asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to alter the qualifying age for houses for repair grants.

We have decided not to alter the qualifying age of houses for repair grants for the moment because the 1981 English house condition survey still showed that the incidence of serious disrepair was concentrated overwhelmingly in the pre-1919 housing stock.

Will the Minister answer all the representations that are continually made about the Stockbridge area in my constituency, where 15 owner-occupiers have been blighted for more than 14 years by motorway proposals? They have, consequently, deferred repairs continually to the point where some of them—for example, those who have retired from work—cannot afford to carry out the repairs. Although the houses were constructed in 1939, surely these people should qualify for repair grants in compensation for the blight that has been visited on them, not by themselves, but by the Government?

I am certainly aware of the hon. Gentleman's correspondence with my hon. Friend about the problems in Stockbridge. However, we cannot have a different rule for Stockbridge compared with the rest of the country. The fact remains that about 93 per cent. of all the houses shown in the English house condition survey as being in serious disrepair are pre-1919, and it must make sense to concentrate the major effort in repair grants on those properties.

Is the Minister aware that a far wider issue is involved and that the most disastrous flats and houses are those that were built in the past 25 years by industrial building methods? Will the Minister therefore make available additional grants to cover the whole cost of their repair and renovation, which would also provide jobs for a large number of unemployed building trade workers?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that repair grants are intended for properties in the private sector under the home improvement grant legislation. The wider problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions in connection with industrialised building is concentrated almost entirely in the public sector, and here we hope that local authorities will make full use of their increased allocations both this year and next.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present working of the Merseyside task force; and if he will make a statement.

The task force continues to liaise with local authorities, public agencies and the private sector in taking forward an increasing list of initiatives on Merseyside. In addition to my frequent visits to the area, I receive regular reports from the task force.

Will the Secretary of State use his influence and support the task force by trying to unravel local government bureaucracy and red tape in this attempt to provide much needed jobs on Merseyside? I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the recent case I sent to him concerning an application in Aintree which would provide hundreds of jobs. Will he also seek to use his influence in the demolition and development of the Tate and Lyle site, which will provide many hundreds of jobs in the deprived Vauxhall area of my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman also—

Order. That is enough to get on with.

May I ask the—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions.

Does—

Order. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to continue, but I tell the rest of the House that those who have questions further down the Order Paper will suffer.

Does the Secretary of State intend to remain the Minister for Merseyside?

In view of the number of visits that I have already paid, I had hoped that there would not be much doubt on that matter. I intend to take a close interest in the affairs of Merseyside.

rose—

Order. What I have said about long supplementaries also applies to Ministers.

As one person in five on Merseyside is now out of work, what is the task force doing to attract new investment from big companies and financial institutions?

It is incredible that the hon. Gentleman can represent Liverpool in the House and ask Ministers what they can do to attract large-scale industrial investment to Merseyside at the time of a major industrial dispute that is doing enormous damage to Merseyside's reputation. I hope that he will join me in urging the earliest possible return to work so that the damage done to Merseyside can be minimised.

It is the management.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about his renewed commitment to Merseyside. Is he aware that Merseyside councils, of a variety of political persuasions, have made clear to the Select Committee how much they welcome the action taken by the task force over a sustained period and how much they look forward to its work continuing?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive comments. The task force is doing valuable work and I intend that to continue.

Instead of hiding behind the Ford dispute, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much private capital has been attracted by the Merseyside task force, the success of which was the proud boast of his predecessor?

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was at the opening of the new flats, Minster court, which were developed entirely by private capital out of redundant public sector housing, but that is one example to which I draw attention. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figures today, but I shall try to give him some details of the new ventures that have taken place.

In order to enable the task force to work more effectively in Bootle, will the Minister include the inner city part of Bootle in the partnership area with Liverpool? As he is to remain as the Minister for Merseyside, will he arrange an urgent meeting with those Members of Parliament who represent Merseyside? When he next visits Merseyside will he meet the Labour representatives of the inner city part of Sefton, not the council leaders, who come from Southport and are resented by the people of Bootle?

