asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new housing starts there have been in the London borough of Waltham Forest in each of the past four years.

The figures, which are published in "Local Housing Statistics". are: 464 in 1979, 219 in 1980, 261 in 1981 and 256 in 1982. However, in the first half of 1983 there were 241 starts, almost as many as in the whole of each of the two previous years.

Is the Minister aware that those are rather paltry figures for a greater London borough with a considerable population? Is he further aware that they offer no hope to those of my constituents who are extremely inadequately housed, particularly in conditions of overcrowding and dampness? Do my constituents really have to wait another three or four years until we have a Government who would give their housing needs top priority?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a broader view of the housing need in his constituency and accept that many local authorities, particularly in London, are switching resources from new build into the modernisation and improvement of existing stock, into the modernisation of council estates, and into bringing vacant properties back into use. If he takes that broader view, I hope he will find that his constituents have a more encouraging picture than the one that he has just painted.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the London borough of Walthan Forest council owns houses in my constituency of Billericay. I believe that discussions are taking place between Waltham Forest and Basildon about the transfer of those houses to Basildon. Does my hon. Friend envisage any difficulties over that transfer?

If the local authorities do not agree on the voluntary transfer my right hon. Friend has a role to play towards the end of the negotiations, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice his decision by commenting at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the main benefits to ratepayers from his proposals for further reorganisation of local government.

Abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will, by removing a tier of local government, produce savings from which ratepayers in these areas will benefit.

How did the Government make these proposals without havig a cost-benefit analysis made? Is it not true that if these ludicrous proposals go through ratepayers will be left with a hefty bill, diminishing services and loss of democratic control over those services? When the Secretary of State is in Bradford a week on Friday, will he take the opportunity to announce that he is scrapping these proposals and switching the £160 million or so that they will cost to places such as Bradford in order to avoid cuts in education and the National Health Service and to avoid the closure of hospitals such as Thornton View hospital in that city?

I have not heard so much rubbish for a long time. By removing an entire tier of local government, which experience has shown to be unnecessary, it seems to me inevitable that substantial savings will be made. The hon. Gentleman knows that the White Paper contains proposals whereby the staffing and precepts of joint boards will be watched very carefully for a transitional period of three years to make sure that there is no repeat of the empire building that went on before.

What safeguards does my right hon. Friend propose over the precepting powers of the new joint boards?

They will be subject to the system of selective rate control, for which legislation will be introduced in this Session. As I have just said, for the first three transitional years Government approval of the precepts will be required.

How can the Secretary of State justify the proposed abolition of the GLC with the consequence that London, unlike any other major capital city in this continent, and larger than at least 18 sovereign states in the world, will be left with no strategic authority for all strategic issues? What will the financial benefits be, because there is none set out in the White Paper?

The hon. Gentleman may not recollect that when the Herbert commission recommended a structure for local government in London over 20 years ago the word "strategic" did not appear in its report. During the 1960s and 1970s some of us sought to see whether it was possible to define a strategic issue. In fact, none cannot equally be performed by other more economical means. That is why we have come to the conclusion that the search by the GLC and the metropolitan counties for some type of strategic role has demonstrated that they have no such role.

As it appears that there are considerable controversies about cost savings, if any, as a result of the proposals, will my right hon. Friend appoint a prominent firm of chartered accountants to assess the conflicting claims?

Savings will depend upon the precise way in which the services are devolved to the boroughs and districts and on the decisions by the boroughs and districts and the joint boards on how they will carry out the functions. It is not possible at this stage to do other than make assumptions which may or may not be justified. I am confident that there is substantial scope for savings and we intend to ensure that they are brought about.

Is the Minister aware of the statement by his predecessor in May, just before the general election, that there would be a saving of 9,000 jobs and £150 million through the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils? Is the Minister saying that that is no longer a fact?

