asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the building and improvement of council dwellings.

Local authorities are free to determine their own priorities for investment, including on newbuild and improvements to council dwellings, within the total resources available to them.

Is the Minister aware that as a result of cuts in public expenditure and the Government's dogmatism an increasing number of people are desperately in need of council accommodation? Is he further aware that such people are not in a position to take on a mortgage? Are Ministers proud of the fact that, despite all the figures and the boasts, council house building remains at the level that it was in the 1920s? Is that not a scandal and a disgrace, because it causes intense misery for hundreds of thousands of people?

There has been a considerable increase in housing starts in recent years. For example, in 1982 the number of starts was 35,000 above that in 1981. In the first five months of this year starts totalled 84,200, compared with 71,900 in the first five months of last year.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box at Question Time. Does he agree that the Labour party, instead of weeping crocodile tears over those who want the right to rent, should drop its dogmatic objection to shorthold and thus enable such people to rent property, not only in the public sector, but in the private sector too?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I agree entirely with his second point. Some of the remarks that are made by Labour Members diminish the prospect of rented accommodation becoming available in the private sector—something for which the Labour party claims to be strongly in favour.

Will the Minister turn his attention to the second half of the question, about improvements? There are great problems in industrialised building, particularly Reema houses and flats, the occupants of which cannot obtain mortgages, nor have them demolished by the local authority. Will the hon. Gentleman publish the report that his Department now has on that?

I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and make a statement as soon as I am able to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most significant proposals put forward to improve the existing stock of council dwellings is the right-to-repair provision in the Housing and Building Control Bill, which has just been introduced, and that far from castigating that provision, as the Opposition appear to do, they should applaud it?

My hon. Friend is right. We hope that the right-to-repair provision in the Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday by a substantial majority of more than 200, will, when it reaches the statute book, significantly improve the opportunity for council properties to be repaired in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Does the Minister believe that local authorities should be encouraged to spend some of the money that they receive from the sale of council houses to repair and improve existing council stock?

Yes. It is open to local authorities to spend their receipts from the sale of council houses in the way that they determine. I hope that they will spend their money, because, as the House knows, there was a significant underspend last year of approximately £800 million.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of the Housing Act 1980 are enforced for the improvement and new building of houses and dwellings by local councils, by means of private labour organisations, by competitive tendering and by making them responsible for the figures that they produce?

The Department of the Environment has responsibility for ensuring that the direct labour organisations are managed in accordance with the Act and it is our duty to monitor progress by local authorities. We shall do our utmost to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of the Act are observed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now consider replacing the present rating system by a poll tax.

No, Sir. We have concluded that the disadvantages would far outweigh the advantages.

I appreciate that the Government will act to deter excessive rate increases, but does my right hon. Friend agree that that will do nothing to remove the basic unfairness of the present system whereby the occupants of one house may have three incomes, while another house, with a similar rateable value, may be occupied by a pensioner? What will my right hon. Friend do about that unfairness?

Over the past 18 months the Government have probably given more thought to that issue of local government finance than to any other since we took office in 1979. We have tried to find a way to meet the problem, about which I know many people feel keenly. For the moment there does not seem to be a way which would be acceptable and fair and not give rise to even greater anomalies than those to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Will the Minister say whether, like his predecessors, he is the Minister for Merseyside? If he is, is he aware that the people of Merseyside think that he has already destroyed the rating system there? One of his first acts has been to take £13 million away from Merseyside county council — money which could be used to provide jobs and services there.

The phrase "Minister for Merseyside" was concocted by the press. It was used neither by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, I can confirm that I inherited from my right hon. Friends the responsibility for carrying forward the work of the task force and other notable initiatives which they started on Merseyside.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the way in which the rating system can militate against commercial premises? It requires them to pay water rates despite the fact that they do not have any water serving their premises, which places a great onus on many small businesses in the west country.