I am willing to meet any hon. Members to discuss the problems of Merseyside. If there is any doubt about that I confirm my willingness to do so now from the Dispatch Box. If there are points that councillors want to raise with me, I shall be happy to talk to them as well.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present procedures for monitoring nitrate levels in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

Water undertakers regularly monitor the level of nitrates in public water supplies and there are effective arrangements to inform local public health authorities where recommended levels are exceeded, so that any necessary action can be taken.

As nitrate pollution is increasing and broke through the 50mg per litre level twice in Essex last year, is there not a case for placing some restriction on the extravagant use of nitrates by farmers in the same way as industrialists are subject to severe restraints to ensure that they do not pollute water supplies? Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show his concern by asking water boards to report to him when excess levels are created?

I accept the point behind my hon. Friend's question. I reiterate that I am concerned about the increase of any pollutant, but he will be aware that treatment for nitrates is carried out which enables both potable water and high agricultural production to be maintained. That must be our objective.

In addition to nitrate content, has the Minister seen surveys of mercury content? Is he aware that more than 1 million people are using National Health Service hearing aid batteries that contain mercury? What is the Minister doing to ensure that we are not polluted by that?

I am well aware that there are pollutants from batteries. That is a matter that county and refuse disposal authorities consider carefully. If the hon. Gentleman knows of a particular case, I shall be glad to look into it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Dorset spring water is now available in the House. The level of nitrates in that water can go from nil up to 20–30 mg without damage to health because that is well within the permitted level? Is it not nonsensical that many people are scaremongering when there is no need for them to do so?

Rubbish.

I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). It is true that at present levels there is no ground for concern whatever. The nitrate content of water supplies varies substantially from one part of the year to another.

Does the Minister realise that almost everyone who has studied the problem will regard his reply as somewhat complacent in view of the links between nitrosamines and cancer? Does he not understand that nitrates in drinking water present a potential medium-term serious threat to public health? What plans has he to deal with that? Has he considered the possibility of putting a tax on nitrogenous fertiliser?

I am well aware of the anxiety that has been expressed. The best way to deal with it is to invite research. That, I am glad to say, is being done by the Medical Research Council, which has produced four studies into the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of non-metropolitan district councils that are intending to raise a lower rate for 1983–84 than 1982–83.

On the information currently available about 80 non-metropolitan district councils are intending to raise a lower local rate in 1983–84 than in 1982–83.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that that answer will be satisfactory to the ratepayers of those councils. Is he aware that amongst that number is the Conservative-controlled borough of Hove, which is proposing to levy a lower rate next year for the sixth time in eight years, which demonstrates its skill in carrying out its responsibilities? Does not the borough of Hove demonstrate that there are far too many Socialist-controlled local authorities which disregard their responsibility to deliver their services and utilise their assets as effectively as possible and therefore impose unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on industry and households?

I congratulate the borough of Hove and those other boroughs that have reduced their rates as we said would he possible. I hope that many of the boroughs that indulge more in propaganda and pay less real attention to value for money will change their priorities.

How many of those low-rate councils have provided free bus passes and cheap television licences for pensioners, have not cut their services to the disabled and have not made their work forces redundant in the past two or three years to secure reduced rates? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give a true comparison on those lines?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the matter objectively he will see that the truth is that some of those authorities with the highest rates often provide poor services as well.

Name them.

The message that we have sought to deliver, and which I hope the hon. Gentleman will join in supporting, is that value for money is a concept that should be supported regardless of political party.

Can my right hon. Friend give any message to Lancaster city council, which is in a fortunate position similar to that of Hove, about its derelict land grant application, bearing in mind that it was told in February that some £2 million would be available if it was spent during the current financial year, which is clearly impossible? Is there any hope that such allocations can be carried forward into the next financial year?