I have repeated the figures on a number of occasions since the election. They represent a broad estimate and could be substantially higher. More than half the total local government overspend this year is attributable to the upper tier councils, including the GLC and ILEA. The total amount of overspend involved there is about £415 million. The hon. Gentleman can see from that that there is plenty of scope for saving.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the joint boards will be manned entirely by democratically elected councillors and that they will not become Government-appointed quangos?

It is now clear that all that we have read in the local government and other presses about how we plan to go for a whole bunch of quangos is nonsense. The only exception to the joint boards consisting of local councillors nominated by elected councils is the provision for the continued presence of magistrates on police boards.

The Secretary of State has said that he wants to cut out an unnecessary tier of government and empire building and that these proposals will produce savings. Will he quantify precisely the savings from the abolition of seven elected local authorities and their replacement by one London planning commission; five new police joint boards; seven new fire joint boards; one London transport authority; six new transport joint boards; one staff commission; seven bodies to hold and dispose of property; a statutory body for the management of debt, residual superannuation matters and residual legal liabilities in London; consortia for central purchasing in London; seven administering bodies for external debt; seven administering bodies for staff superannuation; seven administering bodies for legal rights and liabilities; seven statutory joint arrangements for waste disposal and a 48-member ILEA being replaced by a 50-member ILEA?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has obviously devoted attention to the White Paper. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has left out of account the disappearance of an entire tier of elected councillors and all the overhead administration that goes with that. It is nonsense to imagine that because some of the services will be run by the districts and boroughs jointly—although most will be devolved upon the districts and boroughs, which are anxious to receive the powers, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his Manchester experience—this cannot be achieved without substantial economies. We shall monitor the overheads necessary to staff the joint boards and ensure that the savings are achieved. I assure the right hon. Gentleman of that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any forecast of the change in the total number of employees in local government service in England and Wales between the 1979–80 and the 1983–84 financial years.

We do not attempt to forecast these figures, but I can tell the hon. Member that between June 1979 and June 1983 local authority manpower fell by 111,000 compared with an increase in Labour's last four years of 48,000.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the job losses, far from increasing the efficiency of local government services, have led to a cut in the quality and quantity of those services? Does he accept that local authorities have a critical role to play in the inner city areas and should be breaking the cycle of decline instead of being prevented from doing so by the Government's actions?

There is no correlation between the numbers of people employed and the quality of services provided. Some of the best services are provided by authorities which manage with the fewest people. One has only to recognise the quality of education provided by ILEA, which employs about 50 per cent. more staff per pupil than any other local authority, to see what I mean. I do not accept the correlation. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the substantial contribution which the Government are making in the inner cities through the programme and partnership authorities and through other designated districts to provide the support for inner city regeneration, which the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends wish to see.

Is it not vital for local authority manpower to be used in the most efficient way? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, through legislation, other Departments often put on local authorities fresh statutory obligations which are not sufficiently taken into account in the rate support grant settlement?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. The local authority associations make the same point to us. The additional staffing required for any of the new duties placed upon local authorities is minute compared with the total volume of local authority staffing and expenditure. Moreover, a large number of authorities have managed to continue the downward trend in manpower, as requested by the Government, while taking on board new duties, such as the statutory sick pay scheme and the unified housing benefit.

The Secretary of State seems to be boasting about the services provided by the inner cities. Is he aware of the sheer misery caused by transferring to local authorities extra duties such as providing rent subsidies? Local authorities are being compelled to take on thousands of workers because of the frustration and misery caused by the transfer of duties to the local town halls.

The hon. Gentleman does not help his case by massive exaggeration. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government are aware that in some areas the transition to the new unified housing benefit has been accompanied by some difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State are aware of the problem and are working on it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on the Government Benches need to be convinced that another reorganisation of local government will not mean more bureaucrats, or the same number of bureaucrats doing the same jobs for more pay, but under different names?

My hon. Friend should recognise that the monitoring and controls which we shall ask the House to accept when we introduce legislation go further than anything that has been done in any previous reorganization of local government. Ratepayers will expect nothing else in the light of experience. We are determined to ensure that my hon. Friend's anxieties are not justified.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the White Paper on rating reform.

