asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the P.A. Management Consultants' report on the non-financial aspects of the proposed abolition of the metropolitan county councils, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

The report is long on assertion and short on fact. I remain convinced that the proposals in the Local Government Bill will help to make local government more effective and more economical, without the need to impair the standards or the quality of services.

It comes well from the Government to talk about the report being long on assertion and short on fact. Is it not the case that the PA report concludes that if the Government go ahead with their proposals we shall have another change in local government structure within the next decade? Is it not the case also that the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was published this morning, shows that the Government's financial conclusions are incorrect? Against that background, would it not have been sensible for a prudent and non-dogmatic Government to establish a public inquiry? We now have dogma running ahead of common sense.

Order. I appeal for shorter questions.

The hon. Gentleman represents part of one of our great cities. Before 1974 the Leeds city corporation had all the powers of a former county borough. It was large, powerful, professional and effective. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to imply that the corporation will not be able to provide the services which will be devolved to it in a better way than they are provided by West Yorkshire county council.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the posters which have appeared on hoardings in the latest stage of the multi-million pound propaganda campaign of the metropolitan counties and others have been pasted upside down? Does he agree that that is a fair reflection of the economic and other attitudes of the leaders of those councils?

The advertising campaign in London on behalf of the GLC and ILEA is at the ratepayers' expense and is a scandalous waste of ratepayers' money. The GLC will be spending about £7 million this year, which Mr. Livingstone thinks is peanuts. We do not have that sort of money to spend and we would not be allowed—[Interruption.] Our political budget on this issue is much more modest and we shall be spending a little of it tonight on a party political broadcast, when I shall be setting forth the reasons why Mr. Livingstone does want the GLC abolished.

rose—

Order. I remind the House, including the Minister, that this question relates to the metropolitan counties. Question No. 3 relates to the Greater London council.

Is it not the case that as a result of this legislation the provincial police will be controlled for at least three years directly from Whitehall? Is that not a constitutional aspect of the legislation which should be considered most carefully? It is certain that control will not be passed to Leeds, where it rested before 1974.

The right hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience to the debate on this issue — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am about to do so. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether that matter should be considered carefully. I give him the assurance that it will be debated at length in Committee. As he rightly said, there are provisions to have precept and manpower controls for a transitional period of three years for the joint authorities.

Before we get into detail, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have already begun the drafting of the amendments to the published Bill?

I have little doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will be of assistance to us in that respect.

Does the Minister accept that the management consultants' report on the metropolitan counties says that the result of the Government's proposals will be to provide institutionalised conflict and a failure to co-ordinate— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, T am reading. I want to be accurate. What does the Minister say to his right hon. and hon. Friends who were reported in the Local Government Chronicle poll as being dissatisfied with the transfer of functions to joint boards?

These matters will be debated at length in Committee on the abolition Bill. The report was compiled from a series of interviews and questionnaires. The PA sent a questionnaire to all the metropolitan county councillors. Not surprisingly, their reply was that they thought that their jobs were useful and their roles effective. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "They would, wouldn't they?"

As the Minister appears keen, for once, to refer to the facts, is it not true that the overwhelming burden of evidence submitted to the Government was against the proposals? Is it not a fact that the Government cannot substantiate their claims of financial savings? Is it not also a fact that, contrary to what he claimed, many of the services will not return to the boroughs or districts, but will go to quangos and joint boards? Are those not the facts?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that 75 per cent. of the services which are now the responsibility of the metropolitan counties and the GLC will become the responsibility of the successor lower-tier authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of houses to be started in 1985 in the public and private sectors.

Total housing starts for England in 1983 were 187,000, of which 146,000 were in the private sector, the highest figure for 10 years. Housing starts in the first nine months of this year are slightly below those for the same period last year, but completions are up. It is not the practice to make forecasts for future years.

Does the Minister not agree that the figures are a wholly inadequate response to the housing crisis facing the country? Can he explain why, with 250,000 construction workers unemployed and with housing authorities such as mine in Stoke-on-Trent desperately anxious to build more houses, especially for the growing elderly population, the Government will not put in more finance and will not even allow local authorities to borrow money in the market place through their housing investment programmes?