My hon. Friend's question deals with capital expenditure, not rate levels. I admire his ingenuity in seeking to raise that question now, but the answer is no, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Labour-controlled council of Darlington, which has been able to cut 5p off its domestic rate because of the £640,000 profit made by its extremely efficient direct labour organisation?

I am delighted to welcome the conversion of the right hon. Gentleman to the cause of lower rates. He spends most of his time at the Dispatch Box claiming that higher rates do no damage to people or to industry.

Answer the question.

I certainly join in congratulating any authority that recognises the importance of rate levels, and I hope that the message of the Darlington reduction in rate levels is better understood by the GLC, ILEA and Islington.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures available for the number of council house building starts; and how these compare with the corresponding figures for 1978.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public sector house building starts for 1982 and 1983 to the most recent practicable date.

There were 93,000 public sector starts in England in 1978 compared with 44,000 last year, of which 28,000 were for local councils. The provisional estimates for January 1983 are 4,000 public sector starts, 3,000 of them for local councils.

Does the Minister accept that, while hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome home ownership, there are millions of people for whom it is never conceivable, in any circumstances, that they could become home owners? Is it not clear from the Minister's figures that he has destroyed all hope for hundreds of thousands of such people who are on council house waiting lists?

I do not agree, although I recognise that there are those who will not be able to afford to buy. That is why we have been increasing the provision for local authorities over the past two years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute towards making additional rented accommodation available in his authority, I hope that he will start prevailing on Cannock Chase council to make greater use of its allocation plus receipts, because three quarters of the way through this financial year it had spent only 24 per cent. of its allocation plus receipts.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the Minister is not aware that the Tories and the Liberals have now taken control of the Cannock Chase district council.

Are not the real reasons that these figures are the lowest since the 1920s that the Tories have cut the housing subsidies and grants by half, that rents have risen by more than 125 per cent., and that 400,000 building workers are on the dole? Is the Minister aware that during this week the Labour party has produced a document that lays out plans for jobs for the construction workers, a use for those millions of bricks lying unused, a freeze on rents, and homes for those who badly need them?

I assure the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) that I am fully aware that the Liberals are the biggest single party on the Cannock Chase council, because I saw the council about the poor performance on the right to buy under Labour control a few months ago.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister remains inaccurate—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best possible way for councils to reduce their housing lists is to make sure that they do not leave houses lying empty for months, and sometimes years on end, by encouraging their tenants to take advantage of the tenants charter to sublet, and to convince others to do as the former agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did and buy their homes so that the councils can reinvest the capital receipts in building new homes to rent?

My hon. Friend is right. It is a matter of considerable concern that all local authorities should make the best use of existing council housing stock. When about 20,000 local authority dwellings are vacant for more than a year, and 300,000 local authority dwellings are difficult to let, local authorities should be concentrating on making proper use of existing housing stock.

Will the Minister acknowledge that Labour authorities in particular are likely to spend their full allocation of HIP money by the end of this financial year and that he cannot draw conclusions on three or six months' spending? Will he acknowledge that even if the HIP allocations are fully spent the number of council houses started in the best two years under the Tory Government will be less than in any one year under a Labour Government?

I do not agree that all Labour authorities will spend their HIP allocation. If the hon. Lady will look at the table that I put in the Library for expenditure over the first three quarters of this financial year she will see that many authorities, of all political persuasions, look like not merely not spending their allocations plus receipts, but not even spending their allocations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the Gleneagles agreement.

I receive many differing representations on this subject.

Will the Minister investigate breaches of the Gleneagles agreement such as the recent case when the Transkei rugby team came here, with special facilities laid on for it by the British consulate in Cape Town, yet he, the Minister responsible for sport, apparently did not know that the team was here until after it had arrived? Will he also investigate the South African slush fund designed to smash the Gleneagles agreement, such as the so-called "Freedom in Sport" campaign, which is run by Right-wing extremists such as the Tory hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle)?

