committees for building and civil engineering.

Does the Minister realise that the financing of the infrastructure of this country is vital and that this vital industry is receiving, in real terms, decreasing finance? Does the Minister agree that he should not only listen to the unions but should take action that will get us out of this economic mess?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see that the figures for 1982, which were announced today, show that there was a 4 per cent. increase in real terms in new orders for construction last year. That shows that there is some revival of the construction side of the economy. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the public expenditure White Paper, which shows that we are making a public expenditure allocation for construction programmes involving a 10 per cent. increase next year on this year's outturn. That represents an increase in real terms.

I welcome the figures that my hon. Friend has just given, because civil engineering is important to our infrastructure. Will he ensure that there is no underspending in Government Departments on civil engineering programmes?

It is the wish of all my right hon. Friends that we try to make full use of the available allocations. That is very much the wish of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stare for Transport and others of my right hon. Friends who have direct responsibility for the capital investment programme. They are very much aware of that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to assist housing development in the inner city areas, such as Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are actively encouraging local authorities to work with private house builders to meet the housing needs of their areas, in particular by selling land for development. Current initiatives include new building under licence from the local authority, improvement for sale and homesteading and enveloping. Local authorities and housing associa-tions are also assisting low-income purchasers to take advantage of those opportunities on shared ownership terms.

Will the Minister say whether, following the statement that was made on Tuesday of last week, he has reviewed the views expressed then and decide which authorities will benefit from the statement? Is he aware that areas such as Leeds feel that they are Cinderellas? Over 500,000 people are still neglected. Does the Minister recognise that there is a waiting list of 22,000 for corporation or local authority housing in the city and that we are faced with problems in education, housing, leisure services and so on? Is the Minister prepared to make a statement to the effect that an additional list will be issued containing the authorities not included in the previous list.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the statement that my right hon. Friend made last Tuesday on the urban development grant. I am happy to say that there will be further announcements on the urban development grant. I am aware that Leeds hopes to use an urban development grant to get the city centre housing development scheme off the ground, in association with a private builder. Within the Department we are currently considering the Leeds application. On the housing side, Leeds has recently been given an additional allocation of £9 million for expenditure between now and the end of the year. I am sure that that will make a significant impact on the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in innner urban areas is vacant property and difficult-to-let estates? Does he agree also that the priority estates project initiated by his Department has made considerable strides towards providing housing in areas that were previously rejected?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted that under the urban programme many local authorities are putting forward schemes that will draw on some of the many ideas in the priority estates project booklet to which my hon. Friend referred.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to help housing development in the inner cities is to allow those on council housing lists to put council flats and houses that are in disrepair into repair and to move in? Is he aware that the extended lists of people who want to move into council houses are caused by local authorities refusing to let people move in and do their own repairs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that local authorities which are sitting on empty properties that are earning no rents and no rates will listen to what he has said and encourage any imaginative suggestions for putting those properties to good use.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to permit as of right private tenants to purchase the accommodation they live in.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 February 1982.

Why should the one group of tenants most at risk from unscrupulous landlords and property companies be denied the right to buy as of right? Is the explanation—perhaps the Minister will be honest enough to admit it—that Tory Ministers do not consider it part of their job to offend substantial property interests, including those who sit on Conservative Benches and in another place?

We have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that we believe that sales in the private sector should be by a voluntary process. The Government do not believe that a Government have the right to require the disposal of houses that have been purchased by private individuals with their own assets. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue when he has spent an inordinate amount of time in Standing Committee F denying and arguing against the right to buy in the public sector.

Does my hon. Friend realise that a number of landlords are offering their tenants the opportunity to buy on exactly the same terms as council tenants? My hon. Friend must appreciate that there are some good landlords and that they are not all demons and devils, as the hon. Gentleman implies.

My hon. Friend, as always, is entirely right. Our estimate is that over the past decade between 150,000 and 200,000 sitting tenants in the private sector have been able to negotiate the purchase of their homes from their landlords.

If the Conservative party really believes in a property-owning democracy, why on earth do not the Government extend this principle by accepting the excellent suggestion made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)?

That is an interesting observation. I am sure that it will be noted outside that the alliance has no regard to private assets in private property.

Is it not true that the Conservative party has every respect for private assets, which is why it will not advance to these tenants rights which it regards as very important for the public sector? Is it not true that the Tory party is bent on destroying the public sector and hiving off important public assets, which will not add a single house to the public sector and will inevitably lengthen housing waiting lists in the public sector?