Total capital housing provision in the public sector for next year is in excess of £3 billion. That is a substantial figure. The hon. Gentleman and the House must understand that a growing proportion of our people —now 63 per cent. in England—are owner-occupiers. The policy which the Government have followed has responded to the needs and aspirations of the people, while continuing to make substantial provision for public sector housing.

Is there not a significant and laudable reason for the slightly fewer housing starts; namely, that under this Government local authorities have been able to provide more resources for special needs housing and for improvements?

My hon. Friend is right. Within the housing investment programme allocations it is for each authority to decide its own priorities. I agree with my hon. friend that priority should be given to the categories that he mentioned.

Will the Minister remind us of the number of people on the housing waiting list, how many are homeless and how many are living in houses unfit for human habitation?

Some of the figures for local authority housing waiting lists are the reverse of accurate. Those figures should be revised in very many cases. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Lady's question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that private sector starts would be substantially higher if it were not for the fact that many Labour authorities hoard and sit on land for building because they believe that private sector building is bad and that only public sector building is good?

My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made his first directions for the sale of unused or under-used land, as recorded on the registers which the Government introduced. Of the land on those four sites, 45 acres are suitable for housing. I certainly intend to follow up the Government's initiative of directing, where appropriate, the sale of unused or under-used land.

Does the Minister think it desirable that the total of housing starts, whatever their mix, should return to the number for the lowest year under the Labour Government?

That depends on need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the sporting, recreational and leisure provision currently made by the Greater London council and metropolitan counties will continue following abolition of those authorities.

As I said in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 21 November, my right hon. Friend announced on 11 April our plans for sport and recreation following the dissolution of the GLC. Responsibility for these matters will pass to the boroughs. The Sports Council will have additional funds to assist with projects of wider than local interest.

Does the Minister recognise that that is a complacent reply which will disappoint hundreds of thousands of people who live within the Greater London council and metropolitan council areas and who look to him to fight his corner on their behalf to ensure that sport and recreation provision is maintained after abolition? Does he further recognise that the GLC has spent more than £40 million on that provision and that the metropolitan counties have spent an equivalent sum? Why does the hon. Gentleman not take note of the action of his colleague the Minister for the Arts, who is fighting his corner for those whom he represents? If the Minister did that, perhaps even he would end up in the Cabinet.

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little over-excited about some matters. If he looks at the record for recent years he will find that since 1979 the Government have increased grant-in-aid by 100 per cent. to the Sports Council, and have provided infinitely more money than previous Governments did for the urban aid programme—between £16 million and £23 million in the past few years.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that, whoever controls sport and recreation in London, better facilities and coaching will be provided in order to improve the standard of English cricket?

I take note of what my hon. Friend said. He has experience of these matters. I have no doubt that he is well satisfied with the standard of Scottish rugby. Let us hope that that will be enacted next week.

In view of the spectre of rate-capping that hangs over the London boroughs and metropolitan districts, will the Minister assure the House that grant-related expenditure assessments for the London boroughs and metropolitan districts will be altered to guarantee them the resources needed to provide the leisure, recreation and sports facilities now provided by the GLC and metropolitan counties?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. That is why the Government have ensured that the funding for sport and recreation has not been lost in recent years. Normal adjustments to the rate support grant will be made after abolition. However, I have to tell the House that no specific increase will be introduced solely in respect of sport and recreation. These matters will be adjusted.

I recognise the importance of providing sport and leisure facilities in London, but does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial amount of work has already been done, and is planned to continue to be done, by the boroughs, the governing bodies and, above all, the Sports Council?

My hon. Friend is right. The strategy which has been produced by the Sports Council and the regional councils on sports and recreation, which will be able to take on a great deal of work after abolition in March 1986, has been responsible for identifying the paucity of facilities in certain areas.