I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention. I cannot offer an immediate solution, but the problem is one to which I shall give attention.

How can the Secretary of State justify imposing a fine of £280 million on local authorities for alleged overspending in the financial year 1983–84 when only three months of that year have elapsed, when the year will not be over until the end of next March and when the ascertained expenditure will not be known for a year after that? By what standards of justice does the right hon. Gentleman invent a crime and then punish local authorities which have not even committed it?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to put the absurd remarks that he has made to the press and on radio and television into context. He has talked about this as though it were the death knell of local authorities. The total amount of rate support grant for the current year is £11,782 million, compared with the amount of holdback which the supplementary report which was published yesterday gave as £280 million, against an overspend in excess of their budgeted expenditure over target on current spending of £771 million. There is nothing in that statement which all local authorities would not have known perfectly well and could not have worked out for themselves last January. They knew to four decimal points of a penny precisely how it would be calculated and they decided to budget in excess of target.

Order. It is important that hon. Members make their supplementary questions relevant to the main question.

As the Secretary of State regards my statements as absurd, does he also regard as absurd the statement of Mr. Ian McCallum, the Conservative chairman of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, that the Government's policy is unnecessary, unreasonable, unjust and has grave and far-reaching constitutional repercussions?

Order. That question had nothing to do with the main question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the clearance of derelict land in the northern region; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that substantial and worthwhile progress has been made, though much remains to be done. The region's allocation for derelict land grant this year is £10 million, 54 per cent. up on last year's initial provision.

Is the Minister aware that the region's share of the national allocation of the derelict land grant is only about half of what it was in the late 1970s? Is he further aware that that fall has taken place against a background of an increasing amount of derelict land in the region, some of which—not all—has been caused by the Government's policies? In view of that, will he urgently re-examine the figure of £ 10 million which he has just mentioned, which is completely inadequate for the needs of the north?

We shall always examine any grant-aid that we give, particularly in this important area. When the hon. Gentleman says that the northern region has not done well in recent years—that is the implication of his observations— it is fair to say that it was one of the pioneering regions many years ago, and in the early years it received a great deal of money. Therefore, there is a good case for other regions to come up alongside and make bids. The hon. Gentleman says that there has not been much response from the Government, but the fact is that 18 schemes were submitted in the current year, of which nine were accepted. I should have thought that that was ample confirmation that we were devoted to the concept of urban renewal.

Mr. John Ward, to ask Question 4.

rose—

I apologise. I should have called an Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was the only member on the Conservative Benches seeking to catch your eye.

Order. I should have called an Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Does the Minister not appreciate that his inflexibility in administering derelict land grant causes great difficulties in regions such as the northern region, which has a growing number of problems in the form of derelict shipyards, steelworks and industrial sites? Could not the Minister make the system more flexible? Will he introduce a two-year or three-year rolling programme?

It is inaccurate to say that the Government are inflexible in administering the derelict land grant. The Government are completely flexible. I am well aware that in recent days the North of England County Councils Association has made several observations. We shall consider everything that it has to say to my Department.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the resentment, both in the northern region and in Yorkshire-Humberside, at the fact that there is only one regional director to carry out the Government's regional policies, and that he spends as much time commuting on trains between Leeds, Newcastle and London as he does at his desk? Will his right hon. Friend appoint separate regional directors for Leeds and Newcastle?

I can give no assurance to my hon. Friend at this moment, but I take note of what he said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) called into question a ruling which you gave a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman knows that this question is about the northern region. He neither speaks for nor represents a constituency in the northern region.

We got ourselves into a slight twist. It was my fault.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the average rate increases in 1983–84 for each class of authority.

With permission, I will arrange for the figures to be circulated in the Official Report.

I thank my hon. Friend for that somewhat short reply. I trust that when he publishes the figures they will prove conclusively the need to get rid of the metropolitan authorities so that we can reduce the rates charged by local authorities.

There are nine categories of authority in the answer, and the House usually is not happy when long lists are read out.

