asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the support given to voluntary organisations by the London Docklands Development Corporation.

Yes, Sir. The LDDC has given considerable support to the work of voluntary organisations and to other projects benefiting the community. Resources available under the former docklands urban programme are tailing off as existing commitments are completed. I am, therefore, enabling the LDDC to make available additional resources for voluntary projects.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Can he be more explicit about the additional resources? Will the grants which the LDDC may be able to make be in addition to the notional 1 per cent. limit and enable the projects started at the time of the docklands joint committee to continue?

These are additional resources and grants will be available to a new limit of £750,000 each year for voluntary sector funding. In addition, the LDDC can top that up from a pool of receipts.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the LDDC does consult, and is willing to consult and meet, any tenants' organisation that represents part of the urban development corporation, as well as many local businesses and individuals? If there is obstruction to consultation and liaison, it comes from the heavy-handed and non-supportive role of the GLC in this vital area which we all wish to see regenerated in the interests of the metropolis as a whole.

My hon. Friend is right. The LDDC makes every effort to consult local opinion. I commend to hon. Members the newsletter which it publishes regularly reporting on progress. Communication is not helped by the dogmatic refusal of Southwark borough council and the GLC to have any contact whatever with the LDDC. Such a ridiculous state of affairs should be brought to an end.

I accept and endorse the Minister's criticism of Southwark borough council, but does he agree that one way of improving the LDDC's communications would be to open the meetings of its board to the public, especially when they involve matters such as the grants with which we have been dealing today?

No.

Will the Minister pay tribute to the numerous volunteers who work for the 30 or so organisations that strive to make life more tolerable in the deprived inner city areas of east London? Does he recognise the impossibility of asking local authorities, in their straitened financial circumstances, to take on that burden? Will he agree not to wash his hands of these voluntary organisations and recognise his Department's responsibility for them? Will he at least agree today to meet a deputation to discuss the problems?

I should be prepared to meet representatives of the voluntary organisations, but, as the LDDC has agreed a grant of £20,000 to the forum, I hope that such a meeting will be unnecessary. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the valuable work performed by the voluntary organisations, and that is why the LDDC funds 183 community and voluntary sector projects through a host of separate organisations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a public inquiry into the financial implications of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils.

No, Sir.

As the Secretary of State has refused to subject his proposals to objective and public scrutiny, and as his White Paper gave no cost implications of abolishing the metropolitan country councils, does he agree that the ratepayers in those areas have a right to be suspicious that their rate bills will increase as a result of his proposals? Does he also agree that for a Government to abolish a tier of local government, or to change local government in the way that he proposes, without conducting any impartial analysis of the costs involved, is unprecedented?

We are sure that savings can be made by eliminating a tier of government. I am beginning to recognise my wisdom in not seeking to pluck figures out of the air, because had I done so I might have underestimated the savings that could be achieved. When I was in the west midlands last week I heard that the Dudley council had expressed confidence that it could save 33 per cent. of staff currently engaged in the West Midlands county council on services which would be transferred to Dudley. I hope that the councils in the West Yorkshire area will do their best to emulate that example.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the financial implications of the proposed local government reform is that the ratepayers of London will no longer have to pay for the political excesses of the GLC?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The GLC's expenditure is so high that, quite apart from targets and holdback—to which it is not subjected—it has taken itself out of the rate support grant altogether under the block grant system.

Will the Secretary of State consider the social implications of abolition? Is he aware that all those on Merseyside county council, including Conservative members, are utterly opposed to its abolition? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the decision will be opposed tooth and nail by the Labour movement on Merseyside because further jobs will be lost there as a result of the county council's abolition?

The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether the result should be savings for the ratepayers or the loss of council employees' jobs. They cannot both be right.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members are being inundated with literature from the metropolitan county councils saying why they should be saved? The latest literature from the GLC announces that it is setting up a briefing point at County Hall. Should not that expense be borne by the political parties that are seeking to save the skin of those white elephants, rather than by the hard-pressed ratepayers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To add insult to injury, those ratepayers are having to pay for propaganda—particularly in London—against a proposal for which they voted in unprecedented numbers.

