asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been his Department's allocation to Coventry city council for housing expenditure each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

The housing investment programme allocations made to Coventry city council each year, beginning with 1978–79, have been £13·3 million, £13·7 million, £10·5 million, £7·7 million, £12·2 million, £8·1 million, £8·9 million, £7·7 million and for 1986–87, £7·3 million. Comparisons between years can be misleading, because since 1981–82 local authorities have been able to add to their spending power through the use of the prescribed proportion of their capital receipts.

Is the Minister aware that identifiable modernisations, repairs and renovations for Coventry now total about £150 million and that the Government's drip feed of £7·25 million means that many urgently needed repairs will not be completed until well into the next century? There is male unemployment of between 20 and 50 per cent. in the wards of Coventry, South-East, and not many of my constituents can afford £400,000 Barratt retirement homes in Dulwich.

That question was put by the hon. Gentleman with characteristic moderation. First, the hon. Gentleman should explain to his constituents that the Government's allocation of housing money is but one part of the resources that are available to the city council. Another substantial source of funds can be from the councils own accumulated capital receipts, and I understand that it is planning to make use of them.

In the words of Opposition Members, are not some of the feudal estates that are run by some municipal authorities, including Coventry, among the great environmental disasters of the century? If we want to help the constituents of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), as we do, the sooner and the more we get the private sector into the management of public housing, the better.

My hon. Friend is right. Some Labour authorities, to do them justice, do care and are trying extremely hard to bring all the private resources that are available to bear and into use. The Oldham and Salford authorities are two examples. Unfortunately, Labour-controlled city councils in other areas seem unable sometimes to manage their own housing stock properly. Yesterday—[Interruption.]—in Stoke-on-Trent, Central —the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is not in his place—I saw an 80-year-old widow who had been left in the most awful conditions.

Those who are waiting to have their houses made habitable in Coventry or to gain accommodation for the first time—there are several thousands of them—will not be comforted by the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). In an earlier debate, the Minister may know that I spelt out the time that it would take to complete some of the schemes on which Coventry is already engaged—

Order.

I appreciate that you are calling me to order, Mr. Speaker, but you allowed the Minister to continue with his reply.

I was worried that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) might continue to recount a previous debate.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I apologise for taking so long over my previous answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman wi,1 not attempt to inhibit the delicate negotiations between the city council and a number of potential developers, which are aimed at bringing much needed private money into Coventry. It is that money, with perhaps the 'help of my Department and the urban housing renewal unit, that can lead to the solution of many of the problems to which he referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the aggregate Exchequer grant settled on local authorities in England for 1986–87 will be paid to (a) local authorities in London, (b) Liverpool and (c) Leeds; and what difference this is from the percentage of the same three areas for 1985–86.

The amount of grant to be paid to the authorities will depend on their own decisions on spending in 1986–87.

No one can thank the Minister for that most unhelpful answer. I shall now ask her a supplementary question which I hope she will answer. First, will she give the lie to the fact that the Government's rate support grant settlement has resulted in a reduction in the moneys given to the metropolitan districts outside London? The Library document confirms that fact. Secondly, will she confirm that Leeds will be £40 million short on the Government's own estimate of need, and that if Liverpool imposes the rate-capped settlement it will be unable to do other than cut services? The money has gone, not to the inner cities as a whole, but only to those where there are to be elections next May.

It is incontrovertible, from the document that is available in the Library, that such money as has been diverted has been diverted to the cities. I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will confirm that fact.

rose—

Order. We have not got off to a very good start today. I ask for brief questions.

When my hon. Friend made that response, I am sure that she was not trying to mislead the House. Does she agree that as Leeds has inherited many of the county council's functions, about 2·5 per cent. less than last year is coming to Leeds from Government resources? Although some cities have benefited—and we believe that that is right — many cities under Conservative control have not.

The inner city problems that face Leeds are already taken into account in its grant-related expenditure assessment. It loses grant-related expenditure overall in its 1986–87 settlement because of the technical improvements that we have made to the education and personal social services grant-related expenditure. However,the resulting grant loss is more than balanced by the grant gains to Leeds as a result of the abolition of targets and the consequent changes in the block grant mechanism.

