asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to co-ordinate land use, planning, passenger transport and highway provision at county level.

Adequate arrangements for coordinating land use and transport planning already exist through the structure plan process.

In view of the reports since 1972 which have suggested that co-ordination should take place at county level, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how his plan to abolish the metropolitan county councils will assist that process? Is he not aware of the danger that, if the county councils are abolished, district councils may be tempted to run their own bus services and existing countywide concessionary fare arrangements may be disrupted?

The structure plan system will continue when the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are abolished. The functions will be exercised by the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils. The work will be done within a framework of general guidance which I, as Secretary of State, will give. Questions about concessionary fares and bus services should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the co-ordination of strategic land use planning in the Greater London area is best and most relevantly administered on a regional basis? Will he confirm, for example, that the metropolitan green belt, which we all want to defend, is partly within Greater London and partly within the home counties around London?

Yes. Indeed, I had an excellent meeting on regional planning yesterday with the Standing Conference for London and South-East Regional Planning and we discussed precisely those issues. The standing conference has always had a valuable impact on coordinating the plans of neighbouring authorities in these matters. We also discussed briefly the green belt and, as my hon. Friend knows, I share his commitment to that concept.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the attempt to abolish the metropolitan county councils is a political gesture which is being made because they are Labour-controlled? Is he aware that his mixture of privatisation and quangos to replace the county councils will not save money for working people, particularly on matters such as consumer protection and trading standards? I am a member of the West Midlands county council and I know that in that county it will be impossible for seven or eight district councils to maintain the standard of service provided by the county.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to reply in due course to the provisional report of the West Midlands district councils who say that they hope to be able to save 25 or 30 per cent. of the cost of the services that will be devolved to them from the county council.

That is nonsense.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has revised his estimates of overspending by the metropolitan county councils which were published in the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities".

No.

I thank the Minister for that typically helpful reply. Has he found time this morning to read the first report of the Coopers and Lybrand independent study. which condemns the White Paper's estimates of overspending as both overstated and misleading? In the light of that damning indictment by this independent, eminent and respected firm of City management consultants, will the Government now drop their doctrinaire objection to facing the facts in relation to the metropolitan counties? Will they now co-operate with the second phase of the Coopers and Lybrand study to examine the Government's proposals for a plethora of elected boards, to see whether this really will save money?

I am afraid that the Coopers and Lybrand report is a slow ball. It is slightly comic that, after the expenditure of considerable and legitimate remuneration at the taxpayers' expense, and although the White Paper estimates the increase in the volume of overspending to be 11·5 per cent., Coopers and Lybrand, presumably after giving its clients all the benefits of the doubt, states that it is 9·5 per cent. That is almost like the mountain shaking and giving birth to a mouse.

Does my hon. Friend accept that millions of people voted for the Government so that rate-capping could be introduced and that they would regard it as a betrayal if we or another place tried to repudiate that?

My hon. Friend need have no fears that the central manifesto commitment represented by my right hon. Friend's Bill will not be carried into law.

If the Government, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary do not accept the Coopers and Lybrand report, how do they refute its charge that the Government's claims about savings as a result of abolition of the metropolitan counties are misleading? Having made these claims, why does the Secretary of State now consistently refuse to inform the House and the country about his savings estimates?

With respect, that part of the Coopers and Lybrand report has not yet been written. The part that has so far been published deals with past spending patterns, not with future savings. Those will be published in January. My right hon. Friend is not inclined to join in this sterile exercise with Coopers and Lybrand, because the assumptions behind the savings have not yet been finalised. I am reminded of the old computer addage that if garbage is put in, garbage comes out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider giving direct labour organisations the right to tender for grant work in the private housing sector.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister not accept that many cowboy firms are making a lot of money out of grant work and are doing shoddy work? If direct labour organisations were allowed to tender for such work that would produce better results for the householder and ensure good value for public money.

No. Our policy of introducing more competition will best serve the people whose houses need repair.

When considering this matter, will my hon. Friend also take into account the price of DLO annual reports? Some local authorities are charging up to £25 for such reports, which puts them well beyond the means of the ordinary ratepayer, to whom this section of the Act was supposed to apply.

I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point.

Given that a number of direct labour organisations now operating on the tender basis can return a profit and that their reports are available to ratepayers, does the Minister agree that they ought to have the opportunity to tender for work outside local government —for example, private sector housing and hospital work?