Given the Secretary of State's comments about the west midlands, will he have the confidence to publish more comprehensive information about the financial savings that he believes can be made so that they can be considered by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

It would not make sense to try to put a figure on the savings until the district councils have considered in detail how they will finance and staff the services for which they will become responsible, either individually or jointly. They are now considering that, and I am encouraged by the information coming forward.

Does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC run contrary to almost all local government practice among the western industrial nations that face the problems of conurbations? Does he realise that his proposals have hardly any supporters in the local government associations? The proposals will cause unnecessary dislocation of essential services. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition, the proposals will result in control over those services being removed from the democratic process? They will be overseen by rate-raising quangos—[Interruption]—which may result in half a dozen rate bills dropping on each doormat. Given the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the GLC, does he recall writing to the Herbert commission, expressing his support for the GLC and saying that there should be a progressive return to the concept of the GLC being a strategic authority?

In the course of his somewhat lengthy question the hon. Gentleman has been guilty of more inaccurate statements than I would have believed possible. He knows perfectly well that there will not be a large number of rate demands. Our policy on that is clear in the White paper on rates. As a result of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the Herbert commission pointed out to me fairly sharply that when it had reported on local government in Greater London it had at no stage used the word "strategic".

But the right hon. Gentleman did.

Yes, but the answer is that I was proved wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce legislation to implement his proposals on rate capping.

I hope to do so before Christmas.

Is it not a fact that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils are all condemning the Government because of their attitude to rate capping? I am talking about Conservative-controlled as well as Labour-controlled authorities. Are not the Government creating the conditions for overspending by reducing the rate support grant from the 66·5 per cent. of only a few years ago to the proposed figure of 52 per cent.? That will affect the very inner city areas and partnership schemes which the Government say they support. In those areas there is the highest level of poverty and unemployment and the worst housing. They are the very areas that need Government support.

We made it clear at the election and in our manifesto that we would take action to control the high rates of those local authorities that spend irresponsibly and excessively. There is no doubt that their ratepayers are very anxious to see an end to that. I am coming under pressure to take action sooner rather than later.

Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend take full account of the strong opposition expressed by most Conservatives in local government to his proposals as they have been presented to us? Will he note that elected local representatives in Conservative-controlled councils are just as concerned with the interests of ratepayers as he is?

My hon. Friend will have read the White Paper carefully and will know that the vast majority of councils that have done their best to keep their spending within the Government's guidelines have nothing whatever to fear from the selective rate capping proposals that I have put forward. Indeed, they have much to gain. I am being criticised because the autumn statement had to cut back the capital spending of local authorities on housing, and so on, because the current spending of local authorities had so far exceeded the guidelines which the House approved in the public expenditure White Paper. If we can cap the rates of the overspenders, the majority of councils can perhaps move into less turbulent waters.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the opposition that he found the other day in the Tory-controlled Warwickshire county council, when he had a private meeting?

I think that at the end of the meeting there was a much better understanding of how a council such as Warwickshire, which has budgeted responsibly over the years, would gain if we could bring under control the overspending of the few authorities which spend far in excess of targets. A council such as Warwickshire would stand to gain from that.

Can my right hon. Friend offer any hope to ratepayers in local authorities such as Humberside county council, who face the prospect of a very significant rate rise in the next financial year because of the loss of rate support grant for next year? Can my right hon. Friend offer them any hope prior to the introduction of his legislatiion?

If the councillors of Humberside county council tailor their spending to the targets that the Government have set, there is hope. The responsibility lies with them. However, the county council would be unwise to proceed with projects that could only increase the burden on its unfortunate rateapayers.

Is it not a unique achievement that the Secretary of State has united all three local government associations against his proposals? Do not his proposals mean that rate levels and local authority budgets will be dictated essentially from Whitehall? Are we not seeing the dictatorship of central Government over local government? Will that not result in more damage to services in many communities where people are already under severe strain as a result of the Government's policies?