Does the Minister accept that one reason for the increase in rates, apart from the reduction in rate support grant, is the fact that back in the early 1970s a Tory Government promised to get rid of rates altogether and then decided to reorganise local government, which cost a fortune? Does he further accept that before the general election they promised to introduce a poll tax and to get rid of rates once again? They have promised to reorganise local government, and that will cost a fortune. Can we really believe anything the Tories say?

The figures that we have published show that if the 18 top rating authorities in the country had rated on target there would be no average increase in rates in England.

Whey my hon. Friend is considering these figures, will he resist the temptation to prevent local authorities from increasing their rates—notwithstanding the fact that we want them to keep them down— because the electorate will see to that in the domestic area? Will he, however, put a cap on the increase that these councils can impose on business rates, because businesses have no vote?

Any action that the Government take will bite against very few authorities. As I mentioned, 18 authorities — all Labour authorities — could have brought us right back to target. The great majority of authorities—up to 80 per cent. of them—both Labour and Conservative, are rating within 2 per cent. of target. Our proposals need frighten none of those responsible authorities.

Will the Minister confirm that the share of local expenditure met by central funds is lower than it has been in living memory? Will he further confirm that there is growing suspicion about the inequitability of the distribution of central support and that it is strongly suspected in the metropolitan areas that southern areas and the shire counties have done extremely well? Does he agree that this suggests that, if the Government are really concerned with the whole of England and Wales, they should reconsider the matter carefully?

My right hon. Friend is always willing to receive representations about the exact workings of the GRE formula, but the representatives of some of those southern authorities will not endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects lead-free petrol to be available in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress towards securing agreement among European Community countries to the removal of lead from petrol.

The Royal Commission on environmental pollution thinks that it should be possible for unleaded petrol to be introduced for new cars throughout the European Community by 1990. This seems reasonable, though we shall try to improve on it if possible. A promising start was made at the Environment Council on 16 June.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What steps does he plan to take to ensure that this welcome decision is implemented as quickly as possible, preferably before 1990?

Discussions have begun and are continuing between officials of my Department and the other relevant Departments — Transport, Energy, Industry, and others — and the various interests concerned, to lay out a programme. I take my hon. Friend's point. If it is possible to do better, the British Government will be anxious to do so.

Despite the understandable urgency over reducing the health hazard in our own country, does my hon. Friend accept that it is still an enormous prize to ensure that we are acting in concert throughout Europe?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The real prize is to achieve a European-wide ban. That is what we have been pressing for in the forum of the European Community. Five of our fellow members have now signed the British document, which put forward the strongest line, and others are considering their positions. Unilateral action is far less effective than European-wide action.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the most important interest group to consult is the parents of children living near arterial roads? Will he therefore consult the London borough of Brent, which has monitored the effect of lead on those living near the north circular road and found that enormous brain damage may occur unless he acts more urgently? Will he therefore act as speedily as the United States and seven European countries have done and propose an earlier date than 1990, by which time those children will have suffered brain damage?

I am aware of the monitoring that has been carried out in Brent and other places. The British Government have taken the lead in Europe on this issue. We are not strengthened by overstating the scientific case. We know that lead is a poison—that is why we want to remove it—but we must not exaggerate the immediate dangers. On the other hand, there is increasing scientific evidence—some is published in this week's edition of New Scientist — based on work done by the Medical Research Council at Cambridge, which shows why the policy is fundamentally right.

As the jobs of 250 people in my constituency and the jobs of 2,500 people in other hon. Members' constituencies will depend on the speed with which the major lead additive producers— Associated Octel—will be able to diversify into other areas, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that in his discussions and deliberations on the timetable for the introduction of lead-free petrol there will be included representatives of that company in addition to representatives of the oil and motor industries?

Representatives of that company have asked to see me and I shall be meeting them.