No, Sir. It is not the business of local authorities to be involved in work as general builders. I am satisfied that the present system of competition is working satisfactorily.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the direct labour organisations should concentrate on doing a good job for the local authorities before they compete with the private sector?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is what I said in my earlier answer.

If the Minister is so confident about the efficiency of private building firms, and so firm in his often-stated belief in competition, what does he have to fear if he allows the DLOs to compete in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)?

I fear for the best interests of the ratepayers, who would be likely to have to pay higher rates as a result.

Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman and his Government stopped their dogmatic and sectarian opposition to DLOs? Is he not aware that DLOs all over the country have done a good job for the local ratepayers? Is he not also aware that DLOs today are, on the whole, the only bodies creating apprentices, while at the same time we hear from certain people in the industry, in certain areas, that they cannot find enough skilled labour because the cowboys have taken over? Is it not time that the DLOs were given an opportunity to tender, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) asked?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he is not one who should talk about dogma and sectarianism.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff will be involved in servicing the proposed joint boards if the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council are abolished.

This will be for each board to decide, although the relevant Secretaries of State will have power to specify levels of manpower or of manpower expenditure in the first three financial years after abolition.

In his White Paper on the streamlining of the cities the Minister proposes to replace six metropolitan counties with between 24 and 30 joint boards, which will have power to levy their own precepts, 12 joint committees and dozens of giant complicated working arrangements? Is that how the Government intend to streamline the cities? Will not the Bill be introduced purely for political expedience?

Of course not. The true comparison is with the existing structure of local authority committees, which is more complex than what we propose. It is essential that the lower-tier authority, which will be responsible for the services, and whose members will sit on the joint boards, should seek to minimise the need for new bureaucracy on the joint boards.

Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), and as I was a member of a metropolitan county council before I came here, may I ask whether it is not the case that for many of the Socialist members of metropolitan district authorities the metropolitan counties cannot he abolished soon enough?

I have heard the same sort of comment myself.

Does the Minister agree that it is a wicked act of vindictiveness to threaten the Tyne and Wear, other metropolitan councils and the GLC, and is it not a direct attack on our democratic processes and on the will of the people? Has he had any independent assessment made of the cost of winding up the Tyne and Wear council, the other councils and the GLC? If he has not, what is his assessment of the cost of carrying out this terrible process?

Anyone would think that the position 11 years ago, when these metropolitan counties did not exist, had escaped the attention of the hon. Member. Opinions about savings are gradually being collected, and we already have the West Midlands estimate. Further savings will come in due course, depending on the results of the consultation period, and the hon. Member will no doubt be satisfied to find that the estimates on savings will, if anything, be on the higher rather than the lower side.

When we have achieved the staff reductions which will undoubtedly flow from these proposals, what plans has my Friend in mind for the magnificent building just across the river?

We have no plans as yet for that magnificent building.

As the Government have retained more management consultants than any previous Government in living memory, does the Minister not think that it is a bit saucy for him to rubbish a management consultants' report that is critical of his proposals to abolish metropolitan councils? Surely it is extraordinary that the Government should embark on the proposal without producing any feasibility study of their own.

Far from rubbishing the report, I said that the difference between its figures and ours was minimal.

Does the Minister recognise that there is all-party opposition to the proposals for the Inner London education authority? Will he confirm that Cabinet and ministerial colleagues in the Department of Education and Science are equally opposed to the proposal to take away directly elected and accountable authorities for London education and replace them with indirectly elected rate-capped authorities which have no support among those who know anything about and care for the education service in London?

The hon. Gentleman was talking nonsense in the last part of his supplementary question. We have presented the united plans of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the powers available to control tipping of domestic and industrial waste on agricultural land.

Although the provisions of the general development order should be sufficient to control indiscriminate tipping of waste on agricultural land, there have been problem cases. We are currently considering changes to the order to tighten up controls.

I welcome that assurance, but I must ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that advantage is being taken of the latitude that is given in schedule 1(6) to the general development order to tip domestic, industrial and even poisonous wastes which have no connection with agriculture, and that the welcome recovery from the recession has led to a most unwelcome resurgence in this activity?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety over a number of years on this subject. He has drawn to my attention a number of specific examples in his constituency. I am well aware of the point that he makes and I am grateful to him for doing so. I know that abuses have been taking place, and that is why we have gone out to consultation on ways of toughening the controls. We are currently considering all the comments that we have received. I hope that early in 1984 we shall be able to tighten the controls sufficiently to meet the demands of my hon. Friend.