I have received a large number of representations, which express a wide variety of opinions.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he share my view that although there will be an obligation to consult representatives of business and commerce before fixing the rate level, as suggested in the White Paper in paragraph 5.15, many Labour-controlled local authorities will continue to ignore those representations, as they have done in the past, without regard to the implications of so fixing the rate level?

There is a limit to how far we can go through legislation, but a great many local authorities now have satisfactory arrangements for consulting business opinion and find it a valuable help when they come to fix their budgets and rates. We intend to make it a statutory obligation to consult, and provisions to that effect will be brought forward in legislation which I shall present to the House at around the turn of the year.

In view of the considerable support for the principle of a local income tax as a fair and more effective way of paying for local services, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the coming computerisation of the Inland Revenue will not be carried out in such a way as to make the introduction of a local income tax impossible?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are three main drawbacks to the use of a local income tax for local revenue. The Government are committed to reducing the tax on incomes, but that proposal would only have the effect of increasing it. A local income tax would massively increase, even with the help of computers, the staffing required in the Inland Revenue. The option favoured by most supporters of a local income tax would mean deduction of the tax at source by the Inland Revenue and therefore there would be a thin nexus between the payment of tax by the taxpayer and the service that he gets from his local authority.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that until local authorities raise locally what they spend and spend no more than they raise this will always be a cliff-hanging operation?

My hon. Friend will know that my predecessors have successively reduced the proportion of local expenditure that is met by the rate support grant. That has been widely welcomed by many local authorities as increasing local accountability — [Interruption.] I am quoting what was said to me by the chairman of the Association of County Councils. The proposals which I shall discuss with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance tomorrow provide for a small further reduction in the proportion met by the rate support grant.

The Secretary of State said that he had received a wide variety of opinions about his White Paper. Which does he regard as the more accurate description of it:

"this misconceived piece of legislation",

"totally unacceptable … a major constitutional change which would be a fundamental breach of local democracy and accountability and be wholly unworkable in practice",

I agree with the proposition that

"Because of their responsibilities for the management of the economy, Central Government must concern themselves with total local government expenditure and taxation."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to many Conservative Members, local government taxation based on property valuation is wholly unacceptable, and therefore it is unacceptable to increase the proportion of local government expenditure that is based on an unacceptable system?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties in this regard, but no Government have searched harder for an acceptable alternative to rates. As I said at a distinguished gathering in Blackpool a couple of weeks ago — it was a view that was accepted by the overwhelming majority of those present — we were unable to find a more satisfactory alternative to rates. It remains the least unsatisfactory local tax.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Building Research Establishment's report on timber frame housing to be published.

The report was published on 7 September.

I thank the Minister for publishing the report, but does he agree that it does not give timber frame housing a clean bill of health, even though some building contractors have seized upon it to try to justify the use of timber frame housing construction? Is the Minister aware that the report says that 24 further points need full investigation, which the Building Research Establishment is asking the Minister for funds to enable that to be done? Will he provide those funds? Does he agree with the statement in the report that it is too soon after the introduction of this highly insulated system of timber frame building for judgments to be made on the use of timber frame housing? Will he take action to assuage the fears of people now buying houses built with the timber frame system?

The report refutes most convincingly some of the wild allegations made by the hon. Gentleman when he sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House on 28 June under Standing Order No. 10. The report found that timber frame housing was performing satisfactorily and that there was no evidence that there were more problems or greater risks of defects due to deficiencies in design or workmanship than in traditionally constructed houses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many owners of timber frame homes have no worries at all about their structural soundness, but are nonetheless concerned that their market value may decline as a result of recent publicity? Will he therefore take every opportunity to emphasise that the timber frame method of housing construction in the vast majority of cases is a safe, sound and economical method of construction?

That was the conclusion of the Building Research Establishment's report. It is fair to point out to the House and to those who own timber frame houses that the system of construction has been in use for many years in the United States, and notably in those parts of the United States where climatic conditions are similar to our own.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to tackle the problem of homelessness.

