asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has so far been made in his inquiry into the use of sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 by local authorities.

I hope to be in a position shortly to advise the House of the details of the intended impartial inquiry into these and other issues.

I wish my right hon. Friend and all other hon. Members a very happy and successful new year. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that a growing number of my hon. Friends are becoming impatient at the Government's seeming slowness in introducing legislation to curb the wasting of ratepayers' money by local authorities on political propaganda? Is my right hon. Friend also aware of the seeming inability of district auditors to act in the matter, because of their very narrow remit?

I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes for 1985. I am sure that we shall need them all.

Has my right hon. Friend's Department consulted the Government Law Officers on this matter? If such consultation takes place, will he direct the attention of the Law Officers to the placing of advertisements by local authorities in organs such as the Labour Herald?

Yes, we have consulted the Law Officers, and I shall certainly draw to their attention the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Is it not a complete disgrace and an absolute abuse that local authorities such as the Labour-dominated Warrington borough council should use ratepayers' money for the support of striking miners, especially when many of those ratepayers are, through no fault of their own, unfortunately unemployed?

There is no doubt that certain Labour-controlled authorities are using their powers under section 137 in a way never envisaged in the original legislation. That is why there is to be an impartial inquiry into that abuse and many others as well.

Will the Minister tell the House how much taxpayers'money was spent on bringing out the Conservative party propaganda leaflets entitled "After the GLC" and "After the Metropolitan County Councils"? Was the material based on the Central Office handout just released by the Department of the Environment?

The two admirable leaflets which the hon. Gentleman is holding up are not political propaganda. They contain an explanation of the main points of the Government's proposal. It is well precedented for Governments to produce such leaflets of explanation after Second Reading. It was done in the case of the Telecommunications Bill and of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The cost was about £9,600, which would not buy even half a page in the Daily Mirror.

While the power of local authorities to spend money for information purposes is closely regulated under legislation passed by the Conservative party in 1972, is it not true that central Government have a wholly unfettered power to spend taxpayers' money, and that it is the Government who have spent money scandalously, in support of abolition proposals which have not been approved by the House, of their tendentious defence policies and of privatisation?

The conventions regarding the spending of advertising money by the Government are well known and have been observed by successive Governments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have acted within the conventions that successive Governments have followed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he is taking to control the total running costs of his Department.

I shall continue to use MINIS and my Department's budgeting systems to keep these costs under close and regular review.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are doing everything in their power to control their running costs?

Many local authorities are, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the series of value-for-money reports being produced by the Audit Commission which suggest that if all local authorities followed the precepts there laid out they could save many hundreds of millions of pounds. That would be of great value to ratepayers.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the best judges of whether a service is good value for money are ratepayers and taxpayers? Does he further agree that the best facility to enable them to make such a judgment would be for the right hon. Gentleman to announce this afternoon that his Department will support fully the Bill, which is to be introduced soon, to secure freedom of information and access to information in local government? Will the right hon. Gentleman make such a commitment and carry it through during the rest of this Session?

That matter goes wider than the original question. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Government's reaction to that Bill.

Has my right hon. Friend considered closing down the public land registers, which cost his Department about £250,000 a year to maintain and which, in the past four years, have sold only 2,000 acres of publicly held land? Does he agree that the best thing would be to auction off publicly held land which is dormant, redundant and derelict?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. The land registers have proved an immensely valuable means of bringing to the attention of builders and others the fact that public land is available and should be put on the market. Many hundreds of acres have been sold. I have now made the first orders, using my statutory powers, to oblige certain authorities to disgorge land for which they do not appear to have any valid use. That would not have been possible without the registers.

Does the compulsory, squalid and practical asset stripping of local authorities, especially those such as Leicester which have been rate-capped, not so add to the dictatorial powers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that the running costs of the Department are bound to increase if, as is extremely unlikely, the Government are to give any decent service to people who have been served well by local authorities?

