asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to investigate the rents being charged by private landlords to unemployed tenants.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware of evidence from Leeds and Liverpool that a considerable abuse of the fair rents system is taking place? Because the initiative lies with tenants to apply to register a fair rent, if the rent is paid through housing benefit there is no incentive for them to do so. A number of private landlords charge up to four times a fair rent and pocket a vast amount of public funds. Would it not he in the Minister's own interests to liaise with other Departments. for example, to put the initiative with the Department of Health and Social Security to register a fair rent, and to ascertain the extent of the abuse?

One or two cases of abuse have been reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is a bit much to say that there is considerable evidence of abuse, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pick his words carefully. Local authorities have the duty and the power to deal with cases of abuse where and when they exist. Local authorities should get on and do the job.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are so many anomalies in the Rent Acts that to try to protect any minority, whether unemployed or otherwise, is almost impossible? Is it not time that we had a general review of the Rent Acts and tried to formulate a legislative document on the Rent Acts that the normal person in the street can understand?

The Rent Acts are of enormous concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, and we are always thinking about them.

How can the Minister justify the fact that in one area of Liverpool for nine properties a landlord is collecting over £120,000 a year, at taxpayers' expense, whereas, if a fair rent were charged, he would collect only £50,000 a year? What does the Minister intend to do about that?

I know the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and obviously I cannot discuss it in the House this afternoon. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to our attention. I know of his concern about the matter. None the less, Liverpool city council has the power and the duty to do something about it, and it should do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on building on greenfield sites or a ribbon development from villages and towns in southern England.

Our policies are to encourage the fullest possible use of sites in urban areas, to protect the green belt and to avoid ribbon development. But some building on open land cannot be avoided if the demand for homes and commercial and industrial premises is to be met.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the first part of his answer is reassuring, but that the second is not'? Does he also accept that structure plans, as drawn by local councils, have identified, in my constituency at least, sufficient land for development for housing beyond the turn of the century? Will he encourage builders to develop that land, encourage councils and other public authorities to make that land available, and look carefully before he gives permission for development outside those village and town boundaries?

Yes I certainly will, but I am not the planning authority. In the first instance, the district council is able to grant planning permission, and it can do so, on some occasions, with regard to open land. My policy on appeal is as I have described it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sheer madness to build on greenfield sites outside towns and villages when almost a third of a million acres of land are vacant, dormant and derelict in public ownership? Should not the Government call in all structure plans that seek to eat into the greenfield sites, to ensure that all the vacant, dormant and derelict land in public ownership is filled up first?

I agree with my hon. Friend that vacant and derelict land in cities and towns should be the first land to be redeveloped, but it would not be acceptable locally or right to develop a hard and fast policy. I could not agree more strongly with my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will, of course, always be demand for housing, but that central Government have a responsibility to ensure that the south does not finish up with concrete from Kent to Somerset? Does he agree that, in the national interest, it is important that development should be pushed further north, which everyone would welcome?

Yes; but I make the point that I am not the only person who gives planning consent. Some 75 per cent. of consents are given by planning authorities.

Is it not interesting that all this pressure for new housing development is in the south, not in the north? Is not the reason for the high level of demand the emphasis of the Government's economic and industrial policies on development in the south? If a switch were to take place towards the northern region of the United Kingdom, all those pressures would be relieved. That is at the heart of the problem.

No. One of the main engines of this pressure is the high rating policies of councils in the north of England, which have driven businesses south, forcing people to follow if they are to obtain jobs. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do his constituents a service, he will encourage northern councils to impose lower rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the London boroughs towards bringing empty residential property back into use.

The boroughs reduced their empty dwellings from some 34,200 in 1982 to 31,600 in 1985, but further improvements should be made as soon as possible.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply with the good news that there has been a reduction. Is he aware that that does not apply to every authority? There is still a need to reduce the unacceptably high numbers of flats and houses which stand empty for a long time. What are the Government's proposals to ensure that councils toe the line?

We are continuing to give as much advice and guidance as we can, especially in respect of frankly delinquent boroughs such as Southwark, which is Labour-controlled, with 5 per cent. of its stock empty, Hackney, which is Labour-controlled, with 7 per cent. of its stock empty and, worst of all, Tower Hamlets, which is Liberal-controlled, with more than 8 per cent. of its stock empty.