Statutory responsibility for assisting the homeless rests with local authorities, which decide their priorities within the resources, including capital receipts, available for their housing investment programmes. Homelessness is a factor used by my right hon. Friend in determining housing investment programme allocations. Its weighting was increased for the current financial year.

When the Minister has finished washing his hands of the problems of the homeless in this country, will he consider providing some extra money to help them with their problems? In particular, when he is determining HIP allocations, will he consider increasing loan sanctions to local authorities with particular needs in this respect?

I think that the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary before he heard my answer. The Government are well aware of the special problems of the homeless. That is why we have taken the measures that I announced in my answer.

When will the Minister recognise that allowing local authorities to build only a few council dwellings increases homelessness? Are the Government not ashamed of the fact that for two to three years the amount of council house building has remained at the same level as in the 1920s? When will the Minister accept responsibility for the tens of thousands of people who are unable to resolve their housing problems for the reasons that I have stated?

I am happy to report that housing starts in the public sector this year are significantly higher than they were in the comparable period last year.

I welcome the Minister's announcement that the total amount of money available for homelessness is to be increased in the present financial year, but will he give some indication of whether next year's public expenditure cuts are likely to have any impact on that programme? Will he look again at the general needs index, which is used in determining the funds available to housing associations, because some voluntary groups, which do magnificent work in this sphere, fear that much of their money is being siphoned off into other parts of the country where the problems are perhaps not so great as in their own?

The general needs index is reviewed each year, and this is the time of year when that is done. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible about expenditure next year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to restrict the power of local authorities to give grants to pressure groups.

I am aware of the concern about the grants that some local authorities are making and have the matter under review.

As a local councillor, I am as jealous as the next to maintain local power of decision, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that local government, indeed local democracy, is ill-served by the use — or, rather, the misuse — of public funds for overtly party political purposes? Does he agree, for example, that the payment of rent and rates for party political groupings, or grants to "Women"—even "Babies Against the Bomb"—is not a proper function of local government and in some way should be discouraged and deplored?

My hon. Friend has put clearly the dilemma we face, because there is great value in many of the payments that are made from the free 2p. Under section 137, many valuable voluntary bodies are supported and payments go to the support of industry and the urban programme. The problem is the misuse of that power by some authorities for purposes which were never remotely within the contemplation of Parliament when the power was put on the statute book, and that is why I am reviewing the matter. As for party political bodies, if it is an overtly party political body it is clear to me that that would be outwith the scope of the section. The problem is that some activities are carried on under other banners that have a strong party political flavour, and that can be a very difficult matter.

Will my right hon. Friend encourage local authorities to give grants to groups that are concerned with the prevention of urban sprawl, that want to encourage the halt of green field site expansion and that wish to see some of the statutory undertakers sell some of the 75,000 acres of land that they are not using? Does he agree that this is an important task, even if it may conflict with some local planning officials views?

We give a good deal of support in one way or another to voluntary bodies that are concerned with the conservation of the countryside and the preservation of wildlife and so on. I am currently reviewing the way in which we marshall the amount of support we give under various statutory powers, and I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. He will recognise the value of the register of sites, which my predecessor set up, in bringing on to the market, and making available for builders, the large number of sites that are in public ownership and that public authorities of all sorts are now being obliged to disgorge. I intend to continue that policy and, if necessary, will be prepared to use my powers under the Act to make sure that the land is brought on to the market.

Even if the Secretary of State does not like certain pressure groups which may receive support from local authorities, would it not be better if he left the judgment about making such grants to these pressure groups to the good sense of the electorate, rather than seek to interfere into yet another area of local government activity?

That is clearly a point of view that will be borne in mind in the course of the review. There is no doubt that there has been some abuse of section 137 which has caused widespread concern and dismay, but people are not satisfied that this is the sort of issue on which an entire local election would turn.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those bodies he has met during the summer adjournment regarding conservation and environmental protection matters.