I am not sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would want that question reported too widely in the Leicester Mercury, as I suspect that the great majority of ratepayers in Leicester are pleased that, for the first year, they are getting some relief from their rates under the rate-capping legislation. I should have thought that there was universal support for the view that land which is held by public authorities and which is not needed by them should be sold so that it can be put to good use. I am astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept that proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on proposals to establish a flower garden around the Hyde park memorial to the soldiers, civilians and horses killed by a terrorist bomb on 20 July 1982.

Eighteen thousand spring and autumn flowering bulbs have recently been planted in the vicinity of the memorial plaque which will become naturalised in the grass and provide an annual display of blooms in the area. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's help in this development.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his Department for their great co-operation in planting a beautiful garden around the memorial to the 12 soldiers, six civilians and seven horses who were killed in that appalling outrage. Some of the many hundreds of subscribers to the funds that I have raised for the purpose—many are of humble means, such as pensioners—are disappointed that roses have not been allowed. I understand that there is a horticultural problem in that it is difficult for rose trees or bushes to be planted in the area, but is there any way in which that problem can be overcome?

I think that we must be guided by the advice of the bailiff of the royal parks. Each case must be considered in the context of the park. I believe that what we have now will provide a natural and harmonious display in spring and autumn. It is a most fitting and lasting tribute to those who so tragically lost their lives in July 1982.

As a former officer of the Household Cavalry, I had the honour, while a Member of this House, to command the Queen's Lifeguard during a Session of Parliament. I am indeed grateful to the Minister. Is he aware that the incident is recorded permanently by the carrying of swords by the Queen's Lifeguard each time it passes the scene, as it does when it passes Buckingham Palace? This is a signal honour. We are delighted that the Minister has taken so much interest in this site. We shall welcome any additions for extras that he can provide.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The regiment, the royal parks bailiff and officials in my Department have, I believe, provided the best and most suitable harmonious display in memory of those who lost their lives.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the local authority associations in response to his rate support grant proposals.

At a meeting of the CCLGF on 11 December the associations gave me their initial reactions, which, as might be expected, varied widely.

Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has had no support from the local authority organisations? What communications, if any, has he received in support of the proposals?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. For example, the Association of County Councils welcomed improvements in targets for low spenders. Indeed, I have received a number of letters from individual authorities which have expressed their appreciation for the fact that we delivered the commitment that we made this time last year. They also welcomed the increased emphasis on GREs as a basis for grant distribution. Of course there have been criticisms from other authorities and associations, and no doubt we shall have an opportunity fairly shortly to debate this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that one of the Government's most loyal local authorities is Solihull, which, for its good stewardship, has been penalised £2 million in rate support grant?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has agreed to meet him and a deputation from Solihull. We are constantly pressed by the local authority associations for improvements and changes in the GRE system, but when these changes are made they inevitably result in different effects on different local authorities because they are intended to be more accurate and and to reflect more precisely the circumstances of individual authorities.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his predecessor visited the north east part of Coventry—the are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) — and described the housing conditions there as among the worst he had ever seen? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the decision just before Christmas to reduce to less than £8 million the housing allocation to Coventry? That is a third of what the city needs for its council housing, and according to council housing officials it means that it will take nearly 35 years for private housing in Coventry to be repaired and renovated to any sort of decent standard. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify these cuts?

That goes wider than the original question, which was about rate support grant. We should increasingly ask ourselves how those properties got like that. It was not the tenants. Who was it? How did they get like that? I believe that the record of many local authorities in relation to the management of council housing estates is a scandal, and I have no doubt whatever that many councils could do a great deal better if they really buckled down to it.

When my right hon. Friend considered these representations, how did he justify the fact that a 25 per cent. discount is applied to London rateable values because they are so high, but that the same fair treatment is not applied to Hertfordshire, Berkshire or Surrey, as a result of which they lose rate support grant?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's point. It is made regularly by the home counties. I must tell him that the differentials in rateable values in the Greater London area by and large justify the variation to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. It could not be said to apply to the counties outside London. That position has now obtained for a number of years and is built into the statement that I made in December.

