asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a document containing the latest evidence relating to the effects of acid rain on the environment.

A brief paper on acid deposition has been prepared for the Select Committee on the Environment, which will be investigating the subject. Copies will be placed in the Library. The paper includes references to a number of published reports.

Will the Secretary of State stop being so complacent about this issue? Is he aware that the level of emissions of sulphur and nitrogen compounds in Great Britain is the highest in western Europe? Will he pledge full international co-operation to avert a menacing environmental catastrophe which threatens human beings, plants and animals in Europe?

I am not sure whether exaggeration would not be a worse crime than complacency. However, I vigorously deny any charge of complacency. The hon. Gentleman is making many assumptions which the scientific evidence does not support. That is why the recent Warren Spring report on acid deposition called for more research to be undertaken. My Department is stepping up substantially the amount that is being spent on research in this area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his report is extremely welcome? May I draw to his attention the report of the Council of Europe, which was presented last week in Strasbourg? I draw his attention also to the unilateral action of the German Government. Is it not worrying that one member of the Community should take unilateral action before we have adopted a Community approach?

It is only obviously desirable that, wherever possible, the community of nations should move in step. That applies to a wider sphere than the European Community. My hon. Friend knows that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the Geneva convention under the ECE and that we are taking an active role in the work of the bodies set up under that convention. The German Government clearly feel a greater need to move faster because of the effect of acid deposition on trees, and they are going ahead. We shall need to discuss the issue in the context of the Community's directive.

Is the Secretary of State in a position to inform the House whether he has received any representation from Wales, from individuals or from any organisation, through the Welsh Office or through the Secretary of State for Wales?

I think that the answer must be, "Not without notice."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that before we take precipitate action, especially in respect of the rivers of Scotland, where obviously there have been some problems, we should first adopt a multi-disciplinary approach so that we obtain proper scientific answers and learn the cause of the problem?

My hon. Friend is right, and that is precisely the Government's approach. If we accepted the view of some and went into the retro-fitting—I think that that is the technical expression—of desulphurisation plant at existing power stations, the cost would be enormous and the extra cost to the consumer of electricity would be substantial. There is as yet no conclusive evidence that that would solve the problem.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Under-Secretary of State, who wrote to me recently and said that it was by no means clear whether even a substantial reduction in emissions would lead to significant environmental benefits? Does' the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he does agree with that statement he is flying in the face of objective scientific evidence? If he is not prepared to act responsibly on the international scene, will he accept some responsibility for the British people and start a monitoring programme, especially in urban areas?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has studied the report from the Warren Spring laboratory and seen the extent of monitoring. I have accepted responsibility for increased research. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend's expertise in the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes announcing his decision on staffing of the Nature Conservancy Council.

My right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

I do not expect the Minister to tell us exactly what the improvements will be, but does he accept that an increase in resources and staffing of the Nature Conservancy Council is desperately required and that the conservation world believes that unless there is an improvement the present arrears of achievement will become much worse?

The hon. Gentleman puts his question fairly. We are having discussions with the chairman of the council about this matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, last year we allowed the staffing numbers to be increased to meet the registration of sites of special scientific interest to go forward more quickly. We are aware of the pressures on the NCC.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if we are to make substantial progress with the notification of SSSIs and management agreements it is important to have adequate staff on the ground, with time to discuss matters with farmers and to come to a decision with flexibility?

My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter, is right. I think he will agree that there is a limit to the amount by which staff of the quality and experience needed can be increased, and the chairman has made that point to me.

In Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Morro) will remember, I spoke for an hour and 50 minutes—

Not long enough.

Clearly not long enough—on the issue of the Halvergate marshes. Do the Government intend to do nothing to protect one of the last water meadows in Europe—the Halvergate marshes?

The Government have already taken action and told the Broads authority that it can spend up to 75 per cent. of the cost of any management agreement entered into. That is an advance on 50 per cent., which is the normal provision. I hope that, on that basis, the management agreements will be achieved.