I have no locus to intervene or investigate those organisations. The visit by the Transkei rugby team was not a visit of a representative team. It could not be, because Her Majesty's Government do not recognise Transkei, or any of the South African so-called homelands, as independent. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, as there is no provision in the United Kingdom visa regulations to deny visas merely because the applicants wish to take part in sport, we have no locus to prevent that taking place.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are opposed to racial discrimination in sport and that anyone considering sending a representative team to South Africa should take into account the possible repercussions on sports other than their own?

I endorse my right hon. Friend's observations and echo everything that he said. I repeat to the House our complete commitment to the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport in 1977. We stand by our commitments, made at the Lusaka and Melbourne Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, that multi-racial sport is supreme.

In view of the assessment that I have made that in the past year South African sources have either paid out or have on offer to sportsmen, mostly British, a sum of between £5 million and £6 million for the purpose of undermining and severely damaging British sporting interests, what assessment has the Minister been able to make of the dangers that this is providing to the Edinburgh Commonwealth games next time round, to the future of international test cricket and to other major international sporting events, which are now seriously threatened by this financial seduction?

I shall not comment on the figure that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. I can only hope that everyone will recognise the potential seriousness of what is happening and the impact that it could have on our relationships elsewhere. I simply hope that all governing bodies will draw their players' attention to the need to reject these short-term financial inducements. They do lasting damage to the reputations of governing bodies. The funds are directed towards one objective—to disrupt our highly successful Commonwealth sporting links.

Is my hon. Friend so wedded to the Gleneagles agreement that he is willing to submit to the blackmail and bullying to which he is now being subjected by black African countries? Will he now come clean and admit that the conditions under the Gleneagles agreement by which South Africa was accused of organising sport on the basis of race, colour and ethnic origin, do not exist in that country?

Nonsense.

Therefore, for the sake of the freedom of the individual and the freedom of sport, the agreement should now be abandoned.

If they did not exist the hon. Gentleman would not go there.

The Gleneagles agreement, or the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport, were discussed at the Melbourne conference. It was made quite clear by all Heads of Government at that meeting, just 18 months ago, that we continue to uphold the principles of that declaration.

I appreciate that we live in a free society, but is not the way in which South African officials undermine our major sporting organisations and corrupt our leading sportsmen by financial and other inducements insidious? Should not the Government make it clear to those officials that the way in which to obtain full participation in international sport is to insist that their Government get rid of this despicable apartheid system?

Everyone has his own views about what may or may not be done. The hon. Gentleman must understand my locus on this subject. That is why I have urged governing bodies to take an opportunity to talk to their players to ensure that they do not go for the offered short-term financial inducements. Present circumstances are fraught with risk and danger.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as genuine efforts have been made by members of all races in South Africa to make sport multiracial, many South Africans are now saying, "Yes, we want stick but we should also occasionally like a little bit of carrot when we do what is right"? Is it not time that we occasionally saw some carrot?

I note what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps these issues will be discussed at some future date. I return to the decision in Melbourne in September 1981 to uphold the principles of the declaration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibility his Department has for promoting sporting links with foreign countries; and what proportion of his Department's efforts are devoted to South American countries.

I am keen to foster good international sporting relations and am always willing to give advice and assistance where appropriate. I cannot estimate the proportion of my Department's efforts devoted to South American countries.

Why does the Minister think that the invitation to the England football team to visit Rio de Janeiro was withdrawn?

I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave a short while ago.

Can my hon. Friend tell me—there is nothing personal in this—why a supremely non-interventionist Government should interfere in sporting matters?

I was not aware that we had intervened in sporting matters. The premise that my hon. Friend advances is entirely incorrect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now privatised refuse collection; and what information he has as to the approximate savings or additional expenditure involved as a result.

Fourteen authorities have made arrangements that will save about £29 million in total over the contract periods involved. A considerable number of others are reassessing the ways in which their services are provided, to ensure that efficiency and economy are achieved.