During the recess my right hon. Friend and his colleagues met a wide range of bodies with interests in conservation and environmental protection. I will, with permission, publish the full list in the Official Report.

I am grateful for that reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the mounting concern in areas such as Cumbria and southern Scotland about the increasing level of acidity in the natural rainfall in those areas? Does he agree that there is an urgent need to consult scientific and other groups concerned with this important subject? Does he further agree that the Government should take urgent steps to increase research to study and monitor this problem?

I am grateful for the responsible way in which the hon. Gentleman put the question, because research is what is needed first. We are increasing the resources for research. We are full participants in the United Nations convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. Britain is the only country in Europe which in every decade since 1940 has quite dramatically decreased the amount of sulphur dioxide put into the atmosphere. Some progress has been made, but much more needs to be done.

Is the Minister aware that the Nature Conservancy Council much appreciated his visit to its meeting in September, was delighted to hear of his personal interest in conservation and wildlife and knows that he will work closely with the council in the future? Is he further aware that the October meeting of the council was held in Scotland and that the council is giving careful and detailed consideration to the problems of acid rain?

I greatly enjoyed my first visit to the NCC and I look forward to enjoying many more. I knew that the subject was coming up at the meeting in Scotland. All the different bodies involved — scientific, nature conservation and the scientists in my Departments—will be increasing their effort and concentration on this subject.

May I refer the Under-Secretary to a statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State concerning the people of Cleveland? He spoke of conservation and environmental protection matters. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Cleveland will look with great interest at the list of bodies that were consulted this summer, in particular to see whether consultation took place with the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive? They will be asking whether the environmental protection of Cleveland will be taken into consideration when considering placing nuclear waste in the bowels of the earth at Cleveland. I refer the Minister—

"No."

Order. The hon. Member should not refer the Minister to anything. He should ask him a question.

When the Minister looks into the environmental protection of the Cleveland area, will he take into account the national interest and will he look elsewhere for a site for the placement of nuclear waste?

The question is ranging rather widely. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that there would be the full inquiry process—probably of two public inquiries—and he has placed in the Library of the House a consultative document dealing with the broad national criteria that will be necessary for any licensing of nuclear disposal sites. The interests of the inhabitants of Cleveland, not only on environmental aspects but on many others, must and will be dealt with at those inquiries.

Does my hon. Friend accept that most conservation bodies are deeply worried by the present system for the cost benefit analysis of drainage schemes? As these analyses are kept secret, the conservation bodies have no means of judging them and there are grave doubts whether the correct factors are taken into account. For the benefit of conservation, will my hon. Friend work with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see that there is an improvement?

I shall consult my colleagues in that Ministry and return to my hon. Friend on the subject.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the organisations that met Ministers during the recess was the Council for National Parks, which wished to discuss with them the report of the Brotherton committee, which had said that on national park bodies and similar organisations the interests of environment, conservation and recreation were under-represented compared with those of agriculture and land-owning? What response does the Minister intend to make to that representation?

I met the Council for National Parks and discussed with it the Brotherton report, which criticised the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member for appointing retired Labour politicians, and criticised us for appointing, in its view, too many agriculturists. We had a full-ranging discussion of the matter, but it must be remembered that there has not been one appointment that the Countryside Commission has not approved under either Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to propose any changes to the metropolitan green belt areas.

In the recent draft circular about green belts it is expressly reaffirmed that the essential characteristic of green belts is that their permanence and their protection should be long term. I stand firmly by that statement.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement. Does he accept that there has been great consternation as a result of the draft circular that he issued during the summer? Does he agree that the best way forward would be to ask any authority, if it feels that it has land in the green belts that is suitable for development, publicly to declare sites that can be developed so that the merits of every site may be examined? Does he accept that the final circular should be confined to extolling the success of our green belt policies and reminding the public of the need for eternal vigilance in protecting them?