If my hon. Friend looks at the facts, he will see that by 1 January only 714 out of the 4,000 SSSIs had been renotified and only 142 new SSSIs had been notified. If we are to protect the habitats that are at the core of conservation, this year we must make more rapid progress with notification.

Those are the very matters under discussion between the Department and the chairman of the NCC.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the legislation concerning noise levels in urban areas.

My right hon. Friend has responsibility for noise nuisance under part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. That legislation is kept under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has responsibility for aircraft and road traffic noise.

Is the Minister aware that the problem of urban noise from workplaces, traffic and neighbours is a major source of irritation and complaint? Will he agree to review the legislation, especially the methods of enforcement, so that we have a system which is speedier and more effective than the present cumbersome machinery?

I agree with the hon. Lady. For that reason, we are keeping this legislation under continual review.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to curb the noise from faulty motorcycle exhausts? Is this not one of the nastiest forms of urban pollution? Does he recollect that our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport offered a consultation paper of some sort on the subject which she said would be available shortly, and we are still awaiting it?

Responsibility for motorcycle noise rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point.

Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence to low-flying aircraft, which cause tremendous noise and upset many people?

I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Is not one of the noisiest problems in our urban areas caused by those savage people who leave their dogs at home all day? What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mercifully, responsibility for dogs rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Will the Minister consider conducting inner city noise audits? Is he aware that it is very difficult for mothers with children, who are escaping from their home environment — from unsuitable flats — to obtain a bit of fresh air, because of all the noise, machines, fumes and so on? Would it not be a good idea to conduct that kind of audit?

I shall certainly consider the hon. Lady's suggestion sympathetically.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the "Review of the Economic Efficiency of National Park Authorities", published by the Countryside Commission; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received the report and copies have been deposited in the Library. We shall be discussing further with the parties concerned.

Does the Minister accept that while some Tories like the idea of privatising national parks, their main interest is to loosen planning regulations on buildings, mining, mineral extraction and caravan parks so that profit will be more important than the scenic and environmental worth of national parks? An unprecedented number of active Tories have been put on national parks committees. Will the Minister confirm that national parks are not up for private profit?

The hon. Gentleman is a bit off the track. The reason for commissioning the report was to see whether the parks were working efficiently. The report made a number of suggestions about how they could work better. The Government stand by the national park movement and will finance it at a proper level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Dartmoor national park is grossly overgrazed near the edges of the moor and undergrazed at the centre? Will he consider increasing financial resources for the Dartmoor national park so that it can promote the Bill currently before the House? It includes a self-regulatory power for the 1,500 commoners as well as protecting environmental and conservation interests.

I shall shortly be visiting the park, and I shall then have an opportunity to learn more about the issues and discuss them afterwards with my hon. Friend and others.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any recent indications of increased levels of nitrate pollution in public water supplies.

The Royal Society's report "The Nitrogen Cycle of the United Kingdom" which has just been published confirms that nitrate levels are increasing in some surface and groundwaters. This can affect nitrate levels in some public water supplies. My Department is considering that report.

As the report says that a major contributory factor to the further rise in already worrying nitrate levels is the massive increase in the use of nitrate fertilisers by farmers, is my hon. Friend willing to have urgent talks with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see what steps can be taken to improve the situation? How on earth can it be sensible for us to spend millions of pounds importing fertilisers to produce more and more cereals which no one wants to buy?

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the point about the production of cereals. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree that a contributory factor to the problem to which he has drawn attention is the increasing use of nitrogen. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my Department are considering a code of practice which could be issued to help solve the problem.

As the hon. Gentleman is a Minister at the Department of the Environment, is it not his responsibility, first, to lay down pollution levels for our inland waters to ensure that the public water supply to which he has referred is not polluted, and secondly, to ensure that other persons, including farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture, keep within those limits?

It is my responsibility, and I intend to discharge it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the revised draft circular on green belts.

