asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Litter Act 1958 to make it more effective.

The maximum fine for an offence under the Litter Acts of 1958 and 1971 has recently been increased to £200, and we are currently consolidating these Acts with other litter provisions in existing legislation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Litter Acts are not being enforced, as much as anything because the police have so many other things to do and prosecutions are expensive? Should not the Litter Acts be amended to enable local authorities to appoint litter wardens, as happens in the Irish Republic, with the right to impose on-the-spot fines?

I accept that it is not always easy to enforce the Litter Acts, but I remind my hon. Friend that each year about 2,000 prosecutions take place under the Acts. The imposition of direct fines would involve many constitutional issues. Implementation of section 24 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 would provide additional powers for local authorities.

Has the Minister read the report of the Keep Britain Tidy Group on marine litter, which found evidence of widespread litter dumping on the beaches round our island? I know that the Secretary of State may not be interested, but many people take holidays in this island. Is the Minister prepared to take action to ensure that those beaches are cleaned up?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a report about beaches by the Coastal Anti-Pollution League, which gained publicity in the morning papers. If he is referring not to that report but to a report by the Keep Britain Tidy Group, I should inform him that we have taken immense steps, in particular with the local authorities, to try to improve the situation. Of 14 beaches expected to need derogations under the EC directive, only four were in fact submitted, so there has been an improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority housing starts there were in the first three months of 1983; and what was the equivalent figure for the same period in 1980.

Figures for March are not yet available, but provisional house building starts for English local authorities in the first two months of 1983 were 6,400, compared with 5,400 in the corresponding period in 1980.

Is the Minister aware that, in the Liberal-controlled Liverpool city council area, there were no housing starts in 1981, 233 in 1982 and only 150 in 1983? Is he further aware that Liverpool city council has a housing waiting list of more than 25,000 and that aged —some in their mid-eighties—and handicapped people are living in the top floor flats of pre-war tenement blocks without hope of being rehoused? Will the Minister urge the council to build houses for rent for those in need`?

The issue in Liverpool is not merely the building of additional houses, but of making use of existing local authority housing stock. In Liverpool, 1,330 dwellings have been vacant for more than a year. I hope that the local authority will make every possible attempt to make better use of its existing stock.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government cut housing support in Liverpool by £7 million last year? Is he aware that until that is restored it will be impossible to do anything about many of the vacant dwellings? What does he intend to do about the 500,000 homes in Britain which still do not have inside toilets, running hot water and bathrooms, and need money for restoration and renovation?

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal party in Liverpool that Liverpool city council has been a conspicuous underspender. The crucial need in Liverpool is for full utilisation of the resources that have been made available. The Liverpool city council underspent in 1981–82 and it appears that it has produced an increased underspend in 1982–83. The local authority should make better use of its stock and full use of its resources.

As my hon. Friend has confirmed that housing problems can be solved by better utilisation of the existing housing stock, does he not view with alarm the fact that at least two, possibly three, or more, properties in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) have been empty for more than six years? Does he agree that the Department should monitor the number of empty houses which the local authorities have and compel them to let immediately to those who deserve the right to rent?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the HIP returns for all local authorities, copies of which are in the Library, show the number of empty dwellings, including those that have been empty for more than a year. I share his concern that the last set of returns showed that about 19,000 local authority dwellings in England had been vacant for more than a year.

In view of the Prime Minister's claim yesterday that the construction of new housing is improving, will the Minister confirm the depth to which such construction had sunk? Was not the Labour Government's worst year for council house building better than the Tory Government's two best years put together?

The hon. Lady should look at the totality of housing. The House will be glad to know that this year the Housing Corporation expects a record number of Housing Corporation-funded housing association dwellings to be completed. Private house building and home improvement grants are at a 10-year high, hostel approvals are now three times higher than under the Labour Government and grants for the disabled are five times higher than under the Labour Government. In total, the Government's housing record has been a conspicuous success.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present method of financing local government, including the rate support grant allocation.

We have been reviewing the present rating system and intend shortly to bring forward new proposals.

In any new arrangement, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure as far as practicably possible that all people pay for local government services according to their needs? Is not an inherent weakness and unfairness of the present rating system the fact that a minority are always asked to foot the Bill for the ever-increasing demands of a non-paying majority?