Is the Secretary of State aware that at least 16 Conservative-controlled shire counties have lost, in aggregate, £120 million of grant for next year over this year, including Essex, which has lost £19 million, Hertfordshire, which has lost £14 million, and Surrey, which has lost £16 million? Have those 16 authorities welcomed the rate support grant settlement?

Many points have been made to the Government about the rate support grant settlement, but there is general recognition, especially by many members of the ACC, that there is merit in restoring the councils' accountability to local ratepayers by reducing the share of expenditure which is met by the Government. In that we are merely following the practice of the previous Government. That is the main reason why the grant to those authorities has been reduced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in measures to reduce nitrate pollution of public water supplies.

Trials of full-scale treatment plant to denitrify water supplies have been completed satisfactorily by the water research centre and the Anglian water authority at the authority's works at Bucklesham. Other research projects are under way. My Department is establishing a group of experts, with the help of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to evaluate information on nitrates and consider action to limit nitrate concentrations in water supplies. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is about to publish a code of good agriculture practice designed to minimise water pollution. It will include a section on fertilisers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that levels are still rising? Is it not unreasonable that my constituents in Southend and many others are faced with the choice of paying much higher water rates to cover the horrendous costs of removing nitrates from water because of the health directive, or of receiving ever-increasingly polluted water supplies? Why are the Government so reluctant to curb the amount of nitrates going into water or to make the polluters pay, which happens in every other industry?

My hon. Friend must be pleased that we have set up the group of experts. The co-ordination group will hold its first meeting on 14 January. Its terms of reference are to provide a forum for the evaluation of information collected about the sources, pathways and concentrations of nitrates in water. We shall see to what extent those levels, which he claims are occurring, are developing. We have acted thoroughly and positively and that group meets next week.

Does the Minister accept that, in addition to a priority for research, there must be proper priority for development regarding this grave problem? Does he accept that concern should be displayed not merely for public water supplies but for the contamination of virtually every water course and every wetland area in many parts of our islands?

That is an important consideration, which is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and our officials are getting together urgently to evaluate all the facts and background information.

Will my hon. Friend be talking to the water authorities about the widespread concern that exists about the condition of rivers? The finger is pointed at fish farming, but there is increasing agreement that nitrates are a major cause of pollution in rivers. There has been a sad decline in the environmental aspects of river management.

Yes, I shall also draw that to the attention of the nitrate co-ordination group.

Will the Minister assure us that we shall have both research and urgent action, because this is a serious matter? Only recently one of the Minister's chief scientists told me that he regarded it as the greatest environmental time bomb facing Britain. Will he also assure us that when the European Community directive on clean water is introduced there will not be major exemptions for waters that are affected by nitrogen?

I must make it clear that since the beginning of last year my Department has started collecting regular information about public water supplies with high nitrate levels, and that there has been no overall increase in nitrate levels in those supplies. The group has many things to do. The House will agree that action can follow only the most exhaustive research, which is why we have responded quickly and why the first meeting takes place on Monday of next week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in response of the recent National Economic Development Office report on the state of the national infrastructure of roads, housing, the water and sewerage systems.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing this report at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council later today, at which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in the chair.

As the report is of critical importance to every member of our community and is a devastating criticism of the Government's current policies, and as almost every independent policy review institution is now asserting that public investment is the best and the most effective way of reducing unemployment, will the Government accept the verdict of the general public, or will they wait until 5 million or 6 million people are on the dole before they see the error of their ways?

The best and most effective way of reducing unemployment is by pursuing policies that will result in honest money and sound finance, and by creating an economy in which there is low inflation and high investment. That is precisely what is occurring.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government's oil revenues will be £1,000 million more than expected because of the strength of the dollar, he could improve the infrastructure, especially housing, by taking a more relaxed view of how local authorities may use their accumulated receipts from the sale of council houses and other assets?

My hon. Friend knows that that matter was debated in the House on 19 December and that the Government secured a majority of 100 in that debate.