Indiscriminate tipping causes a great deal of hardship to those who live near the areas where it takes place, and it presents a considerable safety hazard. It is often difficult to identify the material that has been dumped. It is important that the Government speedily conclude the consultation and introduce regulations to stop this obnoxious practice.

I share the hon. Gentleman's view that there is a need energetically to complete the consultation. Technically, the GDO should provide several tests, which must be satisfied, for the tipping of waste on agricultural land if that is to count as permitted development. Abuses have taken place and that is why we have gone out speedily to consultation.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the concern that is being expressed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and in my own constituency over the proposed tip ar. Ulnes Walton in the Chorley constituency which will involve the hazard of the tipping of asbestos? Many of the local residents are up in arms about the proposal. Will my hon. Friend ask the Under-Secretary' of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to answer as quickly as possible the letters that we have both written to him?

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said on behalf of his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). I shall not comment on the specific case, but I can confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Under-Secretary of State, will consider the problem.

Is the Minister aware that his consultation will have to be considerably more widespread now that it is proposed to discontinue the metropolitan councils? Does he recognise that it will be necessary to have consultations with each of the district councils which go to make up the present county councils? This is another example of the scattering of functions that will follow the abolition of the metropolitan councils.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate officials.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet representatives of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Mersey Development Corporation to discuss the position of the Mersey docks.

I have met representatives of each body since I have been at the Department and am ready to do so again—separately or together, as they may wish.

1 thank the Minister for that answer. When consulting the bodies concerned, will he use his good offices, having inherited the mantle of Minister with special responsibilities for Merseyside, to urge his Government colleagues who have direct responsibility for this matter to make sure that the application for a free port is granted to Liverpool? Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—of the great anxiety that exists that if free ports are given elsewhere and not to Liverpool all the effort which he, his predecessors and everyone else have put into making Liverpool a slimmer, trimmer and profitable port will be destroyed?

I was glad to see the last half year's results of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company showing a small profit for the first time for a number of years. I am aware that the company has put in an application for a free port and that the application was strongly supported by the development corporation. The matter is being considered by the Government.

As the first half year profits of about £3 million show that the port of Liverpool is beginning to thrive again, will the Secretary of State accept that opinion on both sides of the House very much favours the application which the port has put in for the granting of a free port to the city of Liverpool? Will he accept that there is much concern that his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the chairman of the Conservative party, has come out in favour publicly of the Felixstowe application, and that that has caused apprehension? Will he therefore use his best efforts to ensure that Liverpool's application is granted?

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The matter is being handled by the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, is entitled to promote his own constituency interests, as we all are. I am well aware of the strength of the case that has been made for Liverpool.

As the right hon. Gentleman has responsibility for Merseyside, and although I understand why he may be reluctant to make any public statements on the matter, could he perhaps give us a nod or a wink that he will at least support the application when it comes before the appropriate Cabinet Committee? As he is undoubtedly aware, the problems of Merseyside are absolutely dreadful, and the free port is essential for us.

I have taken the most careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions have taken place between himself and the president of the English Rugby Union regarding the proposed tour of South Africa.

My officials and I have had numerous discussions with the representatives of the Rugby Football Union. The president is well aware of the Government's views on the proposed tour.

I understand my hon. Friend's obligation under the Gleneagles agreement to discourage sporting contact with South Africa and his anxiety to promote sporting contacts with the Commonwealth, but will he, none the less, confirm that at the end of the day it will be the president of the English Rugby Football Union and his committee, not my hon. Friend, who will decide whether to tour South Africa? Will he promise the House that he will put no undue pressure or coercion on them?

The Rugby Football Union will decide in the spring of next year whether the proposed tour will take place. I am in no doubt that if the tour were to take place it would have damaging repercussions on the whole of Commowealth sport. While my hon. Friend is entitled to hold his own views and to state them forthrightly, he must be aware of the wider context of sport throughout the Commonwealth.