Will the Minister confirm that the amount of money that the Government are making available to Leeds does not adequately take into account the transfer of services from the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council? Will the Minister confirm the when that is taken into account, Leeds will be facing a cut?

I repeat that the resulting grant loss which I analysed for my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is more than balanced by the grant gains which go to Leeds as a result of the abolition of targets and the consequent changes in the block grant mechanism. The money that has been allocated to Leeds will more than adequately take up the effects of abolition.

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new appointment. Is she aware that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are very grateful for the measures that were taken to make some important concessions to the outer London boroughs in connection with the London arrangements after the demise of the Greater London council?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The aim of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was to ensure that the financial effect of abolition per se was as neutral as possible on all successor authorities. Therefore, the successor authorities have received block grant support for their spending through the reattributed grant-related expenditure that comes from the metropolitan authorities and the Greater London council, which are to be abolished.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to say when he plans to publish his Green Paper on rate reform.

I hope to do so next week.

As the rate support grant system is utterly discreditable and incomprehensible and this year continues to penalise the thrifty, will my right hon. Friend use the opportunity offered by his Green Paper to abolish it lock, stock and barrel and to replace it with a system of local government financing which will hold councillors more accountable to their electorates and broaden councils' scope to raise expenditure?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that the purpose of any change should be to improve local accountability and to bring home to local electors the consequences of their councils' spending.

Does the Secretary of State recall the view of the Layfield committee, that local income tax offers the only realistic way in which to provide a new source of revenue for local government and to increase local accountability? If so, why is he going for a flat-rate system that will bear most harshly on those most in need?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Social Democratic party on these matters, to await my Green Paper. I understand from what he said that the SDP is now in favour of local income tax, but I think he will find that it has certain unattractive features which might become more evident the more it is examined.

Reverting to the last question, does my right hon. Friend agree—

Order. We cannot do that. We are on this question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the rating system in its present form root and branch and replacing it with local income tax would increase the standard rate of tax by at least 13p in the pound? Would that not be a total disincentive to every person in the country to work?

Those are the questions that the SDP will have to answer when it formulates its proposals for reforming local government financing.

Reverting to the first supplementary question, may I ask whether the Secretary of State intends or expects to bring forward legislation on this major reform, for which we have waited 10 years, during this Parliament?

That depends on when the next election will be. I intend to consult widely during the coming months. We will then be able, I should think at about this time next year, to present a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals clearly so that, by the time of the next general election, all parties will be able to set out the attractions of their proposals to the electorate.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that any proposals in his Green Paper concerning the rate support grant system will be fairer to counties such as Hertfordshire? What possible morality can there be in the average rate support grant being 46 per cent., when rate support grant for a country that keeps its expenditure under control is only 13 per cent.?

My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about local government finance, has put his finger on the point. One of the elements of local government finance is the system known as resource equalisation, which means that there is a substantial transfer of resources from more prosperous areas to less prosperous ones. It has been endemic in the system since 1929. My hon. Friend will find that in the Green Paper I quantify it, set out the pros and cons about whether it should remain, whether it should be reduced and over how long it should be phased out, if it should be phased out.

What is the point of the Government trying to improve local accountability when they have so far introduced 12 local government Bills, most of which restrict local councillors' ability to carry out the mandates on which they were elected?

The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the problem. When the Green Paper comes out next week, he will see that there is a clear choice, not only for the House, but for the country, as to whether there should be more central control of local government or more local accountability. In essence, this is a constitutional question.

When my right hon. Friend brings his proposals for reforming the rating system before the House, will he bear in mind that, while many of us accept the need for some redistribution, there is great resentment in the shire counties because money is being transferred to areas where there is no local accountability and large sums are squandered on hare-brained schemes?

I agree. The whole thrust of my proposals, as my hon. Friend will see, is to give local authorities greater responsibility for making their own spending decisions so that they can say to their electors, if they want to support proposals, that it will cost them so much. At the moment, when a local elector goes into the polling booth and makes a judgment on his council, he finds it exceedingly difficult to judge whether the council is efficient or inefficient and whether it is thrifty or not, because of the complicated grant system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the recent announcement on rate support grant settlements.