Is not one of our problems that the civil servants in the Treasury, whose job it is to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer, know nothing about the problems of our northern cities? Would it not be a good idea for the Department of the Environment to organise coach trips at the weekends to take civil servants there so that they can see the problems that many Labour Members see every day?

My right hon. Friends and I, as Ministers in the Department of the Environment, rightly make extensive visits to all parts of the kingdom to study precisely the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

"It is … essential to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement … in order to create monetary conditions which will encourage investment and support sustained growth".

Has my hon. Friend seen the editorial in this morning's Financial Times under the heading of "Hard facts on infrastructure"? Does he note that the editorial concedes that a debt burden would be bad for future generations, but so, too, would a crumbling infrastructure? Leaving aside for the moment arguments about the benefits to the relief of unemployment that may flow from greater investment in the infrastructure, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he believes that, purely in terms of the infrastructure, there is a strong argument for additional investment in the very near future?

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have proper investment in the infrastructure. It is precisely for that reason that expenditure in the water industry will increase from £686 million this year to £769 million next year, and as planned to £870 million in 1987–88. The House will know that expenditure on roads will increase from £806 million this year to £824 million next year, and to £870 million in 1986–87. There is a programme of increasing investment in exactly the areas which my hon. Friend described.

Does the Minister accept that the lack of public investment in the infrastucture back to 1976—the year which the Minister quoted—is holding up further private investment? What is his reply to the statement by that most moderate of employers' organisations, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, which is responsible for 90 per cent. of the infrastucture, that

"we are becoming increasingly fed up with the current propaganda campaign being waged by the Government to discredit the case for more infrastructure investment"?

The hon. Gentleman will want to be reminded of some remarks by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan)—[Interruption.] I was asked about the construction industry, and I was about to quote a comment by the right hon. Gentleman, to whom we shall all want to send our very best wishes. The right hon. Gentleman said:

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession by boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists and that in so far as it ever did exist it worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy."

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to make a visit to all local authority areas designated under the Rates Act 1984.

No, but I and other DOE Ministers make many such visits in the normal course of our duties.

In the course of his visits the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless have become aware of the anger of many residents in the rate-capped areas at the Government's proposals. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least say whether he is now prepared to meet a joint delegation from the rate-capped authorities? Will he also say what statutory basis, if any, exists for the date of 15 January which he has set down to the rate-capped authorities for the making of representations?

The rate-capped authorities should be aware that the timetable requires that we shall very shortly be laying the orders setting out those rate and precept limits that have not been agreed. Therefore, the time left for them to exercise their statutory rights individually to seek to argue for a higher rate or precept limit is running out rapidly. I urge any which are contemplating that to do so quickly. Once the orders have been laid it will be very much more difficult to secure any change. If I have an application—and I have not yet—for representatives of all the 16 or 18 authorities to meet me collectively, I shall be very happy to see them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great offence taken by taxpayers and ratepayers when they are assailed by notices telling them that they have entered a rate-capped, nuclear-free zone and are wished a happy festive season by such as the London borough of Lewisham, which has painted expensive notices expressing good wishes and giving some political slogans denigrating the Government's action? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this reinforces yet again, if it needs reinforcement, the action that he has taken to cap their rates?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is a scandal. The Association of Labour Authorities in London has now voted to spend £350,000 on this campaign. The ratepayers in those authorities should know that £350,000 would buy no fewer than a quarter of a million meals on wheels. That is the alternative.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in some of the local authorities now facing the axe from this Government one idea being canvassed strongly amongst their leaders is that they should refuse to pay any further instalments on local authority debt? The right hon. Gentleman should not be surprised at the action that might be taken in that respect. If it is right for banks such as Johnson Matthey to be trading in an insolvent fashion and then to be rescued by the Bank of England with a nod and wink from the Government, why should not the authorities do the same? It is the only way to salvation for some of them.

The hon. Gentleman studies such matters closely and he will know that debt repayments are a first charge upon the revenues of a local authority. He may or may not know that when one recent London local authority leader threatened not to pay his debt interest, his brokers swiftly ran him round all the money markets to say that it was pure political propaganda. That is the reality. Of course the local authorities will pay their debt charges. The people who will suffer if they do not will be their staff, who will not be paid, and the clients of the local authority services, who will not get their services.