Apart from mere verbal condemnation, what exactly will the Minister do about the proposed tour next year by the English rugby team, and, indeed, the current tour of Wales by the South African youth rugby team? Is it not about time that the Government took action to impose a ban on such clear breaches of the Gleneagles agreement by the rugby authorities who, like the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), not only encourage racialism, but are acting selfishly against the interests of more international sports, particularly the 1986 Commonwealth games in Edinburgh?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to maintain a little cool on this subject. It is traditionally now only rugby which is giving rise to problems over contact in sporting links with South Africa. Strides have been made by governing bodies in this country to exclude South Africa from any sporting itinerary. I regret that the Welsh rugby authorities have decided to proceed with the proposed tour. I urge them, even at this eleventh hour, to reconsider the wider implications for sport in the Commonwealth and in Wales. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office has urged the cancellation of the tour in the strongest terms. The tour is contrary to the spirit of the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport. I cannot prophesy what I shall say to the president of the Rugby Football Union next year. The hon. Gentleman will be one of the last to know about it.

Despite the supposed susceptibilities of the Commonwealth, why does my hon. Friend try to penalise South Africa, which is, after all, friendly to the West, at the same time as he welcomes games with Eastern bloc countries, which are our enemies?

Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that just a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Delhi—

It was not discussed there.

I do not know how my hon. Friend knows, because I do not suppose that he was present throughout those discussions. But I have to tell him once again that the subject was on the agenda, and the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport was upheld by all those present.

Does the Minister agree that the most evil form of discrimination is that based on a person's skin colour and that, although people may change their religions, or even their classes, they cannot change their skin colour? Does he agree, further, that a regime based on upholding that doctrine is evil and should get no support or sustenance from any quarter? If the Minister is serious about his disapproval of this proposed trip, why does he not tell the English Rugby Football Union that he will withdraw the passports of players proposing to take part?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments had some credibility, but his final sentence was absolute nonsense. He knows that there is no statute by which Ministers can withdraw passports.

I congratulate the Minister on his stand on this issue. I assure him that he has the full support of every Opposition Member. May I ask him not to heed the extremist opinion held by some of his Back Benchers? The attitude of the English Rugby Football Union is extremely selfish. If it persists in this stupid tour it will put at risk the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1986. Although the Opposition do not approve, and would not approve, of the withdrawal of passports, I ask the Minister to use his best endeavours to persuade the Sports Council to tell the English Rugby Football Union that if it persists in this tour no money will be forthcoming from the council to the union.

That is a well understood formula for the links between the governing bodies and the Sports Council whenever a tour such as this is proposed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the Government's stand. Whether it is a happy position for a Minister to have to rely on the support of Opposition Members and not on much from his own Back Benchers, only time will tell.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much he estimates rates will rise on average in 1984 following his announcement on rate support grant for 1984–85.

I refer the hon. Member to my statement last week.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have reduced the rate support grant from 61 per cent. in 1980–81 to a proposed 51·9 per cent. next year? Does he not further agree that this reduction of 17 per cent. in Government support is worth £2,500 million? Does he not therefore accept that the Government have very considerable responsibility for the problems of local government today?

We were, of course, following the very good example of our predecessors, who equally reduced the grant from 66 per cent. to 61 per cent. in the years before we were responsible for this matter. It is widely believed on both sides of the House that it is important to make local authorities accountable to their electorates, and by reducing the proportion of their expenditure met by central Government and by the taxpayer we are doing just that.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to study the accounts of the London borough of Lewisham. which invested £100,000 of ratepayers' money in a commercial pantomime and then censored the text, claiming that it was sexist?

Is the hon. Lady in it?

The name of the evil monster has been changed from Mr. Ken Livingstone to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) In the spirit of Christmas, would my right hon. Friend care to indicate which member of the Labour Front Bench, including my fellow Liverpudlian, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), he would like to nominate for the role of the good fairy?

I commend my hon. Friend's talent as a dramatist. Sadly, however, there are many pantomimes going on among some of the loony Left councils, not least in London, and Lewisham is just one example of that. The Bill that I published yesterday will introduce some sense to those local authorities that are bringing local government into disrepute.

If the Secretary of State is so concerned about local accountability—as he continues to say—why is he afraid to rest his case and to allow local electors to decide for themselves the level of services and rates? He mentioned the impact of his proposals on certain inner city areas, where the burdens and problems are greatest. But how does he explain the position of shire counties such as Buckinghamshire, or the fact that his proposals will reduce the rate support grant for Surrey by more than £9 million? Who is he punishing there, and why?