As we do not know what the dangers are of absorbing lead into the human body—except that there is nothing to be said for it — why should we not exaggerate the dangers? Does the Minister agree that the date of 1990 for the introduction of lead-free petrol is unacceptable—or should be—to the whole of the country? As almost all members of the EC support the policy, as do all political parties in Britain, will he renegotiate immediately with the industry environmental agencies and consult opinion on both sides of the House with a view to introducing lead-free petrol at the earliest possible moment, and well before 1990?

I am not sure that the Government have to put up with lectures from Labour Members on this subject. The Labour party had some years of opportunity when in Government to take action on this problem but it took none. The right hon. Gentleman has ruined his case by saying that we should encourage the putting about of exaggerated statements. Whatever the strength of the case, it is much better to tell the truth.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the take-up of home improvement and repair grants at the enhanced rate of 90 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The response to the Government's initiative on both repairs and intermediate grants to which the 90 per cent. rate applies has been most encouraging. Provisional figures for England show a sixfold increase in the repairs grants paid in 1982 compared with 1981. The number of intermediate grants paid in 1982 was provisionally more than one third greater than in 1981.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the very success of the scheme is creating problems involving a backlog of applications which are unlikely to be processed, let alone the necessary building work undertaken, before the terminal date of April 1984? Will he assure the House that the terminal date will be extended, or that payment will be made in the next financial year for applications made during the current financial year?

Applicants' interests will be safeguarded as long as they apply before 31 March 1984. The application does not have to be processed by that date for the applicant to be eligible. I hope that my hon. Friend's local authority, Caradon, will consider its priorities across the board to ascertain whether there is any way of redeploying resources or streamlining the process to make faster progress with this policy, which is a tribute to our success in renovating the housing stock.

Is the Minister aware that more than 600,000 households lack or share baths and that over 700,000 lack or share inside toilets? Does he accept that he has a responsibility for the unacceptable living conditions that these people have to tolerate?

That is why the Government introduced the initiative with which I was dealing. Expenditure in 1982–83 is expected to be about £400 million, which will be twice the expenditure in 1981–82.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Haringey is refusing to accept applications from wards which returned Conservative councillors, which, prima facie, is discrimination of a rather nasty sort? Will he make an inquiry into the practice?

If that policy is being pursued in Haringey, it is inexcusable. Our policies are aimed at renovating housing stock wherever the stock happens to be. I hope that no one in the House will defend such discrimination against people for exercising their democratic rights in an election.

Does the Minister accept that one of the problems about the take-up of grants is the time that it takes some local authorities to process the applications, especially when more than one council department is involved? What steps is he taking to speed up the process?

It is the responsibility of local authorities to process the grants. I hope that the authorities recognise that the scheme is a bargain for home owners and for themselves as 95 per cent. of the cost of the grants will be returned by central Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to assist council tenants and families on council house waiting lists to buy houses in the private sector.

Such measures have been introduced already. Do-it-yourself shared ownership, which was launched on 24 January this year, enables council tenants and families on council house waiting lists, as well as other public sector tenants and first-time buyers, to select properties in the private sector for purchase on shared ownership terms within certain price limits. The Government also encourage a whole range of other low-cost home ownership initiatives, including shared ownership, homesteading, improvement for sale, building for sale and the home loan scheme.

Does the Minister recognise that the objective of wider home ownership cannot be pursued much further through the sale of council houses because those on the waiting lists will not find houses to rent and some council tenants do not want to buy the houses in which they are living? In many areas it will not be possible to pursue the policy much further without having an inadequate supply of housing for rent to meet local needs. Does he accept that the measures to which the main question refers need to be extended, as they will be cost-effective and potentially of great help to the private building industry?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the prospects for the sale of council houses. All the evidence suggests that the demand from tenants to buy their council houses is as strong as ever. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 550,000 such tenants bought council houses during the previous Parliament. I studied the Liberal party's manifesto and noted the suggestions that it put forward. As usual, it was promising to spend money without saying from where the money would come. That is a luxury in which any party can indulge when it has no hope of securing office.