That is one aspect of the criticisms of the unfairness of the rating system that has been very much in our mind, together with our concern about the demands made on a number of ratepayers by the most irresponsible Labour authorities, which appear to have no regard to the problems facing their industrial, commercial and domestic ratepayers.

What proportion of this year's rate increases is due to the Government's reduction in rate support grant and housing subsidies by £9,000 million?

As I told the House yesterday—I know that the right hon. Gentleman listened with great interest —except for the GLC and ILEA and another 16 Labour authorities, which pushed the average up to 6·5 per cent., there were no rate increases this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people living alone have a genuine grievance against those households in which there are often five or six high wage earners? In spite of all the complications, should we not look seriously at the possibility of a poll tax, when the new computer comes in, as such a tax could be collected on a PAYE basis, thereby permitting greater equity between those on high incomes and pensioners who live alone in similar houses?

That is an interesting suggestion. I know that my hon. Friend would be the first to emphasise that, in looking at the way in which funds are raised, it is important to ensure that the demands made are kept as low as possible. I know that he will join me in welcoming the achievements of the Conservative-controlled Birmingham city council, which has reduced its rates by 12·5 per cent.

I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish to mislead the House. Therefore, will he comment on the complaint by Surrey county council that 8 per cent. of its 13·7 per cent. rate increase this year is due to the withdrawal of Government grant?

This is a new departure. I have heard of right hon. Members coming back when they cannot think of an answer to the response that they have received, but following a pause the right hon. Gentleman has come back on an entirely different matter. I know that I speak on behalf of all the ratepayers of Surrey who much prefer their rate poundages this year to those imposed by the right hon. Gentleman's authority in Manchester.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect rating reform to appear in the 1983 Conservative manifesto as it did in the 1979 Conservative manifesto?

I was not aware that it had been announced that we shall have a 1983 Conservative manifesto.

When considering changes, will my right hon. Friend examine the possibility of abolishing completely the industrial and commercial rate and replacing the lost revenue by increasing other corporate taxes and paying local authorities by block grant, thereby making ordinary domestic ratepayers responsible for all marginal expenditure?

My hon. Friend will know that we have conducted a comprehensive review, and he will be pleased to learn that we have excluded nothing from it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the future ownership and administration of estates owned by local authorities outside their areas.

The Government's view is that it is generally preferable for municipal housing to be owned and managed by the authority in whose area it lies.

Why did the Department hold referendums in the Newham estates in Hutton and Elm Park, which produced overwhelming majorities to stay with Newham, only to ignore the results completely? Is the Minister aware that many of the elected representatives of Newham feel that they are being robbed of valuable property that is central to their housing strategy and that that has resulted in bitterness and anger? Will the hon. Gentleman review his policy and make the wishes of the tenants paramount?

We took into account the views of the tenants expressed in the referendums before we announced our decision, but localised management accessible to the tenants is likely to be of a higher standard than remote management. Inevitably, when an estate is managed by an authority outside the local authority area in question, it is more likely to be remote, whereas if it is managed by the local authority in whose area it is situated, it can be more closely integrated with the other services that the local authority provides. For those two reasons, I believe that the decision was correct.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many tenants on the Newham estate in Brentwood welcome the prospect of becoming tenants of the local authority to which they already pay their rates, thereby increasing their identification with the local community? Will he press on regardless with his intentions?

My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point that the existing Brentwood tenants are well satisfied with the services provided by that local authority. I am confident that were another referendum to be conducted in a few years' time, tenants would be equally satisfied with the services that they had received from their new landlord.

We are not talking about a few years' time. The Minister has admitted that in a referendum 75 per cent. of tenants said that they were quite happy with things as they are. How can he fail to take that into consideration? Does that mean that if 75 per cent. of the Cowley workers decided to go back to work he would say, "Take no notice. Remain on strike"?

As I have explained, the views of the tenants expressed in the referendum was one of the factors that we took into account. In the context of the actual number of tenants eligible to vote, the number voting to stay with Newham fell to about 58 per cent. For the reasons that I have given, it makes sense for the estates to be managed by the local authority in whose area they lie

Is my hon. Friend aware that within the past five years the London borough of Havering, within which the Elm Park estate lies, has transferred about 300 homes to other authorities because they were without its boundaries and in pursuance of the logic that all council homes should be within one area? Moreover, the service given by the London borough of Newham to many of my constituents who tried to purchase and had to wait a long time does not put that authority in the best position to put itself forward as advancing the interests of its tenants.