No doubt we shall have plenty of opportunity to explore this issue during the next few months. As I think the hon. Gentleman recognises, the nexus between rates and votes has become pretty slender in those areas that are dominated by extreme Left-wing Labour councils. It is all very well for ratepayers—and many electors are exempt from paying rates—to vote for higher services when the cost has to be met by commercial ratepayers who have no votes. It is the responsibility of this House to prevent the oppression of those who are facing quite unacceptable rate increases in some parts of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the administration of the home improvement grant system by local authorities.

The success of our policies has meant that both numbers of grants and expenditure have reached record levels, and I expect historically high levels of expenditure to continue next year. I know that there have been difficulties in some areas, where there are backlogs of applications.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these grants are usually disbursed on a first-come first-served basis, with no limit on the amount that each individual householder can claim, meaning that the council often has no funds left for householders who are last in the queue because it has disbursed large sums to householders who were earlier in the queue? Is there not a case, therefore, for limiting the amount that each individual householder can claim? Is my hon. Friend also aware that local councils sometimes ask for repayment of grants from householders who have purchased houses? Surely this is not in the spirit of the law.

The application of the legislation is a matter for the discretion of local authorities. On my hon. Friend's first point, they have discretion to give a lower percentage than 90 per cent. or 75 per cent. if they wish to give the amount of money available to more people. But the individual processing of applications and the way decisions are taken is a matter for the local authority and not for my Department.

I flatly reject any accusation that local authorities have been in some way deficient in this matter. Will the Minister confirm that over the past five years, if there has been a problem in regard to the home improvement system, it has been due largely to inadequate Government support and serious Government inconsistency?

In 1978–79, £90 million was spent on home improvement grants. Last year the figure was £430 million. I totally reject the accusation that the hon. Member has made.

Does my hon. Friend share the alarm, as do many hon. Members of the House, at the inordinate length of time some local authorities take to process these applications — well in excess of 12, 15, 18 months? Does he agree that there is a case to be made here for the inspection of the properties eligible for improvement grants being put out to the private sector, thus eliminating delay?

That is a very positive suggestion and it is being followed up by a number of local authorities. I accept that there is a considerable burden of work, but many local authorities are redeploying existing staff and finding other means, such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned, of improving efficiency and cutting into the backlog.

Does the Minister not realise that under his administration home improvement grants are getting worse? There are fewer and fewer of them, with fewer people involved. It is no good Ministers shaking their heads. Do they not realise that, with their policies on home improvement grants, there will be no need for administration at local level because there will be no grant to distribute? Answer that.

Ministers were shaking their heads because we have the figure in front of us, which totally contradicts what the hon. Member has said. The figure was £90 million in 1978–79. It went up to £200 million in 1981–82, to £430 million last year, and this year it will be over £500 million.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department's publicity makes it clear to members of the public that a discretionary grant is not something to which they are entitled? It is something that they can have only if the local authority can afford the continuing cost of its 10 per cent. and the interest on the borrowed money.

My hon. Friend will be receiving today or tomorrow a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which deals with the specific point about the funding of the local authority's contribution and the publicity.

Will the Minister first give an unconditional assurance, that where a local authority has agreed to pay a 90 per cent. improvement grant provided the application is made before 31 March next year, no matter when the grant is processed, the applicant will receive 90 per cent. of the approved cost? Secondly, can he confirm that those local authorities that try to satisfy the demands of private tenants and owner-occupiers by speeding up the processing of grants will not then be penalised under the rate support grant settlement by losing rate support grant simply because they have taken on extra staff to deal with the public demand for the improvement grants that he originally encouraged?

The answer to the first point is no. Persons are eligible for grants at the higher rate, but at the discretion of the local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further proposals he intends to introduce to encourage new development to inner city areas rather than on farmland and open country on the periphery of conurbations.

The Government are vigorously pursuing policies to encourage new development in inner city areas, and a number of new initiatives such as the urban development grant have been introduced. The revised draft of the housing land circular will give greater emphasis to the need to make full use of sites available for housing within urban areas and to the preservation of good agricultural land.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a growing awareness of a relationship between green field incursion and central urban evacuation and decay? Are there not lessons to be learnt from that linkage if, as some suggest, there is a one-to-one relationship between them? Would not we be serving the best interests of the periphery and the central urban areas by taking note of that?

My lion. Friend is right, and that has been one of the major parts of our policy during the past four years. We believe in the restoration of the inner cities. If my hon. Friend were to look around some of the larger inner cities, he would find that some exciting projects are taking place. We intend to continue with that dynamism.