I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he is indulging in absurd hyperbole. There is no dicatatorship in the Government taking steps to ensure that the public spending guidelines, which are approved each year by the House, are observed by local government. Commercial and domestic ratepayers in areas of high rating local authorities are worried and have been calling for the Government to take such action for their protection.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the development control policy note on amusement centres.

This development control policy note is currently under review and I hope to issue a revised version before long, which will be the subject of the customary consultation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As every decision by the city of Nottingham planning dept not to authorise the opening of an amusement arcade has been overturned by the Department's planning inspectors, in spite of local petitions, the wishes of local councillors and a forecast by local traders of the impact on shops, does he agree that the wishes of the local community should be borne in mind in the revised note?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I understand the background to the problem that has affected his constituents. That is why we are promoting the issue urgently. I hope that the consultations can be concluded early in the new year and that that will satisfy my hon. Friend's constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the conclusions in the publication by the metropolitan borough of Tameside "Tameside: the Case for Aid" a copy of which has been sent to him, he will make available new assistance for Tameside.

Tameside's case will be studied in the context of other relevant evidence and the claims of other authorities. However, I would not wish to raise hopes of further changes so soon after the last review of designations under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. Tameside has been encouraged to submit bids for support under the traditional urban programme and the derelict land reclamation programme. Its recent applications are now being considered.

How recently did a Minister from the Department of the Environment go to Tameside? Will the hon. Gentleman arrange to make a visit there soon to examine the area's many problems and explain why the people there appear to get no Government assistance, whereas neighbouring areas in Manchester and Oldham do?

That is a generous invitation, which I unhesitatingly accept.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the success of privatisation measures by local authorities.

I am satisfied that contracting out has brought benefits to authorities which have tried it. I am not satisfied that enough authorities have done so.

Is the Minister aware that, in my local authority area of Wandsworth, there is a positive avalanche of complaints about dirty streets and unemptied dustbins? Is he aware that the service is beset by industrial disputes and that even the Tory-controlled Wandsworth council has recently had to sack one of the private contractors? Is he further aware that Opposition Members will not be stilled by the practice of some contractors appointing ex-leaders of local authorities and present Tory Members of Parliament to their companies on retainers?

I am aware that the contracting out of services in that borough will save the ratepayers about £10 million over the next few years. I am also aware that one of the strengths of contracting out is that if there is unsatisfactory performance, local authorities can find a new contractor.

What is the rate per pound in Lambeth, and what is the rate per pound in Wandsworth?

I am afraid that I do not have those figures to hand, but the implication of my hon. Friend's question is clear and correct.

Does the Minister realise that, in Conservative-controlled areas all over the country, there is increasing discontent with the services that have been privatised? Despite the fact that many of those companies are major paymasters of the Tory party, will he have the courage to admit that, in many areas, privatisation has been a bad deal for the councils and an even worse one for ratepayers?

That is a foolish line of argument because it makes people wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for some of the trade unions which are paymasters of his party. There is no widespread dissatisfaction such as he mentioned. On the contrary, ratepayers have warmly welcomed the savings that have been achieved.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) implied in his question to my hon. Friend that those involved with the privatisation of local authority services and who are now Members of the House were in receipt of pay-offs from the companies that obtained the contracts. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what evidence he has to confirm that statement. If he has none, will he withdraw the statement?

Order. The hon. Member draws attention to a legitimate point. If the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) had intended to impute any dishonour to any Member of the House on either side, I am sure that he will wish to withdraw the allegation.

I thank the hon. Member for Blandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) for warning me that he would raise this point of order. I have to rely on my memory of what I said until we have the record before us. If the House will allow me, I shall clarify the position. I said that the Opposition would not be satisfied even if the contractors put on retainers the leaders of local authorities which had privatised local authority services. In saying that I was in no way intending to imply anything dishonourable. I was anticipating what the annual Members' Declaration of Interests would show when it was published. If that document had been available, I should have quoted from it. I was seeking to do no more or less than that.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the House not accept that if, as a result of privatisation, some of the bodies, such as Exclusive Cleaning and others, which are run by Tories for Tories, obtain additional contracts and are able to set other Tory Members on retainers, that would mean that they were lining their pockets? Is it not justifiable to say that in the House?