We have no wish to destroy the public sector, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We have an expanding house building programme and an expanding provision of public expenditure in the public sector. We believe that the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of people to buy their homes should be fulfilled wherever possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many councils are extremely bad landlords and that is why the Government had to introduce a tenants' charter?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is entirely right. As a result of the Government's actions through the Housing Act 1980 and the provisions that we have tabled to the present legislation, we shall have brought about the most important single extension of the legal rights of all tenants in the public sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the practical effect of the work of the financial institutions group established by his Department; how many members there are; and what has been the total cost.

The financial institutions group has been a most successful experiment in combining the expertise of the public and private sectors. Twenty six managers from major private sector institutions have worked with the Government for the past year on new approaches to urban regeneration. The urban development grant and inner city enterprises are two ideas that have already been adopted. The institutions met most salary costs and expenses—about £1 million. The cost to the public sector—approximately £350,000—was mainly for Civil Service support.

I welcome any initiative that my right hon. Friend takes to encourage private enterprise to operate where there is urban decay. Does he agree that the financial institutions group is one of many hundreds of such bodies throughout the country and that what it has achieved in terms of removing urban decay is obscure? Would there be some merit in having a national directory of all these schemes that includes an evaluation of what they are doing to achieve my right hon. Friend's admirable aim?

The financial institutions group has worked with the Government to investigate ways in which the institutions and private sector funding can play a larger role in contributing to some of those programmes. Much work has already been done, but I am keen to give the maximum publicity to the work that such bodies have done. I shall see how that can be carried forward.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the flexibility that the Department shows in tackling the problems of inner-city areas. Does he agree that that is in contrast to the attitude of several Opposition Members who still see the problem as being simply one of spending ever more state money by local authorities?

That is right. I referred briefly to urban development grant. The first tranche that I announced was £10 million, which was in support of £40 million of private investment. It is interesting to note that an additional £800 million of investment, which is strongly geared to private sector investment in this regard, is under consideration in my Department. There is a charming note which describes that, which I see included in my briefing. It says:

"Unspecific optimism is the order of the day."

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to convene a conference of Commonwealth Ministers of Sport to discuss the effect on sport in member countries of differing interpretations of the Gleneagles agreement.

No, Sir.

In view of the vindictive action of the Jamaican Government, who have cancelled the English women's cricket team tour, and in view of the Australian Government's banning of English nationals simply because both parties have played some sport in South Africa, will my hon. Friend consider such a conference and recommend to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that the Gleneagles agreement is now being used for purely political purposes and should therefore be abandoned?

It is the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport, not the Gleneagles agreement. Moreover, it is not an agreement. The 1977 declaration was agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government. Only they can amend it. I cannot. I should like to make it clear that the Government have always interpreted that declaration as enabling Governments to have the discretion to fulfil their own obligations according to their own laws. We have made it quite clear that we do not recognise the United Nations apartheid committee and its blacklist.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the Gleneagles agreement is held to be satisfactory by all except the South African lobby and that, if it is honoured, there will be no British representation at the Olympic Games in 1984, the Commonwealth Games in 1986, the world cup in 1986 and the European football championships in 1984? If we are to continue to oppose racism in sport, will the Minister remember that no authoritative group or individual has yet claimed that sport in South Africa is not fully controlled by apartheid laws?

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's latter point. Nevertheless, the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Melbourne in September 1981 agreed to uphold the principles of the Gleneagles agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the percentage of houses in the private sector that are empty and treated as voids; and what have been the corresponding figures for each of the past five years for which records are available.

Local authorities' 1982 housing investment programme returns provide the latest available estimate that about 4·3 per cent. of private dwellings in England were vacant in April 1982 for all reasons. Authorities' estimates are not generally based on detailed surveys and their accuracy will vary, the private sector figures being less firmly based than the corresponding ones for the public sector.

Is not the truth about housing in the private sector that the shortage is not one of land, as the Government proclaim, but of money to enable people either to buy or rent houses in that sector? Does he agree that the Government should now recognise the need to put money into the public sector, where more and more disadvantaged people are having more and more trouble in having the decent roof over their heads to which they are entitled?

There has been a tremendous underspend by local authorities this year. They have not been able to spend the resources that the Government have made available to them. Next year those resources will be about 15 per cent. higher than they were this year. With regard to the private sector, I am not aware of a shortage of resources in building societies for people who want to buy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why so many private sector houses are left vacant is the abysmally low rents under the fair rents system, the two-year phasing for rents and the fact that as soon as a private house is rented the occupant demands the maximum maintenance and repairs? Does he agree that it is, therefore, almost impossible for the private landlord to let a house that has been void for some years?