I think it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend and I have both received numerous representations.

The Secretary of State will have received representations regarding section 137, which many local authorities principally use to attract industry, to keep jobs in their areas and to assist voluntary organisations. Because of the way that the RSG is being changed, many councils will have insufficient money to maintain those important services. Will the Minister give me an assurance that until the Widdicombe committee has reported on these aspects he will guarantee that councils can maintain those important programmes?

The hon. Gentleman refers to a real problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) has met the Association of Metropolitan authorities to discuss. I cannot yet give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman seeks. We are still gathering facts about the matter, but I recognise the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that supporting the Government on this issue is hazardous in the extreme? After nearly 16 years as a Member of this House I find myself in the extraordinary position of being criticised by the Christchurch and East Dorset Conservative Association for voting in favour of the rating proposals which were passed on Monday. Will he make it quite clear that, the Government having made their proposals known in Dorset, it is up to the Dorset county council to decide whether to introduce a large, medium or small rate increase this year?

My hon. Friend is right. The most crucial decision is the spending level of the council, and that is up to the local authority. I confirm what he said.

Will the Minister confirm that he has had representations from Leeds city council pointing out that not only will the net amount that it will receive go down on comparable terms this year, but that in comparison with the other metropolitan districts it has been treated particularly badly? Will he explain to the council when it comes to see him and his colleagues on 3 February why it has lost so much money compared with other local authorities?

I am not sure that the situation in Leeds is quite as bad as the hon. Gentleman sets out, but I have no doubt that when the council meets my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or any other Minister, it will have the matter properly explained to it.

I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to a statement made in my constituency on Friday last by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said publicly that were a Labour Government to be brought back into office after the next general election they would immediately pay back to the shire counties the sum of £13 billion, which the Labour party allegs has been shifted from them by the Government? Is that not a most irresponsible statement? Is it not made even more irresponsible in the light of the fact that under the regression analysis basis the Labour Government shifted vast resources from the shire counties to the inner cities?

My hon. Friend's question confirms what I have long suspected to be the truth—that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is anxious not to find himself part of a future Labour Government who would be an embarrassment to him. Therefore, he is making a number of irresponsible comments to ensure that there is no danger of that.

Has the Minister received representations from the leader of Sefton council, a Conservative council which is a paragon of underspending virtue? The leader of the council, Mr. Ron Watson, supported rate capping on the basis that when the over-spending councils were dealt with there would be more money available for low-spending councils, such as Sefton. He is wondering where that money is. The rate support grant settlement will mean a 20 per cent. rate increase in an authority which has already cut services to the bone.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that inner city authorities have gained from the settlement. There are still problems for all authorities, because we are still seeking economies, even from reasonably low spenders. However, this year's settlement has brought more help than the previous system, even to authorities such as Sefton.

rose—

Mr. Colvin.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order.

On the previous question to the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I expressed a wish to be called.

It was my fault. I did not see the signals. I apologise.

I refer to the stunt performed by the Secretary of State on Monday, when he published the grant recycling 1986–87 paper in which he tried unsuccessfully to persuade his hon. Friends about the amounts that would be received under grant recycling. Will the Minister answer the question that he dodged on Monday? What assumption about increases in local authority spending were included in that document? Was it 9 per cent.? If not, what was the percentage?

I dodged no question and no answer. There was an assumption as to what would be the effect of a pool of £400 million.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the document produced by the Commission on Environmental Pollution entitled "Managing Waste—the Duty of Care".

My right hon. Friend announced on 10 December last a number of measures which the Government propose to take to tighten up control over waste disposal. Some of those respond directly to recommendations in the latest report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. The Government are considering the other recommendations and will be responding fully later this year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the report, on page 160, suggests that the regulatory authorities should be more ready to communicate the findings of their investigations to the public in an open-minded way? Does he agree with the recommendation that waste companies should be more ready to make the results of monitoring of waste plants public, in order to allay anxiety that can arise from the veil of secrecy which at present overrides the monitoring results?