Have not privately run schemes served as a catalyst for the great improvement in refuse collection in both the public and private sectors, as well as saving ratepayers the enormous sums of money that my right hon. Friend has outlined? Is that not desirable and is it not also true that these are highly efficient schemes?

In all services that are provided by public bodies, whether central or local government, there is a requirement and a duty on all concerned to ensure that the services that are needed are provided in the most efficient way. It is clear that, in many cases, going out to tender for refuse collection has saved substantial sums of money for ratepayers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council has privatised both refuse collection and street cleaning, since when the Members of Parliament for Wandsworth have been inundated with complaints about dirty streets in the borough? Is he further aware that anyone who goes from Lambeth to Wandsworth knows when he reaches the borough boundary, because he can see the dirt on the streets?

I note that the services will now be provided at a saving of some £7·5 million, over the contract period, to the ratepayers of Wandsworth. I know that there are some attempts to spread propaganda about inadequacies of the service. However, I know that there were a substantial number of complaints about the service beforehand. Many people have told me that the service has improved substantially.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the enormous savings that can be made in this way are brought to the notice not only of local councils in England and Wales but to the electors of those councils before the forthcoming elections?

At the next local council elections the Conservative council in Birmingham, for example, will be offering a rate reduction of 12·5 per cent. That has been brought about partly by the workmen that it employs, who have demonstrated that they can save £3·5 million a year when refuse collection is put out to competition. That saving is being transmitted direct to the ratepayers.

Garbage.

Although I acknowledge that the public versus private contractor argument is of great concern and interest, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that some private contracts have been terminated because of a failure to meet promises about services? Will the Secretary of State monitor that aspect of the issue and especially bear in mind the public interest when councils will have got rid of equipment and, therefore, be at the mercy of private contractors?

That is a most interesting question. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman favours putting services out to tender. I hope that he does. There can be no justification for not assessing whether services are being provided in the most efficient way. The quality of the service and the need to provide it at a proper standard is an important ingredient in a contract.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that statutory expenditure on emergency planning and on the raising and training of civil defence volunteers by county councils and the Greater London council as required under the proposed new civil defence regulations shall not be included in any penalty calculations in respect of overspending by counties and the Greater London council.

Local authorities' expenditure for comparison with their expenditure targets is calculated net of specific grants. I have had no representations which suggest that authorities' civil defence expenditure, net of specific grant, will lead to overspending.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that the primary duty of local authorities should be to ensure that they have sufficient resources to deal with emergencies, including civil defence emergencies? Therefore, should we not encourage local authorities in every way to use this money?

I agree with my hon. Friend. This is an important matter, in which the local communities would wish local authorities to be involved. He will realise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the way in which local authorities discharge their duties in this respect.

Does the Minister agree that there is no conceivable way in which local authorities could cope with the emergency that would arise from a nuclear war? Indeed, the dying would envy the dead after a nuclear war. Is it not true that, because local authorities are exercising their democratic right to opt out of the deployment of nuclear weapons, the Government are now trying to force local government employees to accept the Government's diktat?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been consulting local authority associations about the way in which they should discharge their commitment to ensure that their civil defence obligations are fully met. That must be an objective of local authorities, as, I trust, it is of all hon. Members.

Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the country's population will benefit from the need to have an adequate civil defence provision? Will he do his best to correct some local authorities' reluctance to incur the 25 per cent. expenditure that is left to be borne by the rates?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important that local authorities should be encouraged to carry out such tasks. However, I must remind the House that substantial grants are available to ease the discharge of their duties.

Will the Minister remind hon. Members how many lives were saved during the second world war by our civil defence services?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question, and he is right to remind us how important that was.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held with local authority associations about capital spending in 1983–84; and if he will make a statement.