Will the Minister take steps to discourage council tenants or anyone else from buying the dangerous rubbish that is produced by Barratts?

We have already said that tenants who live in properties which are possibly in a defective condition should take great care when buying their council houses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures that he introduced yesterday will go a long way to meet the wishes of the majority who want to aspire to home ownership? Is it not curious that the Liberal party should join the Labour party in voting against the most significant measure that will increase home ownership throughout the nation?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. However, there is a prospect that the Liberal party is redeeming itself for last evening. Some members of the alliance voted in favour of the Second Reading of the Housing and Building Control Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister for Housing and Construction, perhaps unwilling to shake off his earlier supergrass role, commended members of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party for voting for the Second Reading of the Housing and Building Control Bill in a Division yesterday. The Division list has not yet been printed in Hansard, hut I have it in my hands as marked by the Clerks in the Lobbies. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity that I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, will afford him to accept that his claim is entirely untrue.

That is more a point for the Minister than for me.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I paid a tribute to him which he did not deserve. According to the unpublished figures, about half the alliance voted against the Bill and the other half abstained.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to meet the chairman of the Thames water authority to discuss the flows of water along the river Thames.

My right hon. Friend has no plan to do so.

The Thames water authority says that it intends to apply for complete powers to cut to nothing the flow of water over Teddington weir. Apparently it wishes to have that power without having to obtain Government consent when there is a strike or a drought. What action does my hon. Friend intend to take to protect the environment of the river Thames, wildlife and boating interests? Will he refuse to relinquish the power of control that his Department now has?

Any proposal for a change in the powers to which my hon. Friend has referred will be subject to existing procedures. If there were objections, these would include a public inquiry. That would be the position if the proposal involved a general power or a certain variation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the River Thames Society, of which I am president, wholeheartedly supports my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)? We are strongly opposed to the Thames water authority being given additional powers to abstract water from the Thames, which serves a wide area. Cannot the authority be encouraged to invest in further reservoir capacity, which it should have done a long time ago?

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment at this stage on the merits of the case as there is the possibility of such a proposal coming before a public inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of public sector housing starts in inner London in 1978–79; and what is the expected figure for 1983–84.

During 1978–79, 6,500 public sector dwellings were reported as started in inner London. My Department has made no estimate for 1983–84.

Is not the truth that there was a disastrous fall in housing starts in inner London in the public sector as well as in the private sector over the years of the previous Conservative Government, which means that there is no hope of decent housing for the thousands of families with young children who are badly housed or living in tower blocks? Is it not right that the Government have no policy to meet the housing needs of the disadvantaged in inner London?

No, that is not so. Starts in the private sector in London in 1982 were the highest for nine years. Public and private starts in Wandsworth, for the last year for which we have figures, were up nearly 100 per cent. over 1978–79.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, when considering the proposed legislation to abolish the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties, if he will endeavour to ensure that as many of the functions as are currently undertaken by them will either be abandoned or returned to the lowest level of local authority and not be given to appointed bodies.

Yes, Sir. Our aim will be to transfer as many continuing functions as possible to the borough or district councils. One or two functions will be administered by joint boards of borough or district councillors.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the most important factors in carrying out the manifesto pledge is the reduction of rates for people who live in these areas? If so, is it not exceedingly important that this legislation be brought forward at the earliest possible moment?

Half the overspend is due to overspending by the GLC and ILEA. We intend to retain inner London education as a single entity, but it will be more accountable to the councillors of the inner London boroughs who will form the education board.

During the last Parliament much was heard from Conservatives about the need to reduce the number of quangos. If the Secretary of State intends to abolish the metropolitan authorities, how does he intend to deal with services which must cover a large area, such as transport and fire services, without creating more quangos?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the joint police authority formed by Tyne and Wear and Northumberland, which is a joint board of the two authorities. That is by no stretch of the imagination a quango. We envisage that that type of joint board will be necessary to administer the fire and police services outside London and the Inner London education authority, which would consist of councillors nominated by the district councils. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called a quango.