My hon. Friend has become an expert on such matters as a result of events in his constituency. His comments are correct. The Government intend to try to achieve further openness in these matters. A working group is trying to find ways to do that without loading intolerable burdens on industry. I accept the policy direction in which my hon. Friend wishes to move.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's failure to deal with pollution of the environment has been absolute? Over the years they have done nothing to carry out the proposals in the reports of commissions. Is it not time that they faced the problem of pollution? Unless we are careful, the entire nation will be dying stage by stage, because the Government have not begun to deal with the problems of pollution.

I think the hon. Gentleman has shot himself in what the late Fats Waller called one of his pedal extremities. The Government moved quickly to accept many of the recommendations of the most recent Royal Commission on environmental pollution. For over 10 years the previous Labour Government—of which the hon. Gentleman was a member for a time—failed to introduce part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which we have now moved to implement.

May I draw to the Minister's attention paragraphs 5.28 and 5.29 of the Royal Commission's report, which refer to the experiments and small-scale developments in two of the most illustrious universities in the country—Manchester and Salford—which have been so greviously hit by the Government? They are developing a plan of extracting oil from domestic refuse. Will the Minister pay heed to those paragraphs, and not wait for a wider response? Will he encourage those two universities to escalate those experiments to a pilot scheme?

I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot respond to him off the cuff now, but I listened with sympathy to what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environmet how many parish or town councils raised a rate of 3p or more in the last year for which records are available; and if he will make a statement.

About 1,900 in 1985–86.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her answer. Do she and the rest of the Government appreciate that there is no control whatsoever of parish or town council precepts? They can raise any rate they like, rate capping or not, and the district councils have to bill for that. Unless the Government take some form of action shortly, every town and parish council in the country is liable to fall into the hands of a Bernie Grant, a Hatton or a Livingstone, and thereby create absolute mayhem for the Government.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the potential expenditure of parish councils. I believe that that matter is under discussion and will be part of my right hon. Friend's Green Paper.

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), may I ask what proposals the Government have for ensuring that district councils are not penalised for such expenditure by parish councils, for example those in my area, where the parish councils might spend a total of over £1 million? In future years, will the Minister consider informing district councils of the amount allowed in GREA for parish council precepts?

The most effective way of ensuring that parish councils keep down their expenditure can be drawn to the attention of the electorate at the time of an election. I suggest that the ballot box is the most effective way of controlling that expenditure.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that she is aware of the great weight of responsible opinion in my suburban constituency that is hostile to having a framework of parish councils imposed upon it?

I note what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the future development of sports funded by the council.

I meet regularly the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss issues relating to the development of sports. We last met one week ago.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he discuss the considerable financial loss to sport when the Greater London council and metropolitan counties are abolished? How will he attempt to explain to the chairman how the miserly £5 million grant from the Government to the Sports Council can meet the requirements of sporting projects currently financed by those authorities, especially when the Sports Council estimates a shortfall of £8 million, plus 23 staff, and the Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates a shortfall of as much as £30 million?

The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that recently the Sports Council grant was increased to £37 million from £30·6 million, which is the biggest increase that has ever been given to the Sports Council. It represents an increase of 150 per cent. since the Government came into power. The money that the Sports Council holds is in its hands to disburse. I remind the hon. Gentleman that district and borough councils make the greatest contribution to sport, not the Sports Council.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he make it clear that the visit to South Africa by 12 women cricketers on holiday was in no way on the instruction of the Women's Cricket Association, so the Women's Cricket Association was wrong to ban—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will see that the question is about sports funded by the Sports Council.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The threat that is now being made, that the Sports Council's grant may be withdrawn from the Women's Cricket Association because of that visit is spurious and should not have been made, because the grant will still go ahead despite the

My hon. Friend said that the ladies were in South Africa on holiday. If they happen to play cricket while they are there I have no control over that, nor does the Sports Council. The Government entirely support the Gleneagles agreement and all governing bodies are well aware of that.