Does the Minister agree that one of the culprits in keeping homes empty is his beloved Tory-controlled Wandsworth council? Homes there are kept empty, much to the offence of homeless and badly housed people, because Wandsworth borough council is selling off those properties.

Wandsworth is without doubt one of the best housing authorities in this country. Through prudent management of its resources, Wandsworth is managing to spend more than almost any other London borough on the repair and renovation of housing stock.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nothing will assist in alleviating the shortage of residential accommodation in London so much as the repeal of the Rent Acts, which have been the cause of much social misery as well as housing shortages for many years?

Alas, there are about 90,000 vacant private properties in London. If we could find a common sense way of bringing those properties back into use, that would be of the greatest possible assistance to the homeless. I wish that we could find some common ground about ways to achieve that without involving the confiscation of private property.

Does the Minister accept that his Department, when it last studied empty properties in the public sector, concluded that 3·8 per cent. of properties in the public sector were empty, 4·2 per cent. of properties in the private sector were empty and 6·9 per cent. of Government properties were empty? Will the hon. Gentleman put his own house in order before he criticises local authorities?

It is important for Government Departments to make sure that they are getting rid of all empty property. Certainly Government Departments, to take just one example, will be rid of all their empty houses by 1988.

Does not my hon. Friend's answer confirm that local authorities in London and elsewhere are not necessarily the best qualified to manage the nation's housing stock? Is that not further endorsed by the fact that the majority of the nation's rent arrears, now considerably in excess of £200 million, should have been collected by otherwise negligent Labour-controlled councils? What proposals does my hon. Friend have to put out the management of the nation's housing stock to housing associations, building societies and others?

We have an appalling problem of rent and rate arrears in this country, which amounts to more than £200 million. We intend to explore every avenue that we can to reduce that debt burden. In particular, we are always prepared to consider the idea that the management of council stock should be devolved to tenants, who can probably manage it a lot better than many local authorities seem to be doing at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce details of the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement.

I announced details of my proposals for the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement to the House yesterday.

Is it the Secretary of State's intention to set a deliberatly inadequate level of grant-related expenditure in order to force many local authorities to spend beyond it and so incur millions of pounds worth of loss of grant? In practice, would that not be a rather devious way of reintroducing a penalty system in another form? If it did happen like that, would not much, or perhaps all, of the £1 billion that the Secretary of State talked about yesterday be offset by such loss of grants?

It is the Government's intention, after consultation, to set grant-related expenditure totals at a lower figure than the total of provision. The consequences that will flow from that are not those suggested by the hon. Gentleman. There will be a slightly different allocation of resources in a better direction, and I doubt whether it will make much difference to the amount of grant forfeited.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following his generous settlement of the rate support grant yesterday, there should be no excuse for any local authority to engage in extravagant and unnecessary spending? Does he also agree that the settlement should be used to keep rate demands down to their lowest possible level and that money should be spend only on that which is necessary and essential?

The in word is "realistic" rather than "generous". However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I confirm that the results of yesterday's announcement should be that councils which spend reasonably and moderately in accordance with their needs will suffer little, if any, need for increasing rate bills.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the London borough of Newham is still in dispute with his Department about the outturn of the borough's budget for 1985–86? As that obviously very much affects the calculation upon which he has based Newham's rate capping, it means that less agreement can be reached in favour of Newham. Next year the London borough of Newham, which is the second most deprived local authority area in the country, will have to make a reduction of about £20 million in its budget. Will the Secretary of State please tell the London borough of Newham, since he has taken over control of local government, where it should make the cuts in expenditure? Is he aware of the enormous social and economic problems in Newham, or does he not care? We pay.

I have the deepest sympathy with the inhabitants of the borough of Newham when I think who represents them at local government and parliamentary level. So great is it that if they were to come to me with an application for redetermination of their expenditure level, we would consider it in accordance with the legislation.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the considered view of some of the associations of local authorities is that, having received approximately £1 billion of new money, £630 million will be lost by the abolition of recycling? Is that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the Secretary of State that that will allow a half penny in the pound to come off income tax, or is it because the Secretary of State will make sure that the money lost will he put hack into the kitty and the Government will not suffer a net loss, despite the announcement made yesterday?