Revised drafts of the circular on green belts and of the circular on land for housing are being published tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that he has taken in this regard, but does he understand the concern which the original circulars caused in areas such as north Worcestershire, where the green belt is under severe pressure from motorway construction, gravel pit extraction, the predatory eyes of neighbouring authorities, and, not least, the view expressed by his own regional controller that the area should provide a larger proportion of land for long-term housing needs?

I entirely understand what my hon. Friend says. I must take into account the outcome of the considerations of the Hereford and Worcester structure plan, on which I am awaiting the report of the panel on the examination in public.

Although I welcome any steps that are necessary to prize out land that is being unnecessarily hoarded by covetous local authorities and other public bodies, will my right hon. Friend be in no doubt whatever that any further incursions into the green belt will not be tolerated in Cambridgeshire?

I think my hon. Friend will find that the revised draft circular will go a long way to meet his concerns.

I assume that the revised draft circular will extol the virtues and successes of green belt policy in the past and the need to maintain and protect green belts in the future, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the advice given in it will be equally applicable to authorities which either do not need planning permission before developments or which can give themselves planning permission? As an extra safeguard for those green belts, will my right hon. Friend consider whether applications of that sort by such authorities should be determined by himself?

It is difficult for me to generalise on the matter, but I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and will see that account is taken of it.

As this question has been on the Order Paper for two weeks, is it not rather discourteous to the House to publish the draft circular tomorrow? Would it not have been much more helpful if we had had the draft circular in front of us so that we could question the Secretary of State on the details?

We had always scheduled the publication for tomorrow. The printing and dispatch present a substantial administrative task, and its publication was timed for tomorrow. In view of the length of the documents, I very much doubt whether the hon. Gentleman—despite, I am sure, his quick reading—would have been able to make much of them for Question Time today if they had been published this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering any further reforms of the rating system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is currently considering any proposals for rating reform.

Part III of the Rates Bill contains a number of proposals to reform the rates to make local authorities more accountable to ratepayers, both business and household. I have no immediate plans for further legislative reforms.

Will my right hon. Friend perhaps agree with me that local democracy will remain pretty meaningless until such time as a far greater proportion of those who actually enjoy local authority services pay for them out of their own money? Does he further agree that perhaps the most sinister defence of the present system comes from those who operate under the wholly antidemocratic slogan, "We vote, but you pay"?

We dwelt at some length on the declining nexus between rates and votes when I moved the Second Reading of the Rates Bill. I am not sure whether this is what my hon. Friend proposes, but if we were to seek to provide that rates should be paid by the substantial number of families who at present enjoy rate rebates, that would be difficult to justify in terms of equity.

In the absence of any unanimity on introducing alternative systems of rating, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be eminently sensible to transfer responsibility for teachers' salaries and funding of the police from local authorities to central Government? Would this not end the wrangling, confusion and, indeed, ill-feeling that occur every year at this time?

I am very well aware of the ill-feeling that has been caused in a number of areas, but I question whether what would be seen as a massive further centralisation of decision-taking across the whole range of local authority responsibilities would be a sensible step to take at this juncture.

As the Secretary of State has gone for rate capping instead of tackling the admittedly difficult problem of finding a much broader and fairer replacement for the existing rating system, can he tell the House what reductions in rate bills he expects will result from the principle of rate capping?

There is a later question on the Order Paper about that.

Does the Secretary of State recall giving an oral answer to me last autumn when I raised with him the inequity of present rateable values, where similar or identical properties often have different rateable values? Does he recall answering that I should wait and see the legislation for the answer to this problem? Does he agree that in the legislation before the House he has totally failed to tackle this serious problem?

We have announced that we intend to hold a non-domestic revaluation to correct the distortions that have developed due to changed relative values of business property, and we are urgently considering the case for a domestic revaluation.