Is the Minister aware of the growing anger of Members of Parliament from rugby league playing areas about the attitude of the rugby union authorities to amateur rugby league players? Will he make it clear to the chairman of the Sports Council that no further taxpayers' money will be made available to the rugby union authorities unless they drop the particularly obnoxious form of apartheid that they practice?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the Sports Council is doing all it can to bring about conciliation between the British Amateur Rugby League Association and the Rugby Football Union. I have no locus in the matter. It is entirely a matter for the Sports Council, as it is also entirely a matter for the Sports Council as to how it distributes its funds.

Rather than pay an increased grant to the Sports Council, would it not be better to give that money to the shire counties and let them spend it on what they wish?

The money that local authorities get for sports purposes is included within the local environmental services grant. Expenditure on sport and recreation in local authorities is running at over £700 million a year. The Sports Council grant is for specific purposes. I have no hesitation in saying that both the Sports Council and local authorities are disbursing their funds correctly.

So that the Sports Council may be clear about how it is to spend the extra money, will the Minister confirm that the Government regard the British Amateur Rugby League Association—many young men in my constituency play that game—as a bona fide amateur organisation?

I am sure that the British Amateur Rugby League Association is an amateur body.

Like the Government Front Bench.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the public inquiry with regard to the proposed Tillingham Hall development to commence; and if he will make a statement.

The public inquiry is due to start on 18 March. As the case is currently before the Secretary of State, it would not be appropriate for me to make a statement at present.

In view of the widespread interest in the proposed Tillingham Hall development in the green belt at Maldon in my constituency, and the widespread opposition to it throughout the constituency, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the delay between the end of the public inquiry and the ministerial decision on the appeal will be kept to a minimum?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the Government appear to be creating the impression that they do not care about the maintenance of the green belt? Do the Government support developers' proposals for a ring of private enterprise new towns around London in the green belt? Does not the Government's White Paper, published last year, reinforce the view that they want to see an erosion of the green belt by proposing that simplified planning zone powers should be given to private developers? May I make it clear to the Minister, the Department and the House that the Labour party is totally opposed to the creeping erosion of green belt policy?

This is the first time that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, but I was not aware that he had been asleep for the last few months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in a speech to the House-Builders Federation that the Government are firmly committed to the green belt and the conservation of the countryside. In an Adjournment debate in the House on 19 December I also made it clear that the Government are committed to that policy. I cannot pass judgment on individual applications until there is an application or an appeal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received since his appointment as Secretary of State about funding of those voluntary and charitable organisations which are presently supported by the metropolitan councils.

At least 23.

Is the Minister aware that the chaos which the Opposition predicted would follow the abolition proposals for the metropolitan counties is now beginning to develop, especially in the voluntary sector? Why have the Government changed their policy? Why are they now refusing to allow transitional grants to be given to voluntary organisations which operate wholly or for the most part in one district area? Lots of voluntary organisations are not being funded, they cannot get funds from district councils, and their future is threatened.

; There has been no change of policy. We have always made it clear that transitional grant was aimed at local schemes funded by the metropolitan counties, and not countywide schemes. Under section 48 we have given local authorities powers to set up countywide schemes, and it is for them to decide whether such schemes are needed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many voluntary bodies funded by the metropolitan counties depended not on voluntary giving but on money from rates and taxes? Will he encourage local authorities and the Government, if it is within his right so to do, to look carefully at bodies that receive money from ratepayers and taxpayers to see how many people doing voluntary work are paid for it?

Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with what my hon. Friend says. We have made it clear that transitional grant will not be available for certain voluntary organisations currently funded by the metropolitan counties. If local councils wish to go ahead and fund with ratepayers' money, they must be held accountable for that at the next election.

Is the Minister aware that many local, voluntary and charitable groups face sudden and tragic extinction as a result of the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? In the GLC area only a quarter of the money that was available from the GLC is now available by way of transitional grant. The problem is illustrated by that mecca of municipal meanness, Wandsworth, which even if it wanted to help all the voluntary and charitable groups in its area, now finds itself overspent under section 137. Will the Minister take the opportunity presented by the Local Government Bill to amend the law to do some justice to voluntary and charitable organisations?