My hon. Friends have an important role to play in assuring the tenants of the high quality service that they will receive from their new landlords.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now increase the amount of money available to local authorities, especially to those in urban areas, for the reduction, collection and disposal of litter from roads and streets.

It is for individual local authorities to determine, within their overall budgets, the resources they allocate to carrying out their street cleaning responsibilities. Education and persuasion of the public not to drop litter is the key to solving the problem of littering. In this respect I recommend to the House the work of the Keep Britain Tidy Group, which we actively support. In particular, I commend the Keep Britain Tidy system for adoption by local authorities.

Will the Minister now try to give a positive and enthusiastic reply? Does he agree that too many of our roads, streets and public places are tatty at best and too often downright filthy? Is it not time that an Environment Minister started a "Spring-clean Britain" operation to encourage those who want to take care of their environment to respect and take pride in it and to discourage those who think that the only place to dump their garbage or litter is down on the big hook?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it is high time we motivated people to take more care of and have more pride in their communities. For that reason the Keep Britain Tidy Group has launched the "Beautiful Britain '83" campaign, and I am currently reviewing the central funds with which we support the group, because I commend its activities and would seek ways of increasing them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that among the worst examples of littering in Romford are cars parked on verges and excrement parked on pavements? Can he promise any higher priority to those problems?

My hon. Friend raises a matter which is for my colleagues at the Ministry of Transport rather than for me. On the other point he raises, the local authority is still the prime source of help in dealing with those nuisances.

Is the Minister aware that the privatisation of the refuse collection in Liverpool is strongly opposed by the trade union movement and that a future Labour-controlled council will reverse that policy?

It does not surprise me to hear that. It is inevitable that many people will take a view such as the hon. Gentleman has expressed. It is equally inevitable that most councils which have changed to privatisation have shown substantial savings for their ratepayers and a greatly improved service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the financial arrangements pertaining to public inquiries for which his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement.

The arrangements are that accommodation for a public inquiry is normally provided by the local authority, which, in some types of case, may also be expected to meet the Department's costs. Parties to an inquiry are normally expected to meet their own costs, but one party may be ordered to pay another party's costs where these have been incurred because of unreasonable conduct. I regard these arrangements as satisfactory.

Is my hon. Friend telling the House that it is either satisfactory or equitable that the daily transcripts of the current airports inquiry, should be charged to interested parties at £7·50 a day, whereas for an inquiry of equal national importance, that at Sizewell, such transcripts are provided free?

I remind my hon. Friend that the Stansted inquiry is being conducted under the auspices of my right hon. Friend and the Department and that we are abiding by our traditional rules regarding the availablity of services to those who are involved in the inquiry. All witnesses can examine the transcript free of charge. The Sizewell inquiry is being conducted under the auspices of the Electricity Act 1957, and it has long been a practice of the Secretary of State for Energy, through the CEGB, to direct that costs of this kind are met.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any consultation with the Football League or the joint ITV/BBC committee regarding the future prospects of televised football.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consult the football authorities about the future of televised football.

The televising of football is a matter for the football and television authorities. Recognising, however, the considerable public interest in recent developments, I have been in touch with both sides. I hope that a satisfactory agreement can be reached, as I believe that the game and the public are best served by some continuation of the present arrangements.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he realise that there is a great deal of serious public concern about the possibility of football matches disappearing from television screens and going into public houses on video? Does he further realise that that would be a blow to family viewing and that it is undesirable for football as a spectator sport to be linked with the sale of alcohol? Will he continue to use his good offices to see that some other financial solution to the difficulty is found?

I cannot undertake to achieve the hon. Gentleman's last request, because that is very much a matter for the Football League and television authorities. Negotiations are still continuing. As for his assessment of the overall impact of football, I strongly sympathise with his views. I think that the combination of the alternative facilities which are being suggested are certainly not conducive to all that we have been trying to ensure for the future of this great national game of ours.

Does the Minister agree that it would be an absolute scandal if children, the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the needy were prevented from viewing televised football, our national sport? Is he aware that the Football League has rejected what would have been an increase of 16 per cent. on the 1979 agreement and that in that period there has been an increase in the rate of inflation of 60 per cent.? Does he not feel that shirt advertising would be the answer to the problem?