While obviously welcoming the Rates Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look very carefully at the situation of industrialists, who at present get a very rough deal? I am told, and we all know, that they get a vote in their own homes. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the possibility of their being given the opportunity to vote where they work?

There used to be a business vote, but throughout the country there were only about 150,000 registered business voters, because the entitlement applied only to small sole traders and partners. I doubt whether it would find much favour with the House to try to extend the vote to companies.

We all appreciate the Secretary of State's embarrassment at the Prime Minister's personal failure to meet her promise to abolish the domestic rating system, but will the right hon. Gentleman understand that concern about aspects of the rating system has not in any sense been resolved by the introduction of the Rates Bill, as evidenced by early-day motion 434, signed by 32 of his hon. Friends? Given the way in which the common agricultural policy's costs have been escalating out of control, and the buoyancy of farm incomes, particularly cereal farm incomes, does the Secretary of State agree that serious consideration should be given to the question of agricultural re-rating?

We considered the question of agricultural re-rating in our consideration of the whole of local government finance in the period before the general election, and we came to the conclusion that, because agricultural profits are very evenly balanced at present, it would be wrong to upset that balance by reintroducing a liability for rates, when agricultural property and buildings have not paid rates since the 1920s.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Tyne and Wear county council concerning his proposals to abolish metropolitan county councils.

My right hon. Friend has received the council's response to the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities". This calls for the withdrawal of the White Paper and for an inquiry to be held before any reorganisation takes place.

Is the Minister aware that the people in my area see the threat to abolish the Tyne and Wear county council as an act of spite and vindictiveness because it is Labour-controlled and is carrying out progressive policies in the interests of the community as a whole? Before he asks, "What business interests?", may I ask whether he is further aware that regularly — almost daily—I receive letters from businesses in my area saying that they would not be in business now if it were not for the help that they are getting from the Tyne and Wear county council, because they are getting no help from that lot over there?

One thing that we think will bring much greater help to businesses and ratepayers in the hon. Member's area, and other areas, is a diminution in the overhead of Government on the citizen and the ratepayer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the West Midlands metropolitan council is proposing to take—

Order. The question is about Tyne and Wear.

Why will the Government not publish in the House of Commons Library the representations made to them following the consultation period, which include representations not only from Tyne and Wear but from other metropolitan county councils? Why does the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary consistently refuse to tell the House anything about the claims that they are making for the financial savings that will result from their threadbare White Paper proposals?

A written answer is on the way to the hon. Gentleman in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he intends to put in the Library a list of the principal organisations that have responded. I have no doubt that these bodies will be prepared to provide the Library with copies of their submissions. This is according to normal procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the speed with which planning applications are being dealt.

Most local authorities are to be congratulated on achieving and sustaining marked improvements in the speed of their decisions on an increasing volume of applications. I hope that all local authorities will follow that example.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the second quarter of 1983 26 per cent. of the planning applications to the Peak District national park took longer than three months to determine? Is he further aware that that is a deterioration of 3 per cent. on the second quarter of 1982? What will he do about it?

My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this matter for a long time. I am not satisfied with the statistics and I shall want to look closely at what my hon. Friend said. We have taken steps designed to examine authorities that are lagging in performance. Most local planning authorities have made an improvement. Some slow improvement has been made by the Peak District park planning board since 1981, but clearly the figures remain unacceptable.

Is the Minister aware that so long as one planning application remains on the table at Teesside the whole area will be blighted? I refer to the application to bury nuclear waste under houses on Teesside. Will the Minister cut short that application by making it clear to NIREX, which has made it, that a proposal to put nuclear waste under houses will not be tolerated?

The hon. Gentleman must remember the timing of such matters. No such application has been received by my Department. That is how the matter stands at the moment.

Will my hon. Friend re-examine the system of appeals against non-determination within the eight-week period? Does he agree that there is no advantage to applicants who appeal under that procedure, because they might as well let the local authority take its course since the appeal procedure is equally slow?