In an earlier exchange my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Local Government dealt with the issue in section 137. We are discussing it with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and it is under review. It is not the case that transitional grant was ever meant to cover the totality of GLC giving. It is extra governmental assistance on top of the resources of London, which are still available after abolition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure at the fact that there is now progress towards a collective scheme in London that will involve a substantial sum of money.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest or sites about to be so designated have been damaged or destroyed since the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

The Nature Conservancy Council has advised me that since the Act was introduced just over 500 sites have been damaged. In most cases the damage was relatively minor and short-term. That can be compared to more than 5,000 sites of special scientific interest which the Nature Conservancy Council has identified.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the worse cases of organised vandalism against scientific knowledge have been perpetrated by public statutory bodies? Will he now review the working of this part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act in order more effectively to restrain public bodies from their destructive intentions?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of specific cases I shall personally investigate them, because I am as concerned as he is about the loss of and damage to these sites.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that sites of special scientific interest will continue to be under threat until notification is completed? Although the Nature Conservancy Council has been greatly helped by the substantial extra funds provided by the Government, will my right hon. Friend tell us when notification will be completed?

My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The chairman has said in his report that he hopes that the process of notification of the sites to all owners will be completed this year. He will be helped in that by the considerable extra funding that we have provided for the NCC this year — an extra £9·4 million. That is a substantial increase, which follows a 25 per cent. increase last year, and is money well spent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share our hopes that the loss of such valuable sites, which are extremely important parts of our natural heritage, will soon end? If that is achieved, will it not be largely due to the amending legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? Is it not rather a pity that the Government sought to take all the credit for that advance?

I would not give the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) all the credit, but the amendment that he helped to put on the statute book last year certainly helped. However, the essence of this is the resources which the Government will make available. It is the resources which will save the sites. We have put our money where our environmental mouth is.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives he is taking to promote owner-occupation in the inner cities.

A lot. Let me give some examples. We are assisting new private house building in inner cities through the urban development grant. We are financing housing association development for home ownership, with an exphasis on the inner cities. We are urging local authorities to sell their empty housing for home ownership, perhaps after renovation. We are bringing more wasted urban land into use by giving derelict land grant for land reclamation and pressing the sale of vacant public land. My Department's urban housing renewal unit is helping authorities to bring run down council housing back into use for owner-occupiers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot promote the welfare of the inner cities unless we promote owner-occupation there? Does he agree that city councils such as Leicester, which makes no provision for local home ownership, and which this year sold only enough land to the private sector to build four houses, are not showing much faith in the inner cities?

Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend. It is critical for a good social mix in the inner cities for there to be a mixed set of tenures, including owner-occupation. It is sad that councils such as Leicester should take the negative attitude that they are doing.

Does the Minister agree that the greatest deterrent to home ownership in the inner cities is the extremely high level of mortgage interest rates, which are currently at risk of going even higher? What representation has he made to his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister about the impact of any increase in the level of general interest rates on mortgages?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. The reason why so little owner-occupation is being promoted in so many inner city areas is the stupid intransigence of so many Labour authorities which refuse to make use of the opportunities available to them and refuse to co-operate, in the way that good Labour authorities such as Salford and Oldham do, with the private sector and the Government.

Will my hon. Friend consider using some of the additional money that he has made available for the inner cities to reduce the number of houses in public ownership? Does he agree that one of the best ways of doing that would be by switching the weekly rental payments for houses, maisonettes and flats to a mortgage repayment? In that way, public ownership could be switched to private ownership at a stroke.

Yes, that is an interesting idea and we shall consider it.

It is all very well for well-heeled Tory Ministers to talk about owner-occupation, but what advice can be offered to the people of Newham, for example, in public sector housing, 90 per cent. of whom cannot afford a deposit for a mortgage, while the London Docklands Development Corporation is building luxury houses and flats at £50,000 and £60,000 a go? What good are they to the people of Newham?