When my right hon. Friend is considering legislation to abolish the GLC, will he consider abolishing the discretionary power to spend the equivalent of a 2p rate which is leading to massive abuse and the making of grants to weird and outlandish organisations which are not approved of by London ratepayers? Will he examine the possibility of replacing that provision with the power to spend a 1/2p rate, or something much lower than the large amount currently being doled out to these extraordinary organisations?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government regard that provision as unsatisfactory. Last year we proposed legislation to replace it with something more rational, but the legislature felt unable to accept it. It is a problem that we must tackle. The abuses by some councils are quite unacceptable.

As the Conservatives now desire to destroy the metropolitan councils, which were their own creation just over 10 years ago, merely because they are Labour-controlled authorities, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he intends police authorities to operate? Will he abolish them? Will he reinstate the old borough type police forces? If he creates joint bodies, will they not be appointed bodies of the type to which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) objects?

The general principle is that as many functions as possible should be devolved to the district and borough councils. That principle has a large number of Labour as well as Conservative supporters.

Does the Secretary of Slate accept that the creation of the county councils was one of the most unmitigated disasters of the 1970–74 Conservative Government? The majority of Merseyside people would welcome the abolition of their county council, but how much will it cost to wind up the county councils and will it be in time to prevent the next round of county council and GLC elections from taking place?

As I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech, there will be a White Paper this Session and a Bill next Session, and the changeover will take place on 1 April 1986. We shall have to take some steps in the meantime if we decide that the next round of elections should not be held. Experience suggests that these authorities are an unnecessary and extravagant tier of local government. We wish to make local government more local wherever possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with existing provisions and their operation for the control of tipping, especially in green belt areas.

We believe that improvements may be possible in some aspects of present controls and we are reviewing the relevant legislation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the welcome increase in economic activity of all kinds has led to an unfortunate and resented increase in nuisance from tipping, which no level of authority appears willing or able to control?

Particular problems derive from the exemption of the general development order in respect of tipping, allegedly for agricultural purposes, in green belt areas. We wish to examine that. Several other improvements are under review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to review his policy towards the inner cities; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of funds available for urban aid programme.

As I told the House on 23 June, the Government will maintain the strong commitment to the inner cities developed over the last four years. This is demonstrated by the doubling of urban programme resources in that period to £348 million in the current year. We shall continue to give priority to the areas most in need and use public money to attract private sector investment and support self-help.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Prime Minister's comment yesterday about Merseyside —that not all the problems can be solved by spending public money — applies throughout inner city policy? Does he further accept that some strains and stresses in the inner cities are not caused by an absence of resources? Does he also accept that there should be greater help for genuine voluntary effort to help the inner city areas to solve their own problems?

Not all problems are solved by throwing money at them. That is obvious wisdom. Nevertheless, when dealing with the dereliction and decay caused by many years of almost unbroken Labour administration, as is so often the case, there is no alternative but to help to prime the development with some public money. I hope that my hon. Friend will applaud the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, in developing the urban development grant, which in the inner cities is now attracting £4 of private investment for every £1 of public money.

During the current interdepartmental policy review, will my right hon. Friend seek a larger role for his Department's programmes at the expense of those of the Department of Trade and Industry, which have created serious anomalies as well as distorting competition?

I note carefully what my hon. Friend says. My Department is closely involved in that review.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, far from throwing money at local authorities, the Government's meanness in dealing with these desperate problems has helped to exacerbate a dangerous position not only in the inner cities but in some outer areas with great council estates, such as Braunstone in my constituency, where unemployment is more than 60 per cent.?