Does the Minister realise that much of the assistance given by the metropolitan counties comes from sponsored companies, such as Merseyside Improvements Ltd., which not only provide jobs, but work to a reasonable standard for many of the sporting organisations? Can the Minister guarantee that those organisations will continue to be provided with such assistance after the abolition of the metropolitan county councils?

I am always anxious to encourage sponsorship of any sort for anything to do with sport, leisure and recreation, and it is precisely because of the Government's policies that we have been able to rejuvenate that on Merseyside.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in West Yorkshire county council area, and no doubt in many others, some metropolitan districts have no representatives on committees responsible for many important functions, and that that could not be the case following abolition? As surveys have shown that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea which functions are the responsibility of the metropolitan county councils, is not existing democratic responsibility a myth, and is it not far more likely to exist after abolition?

I do not believe that it is far more likely to exist. My right hon. and hon. Friends will consider that important point to ensure that there is no gap after abolition.

The Minister is appalingly informed about the GLC's contribution to sport. It has been half funding the National Sports Centre since its inception. Is the Minister aware that the GLC gives £8 million a year in grants to sporting bodies? What will he do to ensure that that funding continues, and will he guarantee the future of the London marathon, which, contrary to his information, is supported organisationally by the GLC?

If the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of gassing away to his colleagues on the Back Bench, he might learn something. The only contribution that GLC representatives have made to sport in London is to threaten and try to ensure that funds will not reach the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace, and to walk out of some committees of the Greater London council. The marathon is a privately run organisation—

No, Sir, it is not.

—and my Department and my right hon. Friends have given every help to the marathon's organising committee. The marathon is safe with the Conservative Government.

The marathon may be safe, but the Minister will never run 26 miles and 385 yds if lie continues to answer questions in that way. How can he say that the GLC has made no contribution when it and its predecessor authority were responsible for the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace—it is the only one we have — and it meets the capital, revenue and debt charges of the centre? Who will meet those after abolition? Similar questions could be asked about the Lea Valley sports centre.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's return to these affairs after his brief skirmish as a shadow Home Office spokesman. The only evidence in recent months of the GLC's contribution to sport was its spending of much money on poor projects. Its representatives walked out of several committees, and it threatened the National Sports Centre with a complete removal of financial support. Its spending in recent years has been profligate and has been removed from the taxpayers and ratepayers of Greater London. Future funding has yet to be considered, but at present the Sports Council and the regional councils on sport and recreation are well placed, with the London boroughs, to run sport in the metropolis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of new town homes sold under the right-to-buy provisions by the Basildon development corporation and other new town development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

Between May 1979 and September 1984 Basildon development corporation has sold 3,903 dwellings to sitting tenants, and other English new town development corporations have sold 11,315.

Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a source of great pride to those who live in the Basildon area? Will he encourage and facilitate shared ownership provisions for tenants who are prevented from buying their homes, especially newer houses, because the cost floor rules mean that the sale price is near to the market price and, therefore, they cannot obtain the full discount?

Basildon is rightly proud of its record. It has sold more houses to sitting tenants than any other of the new town corporations.

Will the Minister tell the whole truth? Will he publish the cost to the taxpayer of those houses and the cost at which they were sold? Is it not true that there is a big discrepancy between the two figures?

No, there is not. It is not possible to sell a house under the right-to-buy provisions at less than its cost. This is the cost floor, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) rightly referred. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed.

Will my hon. Friend accept the appreciation of thousands of my constituents in Peterborough who are now able to own their homes, thanks to that legislation? Will he also accept that the exemplary selling commitment of the Peterborough development corporation helped to shame the Labour-controlled district council into selling houses as well?

Although Basildon has sold more houses to sitting tenants, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, looked at in percentage terms, Peterborough has done even better. I am sure that it will have acted as an inspiration to the local authority, which I hope will respond with greater efforts to dispose of more of its homes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that green field land is used for housing purposes only as a last resort and not before adjacent city centre sites have been utilised.