Order. All Members of the House are honourable in their dealings. Let us leave it at that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has issued any clarification of his draft circular to local authorities on green belt policy; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) in the Adjournment debate on Friday 18 November 1983. I am considering the many useful comments made on the draft circular. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am as committed as any of my predecessors to preserving a strong green belt policy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. Is he aware of the deep anxiety in my district and county about an especially vulnerable area of green belt in north Worcestershire, which is subject to attack from neighbouring authorities which are making proposals in their structure plans for development in our area? Is he further aware that there is anxiety about my hon. Friend the Minister calling in an application for development on the ground that more houses, rather than fewer, should be built in the green belt?

I have already made it abundantly clear that the draft circular is intended to strengthen, not weaken, green belt policy. I have taken careful note of the many comments made by my hon. Friend and others. I recognise their anxieties and am considering whether it would be right to issue a second draft circular so that there can be no doubt about the Government being committed to a strong green belt policy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most effective ways in which to reduce pressure on green belts is to encourage greater public and private investment in cities? Does he agree also that improving the quality of life there would reduce the pressure on people to find a better environment beyond the city limits?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Do it then.

We are doing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will visit the enormously successful London docklands development. Between 1975 and 1982, two houses were built for sale. Now, thousands of houses which are being built are being sold before they get to the footings. It is one of the most successful examples of inner-city regeneration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to visit it. Perhaps he will advise his local authority to do the same sort of thing.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the problem is not so much his underlying intentions, but the ambiguity of the original draft circular about the concept of the green belt? Will he take that into account in any redrafting? Will he accept that, when examining the pressure on housing in the south-east, his first priority should be—I think that he just said this—to look to the eastern side of Greater London, where there is room for a whole new city? Does he agree that he should look there rather than put additional pressures to develop on green belt land?

I accept my right hon. Friend's criticism. The original draft was widely misunderstood. That is why I think it might be sensible to issue a second one to make the matter abundantly clear.

How many of the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends opposed the original draft as they understood it?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, rightly, a number of my hon. Friends expressed the anxieties of their constituents because there had been some wild misrepresentations in some quarters about what we announced, and now that our intentions are clear I am sure that my hon. Friends will be enormously reassured.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are good reasons why there should be a relaxation on building in some areas? At the same time, as has been said, there are real and grave doubts about the erosion of the green belt. In the circumstances, is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement today will be welcome, and will he make it clear and explicit that there is no intention of eroding the green belt as we know it?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that specific expression of our intentions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes convening the statutory meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance in December.

My right hon. Friend hopes to arrange a meeting of the council on 14 December to announce details of the rate support grant settlement for 1984–85.

Is it not a fact that the arbitrary spending ceilings and penalties imposed by the Government on local authorities, including my local authority of South Tyneside, which has had £2 million stolen from it in rate support grant over the past three years, have driven up rates and savaged local authority services? In view of the Secretary of State for the Environment's continuous assault on local democracy, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make a statement to the House before he meets the council on 14 December so that right hon. and hon. Members will have the opportunity to question him on the cutting down of home helps, the closing of nursery schools and old people's homes and the stopping of meals on wheels?

My right hon. Friend will be putting the rate support grant settlement before the House in due course in the normal way. I reject the implications of what the hon. Gentleman said. If money has been unfairly taken by anybody, it has been taken by high-spending authorities from those that are more responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers have been acquired by the Commission of the European Communities either through the Treaty of Rome or other means over United Kingdom environmental policies.

None, Sir, by the Commission.

Is it not the case that as well as running our agricultural policy and our trade policy from Brussels, directives are now being issued on our planning policy? Given the disastrous CAP and the less than successful trade policy, will my right hon. Friend make it his business to stop any empire-building by the Brussels megalomaniacs with regard to our environmental policy?