The hon. Gentleman has mixed up two different years. The figure for the current year is £628 million of lost grant, but, with a great increase in both provision and aggregate Exchequer grant next year, the figure of grant lost must, by definition, be much smaller than that. If authorities do not spend up at all, it will be zero. It is up to them.

I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was unable to rate-cap Leicester, because, as he said in his statement yesterday, there was something wrong with the formula. However, I reassure him that the people of Leicester are sad that they have not been re-rate capped. Will he look at the formula again and possibly include Leicester later, because the council is borrowing money unfairly? Rates are shooting up by the 80 per cent. I mentioned yesterday, and the people of Leicester feel let down.

The people of Leicester have one consolation for the unfortunate nature of their local authority, and that is that they are extremely well represented in Parliament.

I sympathise with the Secretary of State's problems in relation to Leicester, and particularly the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), but is he aware that his statement, that the amount of holdback under the system is hound to be less than the £628 million last year, shows how little he understands the system over which he presides? The amount of holdback could be more than £628 million for this year if he sets the levels of GREA substantially below the £25·2 billion at which he has set current expenditure. Will he come clean and tell the House at what level he will set the GREA?

I made it clear that the Government thought that an increase in the totals of GREAs by the amount of the GDP deflator would be appropriate, although we have increased the total provision by 8·5 per cent. The figures are 3·5 per cent. on GREAs and 5 per cent. extra provision above that, which means an increase of 3–75 per cent. over this year's budgets. If authorities have provision to spend at 3·75 per cent. over this years budget, not this year's provision, they are able to survive without forfeit of grant. The cash figure for GREA is 95 per cent. of the cash figure for provision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek further powers to prevent local authorities taking action aimed at circumventing rate-capping legislation; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend announced yesterday that he would be seeking to block one major loophole which has up to now been used by some authorities to avoid the effect of rate capping. We keep the position under review.

I hope that my hon. Friend will take careful note that the Left-wing loonies who run Harlow council recently banned the playing of the national anthem. The council has arranged a loan facility with a merchant bank for £50 million, which will cost the ratepayers over £20 million in bank charges. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to do something about it.

Harlow is one of the authorities which, by manoeuvreing their balances, have just kept out of rate capping by keeping below the threshold of £11 million. The only thing that one can say to such authorities is that the penalties for all this will be visited on the people in the end. They will be paying not only the cost of the Left-wing high expenditure, but the profit margins of the people who are enabling them to undertake these manoeuvres.

Rate capping has not prevented the London borough of Greenwich from budgeting to spend 25 per cent. more this year than it spent last year, so is the Minister not shutting the stable door long after the horse has well and truly bolted? Will he confirm that whatever fancy borrowing the council is undertaking, there will be a day of reckoning when the bill has to be paid, not by the councillors, but by the ratepayers? What help can the ratepayers get from the measures to which the Minister has just referred?

We have blocked off one of the major measures. A leader of one of the Labour-controlled London boroughs, Mrs. Hodge, has explicitly said that she believes that this is a very high risk strategy, because it rests upon being bailed out by a future Labour Government. That is indeed a very high risk strategy, particularly as the Labour Front Bench has taken great care not to say that Labour will bail them out. The costs will fall on the ratepayers in the end. It is very irresponsible of those authorities to act like that.

I welcomed yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that some of the most Left-wing councils have been prepared to embrace capitalism in some of its more extreme forms, including overseas banks and offshore funds?

They will also learn, as some countries in South America and elsewhere have learnt, that, although one can borrow, in the end it catches up with one.

In the first part of his answer to me yesterday the Secretary of State referred to rate capping in Brent. In my innocence, I thought that he understood the intense social problems in that inner city area. If he was sincere, will he now make sure that no attempt is made to prevent creative accounting or steps being taken to ease rather than circumvent rate capping, and provide some services for the very hard-pressed people in my area? Yesterday the Secretary of State referred to rent arrears, but they occurred under a Tory administration. I assure him that now that Labour has gained control again, they will be rapidly dealt with.