My right hon. Friend published advice on land for housing in July under DOE circular 15/84. That circular restates the Government's commitment to existing conservation policies and the protection of good quality agricultural land. It emphasises the need to make full and effective use for housing of land within existing urban areas.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. On the subject of green field land, which is a precious and declining asset, can he assure the House that the Government are aware that in some cases neighbouring local city councils decline to sell land to housing developers, for reasons best known to themselves? In view of the pressure that this is putting on adjacent green field sites, will my hon. Friend consider whether the city councils concerned should be encouraged in some way to sell their land?

My hon. Friend brought a delegation to see me not long ago to discuss these matters. He knows the steps that we are taking to try to promote the development of urban land for housing. That is why we are pursuing a wide range of measures—for example, both urban development grant and derelict land grant—to help development in urban areas. I think that that is the best way forward. I am well aware of what my hon. Friend said was happening.

How can the Minister reconcile that reply with the fact that at the same time in his Department applications are being turned down for derelict land clearance status, as happened in the case of Coventry?

If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind, affecting an area of land about which he knows, he should let me know about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the survey of its housing stock prepared by the Leeds city council, a copy of which has been sent to him.

I understand that the hon. Member is referring to a later version of the document enclosed with the council's letter to my Department of 2 July. It is desirable that local authorities should make objective assessments of the condition of their housing stock for management purposes, and the results are of value to my Department in deciding housing investment programme allocations.

I am grateful for that reply. Will the Minister accept that, with the level of capital finance currently available to Leeds city council, it is impossible for it adequately to maintain its own stock or to provide grants to private owners for improvement, with the inevitable and sad result that the council will be forced to return to policies of compulsory purchase and slum clearance on a wide scale, which have destroyed communities in recent years?

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather gloomy assessment. I see no advantage in reverting to compulsory purchase orders and the rest of it. We have tried to direct a higher proportion of the regional allocation to Leeds in genuine recognition of the problems which the hon. Gentleman described. The document which he sent to my Department will help us in the next few days in deciding an appropriate allocation to Leeds for 1985–86.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he expects to see effected in the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act during the present Session.

. The Commons Environment Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Act. Any question of considering major changes to the Act would need to await consideration of its report.

Does the Minister accept that the consensus supporting conservation, to which he referred approvingly in yesterday's debate, seems to be demanding rather wider amendment of the Act than the Government seem likely to accept? Why are the Government so wretchedly lacking in imagination and so devoid of sympathy for decent demands? Will this not cause considerable rage in the circles supporting conservation unless a more reasonable attitude is taken?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the formation of a consensus on the need for some limited changes, and I hope to see those passed on the route down which the hon. Gentleman has gone. Wider and more major changes will need to await consideration of the Select Committee's report.

Will my hon. Friend consider incorporating into the review of the Act the possibility of doing something to include common land, which is in many cases a reserve of habitat for wildlife? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern in my constituency about the wildlife on the Copthorne upper and lower commons, whose protection would be enhanced by the stiffening of this Act?

This shows that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, and on which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is an expert, is serious. This also shows that once we begin to widen the Act a number of extra measures could be made, which we would need to consider carefully.

Why have the Government not given a commitment to introduce, in Government time, their own Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as we had all expected them to do when they gave commitments on this matter last year?

There appears to be agreement on both sides of the House that the so-called three-month loophole should be blocked. A private Members' Bill was introduced, which unfortunately was defective. We have offered help to improve it. We can therefore deal with this through that procedure.

Does the Minister accept that, outside the national parks and the sites of special scientific interest, protection for the landscape is often insufficient? Would it not be helpful if the same system of notification of farm grant applications as applies in the national parks were implemented in respect of local authorities and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service? Would this not be in the interests of the heritage?

That would be a wide reform, with implications for how the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducts its advisory service. We need to await the advice of the Select Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land were recorded on the local authority land register at July 1984 as being vacant, dormant or derelict land in public ownership.

At 1 July the land registers gave details of 110,863 acres of unused or underused land owned by local authorities and other public bodies in England.

Is it not time that this absurd hoarding was stopped? How many disposal notices have been issued to public sector land owners under the 1980 Act, and what has been the effect of this notification?