It is now over 11 years since the Heads of Government of the EC, in the European Council agreed on the importance of a Community environmental policy, and since then the Community has adopted successive environmental action programmes, the most recent one being last February, covering the period from 1982 to 1986. It is my belief that this European policy on the environment is widely supported by many people within the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring forward proposals for the reform of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.

My right hon. Friend is considering whether action is needed and practicable, in the light of the study published recently by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is great public concern in the country about the abuse of section 137, the 2p rate, particularly in the metropolis, where funds are being given by the GLC to bodies more worthy of private than public support? Can my hon. Friend confirm that action will be taken as soon as possible by the Government to ensure that, at a time when ratepayers are so hard pressed, their funds will not be whittled away in this squandering fashion?

I agree that there are places in the country where the power has been used not in the way in which Parliament originally intended it to be used.

Name them.

I can name the Greater London council and Islington council. The difficulty is that there are many worthy schemes supported by the same powers, and the matter is difficult to sort out.

Does the Minister recognise that section 137 has been the means by which Merseyside, through the Labour-controlled Merseyside county council, has generated 6,000 jobs in small industry and co-operative enterprises? Is not one of the great concerns of people on Merseyside that the Government's proposals for the metropolitan counties, and the possible proposals for section 137, would destroy any prospects of jobs being so generated?

It is true that in various parts of the country the section 137 power has been used to support the Government's urban development grant initiative and other worthy projects. It is misuse in other places that threatens section 137.

I have noticed that many Labour-controlled authorities have advertised in Labour Weekly for recruiting officers. Will my hon. Friend consider amending section 137 as a major means of preventing Labour-controlled authorities from using it to subsidise their own party from public funds and thus make it absolutely certain that they recruit Socialists?

It is clear that if section 137 were used for party political purposes that would be open to legal challenge.

Does the Minister agree that the local authorities to which he referred were democratically elected on the basis of a manifesto which they placed before the people, and will he come clean on whether it is the Government's intention, and that of his right hon. Friend, to interfere with democratically elected members of local authorities and impose the Government's will on those authorities?

I fear that a large number of the sillier section 137 projects were not put before the electorate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all applications for home repair grants that are made to the relevant local authority by 31 March 1984 and subsequently approved will receive a 90 per cent. grant.

All repair grant applications made by 31 March 1984 will continue to be eligible for the 90 per cent. maximum rate of grant now in force. The actual rate of any grant approved is at the discretion of the local authority.

I assure the Minister that my constituents will be delighted with that reply. However, is he aware that one council in my constituency stopped taking applications in the second week of January this year, that another council has a waiting list of over 600, and that both councils say that they have no money? Is not the Minister's answer misleading my constituents into the belief that help exists when it does not?

The reason why the councils have stopped giving the grants is not because they have no money, but because they do not know what the allocations will be next year. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement about the HIP allocations shortly. When the local authorities have that information they will be able to consider how much to spend on home improvement grants next year and, I hope, to start reprocessing applications.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your assistance? How can the Minister's first reply be correct if his second reply is correct? Is he not guilty of misleading the House?

Order. Such points of order merely take up the time of the House.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the HIP allocation for 1984–85 for those local authorities that have had to suspend approving applications during the current financial year will be sufficient to cover those on the waiting lists, 2,000 in my constituency, plus those many applications that will come in between now and 31 March 1984?

We always take into account the commitments which local authorities have already entered into when deciding what the allocations will be next year. My hon. Friend has made forceful representations on behalf of his local authority and I shall try to ensure that the allocation next year not only covers the commitment but gives some leeway for the other things that local authorities want to do.

The Minister must take this matter much more seriously. A local authority such as Mansfield allocates the money in the first month of the year, and the people of Mansfield know that it is a waste of time to apply for this year's grant. Will the Minister offer some advice to local authorities?

It is because we take the matter seriously that last year £430 million was spent on improvement grants, compared with £90 million in the last year of the Labour Government.