If my right hon. Friend receives representations from Leicester, will he take time to point out the impressive rejuvenation of the inner area that has already taken place under the inner area programme as a result of grants totalling more than £20 million which Leicester has received during the past four or five years?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. Leicester has had much help from the Government. I have not yet had from any local authority, certainly not from Leicester, an application for an increase in the rate limit that I have set. As I said earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), time has now almost run out for that. If they wish to come forward, they should do so promptly.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that his statement of willingness to meet the authorities will be welcomed? Certainly I welcome it. I hope that he will not hold rigidly to the date of 15 January, especially as two of the three weeks that have elapsed since he made his statement have been taken up by the holiday period, which as every sensible hon. Member knows, is a time when local authority business, like much Government and House of Commons business, does not take place.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, but I must make it clear that my readiness to meet a deputation cannot constitute an application from a local authority for a revision of the rate or precept limit. That can only be made individually by each authority. We have to proceed strictly by the legislation. It is only if there is negotiation about the limit, instigated by an application by an individual authority, that it would be appropriate, according to my clear legal advice, for me to become involved in spelling out the assumptions that have been made. If any authority wishes to object to the rate limit it must do so swiftly and individually and enter upon a discussion. The hon. Gentleman knows the parliamentary procedures, and we shall have to make the orders fairly soon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the proportion of the national housing stock which was either demolished or ceased to be used for occupation in the last 12 months for which statistics are available.

In 1983–84 about one in a thousand of the total English housing stock was demolished or ceased to be available for housing use.

Does that answer not demonstrate that the Government's complacency is outstripped only by their negligence? Is it not clear that if present policies are maintained, houses built today will have to remain in a habitable condition for longer than the life of even the oldest occupied building in our islands? Do houses built today have a life expectancy of 1,000 years?

That is a rather naive question, because it does not take into account the age of the stock that we are considering. The rate of demolition has been falling for a number of years, not least because local authorities perceived the social damage that resulted from wholesale demolition in the 1960s. Under this Government the rate of demolition has continued to decline, but there has been a dramatic escalation in expenditure on improvement grants. Those trends should be commended rather than deplored.

Does not the freezing of council assets produce problems of principle out of all proportion to any theoretical benefit that the Treasury might derive? Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the main points of selling council houses is to give to local authorities the capital that they need to meet their many and various requirements, particularly in housing?

My hon. Friend has raised a slightly broader point, which we debated at length on, I think, 19 December. For next year we have made available about £3 billion for public investment in housing. That is broadly the same amount as was available this year and, indeed, in the two preceding years. Within that figure I hope that the local authorities will be able to tackle the essential elements that need attention within their housing stocks.

Why does the Minister pretend that he is not cutting housing investment programmes? Does he not realise that there have been massive cuts in the amount of money available for improvement grants and new house building, and that the Government's policies will lead inexorably to the return of the bulldozer and to massive slum clearances? Why has Sefton council, a Conservative-controlled authority which introduced a moratorium when the Minister requested restraint, had a massive cut in its housing investment programme, and why has it received only 30 per cent. of what it asked for? Housing will continue to decline, stocks will become worse, and yet improvement grants will not be given.

Perhaps I can refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. In the last year of the Labour Government £90 million was spent on improvement grants, while the figure for the last year was £900 million. That puts the hon. Gentleman's figures into perspective. The major cuts in public sector investment in housing took place between 1974 and 1979, when such investment fell by 45 per cent. after allowing for inflation. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the comparable figure for this Government is 17 per cent. I hope that he will redirect his criticisms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite disgraceful that a Member of Parliament should be unable to obtain figures from local authorities for the number of council properties in their ownership that have been empty for up to 12 months? Is it not incumbent upon us to know the figures and to know what problems are so that we can see how to solve them?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is one of the matters that may be considered by the inquiry to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred. About 25,000 units have been empty for more than a year and it is essential that we do all that we can to bring them back into use. I regret that Norwich city council has not considered it necessary to give the Department essential information about its housing stock.