I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. As far as we have been able to discover, about 18,000 acres have been sold, leaving about 110,000 acres on the register. We examined nine sites and then proceeded to issue directives about a fortnight ago for the disposal of them. We shall be looking at other sites as well.

With regard to the so-called hoarding of local government land, is it not a fact that three factors affect local authorities? The first is inadequate derelict land grants, the second is inadequate housing investment allocations and the third is that private developers are interested only in leafy suburbia, and not in the inner cities.

The amount allocated for derelict grant is going up this year, and stands at about £75 million. The capital investment in housing, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has said, will be over £3 billion this year. As to leafy suburbia, in the past month I have visited two or three sites in the north of England where derelict inner city council estates are being renovated and refurbished with Government assistance.

It is reassuring that my right hon. Friend follows all previous Secretaries of State in saying that the amount of public land is too much and unacceptable, as this has been said for about 10 years. Could not my right hon. Friend instruct all public authorities to reduce their derelict and vacant land by perhaps 25 per cent. a year, otherwise the land will never be used?

I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend. I do not have the powers that he asked me to use. We intend to keep up the pressure on the vast amount of land that is not used. The whole purpose of the legislation is to bring idle land into active use.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) have made clear, the truth is that the Government's actions wholly belie their words. The Government have put local authorities which wish their derelict and dormant land to be brought into public. use—whether in the private or public sector—in a financial straitjacket by restricting the conditions governing the availability of derelict land grant and by prohibiting the full use of capital receipts by local authorities. If the Minister wishes to encourage local authorties to do what they want to do—to bring this land into use—why does he not lift forthwith the restrictions on the use of capital receipts?

The capital receipts from the sale of housing land can be as high as 100 per cent. I ask the hon. Gentleman to get his facts right about the derelict land grant. Each year we are increasing the amounts available for derelict land grant. This is a major priority for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors he took into account in setting the proposed levels of capital investment in the water and sewerage industries; and if he will make a statement.

The public expenditure provision for water authorities announced in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expected to enable their investment to increase by about £80 million, or 12 per cent., in 1985–86. This takes account of the needs identified in the water authorities' 1984 corporate plans, including the development of water resources, faster progress with the renewal of sewers and water mains and further work to restore or maintain the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters.

I welcome the intention to increase the level of financial expenditure on the infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend think that it is sensible at this stage to impose a water tax on consumers, especially when we are all anxious to keep down inflation and when the general public are still worried about the basis on which water and sewerage charges are imposed?

My hon. Friend is not right in referring to this as a water tax. There is a danger in thinking that one can have higher investment in the water industry, and more money spent on the repair of sewers and the construction of reservoirs, without paying for all of this. The targets that have been set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are in no way unreasonable. The present rate of return on assets is only 1 per cent. Under my right hon. Friend's proposals, the average rate of return next year is estimated to be 1·4 per cent.; in 1986–87, 1·7 per cent.; and in 1987–88, 1·9 per cent.

Will the Minister consider the position that will develop in the coming year for the regional water authorities, especially the Yorkshire water authority, as a result of the hardship that will be imposed on industrial and domestic users because of the suggested 12 per cent. increase in water charges? Will the Minister have regard to the hardship that will be created in the Yorkshire water authority area in particular and throughout the country in general?

The increase in water charges in the next financial year will vary from region to region and from authority to authority. The average water charge levied by water authorities in the current financial year is £78. If the average charge rises by 10 per cent. next year, the bill will rise from £78 to £85 or, to put it another way, from 21p a day to 23p a day. Water charges are taken fully into account when supplementary benefit is calculated. Some 3 million households receive help in the way that I have described.

What steps is my hon. Friend taking to substitute water metering for water rates?

Earlier this month I announced in the House that my Department had set up a study with the water industry to inquire into the possibility of extending water metering to the household customer. That inquiry will be completed as soon as possible and I shall then report further to the House.

Whilst most hon. Members recognise that water has to be paid for, why do water authorities have to be run for profit? Why do profits have to increase by one third this year, especially after the difficulties experienced in the west country?