The Department's urban housing renewal unit now has a budget of £50 million for the coming financial year to make it possible for councils such as Newham to co-operate in bringing mixed forms of tenure back into the inner cities. There is a need to promote sensible debate about the need for a better social mix in the inner city, which partly, but not wholly, involves the introduction of owner-occupation. I believe that Labour and Liberal Members of Parliament agree with that.

Bearing in mind the large amount of empty property in the ownership of local authorities over years and years, is it not clear now that urging is not enough? Will my hon. Friend seriously consider bringing in legislation to require local authorities, whose domestic property has been empty for more than one year, to put it immediately upon the open market?

It is a scandal. My hon. and learned Friend is right. If we look at the areas where there is the highest homelessness and the most rate rebates, we find them in councils controlled by the Labour party in London. We may have to take radical action. Last July we distributed a circular giving councils the opportunity to do more to bring back into use empty property in their ownership. If they do not do that, we shall have to think again.

Given that high unemployment makes it virtually impossible for many people in the inner cities to become owner-occupiers, does the Minister agree that housing co-operatives are a good way of promoting more ownership in inner cities? If so, what extra funds and personnel will be made available to pursue that objective?

Yes, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. The housing co-operative movement is important. It is a tragedy that councils have sometimes put barriers in the way of housing co-operatives getting going in various city areas. I hope that when we debate the Housing and Planning Bill we shall have a chance to talk about such ideas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that only 4,500 council houses and, surprisingly, seven council flats have been sold in the city of Leicester? Will he promote and speed the sale of all council houses and make it clear that the new arrangements for the sale of council flats should be distributed to all tenants? Is he further aware that there are now about 10,000 empty properties in the county of Leicestershire?

My hon. Friend will not have long to wait, I hope, for the publication of the Housing and Planning Bill, which will contain our proposals for increasing the rate of sale of flats. I am appalled to learn from him of the substantial number of empty properties in Leicestershire. I am equally appalled by the substantial land holdings that so many inner city authorities have which could be used to bring housing back into the inner cities and lead to a housing-led regeneration of some of our inner city areas.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's policies have ravaged the housing and construction programmes of the city of Leicester in the public and private sectors? Is he further aware that there is no point in having land available for building if no one has the money to buy houses and if the people who have bought them are unemployed and cannot pay the mortgage? Why is he not doing anything to help the owner-occupiers of Smith houses in my constituency, who cannot have them put right because, to no small extent, of the two Tory MPs who represent the city?

I am rather confused. It was only a few weeks ago that the hon. and learned Gentleman was praising me for the action that I had taken over Smith houses in Leicester. I am sorry that he seems to have changed his tune. The trouble with city councils such as Leicester is that they do not seem to have the imagination to promote a multiplicity of forms of tenure—home ownership, housing associations, housing co-operatives and building for special needs.

If the Minister wants to help poorer owner-occupiers, why has his Government brought about a position where virtually every city authority, Labour and Conservative-controlled, has had to cut repair and improvement grants, which are the best way to help the rotting privately owned housing stock in our cities?

During the life of this Parliament we have already spent about £2·5 billion on improvement grants. We are spending about £500 million a year. That expenditure helps to diversify tenure in the inner cities. If one talks to tenants as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir. G. Young) did today on the Doddington estate in the constituency of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubbs), one finds that tenants wish to see their estates privatised and home ownership brought into those areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the urban housing renewal unit; and if he will make a statement.

The urban housing renewal unit is making excellent progress in helping local authorities implement a range of imaginative solutions to the problems of their rundown estates. The unit is concentrating its efforts on the 69 authorities with the worst problems, and has already visited 43 of those, offering detailed advice and assistance tailored to individual estates. A further 19 visits are planned over the next three months.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. The principles underlying the urban housing renewal unit are excellent. He will be aware, no doubt, of the delicate negotiations that are often necessary to establish a partnership between the public and private sectors to assist priority estates, such as the Abbey park estate in my constituency. Can he assure the House that early decisions will be taken, so that private developers will not be discouraged by bureaucratic delay or inadequate public sector contributions to the overall scheme, and so that the tenants at Abbey park and elsewhere can benefit sooner rather than later?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to him in response to his recent letter. I am very keen for the sort of initiative that has been described to go ahead. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly about the council's application for a community refurbishment scheme on the Abbey park estate.