After consulting the local authority associations I announced on 15 March, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright), that during 1983–84 authorities are free to use up to 100 per cent. of accumulated non-housing receipts. I am also issuing additional allocations to some authorities facing particular problems in the coming year. This should enable local government to proceed with its capital spending plans in 1983–84.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are no obstacles to local authorities spending in full their capital allocations and planning with confidence for the year ahead?

My hon. Friend will know that we have paid special attention to this matter, because we accept that part of the reason for the underspend in the current year has been the problem of the annual system of cash control. We are trying to tackle that problem and to help local authorities.

Why do not the Government increase their capital spending on problems relating to coastal pollution? Has the Secretary of State seen the "golden list" produced by the Coastal Anti-Pollution League, which deals with Britain's filthy beaches? Will he read that report and make a statement to the House about the measures that he intends to introduce and the additional money that he will bring before Parliament to deal with the problems outlined in that report?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the responsibilities of health authorities, not local authorities, which are the subject of this question. We are trying to tackle this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations who have become owner-occupiers under the right-to-buy provisions since the Government came to office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council house sales have been completed since May 1979.

Since the Government were elected, the number of publicly rented dwellings that are now owner-occupied is approximately 500,000. About 300,000 of these sales have been through the right to buy rather than through voluntary arrangements.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the encouraging figures that he has just announced demonstrate the real transfer of wealth from the state to working people? Does he agree that perhaps two out of every three tenants who have so far exercised their right to buy are paying £20 a month more on their mortgage than they might because of the dramatic reduction in inflation and the low interest rates charged by building societies? Should they not be encouraged to transfer their mortgages to the building societies?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that this is the most important redistribution of wealth in favour of ordinary working people that has been carried out by any Government. I agree that it is part of our policy to encourage local authorities to exercise their powers voluntarily to transfer mortgages to building societies and to give their tenants the benefit of any lower rates.

Is the Minister aware that throughout London the Government's wrecking policies have produced an ever more acute shortage of homes to rent?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have had one of the largest upsurges in private house building, and there is also a substantial rise in public sector house building in London. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the number of vacant dwellings, he will find that the biggest concentration regionally is in London, where many Labour-controlled authorities have empty dwellings that have been vacant for more than a year.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the great problems in giving this right to tenants has been the disgraceful delay by many Labour-controlled councils in selling those houses? Will he confirm that one of the worst offenders has been Wolverhampton district council and that he is continuing to put all proper pressure upon that council to speed up the process of selling to tenants?

I confirm what my hon. Friend says. There has been considerable delay by Wolverhampton district council, Darlington district council and other Labour-controlled authorities, where progress should have been greater. The progress in Wolverhampton has not been satisfactory and is still being closely scrutinised by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Given the Government's sales policy and their abysmal record on new building, how many fewer council houses are there in Britain today than when the Government came to office?

There are more council houses. All that has happened is that many council tenants who would have remained so have the benefit of home ownership, thanks to this Government's policies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with representatives of the ethnic minorities to discuss inner city problems; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has had no such meetings recently, but, in accordance with my special responsibility for these matters within the Department of the Environment, I regularly meet representatives of ethnic minority groups to discuss subjects for which the Department is responsible, including inner city problems.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that has been poured by his Department into inner city areas is a waste of money, as it was in the United States of America? Would not those resources be better utilised by transferring them to the Home Office for the better protection and policing of Greater London, so that black and white alike can be better protected?

I do not agree with that for one moment. There has been a welcome improvement in the atmosphere in our inner cities since the publication of the Scarman report and following the activities of several Government Departments, including the Home Office and mine, in building up a better dialogue in our inner cities and in backing a range of worthwhile projects with both public and private money. I cannot agree that a transfer of funds from the urban programme to the Home Office would tackle some of the deep social and economic problems that remain in our inner cities.

Does the Minister agree that the mischief-making of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) does nothing for race relations, and that the money spent in this direction and any money that can be spent in improving racial harmony is money well spent, for the benefit of the entire community?