The hon. Gentleman has not understood that a consequence of higher water charges will be the much needed higher investment, for which the hon. Gentleman called earlier this year. He is aware that in the south-west work is starting about now on the third of the strategic reservoirs. In the public sector we are seeking to follow the necessary disciplines of obtaining a proper return on investment. A 1 per cent. return on investment is inadequate for the water industry.

While I support the general argument that my hon. Friend puts forward, does he agree that it is completely unreasonable that my constituents in Southend, and others, should have to pay what is called an additional extra because the water authorities are obliged to spend £50 million of capital expenditure for the sole purpose of taking nitrates out of water? As that is caused solely by agricultural practice, should that not be put on the agriculture Vote, instead of making my constituents pay more money to receive polluted water?

I shall discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I do not expect that it will be well received.

How does the Minister explain his sudden conversion to higher capital investment in the water industry when, in the past two financial years, he has presided over an underspend in excess of £100 million? Is it not adding insult to injury to those people who suffered severe water shortages this year to impose upon them some of the biggest increases in water rates? Is not the reality that the manipulation of external financing limits is simply a tax on water consumers? Why does the hon. Gentleman not face the truth?

The hon. Gentleman had left what was then the rather esoteric atmosphere of No. 10 Downing street before the famous letter of 15 December 1976 was written to Dr. Witterveen by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

What about Disraeli? Tell us about Disraeli.

This is what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East then wrote:

"An essential element of the Government's strategy will be a continuing and substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector."

Order. I again call for shorter answers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to promote the availability of private flats and houses for rent.

The Housing Act 1980 contained several provisions designed to stimulate the provision of private rented accommodation. I am considering whether further steps can be taken to encourage private landlords to meet the demand for homes to rent.

Does my hon. Friend accept that he could substantially increase the availability of private houses and flats for rent by repealing existing legislation? Does he further accept that by doing so he would, at no cost to the taxpayer, increase mobility of labour and thus take an important step towards reducing unemployment among young people?

I have already said to the House on several occasions that the Rent Acts, which were designed to assist those who wanted accommodation to rent, have injured the very people whom they were designed to help and have succeeded in many cases in drying up the supply of private rented accommodation. Nevertheless, the Government have already taken initiatives to help, notably by the introduction of shorthold and by the reduction of the interval from three to two years of the period after which a landlord can ask the rent officer to review the rent. As I have already made clear to the House, we are considering what further we can do.

Why does the Minister not accept that when his party brought in the sort of measure that his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) is suggesting—for example the Rent Act 1957—it did not result in any way in providing more accommodation for letting, but produced Rachmanism? Is the Minister aware that private tenants will fight very hard to retain the rights that they must have against private landlords?

I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because it is not true.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his consultation document on further steps on competitive tendering by local councils.

I shall issue a consultation document within the next few weeks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of services undertaken by local government in this country are being supplied by private enterprise in at least one industrial country, if not several, in the free world? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake to survey, in his consultation paper, not what is now being attempted in this country by way of privatisation, but what has already succeeded elsewhere, most notably in the United States of America?

I give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I shall look at his suggestion. We have opened up a considerable number of activities in local government to competitive tendering. It has been beneficial, as is shown by the enormous savings that have already accrued.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? Wandsworth council has saved about £23 million as a result of competitive tendering and the London borough of Merton has saved about £6 million. Comparing the rate rises in Wandsworth and Lambeth over the last few years, it can be seen that in Lambeth the rates have gone up by 107 per cent. and in Wandsworth by only 6 per cent.

I pay tribute to the pioneering work of my hon. Friend, when he was in charge of Wandsworth council, in pressing ahead with privatisation. I remind the House that the Audit Commission, which is riot a Government body, produced a report showing specifically that all authorities which had privatised various services achieved indisputable savings through contracting out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will break down by percentage of total expenditure the value of those services presently administered by the West Midlands county council that he intends should be in future controlled by (a) district authorities, (b) joint boards and (c) other forms of control.