Shirt advertising is very much a matter for the BBC and ITA. Sometimes I cannot help feeling that Opposition Members are closer to the source of influence than I am on some of the negotiations, and they may feel that they have greater influence in some of these matters. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has voiced the disquiet that is felt by many people—that if we are still trying to envisage the success of football not only as a family entertainment but as a means of sustaining the game outside the professional levels, it is best served by the continuation of the present arrangements.

While appreciating that it is not my hon. Friend's direct responsibility, may I ask him to knock heads together a little harder so that the British public can see football on a limited scale on television at home? Does he agree that it really is not acceptable that, to see a recorded television match, one must go to a public house or a public place?

These exchanges have been most useful. I believe that those outside this House who are responsible for conducting the negotiations will take note of the general view of hon. Members. I personally hope that they will echo the sentiments expressed this afternoon.

Will the Minister call a meeting of the Football League and television authorities and put it to them strongly that millions of people want to see football continue to be shown on television and that the gap between them is not large? If he uses his good offices in that way and seizes the initiative, I am sure we can keep football on the TV screens.

One must remember the locus of the Minister with responsibility for sport in these affairs. I assure the House that I have had detailed meetings—as indeed have my officials, on more than one occasion—with representatives of the BBC, IBA and the Football League. Meetings are to take place later this week, and I shall certainly draw to the attention of those representatives what has been said in the House today.

Will my hon. Friend nevertheless undertake to resist any calls for grants to be made available for those who suffer from deprivation of televised football?

I take note of my hon. Friend's comment.

Does the Minister appreciate that we welcome his intervention in a matter of great public concern? Will he intervene even further if necessary, supporting the Office of Fair Trading, which is reported today to be intervening because the public interest would not be served if young people, the housebound and the ill in our society were prevented from watching football without having to enter licensed premises? There is much disquiet about that. On the other hand, I hope the Minister has represented to the television authorities that they should pay an adequate sum for the hours of television they get and, if necessary, relax their advertising rules about shirt advertising to bring them in line with other sport to provide the financial assistance which football needs. Is the Minister aware that we will support any initiative he takes to bring that about?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those observations. I shall certainly maintain the closest contact with the individual authorities in the ensuing 48 hours. As for the Office of Fair Trading, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that this is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I counsel the right hon. Gentleman not to believe all that he read in one newspaper today. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading has yet to receive any draft documents, and clearly it has not been able to form a view. However, I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the programmes of central Government, Merseyside county council and St. Helens metropolitan borough council; and if he will make a statement.

Local authorities are responsible to their electorate and not to me. However, through my north-west regional office and the Merseyside task force, I am satisfied that there is full co-operation where appropriate with St. Helens borough council and Merseyside county council on a variety of programmes and initiatives.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am surprised at his answer? Since I would not be allowed by you, Mr. Speaker, to raise the many problems that lead to such serious lack of co-ordination between the Government, the Merseyside county council and the St. Helens metropolitan borough council, may I bring one matter to the right hon. Gentleman's attention? It concerns the correspondence that the borough treasurers had with him about the HIP, which falls about £2·2 million short of the requirement in the local authority's housebuilding programme. Will he have another look at that and, if necessary, accept my invitation to come up to St. Helens, meet the whole St. Helens council and all seven Members of Parliament?

I was there one month ago. I talked to the treasurer, the leader of the council and the chief executive about those matters. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has been in correspondence with them. The hon. Gentleman will know that coordination and reaching complete agreement on bids made by individual authorities are not necessarily the same thing. I am anxious to see how we can work together. I hope that we can achieve satisfactory arrangements over co-ordination.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the best service that he could render to people in St. Helens and the other four district councils on Merseyside would be to abolish the high-spending Merseyside county council?

That is another question. It does not relate to co-ordination with St. Helens.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there are any plans for discussion with his ministerial counterparts in other Commonwealth Governments to consider the implications of the commitments made at the Lusaka and Melbourne Commonwealth Heads of Governments meetings relating to multiracial sport; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The Commonwealth's commitment to multiracial sport remains as set out in the 1977 Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport.

In view of the contribution that sport makes to international relationships and understanding, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be traumatic, both for world sport and for Commonwealth sporting relationships, if a shortsighted decision were to be made, which would lead to England playing South Africa at cricket? Furthermore, is it not a fact that if that were to happen all the other members of the International Cricket Conference would not follow our example, so that we would be left playing South Africa and South Africa alone, which would be very tedious?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a most important point, which creates grave disquiet in the minds of those who put multiracial sport first throughout the world. No one in the House should be in any doubt about the serious threat that would arise to organised cricket if a tour of South. Africa were to go ahead by the MCC, which is technically a private club. It was at the ICC that the MCC and its governing body, the Cricket Council, voted 13 years ago to exclude South Africa from the cricket itinerary.