Does my hon. Friend accept that repair and improvement grants are immense value for money and that they preserve our housing stock, which is cheaper and better than building new houses? Will he assure the House that the Government truly appreciate the value of improvement and repair grants, especially to towns and cities that were a part of the industrial revolution, not only because of the improvement to the housing stock, but because of the employment that it provides in the building and construction industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason why the amount spent on improvement grants next year should not be the same as the amount spent last year—£430 million—which was a record.

If the Department is to cut housing expenditure next year by 20 per cent., unless the Minister can confirm that all local authorities will have enough money for 90 per cent. repair and improvement grants, without cutting their new building and other programmes, he is practising a cruel hoax on tens of thousands of owner-occupiers and tens of thousands of tenants who live in premises with the minimum amenities and in the worst state of repair. Does he agree that some of the statements made by his right hon. Friend are worthy of the probity of a confidence trickster?

I strongly reject the hon. Gentleman's latter assertion. I also reject the statement that he made at the beginning of his remarks. In cash terms, the provision that we have made for housing next year is comparable to that of this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters he intends to raise at his next meeting with the Sports Council.

My hon. Friend, as a member of the Sports Council, will be aware of the number and variety of issues with which the Sports Council is involved and which I discuss at my regular meetings with the council's chairman. The agenda for my next meeting has yet to be fixed, but it may include such issues as sports sponsorship, regional boundaries, sports medicine, grant-aid for 1984–85, inner-city facilities, regional arenas, the Olympic games, appointments, and recreation management training.

Will my hon. Friend also bring to the attention of the Sports Council the excellent European initiative that he recently pioneered to handle the appalling problem of football hooliganism? Will he draw a distinction between football supporters and hooligans, who have no interest in the sport and who should be subjected to tougher sentencing by the courts?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's approval of what took place at the Rotterdam conference last week. I normally discuss such matters not with the chairman of the Sports Council, but with the Football Association and the Football League.

Will the Minister ensure that an additional item on the agenda is the preservation of the Gleneagles agreement on sporting contacts with South Africa, and will he dissuade sporting organisations from making contact with that apartheid regime?

I discuss such matters from time to time with the chairman of the Sports Council. The Government's commitment to the Commonwealth declaration was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by myself in recent weeks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some Conservative Members doubt whether there is a need for a Sports Council at all, or even the need for a Minister responsible for sport? Having said that, if I were to occupy that position, I should insist that the Sports Council ensured that it protected the British spirit of fair play when we send spectators abroad.

I am aware of the contribution that the regional council on sport and recreation makes to the many people of the west midlands, not least to the good people in my hon. Friend's constituency, who had the sense to return him here in June. I must tell him that I have duties other than being Minister with responsibility for sport.

In view of the problem with football hooligans, will the Minister encourage the Sports Council to do everything in its power to persuade people to play rugby union football instead of soccer, if only because the players of that noble game are known to get their retaliation in first, and they go for each other instead of the spectators going for each other? If we can have more people playing rugby union, perhaps eventually they will move to the even more noble game of rugby league.

There may be merit in what the hon. Gentleman says, but that route is fraught with risks and is a matter for the governing bodies.

While my hon. Friend remains as Minister with responsibility for sport, and before the Sports Council is abolished, will he discuss with the council the medical support provided for the preparation of the Olympics team, so that we do not send a team to the Olympics next year that is ill-prepared or severely injured prior to the games?

The House must understand that there is no intention to abolish that most important and august body, the Sports Council, which does much important work. I have discussed those matters in close detail with the chairman of the Sports Council and with the chairman of the British Olympics Association, but the role of the governing bodies in this is critical.

Will the Minister assure the Sports Council that the money raised by the British Olympics appeal will not be taxed? Will he also reconsider his response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans) about the importance of the Gleneagles agreement, which is being breached in spirit and in reality by teams coming to Britain and by proposals that British teams should visit South Africa?

The more that come and go the better.

The hon. Gentleman's first question is important. The chairman of the Sports Council and I discuss South Africa and a range of other important issues, which will be on the agenda of the next meeting.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I intend to raise a point of order at 3.30 pm arising from implications in the question of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs).