I shall want carefully to examine my hon. Friend's proposal. I hope that my statement is absolutely clear. I am as committed as any of my predecessors to preserving a strong and clear green belt policy. The Government have extended the approved green belt in the metropolitan area, especially in Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire, and in other areas such as Merseyside, Hampshire, Tyne and Wear and Nottingham. The extent of the London green belt has been increased by about 45 per cent. since 1979 and now measures about 1·2 million acres. As The Times clearly stated in response to the draft circular:

"There is a case for revision of green belt boundaries; considerable tracts of the land are neither green (used for agriculture or accessible open space) nor much of a worthwhile girdle."

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than encroach further on the green belt, it would make more sense to provide more money for derelict land clearance, especially in areas such as the west midlands?

We have substantially increased the amount of money that is available for derelict land clearance and I hope that that programme will continue. It is essential that it should do so if it is to bring into reuse some of the land that has been left derelict by former industrial and other enterprises. However, it would be unreal to imagine that all our housing and development needs for the foreseeable future could be met in that way alone. The problem is to balance the needs of future development with the Government's clear desire to preserve a strong, firm, clear and permanent green belt policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern and worry that the draft circular has created within Hertfordshire, especially in my constituency of Hertfordshire, South-West? What value and what weight is now to be attached to the county structure plans dealing with housing?

Where detailed boundaries have already been drawn up in local plans following a county structure plan, there is no suggestion that the boundaries should be redrawn. The circular is directing attention to instances where broad green belt areas have been designated in county structure plans and where the local plans have still to be drawn. That will be a relatively small matter, but it recommended that when drawing up these plans the local planning authorities should have regard to the essential needs of future development. If that is not done, I have to tell my hon. Friend that one will be driven eventually to breaking the green belt boundaries, which is the last thing that anyone wants to see happen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that green belt land does not have to be intensively farmed to secure his approval? Will he also make it clear that if the green belt in the metropolitan counties is diminished, the chances of development within the conurbations, which may be more desirable, will be considerably lessened, which will not be in anyone's interests?

Much of the misunderstanding is on the part of those who have not read the relevant paragraphs in the circular, and that can be said of some of the press comments. I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and there is no suggestion that the draft circular, which remains a draft, is proposing anything other than the most modest changes to meet particular difficulties that have arisen. We want to make sense of green belt policy so that it can be permanent, or at least long term. The policy is an essential part of the structure of our planning system and I am still considering many of the representations that I have received.

It can perhaps be accepted that the draft circular in itself is modest, but it becomes most worrying when read alongside the draft circular on housing land release. Does the Minister appreciate how benefits have accrued to the nation in both rural and urban areas as a result of green belt policies that have been created and implemented by successive Governments since the war? Does he understand that there are many on both sides of the House who feel that there are some things that are more important than mere speculators' profits? Will he now withdraw the draft circular?

That which the hon. Gentleman refers to as speculators' profits could well represent houses for those who want to have a home of their own. It does not help the argument to indulge in smears of that sort. There is a problem, but I have repeated firmly and clearly the Government's firm commitment to a long-term green belt policy. As I have said, the London green belt has been enlarged by about 45 per cent. over the past four years. That should be a token of the Government's concern. I shall take account of the anxieties that have been expressed on both sides of the House before I decide how further to proceed with the circular.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the lastest cost estimates for the construction of the runway and the associated housing for air facilities in the Falkland Islands.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 27 June. Our latest estimate of the value of the work on the airfield and associated RAF facilities is £190 million.

Is the Minister not aware, from his visit to the Falklands in the congenial company of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) in 1978, that the geology is very difficult? Is he coy about giving the House the figure of £370 million?

I recall the visit that I made in the company of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). I am not in the least coy about giving the facts to the hon. Gentleman. The figure today is the same as the figure that was given by my right hon. Friend before the summer recess. It is £190 million.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will recompense tenants in local authority-owned houses built by the Bison group of companies for problems of dampness from which they suffer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will order a public inquiry into Bison timber frame and other system building.