Is this not an area where the Minister can usefully intervene and give guidance? Are there not many more areas in sport where help is very much needed at present? Would not the Minister's time be better spent on those functions rather than being turned into a children's nursemaid, which is the function that the Prime Minister seems to have in mind for him?

Somehow I feel that this important subject has been deflected by the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he would take a closer interest in these important matters. The fact is that Her Majesty's Government acknowledge the principle of the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport, which was upheld in 1979 and 1981. There is no deviation from that concept.

I take up the point that my hon. Friend made about the ICC. May I point out to him that the ICC went to South Africa in 1979 on a fact-finding mission and came back with a recommendation that an ICC team be sent to South Africa because of what it had seen? If my hon. Friend is so desirous, as I hope he is, of representing the interests of British sportsmen, will he go to South Africa to see for himself that sport is not organised on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin? By seeing that for himself he will not have to rely, as he said on Radio 4 the other evening, on pictures and newspaper reports.

I do not have quite the amount of time that my hon. Friend has to visit South Africa. My hon. Friends from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office undertake visits to South Africa. That is not part of my locus. I am certain that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. There was no ICC-ratified visit to South Africa in 1979. The ICC voted to exclude South Africa from its cricketing itinerary in 1969. The visit about 10 years later was not an ICC visit. Some people went to South Africa who happened to be representatives of the ICC.

Will the Minister take note that we entirely support his view on this matter, that it would be absolutely disastrous for international cricket if this private tour went ahead, and that, as the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) said, it would restrict, all our cricket matches to England versus South Africa? Will the Minister extend that thinking to Rugby Football Union? Does he agree that if the Rugby Football Union authorities are considering a public tour of the South Africa Rugby Union in two years' time in exchange for an agreement by Dr. Craaven of South Africa not to let his private tour take place this year, that would be equally reprehensible?

The Rugby Football Union is well aware of the Government's opposition to this possible venture. I hope that the Rugby Football Union committee will take account of our advice when it makes up its mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of new council houses due for completion in 1983; and what is his estimate of the total stock of council houses at the end of 1983.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings he estimates will be (a) started and (b) completed by local authorities in England in the current year.

It is for local authorities to decide what priority to give to spending on council house building within their total available resources. My Department makes no estimates of the numbers of starts or completions.

Bearing in mind that answer, the totally inadequate answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) and the false trumpeting about the housing record by the Prime Minister yesterday, when will the Minister admit that the Government's housing record is an unmitigated disaster? Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, which is a relatively small town, we have waiting lists of nearly 3,000 and that, because of the Government's financial restrictions, we shall be able to complete only between 70 and 100 dwellings this year? Is he aware that since 1979 we have been able to build only 276 dwellings, all for old-age pensioners? When will we return to the rate of building achieved under the Labour Government?

After falling for every year since 1975, local authority starts increased by one third in 1982. That seems to be a useful step in the right direction. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence in Darlington to broaden the horizons of the Darlington council. At the moment the council has no plans to extend the initiative developed by the former Conservative-controlled Darlington council to have a partnership with the private sector. Last year it refused to attend a tripartite meeting with the House Builders Federation and my Department's regional office on the release of land register sites for low-cost home ownership schemes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to change the council's policy on that subject.

Was it not Mr. Anthony Greenwood, as he then was, when he was drastically cutting the housing programme as the Labour Minister responsible for housing, who first put forward the idea that the housing programme did not consist solely of building council houses but was made up of improvement grants, repair grants and many other initiatives?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In England alone more than 190,000 dwellings were renovated in 1982 with the aid of grant or subsidy, which is the highest annual total since the period of office of the Conservative Government between 1972 and 1974.

How much will the new dwellings cost? If the Government's proposals going through the other place at present are successful, the cost floor provisions are removed and the maximum discount is raised to 60 per cent., how much could a new tenant who qualified to buy at that discount pay for that dwelling?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension. The cost floor is not being removed and the 60 per cent. discount cannot bring the price below the cost to the local authority of the dwelling concerned.