The county concil's net current expenditure, as recorded in its budget return for 1984–85, would be devolved as follows: 40 per cent. would be controlled by the individual district councils, 60 per cent. would be the responsibility of the fire, police and passenger transport joint authorities, which would be composed of, and therefore controlled by, elected councillors from the districts.

Is the Minister aware that those figures will be treated with some scepticism? In my own county, the west midlands, analysis shows that the figure would be only 20 per cent. by value of services incurred by districts, and therefore under the democratic and accountable working control of working people, and that 80 per cent. would go to bodies which would be either centrally controlled or under undemocratic and unelected authorities. How does the Minister square that with his assertion that it is a great leap forward for democracy?

The hon. Gentleman represents a city which has been consistently against the county council. The city of Coventry has always wanted to run its own affairs. The figures that I gave are correct. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that when the duties are devolved to the joint passenger authorities, the police boards and the fire boards, elected councillors from the metropolitan districts will serve on those boards and control their expenditure.

Leaving aside the details of this question, is my right hon. Friend not concerned about the fact that during the protracted stages of the legislation that is about to come before the House, the arguments will centre on whether the Government's financial estimates are right, or whether the estimates of Coopers and Lybrand are right? Is there not a case for having a major independent financial look at the matter before we go any further?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the costs and savings in our estimate will be subject to considerable scrutiny, but I remind the House that our reason for embarking on the legislation is to return responsibility for a wide range of local government activities to the lower tier because we believe that it is more responsible and effective and that the work can be done more economically at the lower level.

Is it the Minister's intention to make the new joint boards as economic and democratic as, for example, the Severn-Trent water authority, which over the past decade has increased its precept by 244 per cent. compared with the precept increase of the metropolitan county of West Midlands of 159 per cent.? Bearing in mind that the Government have ensured that the meetings of the water authority are held behind closed doors so that the press are not allowed to attend and, further, that the Government have rigged the membership of the authority to suit their own political prejudices, is that the sort of democracy that the Minister wants to promote in the House to enhance his career?

I am doing nothing at all to the Severn-Trent water authority. With regard to the conduct of the business of the joint authorities, they will be subject to the same provisions for making their meetings open to the public as other local authorities. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be elected councillors on the joint authorities, and they will be responsible for the conduct and affairs of those joint authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold in England since May 1979.

From April 1979 to September 1984 about 620,000 dwellings were sold by local authorities and new towns in England.

Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the total stock of council houses that figure represents?

Not without notice, is the short answer.

How many starts are there on the stocks to replace houses so that the demands of the waiting lists can be met? Can the Minister tell us just how many people are now on the waiting lists and how many houses are there to accommodate them?

The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the houses are not there once they have been sold. The houses remain part of the housing stock, and real people continue to live in them. The hon. Gentleman asked about the waiting lists. If his thesis is right, that the sale of council houses denies people on waiting lists the opportunity to move up, he would expect there to be fewer re-lets each year. I have the figures in front of me. In 1979, 194,000 people occupied local authority re-lets. In 1982, that figure had gone up to 223,000.

While I welcome the good figures for the sale of council house dwellings to date, may I ask my hon. Friend to chase up Labour-controlled councils such as Leicester to enable more people to buy their own houses and flats?

There are still a number of authorities whose performance under the right to buy is unsatisfactory. My Department pursues progress with them so that all tenants can exercise their right to buy without delay or difficulty. Two thirds of the authorities that are monitored are Labour-controlled.

Why have not the capital receipts from the sale of over 600,000 council homes been recycled into rebuilding? Is not the truth that the Treasury has virtually stolen £3 billion to £4 billion of capital receipts —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the Treasury has stolen£3 billion to £4 billion of capital receipts from the sale of council houses, which could be used to build over 100,000 new houses to let, for major capitalised repairs on council estates, and for major improvements and repairs to privately owned houses. Is not the truth that the money is being taken away by the Treasury and that the people have been deceived about what was to happen with the proceeds from the right to buy?