I take my hon. Friend's point. We have done something by issuing a circular on the conduct of appeals, with the aim of achieving speedy decisions. I hope that my hon. Friend's example is acknowledged by the circular.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require the owners of vacant sites included in the land registers to offer by way of a public sale without reserve price 5 per cent. of their holdings in 1982.

No, Sir. In considering whether to use powers of direction I am bound to have regard to the circumstances of individual sites.

As about 110,000 acres of public land are still owned by local authorities, and as about only 4 per cent. of land on the registers has been sold, what action will my hon. Friend take to speed up the release of such important assets?

I endorse my hon. Friend's concern. That is why we are not satisfied with the disposal rate and are stepping up the pressure on owners to explain what they intend to do with sites which do not seem to be needed for their own purposes and are capable of development.

Does the Minister recall that prior to 1979, and during that election campaign, almost all the Conservative candidates, and the Conservative Government that followed, claimed that they had a solution to get rid of the land so that more houses could be built and none of the questions asked by his hon. Friend would need to be asked again? After five years, despite a slight increase in private sector house building on some of that land, public sector house building has dropped to a very low level. What have they been doing for the past five years?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman has not been taking a close interest in what has happened during the past four or five years. Since the legislation was passed in 1980 and the scheme began, nearly 10,000 acres have been disposed of. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of what has happened and perhaps take a closer interest in future.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern about the non-availability of building land, which is likely to lead to a crisis before the next election? Will he consider once again using his powers to compel recalcitrant local authorities, particularly in cities in the east midlands, not to hold on to land which they do not need so that building does not overspill into constituencies like mine?

I am almost inclined to say that I shall refer that question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has raised a very important point. We shall consider the matter closely and continue to encourage a speeding up of this process.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a progress report on discussions about the Gleneagles agreement between himself and the president of the Rugby Football Union.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans any further measures in the light of the Gleneagles agreement to seek to discourage the Rugby Football Union from its proposed tour of South Africa.

I have had discussions with the Rugby Football Union and these will continue. The Government oppose the proposed tour, because of their support for the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport and also because of the potential implications of the tour for other sports and events.

Since the impending tour threatens Britain's participation not just in the next Commonwealth games but possibly in the Olympic games, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister, when in Delhi for the Commonwealth conference, expressed support not just for the spirit but for the letter of the Gleneagles agreement, may I ask when the Prime Minister will call in officials of the English Rugby Football union and tell them that this tour must be called off?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can anticipate that. Clearly, responsibility is vested in my Department. I shall be considering over the next few weeks, in the run-up to the meeting that will take place on 30 March with the Rugby Football Union representatives, exactly what the Government may do after that. I have had several meetings with representatives of the Rugby Football Union during the past four or five months. I hope that tour does not take place.

Although I understand my hon. Friend's obligation under the Gleneagles agreement to discourage the Rugby Football Union from taking part in this tour, does he not now think that the objections he has made have gone far enough and that he should cease putting pressure on the union? Will he accept that persuading minsterial colleagues not to go to international rugby matches because a team of South African schoolboys came here may find favour with the Leader of the Opposition but cuts no ice on this side of the House?

I do not know how my hon. Friend defines pressure, but there are serious and far-reaching implications for British sport as a whole if the tour goes ahead. Successive Prime Ministers have underlined the importance of the Government's commitment to the Commonwealth's declaration on apartheid in sport. That is why the Government and my Department have a responsibility to ensure that all governing bodies in sport are conversant with the requirements.