Claims on account of dampness are not a matter for my right hon. Friend, but for tenants to take up with their local authority landlords. While my right hon. Friend has no plans to order a public inquiry into any type of system-built housing, we have asked local authorities to satisfy themselves, if they have not already done so, that Bison wall frame houses and flats do not present a safety risk.

Does the Minister accept that it is wrong that local authorities should shoulder the burden of repairing houses that suffer from inherent structural defects when local government has often used these types of houses at the behest of central Government?

If the authorities are in subsidy, they will receive help in remedying the defects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If they are not in subsidy, it would be wrong to take away resources from authorities that may be less well off to tackle the defects that have been described. If an authority is not in subsidy, it is because the Government take the view that there are adequate resources within the authority to enable it to pay for the remedying of the defects.

Does the Minister accept that there is an overwhelming demand for a public inquiry, and that to deny that inquiry to taxpayers, ratepayers and tenants generally, who have had to live in this appalling housing, would once again be an example of the Government's willingness to abdicate their responsibilities to the British people?

We have no plans to launch a public inquiry into a system that was discontinued many years ago. More important is the need to ascertain what is wrong with the buildings and to take steps to put right the defects. That is what we have encouraged local authorities to do. We hope to be able to offer some assistance with some help from the Building Research Establishment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent "World in Action" programme on the subject offered a complete travesty of the facts, and that, following that programme, Salford council extracted an apology from "World in Action" on behalf of its tenants, in whom unjustified fears had been aroused? Is it not true that there has been no successful legal action against Bison? In that case, is not compensation or a public inquiry unjustified?

My hon. Friend is right. If the local authority felt that it should take legal action against Bison, it would be free to pursue it in the courts. My hon. Friend is right. That has not yet been done.

Is the Minister aware that tenants who have bought timber frame houses under Government legislation are now facing huge bills for repairs? Therefore, will he permit the local authorities to give them grant-aid to carry out the necessary work?

We have announced an inquiry into some types of buildings built by local authorities and then purchased by tenants, mainly using pre-cast reinforced concrete. We are not aware of the substantial problem that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Perhaps he will let me have further details.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold a meeting with the chairman of the Wessex water authority to discuss capital expenditure by the authority.

I expect to meet all the chairmen of the English water authorities individually during December, when we will discuss their authorities' financial prospects for 1984–85.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that twice in recent years the river Stour has caused serious flooding in Christchurch and that many of my constituents cannot disabuse themselves of the idea that it is due to work done by the water authority to straighten out the river and so on? Is he further aware that in discussions that I have had with the water authority I have found that there is difficulty in assessing the work that can be allocated to capital resources, which is causing confusion, probably due to legislation passed in the House rather than to the water authority's shortcomings? Will my hon. Friend consider that matter?

I am aware of the problem, as my hon. Friend has been assiduous in bringing it to the attention of my predecessor and myself. The chairman of the water authority has had meetings with some of the district councils concerned to investigate and draw up plans. I shall investigate my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Minister aware that a study of the appointments that he has made to this and every other regional water authority, in which the chairman receive a salary of £24,000 and the member's salary is £9,000, shows blatant political bias? Every one of those regional water authorities is packed with Conservatives in whom we can have no confidence. Furthermore, is it not disgraceful that the first act of every one of those water authorities was deliberately to exclude the press from attendance at any of their meetings? Does not that justify the criticism that he is supplanting local democracy with "watercrats" and creating a centralised bureaucracy, to which we have every right to object?

I strongly refute the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's first point. The chairman of the north-west water authority is a Labour councillor and there are two other Labour councillors on it. There is at least one other Labour chairman. He is a distinguished chairman, appointed on his merits, and previously was a Labour councillor. Political bias has in no way entered into those appointments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he follows in designating official gipsy sites; and if he will make a statement.

The responsibility for providing official gipsy sites rests with the local authorities concerned, who have a statutory duty under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide adequate accommodation for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their area. Advice on statutory procedures, alternative forms of gipsy accommodation and practical matters affecting site provision and management is contained in DOE circular 28/77, a copy of which is in the Library.