I am not sure how the Treasury could have stolen, if that is the right word, £3 billion or£4 billion, as total receipts from the sale of council houses have been only £2 billion. That £2 billion has been used by local authorities to supplement their housing investment programmes. It has been ploughed back into housing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of keeping and updating the land registers of public vacant land; how many civil servants, part or full-time, are employed in maintaining the land registers; and what is the estimated cost on his Vote for so doing.

The departmental staff and accommodation costs of maintaining the land registers are not separately identified, but are estimated at about £325,000 per annum. The equivalent of 21 full-time staff are employed for the purpose.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department's announcement last week about compulsory sales of land is greatly to be welcomed and will help to justify that expense? Can he give further details of the procedure to be adopted, and will he vigorously follow up this new approach?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The announcement meets observations and requests made by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been very vigilant on this. We have to proceed slowly, as the land is not owned by the Department. Many nationalised industries and local authorities actually own the land. We have now made progress and issued first directions to local authorities in Darlington, Sunderland, Oldham and Nottingham. We shall be watching the situation closely and continuing the kind of progress that my hon. Friend seeks.

What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues about releasing some of the land held by the Ministry of Defence?

That is a topic for continuing discussion by Ministers and officials.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his initiative calling on the European Commission to review the progress made towards ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into account in common agricultural policies and to identify the scope for further action in this field.

I wrote to Commissioner Narjes on 9 October. The Commission is currently considering our initiative. I propose to table a memorandum setting out the United Kingdom position for discussion at the next meeting of the Environment Council on 6 December.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this important initiative must be carried through to success? Does he also accept that there is no sense in using agriculture grants merely to add to farm surpluses, and every reason to switch grants to support farming that takes account of conservation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Our initiative in the Environment Council is aimed at matching that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Agriculture Council and to make a reality of the Community's integration of agricultural and environmental policies.

I welcome the initiative at the EEC. However, does the Minister appreciate that it will affect only a very small part of our agricultural production and will inevitably involve delays? Does he accept that an alternative or additional means to achieve the same ends would be to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act to empower MAFF to undertake expenditure on the promotion of nature conservancy in the same way as the Act requires water boards to do?

Amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act would not alter Common Market law. This proposal aims to do just that. There must, of course, be limits on the expenditure, because, if for no other reason, this country above all does not wish to increase the total Common Market budget. Nevertheless, it is a valuable initiative, which has been widely welcomed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the need to safeguard the environment of rural areas especially sensitive to development from disturbances caused as a result of exploration for hydrocarbons.

I am well aware of the concern caused by increased interest in exploration for hydrocarbons, particularly in southern England. That is why', in August, this year, the Department issued draft guidelines to local authorities on planning control over oil and gas operations. Since then I have received 45 representations in response to our request for comments on the draft and some 20 other letters on site-specific proposals.

I congratulate the Minister on what he has done so far. I assure him that I am not referring to the Solent, but does he accept that some landscapes are so sensitive that the environmental interests outweigh even the need for oil? Does he accept that it is vital for the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy to agree on those areas before embarking on the kind of process now taking place in the Solent?

I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses That is why, in response to other questions in the House on 24 October, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made a commitment that environmentally sensitive areas should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. Local planning authorities and county authorities also have a major part to play, as in some respects they are the experts in the immediate location of the exploration activities. The draft circular therefore emphasises that environmentally sensitive areas must be paramount at all times.

There will be widespread support for the report that my hon. Friend has circulated to local planning authorities, giving them guidance on the criteria that they should apply to such applications. However, is my hon. Friend aware that while those of us who represent areas of great sensitivity, including areas of outstanding natural beauty, wish to support the national interest, we have had representations from our local authorities to the effect that the report needs to be stiffened? It should explain exactly why onshore exploration is important in the national interest. It should give more figures and more reasons.

I can only advise the House on planning aspects. If my hon. Friend is anxious for details about onshore activities and the country's energy system, he will of course approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, the planning system allows the views of the public to be fully considered at all times. The local planning authorities represent the start of a rigorous process of appraisal.