The Minister has told us that expenditure last year on improvement grants amounted to £900 million, but why did he not go on to say—as he said in a letter to me yesterday — that this year the level of expenditure on improvement grants is likely to be £700 million, meaning a reduction of £200 million? Does that not mean the return of the bulldozer to many of our cities? What will he do to ensure that the limited housing improvement grants are used in housing action areas?

If the figure of £750 million were achieved, it would have to be compared with the figure for the last year of the Lib-Lab pact, which was £90 million. There is an element of hypocrisy in some of the questions that are directed at the Government about expenditure on improvement grants. That expenditure is at a record level.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Basildon district council on the subject of rate-capping; and if he will make a statement.

Basildon council has made a number of representations about rate limitation, but it has not yet said whether it accepts the proposed rate limit which my right hon. Friend announced on 11 December. The council has until 15 January to make representations about the proposed limit.

Does my right hon. Friend think that Basildon district council has not contacted his office because it is embarrassed over the extravagance of its earlier claims over the impact of rate-capping, or because of its embarrassment over its extravagant spending on items such as housing administration? What does Basildon district council have to hide?

It is difficult to probe the motivations of Basildon district council. It budgeted for growth last year of 20 per cent., which is totally unrealistic. It can certainly live within the rate limit that we have set. The Audit Commission produced a report on Basildon, showing that it spends £600,000 more than the average council on its housing administration, and £180,000 on public relations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with those local authorities designated under the Rates Act 1984.

None of the selected authorities applied for a redetermination of its expenditure level. In setting proposed rate and precept limits my right hon. Friend took account of a number of representations. I await comments on those proposed limits before 15 January.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to delay the laying of orders under the Rates Act for as long as possible in order to encourage the rate-capped authorities to argue their case with him? If they do not seek changes in the limits, is the Secretary of State committed to making orders that confirm the rate maximum that was laid down in his statement of 11 December?

Greenwich and the other rate-capped authorities have had since July of last year to come and discuss with my right hon. Friend and myself in the Department the actual expenditure levels. They declined to do so. Since 11 December they have had opportunities to come and discuss the rate limits. I have encouraged them to do so. I believe that the limit we have set for Greenwich is appropriate. We have used the figures that were available to us. I think that many of the ratepayers of Greenwich will welcome the rate limit, which is a reduction this year of about 19 per cent. The actual rate increases which the hon. Gentleman's constituents have had over the last three years have been 11 per cent., 59 per cent. and 20 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the past three months regarding the state of the construction industry.

I continue to maintain close contact with the construction industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing with the National Economic Development Council later today its recent report on the infrastructure. My right hon. Friend and I hope to meet the Group of Eight next month.

When will the Government recognise the appalling housing plight of so many people who need rented accommodation, as well as those tenants who are living in pre-war council dwellings that need to be modernised? The Minister referred to the Labour Government. Is it not a fact that in 1978, the last year of that Government, well over 107,000 housing starts were made in the public sector, compared to an estimated 40,000 last year? This year the figure is expected to be even less. Why do the Government refuse to take action to help people who need somewhere to live?

As the House knows, total public sector provision for housing in the coming financial year will be £3,055 million. Of that, £2,324 million will be made available to local authorities. I think that the hon. Gentleman will want to join in a tribute to the private sector, which in 1984 completed 150,000 houses, the highest figure for 10 years. I must remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier. Public sector investment in housing fell by 45 per cent. in real terms between 1974 and 1979, and between 1979 and 1984 it has fallen by 17 per cent. on the same basis.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Group of Eight is representative of all sides of the industry and that the employers' side is as much concerned, in fact even more concerned, than other sections of the industry? Is it not clear that he should make a stand on this issue? The press has said that he thought of resigning. Can he indicate whether he has obtained any concession from the Government so that in the coming year we may see positive results in the construction industry and not a further decline, such as we have seen over the last three years?