The Housing Act 1980 addressed itself to the balance between landlord and tenant and recognised that the balance had shifted too far towards the tenant. With regard to property remaining empty, we have introduced shorthold. I deplore the irresponsible claim of the Opposition that they will repeal shorthold should they be returned to power.

Is the Minister aware that some of the houses that are empty are in conservation areas and are not therefore rateable by the local authority? Does he agree that that is one way in which those properties could be brought back into occupation? Is he further aware that I know of two such properties in my home town?

I shall examine that problem. However, I should be surprised if that is the only reason why those properties are being kept empty and whether it would have more than a marginal impact if they were rated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make additional resources available to local authorities in areas which are the centres of large conurbations to assist them with the provision of hostels for homeless persons.

The need for investment in hostel and move-on accommodation was one of the factors that was taken into account in determining housing investment programme allocations for 1983–84. In addition, through its hostels initiative, the Government have since 1981 made substantial and increasing sums for hostels available to housing associations through the Housing Corporation.

Is the Department placing enough importance on the problem of the single homeless as it affects the core cities? Is the Minister aware of the high financial consequences that affect their revenue account and which will be subject to penalty? Does he realise that they must face the problems of social behaviour of some of the people who need urgent assistance? Is it not time that they were placed under the umbrella of one Department instead of being between the Department of the Environment and the DHSS?

Discussions about topping-up grants are continuing with the DHSS. We hope to come to a conclusion quite soon. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's general point about accommodation for the single homeless, the Housing Corporation allocation for hostel schemes was £12 million in 1981–82, whereas next year it will be £32 million. That gives some idea of the priority that we give to the subject.

Is the Minister aware of the importance of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) about centres of large conurbations? Does he know that in Brent this week 430 homeless people are being provided with bed and breakfast accommodation at a cost of more than £30,000 per week? Will he reconsider his decision of some months ago and enable Brent council to buy hostel accommodation outside the borough boundaries, which would be much cheaper for our ratepayers?

I met the director of housing of Brent council at a recent conference and asked him to write to me about the specific problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred. When I receive his letter I shall see what I can do to help.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of shared ownership housing schemes.

The use of shared ownership by first-time buyers in particular is continuing to accelerate and is likely to do so markedly this year as a result of the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme that I announced in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) on 24 January, and as a result of the right-to-buy on a shared ownership basis proposed in the Housing and Building Control Bill.

Will my hon. Friend see what can be done to give a fair wind to the excellent shared ownership scheme of the Richmond Upon Thames Churches Housing Trust Ltd. at London road, Twickenham?

I assume that the scheme is in the process of gestation. I shall write to my hon. Friend when I discover the state of play.

Is the Minister aware that many private tenants, especially those with bad landlords, would wish to take part in shared ownership schemes if only they had the opportunity? Will he reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the right of private tenants to buy when the landlord is selling the property? Will he consider giving private tenants the right to buy in those conditions?

As to the availability of shared ownership, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the new scheme that I announced a few weeks ago. We have now created a shared ownership opportunity for all tenants—including those still living with their parents, or single people—throughout the country. In a written answer that I shall give to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) later today I shall set out the housing associations that will cover each area in England under the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. That will provide the opportunity of shared ownership for all who wish to take advantage of it, especially for the first 3,000 sales for which we have made financial provision. The scheme will be helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration has been given to the future structure of the Property Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has now received from the chief executive of the Property Services Agency proposals for restructuring the agency and for changes in its management and operating methods. Before taking any decision on those proposals, Ministers are consulting the departmental trade union side and other Government Departments affected.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, will he give an unequivocal undertaking that the Newcastle office of the Property Services Agency will be maintained because of its crucial role in defence? Will he also undertake that there will be no privatisation of the work carried out in that office?

The proposals are at an early stage and it is impossible to say which offices might be closed. The rather alarmist proposals circulated by the trade unions have given rise to needless anxiety.

In the review to which my hon. Friend refers, does he expect consideration to be given to the arrangements that obtain between the PSA and various military organisations in terms of the direct line of management for repairs and other jobs carried out by the PSA on bases and in RAF camps?