Does the Minister agree that it ill becomes Tory Members of Parliament to go on trips to South Africa, which are paid for by the racist Government of that country, and then to come back and advocate action that could endanger the next Commonwealth games at Edinburgh, which are far more international and more important to the world of sport than a rugby match between South Africa and any country in the world?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with me. Hon. Members travel wherever they wish. I have faith that the members of the Commonwealth acknowledge the Government's commitment to the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport. They understand that we are totally committed to that. I have faith that they will be represented in Edinburgh in 1986.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while many of us understand his official position, we are disappointed that a Conservative Minister should involve himself in sporting matters of this kind? Is it not now abundantly clear that the Gleneagles agreement — so unwisely entered into by a previous Labour Government—is now forcing sport generally, and rugby in particular, to pay a heavy price? Can my hon. Friend name a single instance where a sporting, or any other boycott, has had any influence on subsequent policies?

On the latter point, I would not want to become engaged in a historical appreciation of sanctions or boycotts. I am sure my hon. Friends will understand that. However, I must remind my hon. Friend that as recently as last November, in New Delhi, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the Gleneagles agreement. That was on the agenda of that conference, and there was no change in the current commitment.

Do the Government have any plans —[Interruption.]—to assist the advance of rugby league football, whose administrators would, I believe, never think of touring South Africa?

I am sorry, but I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Has the Minister any plans to encourage and assist the advancement of rugby league football, whose administrators would, I am sure, never think of touring South Africa?

The rugby league authorities are infinitely better placed than I to encourage an expansion of that game.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have supported the Gleneagles agreement—and, indeed, remember the occasion when Mr. Vorster tried to pick the English cricket team by excluding Basil D'Oliveira — fear that the whole policy is facing collapse when we see teams of black West Indian cricketers touring South Africa?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I ask him to reflect on the theory—often expressed by many people concerned with multiracial sport—that one cannot have normal sporting relations in an abnormal society.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition applaud and welcome his courage and consistency on this matter? Is it not clear that, in spite of his considerable efforts, the Rugby Football Union is planning to go ahead with this tour? Given his confirmation that only very recently the Prime Minister reaffirmed this country's pledge on this issue, embodied in the Gleneagles agreement, should not the Prime Minister now intervene personally to prevent this disastrous tour? Will the Minister assure the House that if the tour proceeds, no more public financial support will be given to the Rugby Football Union?

The responsibility for dealing with the governing bodies in this country rests with myself and within my Department. It is quite clear that the role of the Rugby Football Union over the next few weeks is absolutely critical, if it believes in encouraging and enhancing rugby football throughout the 100 or so countries that now play the game. All 56 members of the Rugby Football Union must now closely consider the potential damage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet representatives of the English local authority associations.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet the local authority associations — [Interruption.] — at the Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance — [Interruption.] — in the spring and at the Housing Consultative Committee — [Interruption.] — in early summer.

I did not hear the answer, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it can be repeated.

Order. I hope that hon. Members below the Gangway will conduct their conversations outside the Chamber.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet the local authority associations at the Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance in the spring and at the Housing Consultative Committee in early summer.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The Secretary of State and Ministers allege that savings of £120 million will be achieved following the abolition of the metropolitan authorities, but they do not say where or how those savings will be made, whether through loss of jobs or otherwise. When the Minister next meets the local authority associations, will he at least tell them, although he will not spell it out to the House, how those savings of £120 million will be made?

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have an interesting discussion on that topic when next he meets local authority association representatives. However, we shall be able to vindicate the estimated savings to the House and the country only when the Bill reaches the statute book and is in operation.

Will my hon. Friend inform the Secretary of State that, when next he meets representatives of the metropolitan authorities, many of them will be deeply disappointed that although the metropolitan authorities, the Inner London education authority and the GLC are about to be abolished — which is to be applauded—no proposals have been made for the future of the counties of Humberside and Avon? The then Secretary of State gave a commitment in 1974 that the position of Humberside county would be reviewed 10 years after its creation. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment about when a review will take place?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

How many of the representatives of local authorities have expressed support for the Government's proposals outlined in Cmnd. No.9063, "Streamlining the Cities", and how many representations has the Minister received in favour of the proposals in that paper?