Can the Minister tell us whether the renewal unit will be giving help and advice to the landlords who have the biggest percentage of their housing stock empty, central Government, at 6.·8 per cent?

As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, the urban housing renewal unit is aimed at helping local authorities. There is a separate range of intitiatives taking place in central Government to reduce the number of vacancies in central Government stocks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to reinforce the ability of local authorities to control the planning environment in their own areas.

In general, local authorities have, under the planning Acts, adequate powers to control and influence development where it is necessary in the public interest.

Would that were so. Is my hon. Friend aware that both Christchurch and Wimbourne district councils in my constituency are near despair at their inability to control the planning environment in their own areas and that the Department's presumption in favour of the big developers, often outsiders, whose protestations of the public interest are greeted with hollow laughter in my constituency, is strongly opposed? Is he aware that in the south-east of the county the face of Dorset is being changed, quite contrary to the wishes of the people there and of the elected councils?

We are very well aware of the strong feelings of my hon. Friend. I seek to reassure him by telling him that only one in 25 planning applications is the subject of an appeal, and that, of appeals only about one third are successful. In determining appeals the Secretary of State is required, as is the planning authority at application stage, to have regard to the development plan, together with other material considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of privatisation of local authority public services.

The Government remain disappointed that so few authorities have seen fit to expose their services to competition. Opportunities for increased efficiency, and savings for ratepayers, are clearly being lost.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's opposition to the privatisation of services is a reflection of its attitude that the public are there, not to be served, but as an endless source of cash for local authority workers?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sad that more Labour-controlled authorities have not taken the opportunity, on behalf of their ratepayers, to contract out their services, since there would be undoubted savings for their ratepayers by so doing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the level of capital applications made for 1986–87.

I have received a number of letters about those capital allocations for which my right hon. Friend's Department is responsible.

Does the Minister recall that during the past six years there has been a reduction of gross capital expenditure—which includes capital receipts—from just over £5,000 million to a current figure of about £2,500 million a year, a reduction of 50 per cent. in gross capital expenditure available? Is he further aware that in the past two years alone there has been a reduction of £1,000 million in real terms? How is it possible for local authorities to undertake repair, construction and other capital schemes, by themselves or jointly with the private sector, if there is a constant reduction in the capital available to them for housing purposes?

The Government have to judge the balance between public and private investment. The restraint on public investment, which of course causes problems for those public authorities, is part of the picture that has led us to have overall record investment, including public and private, in the economy at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the objectives of his Department's home ownership policy; how is he monitoring its effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

The objective of my Department's home ownership policy is to enable more people to own their own homes, as the overwhelming majority wish. The measure of its effectiveness is the increase of more than two million in the number of owner-occupied homes in Britain since we took office in 1979. In that time, Government policies have directly achieved the sale of more than 800,000 public sector dwellings to sitting tenants.

If home ownership is brought within the reach of more people, does that not enable local authorities to concentrate resources on those in greatest need?

My hon. Friend is quite right. If we can bring home ownership within the reach of those on the waiting list or those who are already local authority tenants, local authorities can concentrate their resources on those in need whom the private sector cannot help.

What about the people on the waiting list who cannot afford to buy their own homes? Will the Minister comment on the policies of local authorities, including Wandsworth council, which are selling off many empty council properties to people who are not on the waiting list, thus saying to people who are homeless, badly housed, overcrowded and living in tower blocks "You have no chance of better housing in your lifetime"?

I spent the morning in the hon. Member's constituency of Battersea. The threat to security of tenure is not to the tenant, but to the hon. Gentleman, as a result of the imaginative policies pursued by the local authority. When estates are privatised and flats are sold, they are offered in the first instance to those on the waiting list or to those who are already in local authority accommodation, who have the benefit of discounts. In general, those are the people who buy privatised property.