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) is entitled to his views on this matter.

He is not.

Any funds invested in the inner cities by my Department are scrutinised carefully. We try to back worthwhile projects that will reach the heart of the problems, but some local authorities tend to waste ratepayers' money on propaganda exercises that often raise the temperature rather than lower it.

Does the Minister recognise that, while I accept what he said about the unwelcome propaganda exercises, we welcome his efforts in respect of the ethnic minorities in inner cities? We hope that they will be increased and that he will resist the obnoxious and racist comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).

On Monday I approved next year's partnership programme for Islington, which contains several new projects put forward by ethnic groups. I am confident that they will provide valuable services to the community.

Does my hon. Friend realise that in the inner cities one success story of his Department has been the general improvement in the housing action areas, which applies to all colours and creeds and is the way in which housing should be approached?

My hon. Friend is right, but the question referred to ethnic minorities, which is why I couched my reply in those terms.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received supporting the domestic rating system.

Of the 1,125 responses to the Green Paper, 493 were broadly in favour of retaining domestic rates in some form.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's intention to reform, or better still to abolish, the domestic rating system? Is he aware that there is no acceptable alternative to reform or abolition?

As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is under close consideration. I can go no further than the answers that I have already given to the House on this matter.

What does the Minister mean by "close consideration"? Does he not realise that this commitment was given in 1974 and continued in 1979? After four years of a Conservative Government we have seen no proposal to fulfil that commitment.

I mean exactly what I said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Britain expect the Government to take action on reforming the domestic rating system? If unanimity cannot be found on any of the options outlined in the Green Paper, does my right hon. Friend agree that an interim measure is required very soon?

I am well aware of the interest and expectation over this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be bringing forward proposals on this matter.

Why does not the Secretary of State implement the Layfield report recommendations published in 1976, which would overcome all the problems and get on with the job of putting local income tax in place of rates?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know always tries to be helpful in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the extension of grants for rewiring older property.

I have recently received representations from hon. Members, local authorities and members of the public about the extension of home improvement grants for rewiring older property.

Will my hon. Friend consider allowing a separate grant for rewiring, so that many people, particularly the elderly, can live in comfort and safety?

Where an improved electrical installation is required to meet the approved standard, such work is eligible on its own for an improvement grant at the local authority's discretion. In other circumstances, rewiring may be grant-aided as a repair associated with improvement works with either an improvement or intermediate grant. We have no plans at the moment to change this arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the provision of meters to private householders by water authorities.

This is primarily a matter for the water authorities, but the Government have supported their initiatives to make optional metering available to all their consumers.

Will the Minister consider advising water authorities to investigate any demands for meters by householders with rateable values under £350 per annum, who could not possibly benefit thereby?

Yes, I agree. In discussions as to whether a meter is appropriate, the rateable value and the benefits from the meter should be estimated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on behalf of tenants living in damp and cold multi-storey flats; and if he will assist councils to renovate such properties.

My right hon. Friend has received various representations from time to time on behalf of tenants in dwellings with cold and dampness problems, although these have not been limited to multi-storey properties.

Does the Minister accept that there are now 4·2 million families living in homes that are unfit or lack a bath, hot water and an inside lavatory, or which need major repairs costing over £2,500? As the cost of these repairs and renovations will run into billions of pounds, which is far beyond local authorities' means, will he consider making an additional grant for this purpose, which would also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed building workers?

It was not clear whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to public or private sector dwellings. As my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, we have increased by 15 per cent. the resources available to local authorities next year for public sector dwellings. Unfortunately, they have not spent all the available resources this year. It is therefore difficult for the hon. Gentleman to sustain the argument that it is a shortage of resources that is holding up such matters.

Does the Minister accept that one of the major causes of condensation and dampness in council property is that a great many council tenants cannot any longer afford to have adequate heating in their homes? When will the Government tackle that problem?