Not as many as I would have wished. I expect the number of those who support our proposals to increase as time proceeds.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to confirm to the local authority associations at their next meeting that, despite the difficulties over legislating for reform of local authority finance, the Government not only agree on the need to broaden the base, but are in general agreement about the way in which that reform should go?

My hon. Friend should not exaggerate the difficulties. This Government will overcome all difficulties.

Will the Minister discuss with the local authority associations the need for a rating revaluation, something that is now long overdue? Is the Minister aware that local authority associations and local councillors are very much aware of the anomalies suffered by many ratepayers because revaluation has not taken place? Will there be an early announcement about revaluation?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier this afternoon.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it saddens many of us to say that the local authority associations are likely to agree with many of us that the present policy is born out of panic and despair and does not stem from a genuine wish to reform local authority finance? Does not my hon. Friend accept that the current system is not able to bear the strains that it must bear and that, unless we are willing to do what we said we would do in 1974 and in 1979 and reform the system, we shall lose all credibility when stating our belief in local authority democracy?

Panic and despair are not the characteristics of my right hon. Friend. It is legitimate to remind my hon. Friend of the commitment made in the Conservative party's manifesto. The Rates Bill is a specific and detailed implementation of that commitment.

I return to the alleged £120 million saving from the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, which the Minister says he will discuss with the local authority associations. Is the Minister aware that that claim of a saving has already been made in an official ministerial document dished out in the Conservative Whips' Office? Given that that rough estimate has already been arrived at, why does the Minister consistently refuse to give details of how it has been calculated? Is it because the figure has been fabricated? If not, why is there the refusal to give the House the information that it deserves?

I commend to the hon. Gentleman the document provided by the Whips' Office. If it was provided by the Office of the Patronage Secretary, it will be well worth studying.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to reduce the number of empty houses in the public sector.

Measures available to councils to bring back into use vacant dwellings are set out in the Department's report "Reducing the Number of Empty Dwellings". My Department takes numbers of empty dwellings into account in making housing investment programme allocations. Particular attention was paid to council's bids to bring long-term vacant dwellings back into use in deciding the allocations for 1984–85.

Given that the number of empty dwellings, both in the public and the private sector, probably exceeds the figures for people on waiting lists by about four to one, and given also that empty houses can be breeding grounds for vermin, derelict and ugly eyesores and potential tinder boxes, does the Minister agree that it is time to implement the terms of the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) yesterday? Does he further agree that incentives should be given to local authorities to enter into joint partnership schemes to sell hard-to-let dwellings at a low cost?

The Government have introduced a number of measures with exactly the objective that the hon. Gentleman outlined. We have encouraged homesteading and made it possible for local authorities to carry out improvements with a view to selling such houses. We have given mortgage guarantees and encouraged local authorities to sell vacant properties at a discount to people on the waiting list. We shall consider the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) yesterday. However, at the end of the day, responsibility for managing the stock rests with the local authorities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way of concentrating the minds of many Socialist authorities is to require them to sell by public auction properties which they are not letting at the moment? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to that effect at an early stage?

Of course the Government will consider that suggestion. Penalties are imposed on local authorities which leave dwellings vacant for more than 12 months, through the loss of subsidy on the housing revenue account. However, we shall consider further measures to increase the incentive to dispose of vacant dwellings.

Is the Minister aware that the plea of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) will ring hollow in Liverpool, as the Liberal party was guilty of almost criminal neglect of public housing there? In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, will the Minister take on board the fact that the draconian cuts in the housing investment programme in Liverpool will mean that those houses will remain empty and the waiting lists will remain high, with some 14,000 people waiting for public sector rented housing?

I am not quite sure who is responsible, but on 1 April last year 2,248 local authority dwellings were vacant in Liverpool. Some of the measures that we have introduced do not require investment by the local authority; for example, homesteading and improvement for sale schemes get subsidies from the Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my council owns more than 2,000 empty properties, costing over £2·5 million a year in lost rates and rents? Is my hon. Friend further aware that one of its main excuses is that such property usually needs repair? Will he consider at least encouraging local authorities to rent empty properties to tenants who are willing to do the repairs themselves?