Will my hon. Friend take powers to seek to amend legislation under which gipsy sites can be forced into overbuilt and overpopulated areas such as Northolt at a cost to public funds of £500,000 for a 15-caravan site? Will he do so bearing in mind the fact that the people coming on to those sites are mostly not honest didicois but tinkers, and are unacceptable to the local community, which they often disturb seriously?

I have no plans to amend the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It is important that the House should understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always relies on the advice on the selection of appropriate sites given by the local authorities.

Will the Minister talk to West Midlands county council about the itinerant gipsy site at Tameside drive in Castle Vale, in Birmingham, which boasts a row of pylons on one side, a pellet-making plant on another and the M6 on the third side? Does he agree that residents on that site face a health hazard?

I am unaware of the details of that site. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he will write to me more fully with details. If it is a designated site, it will have been selected by the local authority. I need more details to be able to answer more fully.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the major problem with gipsies lies not with the traditional gipsies but the so-called "new age" gipsies or the so-called "peace convoy" gipsies who have moved around the country, particularly during the summer, in ever-increasing numbers and who are apparently outwith the law?

My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is a serious problem affecting many parts of England and Wales. That is why my Department initiated a discussion paper last year. We are still looking at its recommendations. No doubt I shall receive further advice in due course.

In view of the considerable nuisance suffered regularly by many Londoners due to travellers' caravans parked on council estates and so on, when will the Minister do something effective to help councils which have more that met their obligations under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, yet still suffer from those regular problems?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. If the local authority has designated sites and provided the appropriate number of pitches in the area, the local police have powers. That is a matter for the local chief of police and the local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will take steps to encourage the provision of additional woodlands and green space in the inner city areas.

My Department already encourages the development of green space and tree planting in the inner city. The amount of resources devoted to such environmental improvements under the urban programme in partnership and programme authorities has risen from £11 million in 1980–81 to some £20 million in 1983–84.

Does the Minister agree that, compared with the expenditure of about £18,000 million a year in local government, the figures that he has quoted for improving the environment and greening it are paltry? Does he agree also that one of the best ways to avoid the pressures on the green belt, referred to earlier, and to avoid pressures to build more housing estates way out in the countryside in the outer metropolitan areas, would be to have a massive drive to green the cities and create the environment and decent surroundings in which people have their homes?

The figures may be small in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but they are double what he spent when he was a Minister in the Department. I agree that we must aim to make the inner cities more attractive for people to live and work in. I have recently approved environmental improvements under the urban programme in the London borough of Brent.

Would it not be better to halt the expansion on the urban fringe, with 60,000 acres of green field sites disappearing every year, and to fill the land on the register, of which there are currently 100,000 acres which are dormant or empty, or the 250,000 acres throughout the country which the Civic Trust says is idle?

I would not dissent from my hon. Friend's broad proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in money and in percentage in the average level of council rents since May 1979.

Average council house rents, in England and Wales, are estimated to have increased by £7·65 or 120 per cent. between April 1979 and April 1983.

Do not the figures that the Minister has given represent a shameful example of the Government's double standards, when they give money away to the rich and penalise the poor by forcing up council rents by more than twice the rate of inflation? Is the Minister aware that in many Conservative local authorities profits from council rents, which have doubled under the Government, are being used to subsidise better-off ratepayers? Does he condone that practice, or will he stamp it out?

The double standards come entirely from the Opposition, who said that their policy was to increase rents in line with earnings but refused steadfastly to do so during their period in office. The sharp increases that I have described were necessary because the Opposition ducked the difficult decisions that they should have taken. The actual increase in council rents for this year is working out at about 40p per week—about a 3 per cent. increase—which is the lowest increase in rents for 10 years.

Is it not the case that council house tenants who purchased their houses when the Government came into office are actually paying less for their mortgages than others are paying in rent?

That may well be the case, and it shows the sense of the policy to which we are both committed.