The Building Research Establishment is now researching the causes and mehods of relieving dampness. It is carrying out some practical field trials to assess the effectiveness in practice and the cost of improved heating, thermal insulation, ventilation and the role of dehumidifiers. Resources are available in particular cases to help certain families with heating costs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the worst problems are found in the prefabricated multi-storey flats of the past? Does he agree that the race by Governments to provide accommodation resulted in incredibly had architectural design and lack of insulation and heating facilities? There must be a long programme of renovation. It cannot be achieved in the short term.

My hon. Friend is right. The country is paying a heavy penalty for decisions that were made a decade or two ago about the design of some buildings. We have tried to change the subsidy system so that capitalised repairs to tackle such problems are eligible for subsidy.

Returning to the question of encouraging better heating for elderly people in these badly insulated homes, will the Minister look at the Homes Insulation Act 1978 again and use the powers that the Act gives his Department to introduce a further scheme beyond the loft insulation scheme?

We have this matter under review. Our present view is that resources should be concentrated on loft insulation, where the most effective savings in heat loss can be made. We are looking at possible means of extensions, such as double glazing and other methods.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce proposals to amend the system of charging for water supply and sewage disposal.

I have no present plans to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the constipated elderly widow in my constituency—whose other disabilities prevent her from having a regular bath—that life is somewhat unfair, as the six adults who live next door, who are fitness and health fanatics, use rather more water and generate rather more sewage than she does, but are charged the same water rates? Will he say when the Government intend to do something about this? If not now, will something be brought in before the general election?

We have taken a close interest in this matter, as my hon. Friend knows. From 1 April every water supply authority, whether a water company or authority, will offer optional domestic metering. The substantial number of new meters that have been installed will, I hope, he further expanded. People such as my hon. Friend's constituent will be much better placed if they consider that option, which could show significant savings.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many elderly people who find it extremely difficult to pay their water rates, which have increased out of all proportion during the past three years? Will he consider introducing rebates for water rates?

No, I do not believe that that would be the appropriate way to tackle this matter.

Why not?

For the same reasons as the previous Government reached the same conclusions. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) says that water rates have increased out of all proportion, I know that his constituents in the Southern water authority area will be pleased to know that this year's increase will be 4·6 per cent.

Does the Minister recall that at the 1979 election the Conservatives were going to change many things and said that because a previous Government did not carry out something that did not bind them to retain an existing system? The Conservatives were going to change the rating system. Surely it is only fair that rebates should be available for water rates. Is not the Government's vicious indifference towards this matter shown by the fact that they are proposing to replace existing water authorities with nominees from the Department of the Environment who will not consider proper charging if they are instructed not to do so by his Department?

Those are two different issues. As far as I know, as a point of principle, the hon. Gentleman never raised the subject of the rebate when his party was in power —[HON. MEMBERS: "He did".] If he did, he was not successful. The issue is whether such a rebate is more a matter for the normal DHSS machinery than something provided through the water authority. While rebates are important, so is the general level of water charges. Continuing pressure to try to achieve greater economy and efficiency in water authorities is resulting directly in lower water increases this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any further submissions made to him for financial assistance from local authorities, relating to the problems they are now encountering concerning the defects appearing in housing accommodation built by industrialised and semi-industrialised systems.

Since the answer that the hon. Member received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 19 May last year, I have received submissions for financial assistance from a number of individual authorities, including the members of the Yorkshire development group, and also from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

Is the Minister aware that the answers given today on the same subject mean that there will be little or no increased help to local authorities, other than by giving them permission to raise their rates further to carry the burden of these repairs? When will he extend the help that he has given to people who bought Airey houses from local authorities to people who have bought other industrialised system houses from local authorities, and to local authorities that are dealing with industrial houses on their tenants' behalf?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman says that no additional assistance is available. He must know that Leeds has taken advantage of our invitation to apply for additional allocations this year. It has received an additional allocation of up to £9 million for capitalised repairs. It has certainly taken advantage of our offer.