Yes, Sir. We have taken into account in the HIP allocation this year the local authorities' proposal for bringing such dwellings back into use. That can be done without substantial investment by the local authorities.

Does the Minister recognise that some of the older properties in need of repair require disproportionately high expenditure if they are to be brought back into use, and that cutting the HIP programme means that some of those properties will remain empty? Secondly, will he give a greater subsidy where there are disproportionately high costs of repair for old property, particularly terraced property, in some of the inner cities?

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question. We have made £2·5 billion available in HIP allocations for the forthcoming year, and that should be enough to make a substantial impact on the number of vacant dwellings that we have been discussing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what correspondence he has had relating to the proposed new boundaries of the Greater London regional sports council.

My Department has received 59 letters commenting on these proposals.

As nearly all of those 59 letters from London sports organisations are likely to be critical of the arbitrary proposal to redraw the boundaries, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will play ball with the London sports organisations and reconsider his decision, and perhaps agree to meet a delegation from them so that they can put him on the right track?

I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance. These are matters for the Sports Council and for the Greater London and South-East Regional Council on Sport and Recreation. It is not for me to impose decisions on the regional councils.

Is it not a fact that within these boundaries is the Crystal Palace sports complex, which is owned and managed by the GLC? Is it not also a fact that the Government's proposals will make it impossible to run a London-wide administration, not only for that complex but for others, which should be built elsewhere in London for Londoners? Is this not an affront to the people of London, whatever their normal political persuasions?

The hon. Gentleman has not completed his research. Crystal Palace is a national sports centre and it also provides some local facilities. It is jointly funded by the Sports Council and the GLC. It is not specifically for local authorities; it is, as I say, a national sports centre as well.

Is there any link between these proposals and a possible attempt at a more equitable sharing out of grant-aid?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he makes of the additional costs of running local services in inner London.

The GRE assessments take account both of the extent of social deprivation in many inner London boroughs and of higher labour costs. Inner London boroughs have the 10 highest GREs per head in the country on non-education services.

As the City of London is perhaps 227 per cent. over its GRE, why does not the right hon. Gentleman bring forward proposals to abolish the City of London, as one of the great overspenders?

The House might be more impressed if, instead of asking that rather pointless question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—the hon. Gentleman stood up and told us whether he supports Mr. Livingstone's demand that the Labour party should defy the law on rate-capping. Will he, or will he not?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of empty council properties in the Greater London council area.

In their housing investment programme returns, London local authorities reported 32,600 dwellings vacant as at 1 April 1983.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the housing problems of London worsen month by month? Is it not an utter disgrace that so many council houses are left empty, either because authorities, such as mine in Wandsworth, are deliberately keeping them empty—to sell them off irrespective of housing need—or because authorities just do not have the money to make the necessary repairs to put those houses back into habitation? When will the Government tackle the issues, stopping authorities from deliberately keeping houses empty and helping authorities which genuinely wish to bring their housing stock back into habitation?

I urge those local authorities to offer the vacant dwellings to people on the waiting lists or to existing council tenants and to use the receipts from the sales to make faster progress with their housing programmes.

Is the Minister aware that the cuts in the housing improvement finance mean that Conservative boroughs such as Croydon and Labour boroughs such as Lambeth have had to cut repair and improvement grants to the private sector, so that there is neither money for the local authority to undertake this work nor for the private sector to do so? Will the hon. Gentleman stop deceiving the House by saying that there is enough money to cover these things in local authority budgets?

It is sheer hypocrisy for the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Order. I think that the Minister will wish to withdraw that remark.

Of course I withdraw it.

Mr. Smith, to ask question No. 26. The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses were started in 1983; and how this compares with 1982.

About 187,000 dwellings were started in England last year, as compared with 166,000—

Order. I am not certain that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is here.