Is it not a scandal that so many Opposition Members and so many Labour authorities whinge on about building council houses but do not give proper priority to building for sale, improvements and other imaginative schemes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The building of local authority dwellings for rent is but one aspect of meeting housing need. The estimated increase in the number of owner-occupied dwellings during this Parliament already exceeds that in any other post-war Parliament apart from the Conservative Administrations of 1955 to 1959 and 1959 to 1964.

As the total stock of council houses, to which the question relates, will be reduced still further if the Housing and Building Control Bill is passed, and in view of the Government's defeat in the House of Lords yesterday on the extension of compulsory sales, will the Secretary of State confirm his intention to withdraw that Bill?

No, Sir. The hon. Lady seems to think that if a local authority house is sold it somehow disappears from face of the earth—

From the rented sector.

—but it is still there to meet housing need and the resources provided by the sale can be used by the local authority to complement its housing programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with operation Groundwork.

The Countryside Commission tells me that good progress is being made in each of the five new areas selected towards establishing Groundwork trusts and agreeing early action programmes.

I thank my right hon. Friend for implementing operation Groundwork in my constituency. It will certainly improve the environment and create more jobs. Does he intend to extend the system nationally?

We have allocated funds to extend the original project from St. Helens to five other areas, including that of my hon. Friend. I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend has shown in this very imaginative programme. As it is fairly demanding of resources, I should like to see how these developments progress and then review the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the response so far to the 90 per cent., temporary level of repair grant introduced in 1982.

The response to the Government's initiative on repair grants has been exceptionally encouraging. The number of repair grants paid in England in 1979 was 345. Following the legislative changes in the Housing Act 1980 and the introduction of 90 per cent. repair grants in the 1982 Budget, the number of repair grants paid last year was 33,715.

I should first declare an interest, because a Labour council has awarded me such a grant. May I congratulate my hon. Friend on progress in this direction, as it is without doubt the speediest and most effective way to deal with urban decay?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that all local authorities will continue to give the most favourable consideration to the use of their discretionary powers in relation to repair grants while the Government's unrivalled generosity in respect of 90 per cent. repair grants is still on offer.

Why do local authorities receive only 75 per cent. in similar grants? Should not they, too, receive 90 per cent.?

We felt that it was right to concentrate on the priority areas of home improvement — intermediate grants for the installation of basic amenities such as inside baths and WCs and repair grants—because the recent English house condition survey showed this to be the priority area of attack in home improvements.

Is the Minister aware that there is public concern in some areas about increasing delays by local authorities in processing applications for improvement grants? What steps is he taking to deal with that problem?

I am aware that there have been some complaints on that score. This reflects in part the great upsurge in repair grants and home improvement activity that the Government have helped to generate. Local authorities did well in the last financial year, more than doubling the output on home improvement grants in 12 months. I recognise that there is a considerable burden of work, but most local authorities are deploying existing staff to that work.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the salaries and conditions of water authority chairmen in England.

Regional water authority chairmen's current salaries range from £13,679 to £24,980. With permission, I shall circulate the details in the Official Report.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he recall that in his reply of 15 April he stated that the notional full-time pay of the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority was more than £29,000 pensionable income, plus perks? Is he aware that that is comparable with the salary offered to the new chief constable of west Yorkshire, whose duties are far more onerous? How does he justify that figure?

The notional annual salary is a full-time figure. The actual appointment for Yorkshire is for three days per week, so the pay taken is substantially less than the figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As for comparibility with other public service posts, such as that of chief constable, that is hardly a matter for me. I should point out, however, that the Yorkshire water authority provides a vital service to a region far larger than that presided over by the chief constable of west Yorkshire.

I thank the Minister for his original reply. If he can give that information, why can he not give the salaries of the chief executives? Information is available on the salaries of all the lower-paid workers in water authorities, so why should not Members of Parliament know the salaries of the chief executives? Will the Minister find out and tell the House or write to me?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the terms and conditions of appointment of chief executives are a matter for the authorities and not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will also be aware that the information is given in the annual report of every water authority, which is laid before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to abolish the Greater London council.

I have at present no plans to legislate for abolition. The need for the Greater London council in its present form is a matter that I keep under review as part of my overall concern with securing an economical and cost-effective framework for local government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Ken Livingstone has two achievements to his credit? First, he is slightly less unpopular than the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, he has made Londoners aware of the GLC. Now that Londoners are aware of the GLC they want it abolished. When will my right hon. Friend do that?