I do not believe that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question can be quite right, because there was only one year of Tory administration in Brent. What stands between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend and me is a completely different analysis of what will help the people of Brent. We do not believe that high spending, high taxing inner city authorities are the best way out for problem areas like Brent. Brent needs enterprise, low taxes and new jobs.

Has my hon. Friend noted the recent decision of Bristol city council, which is under Labour control, to seek funds from an overseas bank for wasteful expenditure, which funds will no doubt arise from that bank's investments in South Africa? Does he agree that this is just a sign of the new-found desire of Bristol city council, at the prodding of the Transport and General Workers Union, to increase trade links with South Africa?

My hon. Friend is very ingenious in going a little bit wider than my Department's responsibilities. I am aware that Bristol city council has been seeking the re-financing of some of its dock debt, but I am not certain that I am aware of what my hon. Friend is referring to today.

Will the Minister confirm that the admission that we dragged out of the Secretary of State a few moments ago means that authorities' GREAs will be £1,260 million less than the £25·2 billion that he said he was accepting as their current spending? That is bound to mean that not just rate-capped authorities will suffer penalties, but that virtually every authority will suffer major penalties and that the total of those penalties could well, arithmetically, exceed the £628 million of grant money that was recycled this year.

When the hon. Gentleman has done the sums more carefully, I think he will find that it is exceedingly unlikely that the grant penalty money will be comparable to that for this year. Neither he nor I can say yet what the likelihood will be, because it will depend upon the spending levels and upon the GREs that are ultimately set.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to comply with European Economic Community draft directive 1202 on fire resistance tests.

Commission document 1202 contained simply a preliminary draft directive. Since then work has been undertaken by the Commission to develop the proposals further. We shall be consulting industry when a formal proposal is made as a further step in the Community's programme for removing barriers to trade.

The Minister will know that the Government's publicly stated objective, while they hold the presidency of the EEC, is to remove technical barriers to trade. As the Minister rightly says, draft directive 1202 does that by absolving manufacturers and exporters from having a second fire text. We all understand why the fire laboratories, which make a fat living from this testing, should want to drag their feet, but why are the Minister and the Government dragging their feet?

Neither the Minister nor the Government are dragging their feet. The high standards in Britain are maintained through the building regulations. We are waiting for the Commission to follow up its draft directive with firm proposals, and the moment that it does that we shall respond.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take in the light of the findings of the first part of his Department's research study of houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales; and when he hopes to publish the second part of the study.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about his Department's policy towards houses in multiple occupation.

We have already strengthened local authorities' powers in this area and issued guidance. They should use those powers and follow that guidance. We are considering the need for further measures in the light of the current research and representations to the Department. We hope to publish the second part of the study before the end of the year.

As over 1 million people live in multi-occupied accommodation, and as at the present rate of progress it will take between 70 and 85 years to bring it up to acceptable minimum standards, does my hon. Friend not think that there is a strong case for introducing legislation to compel local authorities to direct resources into this important but neglected area?

This is an extrememly important area and one in which my hon. Friend has shown a considerable interest for many years. Progress is patchy. Some local authorities have made good progress, but, alas, others have not used the powers that have been theirs for between 20 and 25 years. We are waiting for the results of the research examination that we are making. Those results will be published by the end of the year and at that time we shall consider whether to issue strengthened guidance, or perhaps even to introduce legislation, which is what my hon. Friend wants.

Does the Minister agree that such information from his Department's survey as we have received confirms all the warnings of death, danger and dereliction in houses in mulitple occupation? On his Departments' figures, one in two is in a poor state of physical repair, one in four is badly managed and one in six is overcrowded. Why wait? Why not allow the Bill that has completed its passage through the other place to pass through this House so that at the third attempt we can have some tougher legislation about houses in multiple occupation?

We should wait for the research results, which, as I have said, will be published before the end of the year. If we do that we can take decisions on the basis of properly evaluated examination. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to forget that since 1979 we have given local authorities additional powers, and in certain circumstances we have placed duties on them to use those powers. We have made it possible for grant to be paid for the installation of fire escapes. I wonder why it is that so many local authorities have not used the powers that have been available to them for a quarter of a century?