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take note of the initiatives that have been taken on some of the great council estates, such as on Merseyside, where the private sector has come to the rescue and, through a partnership arrangement with the local authority, has succeeded in transforming the estates to such an extent that people are anxious to buy their houses and flats. When the hon. Gentleman is next in Merseyside, he should visit Cantril Farm estate or Minster Court to see what can be done by way of improvements.

Looking at the special problems of inner London, does my right hon. Friend agree that the City of London and the city of Westminster between them provide 30 per cent. of the rate base and that the rate equalisation scheme bears heavily on the poor and on the commercial community? Will he undertake to review that scheme at an early opportunity?

We must consider the way in which the scheme would work in the restructuring of government in London. People on low incomes are substantially protected from high rates through the unified housing benefit and the rate rebate that goes with it. The problem of commercial rates in many inner city areas is one of acute crisis and one of the reasons behind our decision to take action on rate limitation.

As the Secretary of State has told the House how much he dislikes the 2p rate provision in section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, how can he laud to the skies the urban development grant system which depends utterly on the section 137 2p rate under the Local Government Act 1972?

The right hon. Gentleman should not distort what I said. I do not dislike the section; I dislike the way in which some irresponsible Labour authorities are using it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the finance available to St. Helens borough council for house improvement grants.

As I said to the previous hon. Member for St. Helens on 18 April, the Government have already taken steps to make additional capital resources available to cover spending on home improvement grants. Each local authority has been notified of an indicative figure for expenditure on improvement grants in 1983–84. Additional allocations will be available to any authority the expenditure of which on home improvement grants exceeds its indicative figure and the total housing capital expenditure of which exceeds its HIP allocation.

Does the Minister agree that his answer must be studied carefully as it does not seem to accord with the correspondence that he and I have had for some time? Is he aware that many hundreds of householders in St. Helens cannot obtain improvement grants because the local authority does not have enough money? Will he confirm that, at 73 per cent., the indicative figure for St. Helens is the highest of any metropolitan district, the average being 28 per cent.? Why is he treating St. Helens in such a peculiar way?

We are not treating St. Helens in a peculiar way. Substantial resources are available to St. Helens in the form of £3 million of unapplied capital receipts and the capital receipts for this year. As this is a rather rarified subject, it would be best if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman after his local authority has had time to study what I have said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce legislation to reform the rating system.

Early in the new year.

Does not what is proposed in the Queen's Speech suggest that my right hon. Friend will introduce something that merely amounts to tinkering with the present system rather than abolishing it, thus perpetuating the unfairness and anomalies of the domestic rating system? Will he assure the House that he will grasp the nettle of the domestic rating system and introduce one of the choices set out in the Green Paper?

I shall make it clear in the White Paper that we shall publish towards the end of this month that the proposals in it represent the Government's considered response to replies to the Green Paper and to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the subject. We received more than 1,000 replies from individuals and organisations in response to the Green Paper. As was confirmed by the Select Committee, no consensus for any of the possible choices that have been canvassed as a substitute for rates has emerged. For the foreseeable future we envisage the rating system, reformed as proposed in the White Paper, as providing the main source of local government finance.

In the light of the Secretary of State's reply, will he immediately reinstitute the review of rateable values that was scrapped by his predecessor in 1979? Is he aware that that action has led to extreme unfairness of treatment among inhabitants of identical properties in my constituency, to the extent that sometimes the rateable value of one house is three times that of the one next door?

The hon. Gentleman should await the publication of the White Paper.

When my right hon. Friend considers reforms, will he give attention to one of the absurdities that is highlighted in the penalties announced yesterday? Is he aware that in a rapidly growing authority such as mine there can be no increase in the rate poundage. but we still suffer a penalty because we have to meet unavoidable expenditure?