Order. It is a bad habit to raise points of order in the middle of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to seek to expand the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement.

The Government wish the private rented sector to fulfil its important role in meeting housing needs, particularly those of the young, the single and the mobile. I am considering how we might improve the Rent Acts, with a view to enabling the private sector to meet more effectively the demand for homes to rent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that in many inner cities the only place where the young and mobile have a genuine choice is in the private sector? Will he consider some of the informed criticism of the present assured tenancy scheme made by people such as Clive Thornton? Does he agree that if changes were implemented there would be a dramatic increase in property coming on to the private rented market?

There has been an encouraging response to our new assured tenancies scheme and we wish to build on its initial success. It is precisely because I realise that for many people there is a great opportunity in the private rented sector that I am reviewing existing legislation. Too much of the legislation that was designed to help tenants in the private sector has succeeded only in drying up the supply of the accommodation that we need.

Is the Minister aware that any change that would weaken security of tenure would be a great and damaging blow to private tenants? Is he further aware that there is considerable anxiety about the way in which the Berger group of companies treats its tenants? Will he take every possible step to investigate the serious allegations made about the Berger group, and will he report to the House as quickly as possible?

If the hon. Gentleman will put in writing the allegations that he has made on the Floor of the House, I shall investigate them fully. If he really cared about those who require accommodation, he would welcome the review that I have just announced.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another aspect of legislation that needs to be looked at, and that is giving more confidence to this sector by making sure that tenants have a legal right to know who the landlord really is—the real owner, not just the agent?

I accept the force of what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what, according to his best estimate, is the total number of all types of precast reinforced concrete council houses, other than those of Airey construction, in the United Kingdom.

It is estimated that in the United Kingdom there are about 146,900 precast reinforced concrete houses similar in design to the 24,250 houses of the Airey type. In addition, it is estimated that there are another 230,000 precast reinforced concrete dwellings, mainly flats, which have been built since 1960, almost all to designs different from those which were the subject of my hon. Friend's statement on 10 November.

I thank the Minister for giving those figures. Does he realise that a substantial number of people are living in PRC houses of a type not yet commented on by the Building Research Establishment? There are about 300 in my constituency alone. Does he realise that many of those people are suffering, in that they cannot either buy or sell their houses. Will he say when the next BRE report will be published, bearing in mind that the last one was promised in three months and took 10? If the BRE report were to identify problems similar to previous ones, will the people not so far commented on receive the same assistance as has been announced today?

When we have the BRE report we shall be able to make a judgment on the matter. If the statutory criteria of the existing scheme are met, it will be possible for the local authority to exercise its discretion to help owners of houses which were not specified by my hon. Friend in his statement but which, none the less, meet the criteria. It may help to put the matter in context if I say that there is no widespread evidence of serious defects in the non-traditional houses built after 1960.

Are people who live in seriously defective system-built slums regarded by the hon. Gentleman's Department as being in special housing need or just general housing need?

It would be a matter for the local authority, as the owner of the buildings, to decide what priority to give in transfers to people living in difficult conditions. It would also be up to the local authority to make sensible use of its housing investment programmes to put the problem right.

My hon. Friend clearly understands the great problems of people living in these houses. Will he assure us, in the case of people who live in Airey houses that are still owned by the local authority, as compared with those that have been purchased from the local authority, that proper account will be taken by the Government in allocating housing resources so that the houses can be repaired with the same element of grant as is the case with houses purchased by people who were previously council house tenants.

As my hon. Friend will know, the method of financing repairs would be different if the repairs were carried out by a local authority, as opposed to a private owner. I assure my hon. Friend that we took into account the obligations of local authorities when we calculated their housing investment programme allocations for next year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the rate of disposal by public authorities of land on the land registers.

No, Sir, I am not satisfied. While many public bodies are doing well, some are not. I intend to step up the pressure and will, where necessary, use my powers to direct a disposal.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Does he agree that many Labour-controlled authorities are, regrettably, sitting on urban land, inner-city land, which builders would like to be released to enable them to build homes for first-time buyers? Will he take urgent steps to implement the powers given to him under section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act to enable those local authorities to release the land forthwith?