When the Minister considers future proposals for inner city areas, will he bear in mind the derelict sites that were once factories in the industrial desert in my constituency of Manchester, Central? Is he considering giving grants for the refurbishing or demolition of those factories?

A great many things might apply to that suggestion, and I need to look carefully at the particular cases. Since 1979 we have more than tripled the resources available for reclamation to over £75 million. The proportion spent on inner city projects, such as that touched upon by the hon. Gentleman, has risen from 7 per cent. at the end of 1979 to an average of more than 20 per cent. during the past four years. We intend to continue with that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage the rejuvination of inner cities such as London is to withdraw Government directives that force county councils such as Berkshire to build 8,000 additional houses in central Berkshire that are not wanted by the local people?

My hon. Friend advanced his cause in an Adjournment debate, to which I responded. If he wishes to see some exciting projects, I urge him to go to the east end of London and see what is happening at Beckton and the Isle of Dogs. I am sure that he will be encouraged by that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to announce his decision on the staffing of the Nature Conservancy Council in the light of the Rayner report.

Not yet, Sir.

Can the Minister confirm that the Rayner inquiry into nature conservancy found that there was an appalling lack of staff and resources to carry out the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council, and no resources to carry out the new provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? Is it not a major scandal that 80 per cent. of the sites of scientific interest that should have been registered have not been registered because of shortage of staff? Is it not high time that the Government announced a substantial increase in staff?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that the registration of SSSIs should proceed as quickly as possible. Discussions with the NCC on staffing levels continue, and will take that point into account.

1 was glad to hear my hon. Friend's reply. Under the 1981 Act, is it not vital that the programme for renotification of SSSIs is carried out speedily? Is there not also the vital task of identifying new sites that should be notified? Unless the NCC has that capacity, the goal of the 1981 Act will not be realised.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth remembering that the early stage of renotification is the slowest stage. The numbers being notified should increase quite quickly. However, I share the concern of both hon. Gentlemen about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the local authority associations.

Yesterday, Sir.

When the Minister next meets the local authority associations will he tell them that if the Government's new clause 13 of the Housing and Building Control Bill is accepted by the House this afternoon, it will mean that many younger members of families will be able to purchase local authority bungalows rented by their aged parents or grandparents at a 60 per cent. discount? Will he tell also them that within a short period, following the death of the aged person, they will be able to sell that bungalow at market value and cash in a 60 per cent. profit?

The hon. Member will have seen from the Amendment Paper that the Government propose a right of pre-emption for local authorities if a sale takes place within 21 years.

When my hon. Friend next meets the members of the local authority associations will he convey to them the amazement of the Government that the one or two sensible Opposition Members and members of the local authority associations have not realised what an important component of the economy local government over-expenditure is? Will he also tell them that if local government overspends it will have a debilitating effect on pensions, jobs and savings?

My hon. Friend is exactly right.

Has the Minister informed the local authority associations of the figure that the Government have in mind for inflation and wage settlements? If the Government have not so informed the local authorities., will the Minister now tell the House the figures?

Not formally.

What will the Minister tell the local authorities next time he meets them, in response to the concern expressed by the Association of County Councils—a Tory-dominated body—which voted 95 to 2 against the Government's proposals? Why is it necessary not only to have discussions with the association's groupings, but to brief individual Government Back Benchers to win their support at the expense of the taxpayer for the departmental computers in the Department of the Environment?

Such is the strength of the Government's case and so strong are the powers of advocacy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I expect the initial hostility of some county councils to abate as the debate proceeds.

When he meets local authority representatives will my hon. Friend discuss the working of the rate support grant settlement as it affects shire counties with high rateable values, and the maintenance of education standards in counties such as Hertfordshire?

That is an important point and it would be proper to discuss it on the next occasion that I meet representatives.

When the Minister next meets the association, will he confirm that the Secretary of State does not intend to remove the vote from the disabled and unemployed, as he implied on the Jimmy Young show this morning, when he contrasted the position of such people with business men who allegedly do not have a vote?

The allegation against my right hon. Friend is absurd and wholly without foundation.

Is the Minister aware that, as part of the Secretary of State's campaign grossly to distort and exaggerate the impact of rates upon businesses, he has briefed his Cabinet colleagues to the effect that business rates form half of industry's trading profits, although the Minister has just informed me that they form one quarter of that figure—that is, one eighth? When the Minister meets the local authority associations, will he say whether the CBI or the Minister is correct?