The proposals deal with that relationship, and there are suggestions to co-locate the PSA departments with Ministry of Defence departments rather than splitting the responsibilities of the PSA among all the Government Departments that it serves.

Is the Minister satisfied that, where PSA functions have already been handed over to private enterprise, the private firms are carrying out the same training of apprentices and professional people as the PSA did? Will he monitor this matter?

The proposals are not primarily about privatisation, but about the functions and operating methods of the PSA, to see whether we can make it more efficient and improve its services.

In the reorganised PSA, will my hon. Friend satisfy himself that there is absolute fairness and openness in the way in which the PSA appoints architects and private contractors for some work?

Yes. That is our policy. If my hon. Friend knows of a problem, perhaps he would be good enough to write to me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities and other public bodies holding vacant and underused land dispose of land for private housebuilding.

The Department has regular contact with the House Builders Federation, which has drawn attention to registered sites that appear to it to be suitable for housing. On the basis of this information and the Department's initial appraisal, it was decided to send formal letters to 38 landowner bodies asking to know their intentions in regard to a total of 78 sites in their ownership.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of council house waiting lists could best be solved by encouraging the private sector to build homes for sale, using the half-and-half scheme and the other initiatives announced by his Department? Will he ensure that all local authorities and public sector landholders dispose of their land to the private sector as quickly as possible?

We intend to encourage them so to do. Various actions are in train to achieve that objective.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many local authorities need land for building council houses, and that many people have no hope of getting a home unless they can get a council house tenancy? In those circumstances, what will he do to prevent property speculators, who are anxious to make the most of sales to the private sector, from taking over all available land from local authorities which need it for other purposes?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the land registers produce a list of sites for which there is no planned local authority development. If they had such plans, the land would not appear on the land register list.

Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage local authorities to look within their boundaries for vacant land to develop both private and public sector housing, rather than constantly looking outward to green field sites?

I entirely agree. The land register system is one such proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the abolition of the Greater London council.

In the past year I have received more than 50 representations from individuals and organisations concerning the abolition of the GLC. All but three have been in favour of abolition.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the case for abolition does not rest only on the lunatic antics of the Labour-controlled GLC and its desire to dish out lavish subsidies to organisations ranging from those who support gay tights to supporters of IRA bombers? Is he aware that the real case for abolition rests on the simple fact that no service provided by the GLC could not be undertaken by the 32 London boroughs, individually or by co-operation?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, although he will accept that it is sometimes difficult to find out what the GLC is doing, so widespread and lunatic are some of the schemes at present espoused. The result of that is that this year GLC expenditure looks as though will be more than double what it was when the Labour administration there came to power.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that any consideration of the abolition of the GLC will bring into question the future of education in London? Does he agree that, whatever solution is required, a return to the boroughs would not be suitable?

In considering any such proposals, education would be affected. At this stage I shall simply note my right hon. and learned Friend's comments.

Is the Minister aware that the red dictator, Ken Livingstone, has been joined by the blue dictator of the Tory party in speaking against the abolition of the GLC? Can we be assured that the Tories there have not been got at by the reds in County Hall?

I do not believe that Councillor Richard Brew has ever been described as a blue dictator. However, I note the comments that have been made, and I am aware of the views advanced by those who support the retention of the metropolitan counties. I am also aware of the strong feelings of those who believe that there should be significant change.

Does the Secretary of State expect to publish any documents on the future of the metropolitan counties and the GLC?

We have no plans to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions he has met the chairmen of the regional water authorities during the present wages dispute; and if he will make a statement.

I have met some of the chairmen of the regional water authorities several times during the present dispute over water workers' pay. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that I have referred to these discussions several times during exchanges in the House and I do not propose to make a statement on this matter, except the one that I shall make shortly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the settlement has caused a sigh of relief to be breathed in thousands of homes in this country? Next time anything similar happens in the water industry, may I beg the right hon. Gentleman to be careful how he intervenes? Does he not think that his interference in reducing the 6 per cent. offer to 4 per cent. had a grave influence on the dispute? For goodness sake talk to the people involved, but do not interfere with the figures.

This is an opportunity to clear one point. The suggestion that I intervened and instructed the water employers that 4 per cent. and no more should be offered is quite untrue. The hon. Gentleman knows that the employers' opening offer was 4 per cent. As a result of the gap that then divided the two sides, the employers offered arbitration as long ago as last November. There might have been a happier outcome if that offer had been accepted then. The water employers at no time had any intention of opening at 6 per cent. and made that abundantly clear.