Of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that on the Group of Eight there are representatives of the trade unions as well as of employers. As I said in my earlier reply, my right hon. Friend and I keep in close touch with the construction industry and are looking forward to our meeting next month with the Group of Eight. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is wise not to believe everything that one reads in newspapers.

All of us who represent industrial areas know very well that the housing stock needs to be renewed and replaced. It is not surprising that ancient houses, built 50 years ago under the first public housing legislation, are standing empty when they have not been modernised and brought up to standard. Is the Minister aware that there are 400,000 or so unemployed building workers and that large amounts of building and construction machinery are lying about unused all over the country? Why on earth does the Minister not get these people back to work and see that houses are improved, and new houses are built, for those on the long waiting lists in all industrial areas?

It is a great mistake to believe that the best way of creating further employment is by higher public expenditure. The way in which we shall be able to create lasting jobs is by having no inflation and a more efficient economy. Certainly the prospects for revived employment depend crucially on a strong private sector.

Is the Minister aware of the words of the president of the Building Employers Confederation early in December? He said that it cannot be good husbandry to pay 400,000 construction workers to do nothing while the nations's building stock slides further into decay and even larger bills for the future are run up because of lack of maintenance now? The Secretary of State must be regarded as the £5 billion Judas by the construction industry and the local authorities after putting another 50,000 people on the dole as a result of his statement on 18 December. Has the Secretary of State received one letter of support from any part of the construction industry for the savage programme of cuts which he introduced that day?

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the truth that output by the construction industry on repair and maintenance has grown and continues to grow. In 1983 £8·4 billion was spent—nearly £500 million up on the year before. We expect output in the construction industry to continue to grow. It is a great mistake to believe that the only engine of growth is in the public sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate how many houses were completed in the north-west region in 1979, and 1983; and how many are expected to be completed in 1984.

Dwelling completions in 1979 and 1983 were about 23,900 and 18,200, respectively. The Department has made no estimate of the 1984 total, but completions in the first three quarters were about one fifth more than in the same period of 1983.

Is not that reply a disgrace to the Government? Are they not becoming the Government of slum dwellers because housing stock in the north-west is not being replaced or improved fast enough to ensure that its quality does not deteriorate dramatically? The Minister said that he did not threaten to resign. Is it not a shame that he did not take that step and so provide relief for all local authorities in the north-west?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the broader picture, in particular private sector starts in the north-west. In 1982 and 1983 there were more private sector starts than in 1979. I am confident that that figure will be exceeded in the current year. Rather than concentrate on public sector housing, one must take a broader view of what is happening in the north-west. Completions in the first three quarters of 1984 were higher than in the preceding year. I hope that we can maintain that trend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new companies have set up in the three enterprise zones in the constituency of Glanford and Scunthorpe, giving their names; how many net new jobs have been created thereby; and if he will make a statement.

The best information that we have, which was provided by the local authorities, is that two firms have set up in the Glanford zone and five in the Scunthorpe zone since designation. To save the time of the House, I shall write to my hon. Friend with their names. We do not yet have details of jobs in the zones.

Is it not a fact that free enterprise zones, development area status, a massive building programme by English Industrial Estates and Government assistance to Scunthorpe should enable it to reduce unemployment significantly? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind anxiety about the local authority's decision to allow a retail development covering eight acres in one of the enterprise zones, which will cause damage to the town centre?

I welcome the optimism in my hon. Friend's opening remarks. He has expressed concern to my Department about the retail development to which he refers. The evidence shows that retail developments in enterprise zones do not adversely affect existing retail projects in nearby shopping centres, not least because the economy of the area as a whole benefits from the injection of an enterprise zone. We have the matter under review and we shall be monitoring this year the new enterprise zones set up a few years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many authorities are now likely to suffer grant holdback in 1984–85.

One hundred and thirty-nine local authorities in England are incurring grant holdback on the basis of their budgeted expenditure. The final number, which I hope will be fewer, will depend on their outturn expenditure.