My hon. Friend seems to be quoting the poll in today's Standard, in which Mr. Livingstone is identified by Londoners as an even greater misfortune for the capital than the Labour-controlled GLC that he leads. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, however, all things are relative and Mr. Livingstone still manages to achieve a higher score than the Leader of the Opposition.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some Labour-controlled authorities in London are still keen to use public funds to finance a Labour local authority association? Is he aware that, having been advised that it is not legal to do that explicitly, they are now building conditions into the constitution of the new association about, for example, the abolition or not of the GLC so as to ensure that only Labour authorities are likely to join the association? Will he look carefully at the proposed constitution of the association and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent Labour authorities from stealing public funds for Labour party purposes?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not principally a matter for me. In the first instance, it is a matter for the ratepayers of the borough, who can make representations to the district auditor if they think that there is improper use of public funds. That is the long-hallowed responsibility of the district auditor. I am aware, however, that enterprises are now being undertaken by local authorities that are a total abuse of what local authorities in the past would have considered to be the proper use of their funds. This raises very serious issues and, as I said yesterday, I am considering the matter.

Has the Secretary of State any proposals for the abolition of the constituency of Enfield, North?

No, Sir.

Despite the undoubted horrors perpetrated by Mr. Livingstone, will my right hon. Friend consider carefully before acting on the lines advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), not least because a number of regional functions will remain that cannot be devolved to local authorities? Is he aware that, faced with the choice between an elected authority or a non-elected quango, or arm of central Government, many of us prefer on balance to retain an elected regional authority?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. He will have noticed from my reply that, although I understand the irritations that Mr. Livingstone can cause, the burden that he is placing on London and the number of jobs that have been lost in London as a result of his and his colleagues' activities, my overall concern is to secure an economical and cost-effective framework for local government.

Before considering again the abolition of the GLC, will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that Londoners have substantially endorsed the GLC's policies on transport and job creation?

Read the survey.

If the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) is so anxious about performance in local government, would he not be better employed using his time trying to improve the disgraceful level of services that are given to his and my constituents by the Tory-controlled London borough of Enfield?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is acting as an apologist for Mr. Livingstone and some of the activities of members of the GLC. He knows that some of their activities bring great discredit on the standards and tradition of local authorities, and many of the members of his party know it, too.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the football authorities.

I have a regular dialogue with the football authorities, covering in particular the initiatives being taken domestically and in Europe to prevent and control crowd violence at matches.

To make up for the discriminatory ban against Scottish football fans, which was tried at Wembley two years ago, will the Minister ask the Football Association to ensure a fairer allocation of tickets this year so that as many Scottish fans as possible can go to Wembley to watch their team beat England, especially as recent improvements in the behaviour of Scottish football fans have been so great that many of them have set a good example to some of the hooligan elements south of the border?

I am sure that the authorities in the Football Associations in both England and Scotland will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

When the Minister meets the football authorities, will he not spend too much time on the televising issue but encourage those who want to go and watch football matches at football stadiums to do so rather than go elsewhere?

That seems to go right to the heart of the matter, namely, whether the British public believe that the quality of product on display at professional football grounds is one on which they want to spend their money.

When my hon. Friend next meets the football authorities, will he take the opportunity to outline his important new responsibilities in respect of children's play?

I shall undertake to do that if my hon. Friend will approach the representatives of Wolverhampton Wanderers football club.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a further circular to all local authorities giving advice on the case for using solid fuel and for the inclusion of chimneys in all building schemes; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The choice of heating fuels and whether to include a flue in newly contructed local authority housing is a matter for each housing authority in the light of its knowledge of local needs and circumstances—particularly of tenants' preferences.

Will the Minister confirm that, during the past 12 months, there has been a significant increase in the number of people who have transferred to solid fuel? Does he agree that one of the problems that people often face when installing new appliances is that they are unable to burn solid fuel because of the misguided policy of local authorities not to build chimneys? As there are 50 million tonnes of coal on the ground, some of which can be used for domestic purposes, and since there is a 300 years' supply of coal underground and a limited supply of other fossil fuels, why does he not review his decision and encourage local authorities to take the action that I have suggested?

I am sure that local authorities are as aware of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned as he is. We have produced a domestic energy note that has drawn the attention of housing authorities to the possibility of including flues in new dwellings or designing new dwellings so that flues can be incorporated later. Ultimately, however, it is for local authorities to decide what needs to meet.