Any information and any papers circulated by my right hon. Friend to his Cabinet colleagues—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) let me answer? He asked me a question and I am answering it. Any information and any papers circulated by my right hon. Friend to his Cabinet colleagues or others will have contained accurate information. In so far as there may have been any discrepancy between the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred it is because one set of figures was adjusted for inflation and the other was not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the 24,000 acres of unused public land owned by nationalised industries and statutory undertakers at 1 July 1982 has been sold since then.

Between 1 July 1982 and 1 July 1983, the last date for which figures are available, 1,100 acres of land owned by the nationalised industries and statutory undertakings have been removed from the land registers following disposal, and a further 138 acres have been removed because the land has been brought into use.

I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome news. What steps are he and his departmental colleagues taking to speed up the process still further?

Neither I nor my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the rate of disposal of land from the registers. I would not pick out the nationalised industries and the statutory undertakings for special criticism. It is dangerous to generalise, but we are stepping up the pressure on owners — local authorities as well as nationalised industries—to explain what they are doing with such developable sites. I am anxious that we should proceed with this urgently throughout 1984.

Can the Minister assure us that, despite the Government's anxious pursuit of their intention to get their hands on this land, they will use every endeavour to make sure that the land is not sold off to cowboys who will not do a proper reclamation job when they have got control of it?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Bearing in mind that there are still 104,000 acres on the land registers, will my hon. Friend consider persuading the nationalised industries to get rid of 10 per cent. of all their vacant land every year by putting it up for auction, without reserve, on the open market? Would not that be a quicker way of getting rid of the vacant land?

I take note of my hon. Friend's proposal and will consider it. We must certainly race on with our programme and keep up the pressures on all who own vacant land.

As there is little unused public land available for housing development within the national parks, and now that the Government have reviewed the position with regard to section 52 agreements, preventing the Lake District planning board from introducing them, what measures will the Government introduce to ensure that there is no further spread of second homes within the national park?

The hon. Gentleman should table a question on that subject, because that question does not relate to the one I have just answered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants.

Approximately 630,000 houses and flats were sold between April 1979 and September 1983 by local authorities and new towns in Great Britain, some 400,000 of them under the right to buy. The vast majority were to sitting tenants. In addition, housing associations sold about 40,000 dwellings, of which 28,000 were to sitting tenants. Continuing progress is therefore being made. My Department keeps under review the performance of local authorities in implementing the right to buy, and we continue to take appropriate measures to ensure that the rights of tenants are secured.

How many local authorities are still dragging their feet over the sale of council houses, and how many of those authorities are Labour-controlled?

My Department is in contact with about 200 local authorities, most of which are Labour controlled, about aspects of their performance in implementing the right to buy. Problems are taken up by my hon. Friend and myself, and we shall do all that we can to ensure that tenants get the rights conferred on them by Parliament.

In deciding policy on these matters, and in acting on them, will the Minister give consideration to areas such as Brent. which adjoins his own constituency, where there is a housing emergency? There is a waiting list of 15,000 and we pay £35,000 a week for bed and breakfast for the homeless. Any reduction of housing stocks has disastrous effects upon the rehousing of those in urgent need.

Selling one's council house does not reduce the nation's housing stock. In addition, the right-to-buy policy has generated some £2 billion, which has enabled the local authorities to make faster progress in tackling the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn our attention.

Will my hon. Friend re-examine the protection given to some large estate managers, such as Grosvenor and Cadogan, and consider whether the scheme for the sale of houses to tenants could be enlarged in a Housing Bill which he might introduce in the not too distant future?

The Government have no plans to extend the right to buy to the private sector.

Will the Minister acknowledge that for the 1·5 million families who are homeless or in desperate need of housing but are still on waiting lists there is, in traditional terms, no room at the inn this Christmas? Will he also acknowledge that about one half of all housing capital expenditure is now being financed by the sa.e of council houses and that those sales are falling oft! Where will the money for any form of capital housing building programme come from when the boom of house sales, or rather the initial flush, has ended?

There are 130,000 applications in the pipeline at the moment and the Bill that the House will discuss shortly gives the right to buy to a further range of tenants. I do not accept that there will be a diminution in the volume of receipts to the extent that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For the future, we shall continue to do all that we can to maintain the HIP allocations at an appropriate level.