I entirely accept the premise of my hon. Friend's question. When attention is drawn to a piece of land that is in the possession of the local authority it has always proved possible so far to persuade the local authority to sell, rather than to use my powers. I have made it clear, and I make it clear again today, that if there is unreasonable delay I shall not hesitate to use those powers.

Is it not true that the building industry's organisations have made it clear, both privately and publicly, that most of the land that is publicly owned and on the register is not suitable for most development, including large-scale housing development, and that one of the main reasons is that large areas of the land do not have infrastructure services? Does the Secretary of State accept that the only way to get most of the land into use is for the Government to provide more capital to local authorities, and thus get the sites serviced and possibly made available for housing and other purposes?

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that large parts of the land are not suitable for housing in large quantities. About 10,000 acres that have been identified as suitable for housing are in the possession of public authorities, and another 10,000 acres may be suitable if planning permission were available. We are concerned to ensure that that land, most of which is in inner-city areas, is made available and we are prepared to help the housing industry to acquire the land wherever possible.

Will my right hon. Friend instruct the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts to enter on the registers publicly owned land that is less than an acre in area?

At the moment the registers do not include land of less than an acre. It is a question whether the additional administration that would be involved in registering smaller areas would be commensurate with the advantage that would be given. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I have the matter in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities within the county of Lancashire will fall into penalty as a result of policies in 1982–83.

Nine out of the 14 district authorities within the county of Lancashire overspent their effective targets in 1982–83 and therefore incurred grant holdback. Eight are budgeting to spend above their expenditure targets for 1983–84 and are, therefore, subject to grant holdback this year.

Does my hon. Friend not think it extraordinary that the borough of South Ribble, which is the lowest-rated authority in the county of Lancashire, and which has done everything required of it by his Department, should now be penalised? It feels extremely aggrieved at that prospect. Would my hon. Friend be prepared to accept, or to advise his right hon. Friend to accept, a delegation from that council so that it can put its point of view to him?

South Ribble's provisional target for 1984–85 is almost 15 per cent. higher than its 1982–83 budget. However one measures inflation, that is a real increase. I repeat that the need for savings from low-spending authorities derives, in part, from the inability so far to control the high spenders. That is why we need the powers that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier. I think I have explained to my hon. Friend that we are now too near the rate support grant settlement to be expected to receive further delegations.

Surely the Minister realises that authorities are overspending because of Government policy? When will the Government learn the lesson? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to laugh, but it is not a joke. It is a serious matter. When will the Government and the Department realise that local authorities are required to provide services that were promised at the election, but that the Government's policies are preventing them from doing so?

The Government were re-elected with a greatly increased majority on a ticket which said that they would control public expenditure. A number of local authorities have followed a policy that has flown in the face of that re-endorsed mandate.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that in the efforts—which all Conservative Members support—to control grossly spendthrift councils he does not accidentally penalise those councils that have been prudent over the years?

As I have said before, part of the reason why it is still necessary to ask so much from the lower spenders is that we still face the problem of the high spenders breaking through. That is why my right hon. Friend needs the powers that he will seek in the House.

Do not the examples of the South Ribble council and all the other Lancashire councils show just how capricious and arbitrary is the Government's system of rate limitation? Does it not show that the real reason why rates have risen in Lancashire and elsewhere is not alleged overspending but the £2,000 million that the Government have imposed on the ratepayers of the country—expenditure which was paid for by central taxation? Will the Minister admit that, despite that additional burden, rates have risen far less than taxes, local government expenditure has risen less rapidly than central Government expenditure, and that even alleged high-spending authorities have seen their expenditure rise more slowly—for example the GLC's has risen by only 88 per cent.—than that of central Government, which has risen by 101 per cent.? Will the Minister admit that central Government are the overspenders?

The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the point. Central Government cut the percentage of aggregate grant because they wanted local authorities to cut spending. Rates have increased because local authorities have not responded and cut expenditure, which is why my right hon. Friend has to seek further powers.