Will the hon. Gentleman now advise local authorities on the installation of certain types of double glazing, in council and other dwellings so that tragedies such as we suffered in Nuneaton yesterday, and that occur elsewhere, can be avoided?

I am not sure how that issue arises from a circular on solid fuel. Perhaps it would be best if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local housing authorities have budgeted to transfer money from their housing revenue accounts to their general rate fund in 1983–84.

This information is not yet available.

Does the Minister agree that it is grossly inequitable to transfer funds from council tenants to the general body of ratepayers when the average income of council tenants is lower than that of owner-occupiers?

I do not agree. The House debated the subject at great length in 1980. If one examines the relative incomes of different tenure groups, one finds, for example, that the average income of tenants who rent in the private sector are somewhat lower than the income of those who rent in the public sector, yet the former are ratepayers. We give councillors discretion about making transfers from the general rate fund to the housing revenue account and the House has taken the view that we can give them the same discretion to make a reverse transfer if they believe it is reasonable to do so.

Now that it has been proved that many councils are making extortionate profits out of their council tenants and are transferring those profits to the general rate fund, will the Minister go to the Prime Minister, after her stupid comment in the House yesterday that council tenants throughout the country are being subsidised, and ask her to withdraw her statement and show some sensitivity towards people on low incomes, who invariably have to live in council accommodation?

The hon. Gentleman should have regard to what I have just said and consider the scale of the transfer in the reverse direction. He may be interested to know that transfers from the housing revenue account to the general rate fund last year totalled some £21 million, whereas transfers from the general rate fund to the housing revenue account totalled £443 million.

Is it not a fact that, this year, the Government have planned for £2,500 million in tax relief for people who are buying their houses on a mortgage, while housing subsidies have been reduced to £370 million. Is it not also the case that not only do council house tenants pay rent, which has increased by 134 per cent. under this Government, but they pay rates like everyone else? Therefore, is it not intolerable for the Government to force council house tenants to subsidise the rates of people whose incomes are 20 per cent. higher than theirs?

I am delighted to hear of the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about council tenants as ratepayers. That is not exhibited by the level of rates levied by many Labour authorities. As to assistance for council tenants, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that more than half of all local authority tenants receive subtantial help with their rents through the rent rebate and supplementary benefit systems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what request was made by Sheffield for housing investment programme expenditure for 1983–84; and what amount was authorised.

Sheffield's HIP bid for 1983–84 was for £67·4 million and its allocation was £25·2 million.

Is that not typical of the position over the past three years? Is the Minister aware that Sheffield has persistently asked for money, which it is well capable of spending, to maintain an adequate housing programme, but that the money has been denied by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman says that Sheffield is well capable of spending the funds. It looks as though Sheffield might end up with an underspend this year. I have enourmous doubts about whether Sheffield is remotely likely to be able to spend the sum for which it bid, as it is more than twice as much as it has ever spent in one financial year.

Is it not a fact that Sheffield is being deliberately victimised by the Tory Government because of the success of its transport policy? Does the Minister agree that that victimisation has continued for several years, because the Tory Government are appalled at the success of that policy, and that every year more and more people vote Labour because of it?

The only evidence of victimisation that I see in Sheffield is of the many council tenants who have tried to buy their houses.

At half price.

The local authority there puts every possible difficulty in their way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage reduction in real terms since 1979 of the rate support grant for the inner city partnership and programme authorities and designated districts.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) on 24 February.

Will the Minister explain the criteria by which decisions on this matter are reached? Is he aware that Stockton borough council applied for a grant under those programmes, but was turned down despite the fact that Stockton suffers from the same deprivation and difficulties as the other authorities that have received grants under the programme?

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw members of Stockton council a few weeks ago, and I am sure that the matter was discussed then.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from the National House Builders Federation concerning proposals for building on Metropolitan green belt sites in and around Greater London.

Representations have been received from the House Builders Federation that a number of sites included in the London green belt should be released for building. I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of my reply.

In the meantime, can my hon. Friend confirm the Government's attitude towards the suggestions in the federation's comments that the green belt is sacrosanct? Does he agree that it is much more important to redevelop inner city sites in London, including the docklands, for housing?

I endorse my hon. Friend's view that many inner city sites in London, especially the docklands, must be redeveloped as soon as possible. I take note of the federation's views, which are continually discussed by myself and my right hon. Friend.