In the few weeks that I have held my present post I have been made well aware of some of the rough justice that is inherent in the target system that my predecessors felt obliged to introduce in an attempt to persuade local authorities to budget responsibly. Not least of the difficulties is that to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, concerning areas of rising population. The leader of Buckinghamshire county council spoke to me about that subject only yesterday. I have those points well in mind. To what extent I shall be able to deal with them in the imminent rate support grant is a matter to which I am giving urgent attention.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) has drawn attention to the fact that his county is penalised to the extent of £7–75 million by the supplementary rate support grant report that the right hon. Gentleman published yesterday. As the Secretary of State said earlier today that he wants local government to become more local wherever possible, how will he convince Mr. Ian McCallum, who described the proposals in the White Paper as yet another big step towards more central control?

I am working on it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are in shared-ownership housing.

About 7,500 people have bought homes on shared ownership terms over the past four years. My Department's estimates of shared ownership sales show a continuing marked increase from year to year over that period, with over half of the sales taking place during 1982–83. There will be a further contribution to shared ownership from the do-it-yourself scheme introduced in January this year. The Housing Corporation has already approved over 400 sales under the new scheme, and the initial programme was for 3,000 units.

Will my hon. Friend take time to study the relevant statistics in the Building Societies Association annual report, entitled "Housing Tenure", which was published last week? Is he aware that it shows that 80 per cent. of people in Britain, 45 per cent. of whom are council tenants, not merely want, but expect, to own their own homes in the next 10 years? Does my hon. Friend agree that provision for shared ownership in the Housing and Building Control Bill will go a long way to meet that demand? Will he ensure that that Bill receives Royal Assent with the utmost dispatch?

I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend said. I regret that the Opposition opposed the Housing and Building control Bill last night. Shared ownership provides an extra rung at the bottom of the home ownership ladder, thus enabling people to get on to it earlier.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in what respects he intends to seek the improvement of the domestic rating system.

We shall shortly be giving full details of our proposed rate reforms in a White Paper.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not acceptable for rates to remain the main source of local government revenue for the foreseeable future? Does he agree that the rating system is extremely unfair and requires much more radical reform than he appears to envisage?

My hon. Friend should await publication of the White Paper to discover the extent to which we are prepared to reform. In addition to our proposals for rate limitation, we propose to extend the availability of payment by instalments to small businesses, to impose an obligation on local authorities to consult business interests, to end rating of empty industrial property, to provide for separate notices for district and county elections and to provide for council tenants separate information on rates. Those changes will help to make the rating system, and local authorities, more accountable to ratepayers. That is what we need.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have shown scandalous disregard for two election commitments to abolish domestic rates? Will the White Paper cover Scotland, although, of course, there will have to be separate legislative proposals?

The White Paper will cover England and Wales. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that a commitment to abolish rates was not contained in the recent manifesto, nor in the one that preceded it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of total local authority spending planned for in 1983–84.

English local authorities' budgeted total revenue expenditure for 1983–84 is £20,905 million.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for industry that rates be kept to a proper level? Does he further agree with the Labour-controlled borough of Tower Hamlets that the newly established consortium of five Labour-controlled London authorities, which is operated with ratepayers' money, is illegal? Will he do something about it?

I am aware that the London borough of Tower Hamlets has obtained legal opinion to that effect. With the help of my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers, I am considering the point carefully.

Will the Secretary of State show the understanding that he seems to have for the problems of Buckinghamshire to cities such as Bradford, which face considerable difficulties in responding to Government programmes, such as the youth training scheme, as they incur additional expenditure? When he returns to his office, will he inquire about a report that was sent to his Department nine months ago by Bradford metropolitan district council, which makes radical proposals for dealing with inner city decline and combating unemployment? Will he undertake to respond quickly to that report and to meet representatives of Bradford metropolitan district council?

I pay tribute to the way in which Bradford metropolitan district council has made strenuous efforts to meet the Government's targets and to comply with the Government's policy on public expenditure. The councillors deserve every credit for what they are doing. I shall consider how swiftly we can respond 10 the approaches mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.