Why does not the Secretary of State follow the advice of the Audit Commission report and end those iniquitous penalties, which cause instability and higher rates to the tune of £400 million a year?

We do not accept the view of the Audit Commission's report, and at the moment that matter is before the Public Accounts Committee. Many of the Audit Commission's recommendations were sensible, and we are acting on some of them. However, we do not accept some of the figures and reasoning. The matter is before the Public Accounts Committee, and no doubt will come before the House in due course after the Committee has reported.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for his efforts to reduce the central Government contribution to very extravagant local authorities, but that equally, there is great dismay in counties such as Suffolk, which face the prospect of holdback although they are spending substantially below the GREA level?

I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that—I am speaking from memory—Suffolk Suffolk was one of the authorities which received the biggest increase in the target over this year's budget, which should have made it much less likely that it will exceed the target and so incur penalties. Our target methodology for this year for low-spending shire counties has been widely welcomed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the environmental implications of the use, storage and disposal in the United Kingdom of the chemical methyl isocyanate; and if he will make a statement.

Since the tragedy in Bhopal on 3 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a small number of representations about the use, storage and disposal of the chemical methyl isocyanate. That chemical is not manufactured in the United Kingdom. It is used and stored by Ciba-Geigy at its factory near Grimsby, where a maximum of eight tonnes is stored in 40 drums containing 45 gallons each. I understand that in the Bhopal disaster 45 tonnes were stored in a single container. Very small quantities of the chemical are stored for research purposes at four other places in the United Kingdom. In all cases, storage is subject to strict control by the Health and Safety Executive. That chemical is included in schedule 3 to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, which came into force yesterday. Before and after the Bhopal disaster, officers of the Health and Safety Executive inspected the factory at Ciba-Geigy and are satisfied as to the safety of the operation. I am advised that the disposal of that chemical is not considered to be a significant problem.

I thank the Minister for his statement. He referred to storage, but is it not a fact that nowadays there are grave misgivings about drivers not complying with regulations, which also applies to private haulier contractors who have been contracted to pick up that material? Is it not about time that we had legislation whereby environmental health officers had some control, not only over factories and chemical works in towns and cities, but over the routes taken by those vehicles?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course safety is important in transit as well as in places where that chemical is stored permanently. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, I shall look into that and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Will my hon. Friend undertake a wider inquiry and review of the relevant planning law and practice to ensure that when there are applications for the manufacture and storage of toxic materials the safety of the local community is fully ensured?

I give my hon. Friend that undertaking. Following the amendments made last year to the general development and use classes orders and the publication of advice on planning control over hazardous development, we have consulted on proposals for strengthening those regulations and controls, and legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.

Although no one wants to be alarmist, does the Minister accept that his statement is bound to cause some anxiety, not least because chemicals such as methyl isocyanate and others, which are extremely toxic and dangerous, are stored in urban locations—as he said but did not name — and problems can arise, particularly at the point of change from storage to transport? Is the Minister satisfied that he can expect the public to accept Government assurances in this kind of case when the Government have presided over a rundown of almost one third of their own target for the Factories Inspectorate, the people responsible for the monitoring, checking and supervision of these important matters?

There is no cause for public disquiet about this, because officers of the Health and Safety Executive visited the chemical plant near Grimsby before and after the tragedy at Bhopal. The officers of the Health and Safety Executive are satisfied that the operation at that factory is being carried out with full and proper regard to safety and strictly in accordance with the standards laid down.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Does the point of order arise directly out of Question Time?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will be concerned that, of the 35 questions tabled for reply today, only 15 were answered, primarily, in my view, because of the long-winded, ponderous replies given by Ministers. In view of the considerable expense incurred by officials and others in preparing for Question Time, and given that low reply rate, do you agree that unless Environment Ministers speed matters up next time they are in danger of being seen as an uneconomic unit?

Order. I cannot be responsible for the length of supplementary questions or the answers, but I have sympathy with what the hon. Member said. We should have got a little further than we did today at Question Time.