Will my hon. Friend consider making it a requirement on landlords of houses in multiple occupation to post a notice stating the relevant fire risk within the property, so that at least the tenants can be aware of the dangers they face?

That is a valuable suggestion by my hon. Friend and we shall consider it when considering the results of the research at the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives he intends to take to solve the problems of homelessness.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 21 July.

Does the Minister accept that there is a real crisis of homelessness, especially in the London area? According to Shelter figures, which are better than his Department's, there are 4,400 homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London. That is an increase of 16 per cent. in three months. Over a year the cost to local authorities in London has doubled from £13 million to £26 million. Keeping families with young children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is humiliating and degrading and ought to be brought to an end immediately.

The Government have made it clear that bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be used only as a last resort and for as short a period as possible until permanent accommodation is secured. This year we have increased by £200 million the provision for housing investment, and we have redistributed it in such a way as to give more benefit to those boroughs that have a homelessness problem. We have asked the boroughs to give specific priority to the homeless when they make their investment decisions. It is interesting to note that many London boroughs, such as Brent, are not taking up the offers under the Greater London mobility scheme that are available to meet the needs of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is a large amount of empty public authority housing stock in London. We are determined to bring that back into use to help the homeless.

Does the Minister recognise that probably the Government's greatest social crime is that since 1979 housing expenditure has been slashed by very nearly half? At this moment 400,000 building trade workers are unemployed, but hundreds of thousands of people are out searching for a house and cannot find one. It is not only me and my hon. Friends who are objecting to those obscene policies, but the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen herself.

Order. Before the Minister answers I remind the hon. Member and the House that we never introduce the royal family to support our arguments. We stand on our own.

The major reduction in public investment in housing took place under a Labour, not a Conservative Government, and the hon. Gentleman's statistics ignore the recovery in the private housebuilding sector, which meets real housing needs.

Might not the way to bring the private rented sector back into operation be to abolish the Rent Acts and institute a limited form of control along the lines of business tenancy controls under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, said in June last year that we would have no major proposals for rent reform in this Parliament, but that we were interested in proposals after the next election.

Will my hon. Friend say to the House that the way that Labour Members, especially in the way they make references to members of the Royal Family, seek to distort the facts and mislead our nation is shameful? Is it not true that if all the council accommodation in Britain which is currently vacant because of inefficient management, mainly by Socialist local authorities, were put to use, virtually all Britain's homeless could be given a home immediately? Remarks by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)—

Shut up, you old windbag.

Well, that is the pot calling the kettle black.

Order. The same rules apply on both sides of the House.

Arithmetically, my hon. Friend is correct.

Is not the real problem for local authorities, not that they have a statutory duty to house the homeless, but that the number of homeless people is growing, that the amount of money available for councils to build, as they want to do, is evaporating—so that, for example, some 30,000 people in Leicester are on the housing list — and councils are then forced to spend revenue instead of capital on housing people temporarily in bed and breakfast accommodation, which is a rotten

I do not have the figures for Leicester in front of me, but in London it is the case that the number of relets of council housing has gone up since 1978–79, in spite of the right to buy. So it is not the case that there is a decreasing number of local authority flats available to help the homeless. Certainly in most major cities more and more homeless people are being given priority under the Acts and are getting permanent accommodation.

Does the Minister accept, notwithstanding the figures that he used earlier, that in the best year of the national housebuilding programme under this Government there were 50,000 fewer new dwellings than in the worst year under the Labour Government? As next year is the international year of shelter for the homeless, could not the Government take some special measures to talk about the new initiatives, which were implied in one of the questions that he refused to answer, to deal with the misallocation of money that is implied in funding bed-and-breakfast accommodation when there are a vast number of unfit empty dwellings in the public and the private sectors?

One of the top priorities for any local authority with its HIP allocation should be to bring back into use the empty properties that it has, many of which have been empty for more than a year. I suspect that the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave was just for the public sector.

No, total.

There has been a recovery in private sector starts. The figures are at the highest level for 10 years, apart from one year. Local authorities of all persuasions are rightly using their allocations to modernise and to bring up to standard properties that they already own rather than embarking on programmes of new build.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking additional resources for authorities to enable them to increase expenditure on environmental services.

The local authority associations through the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance are consulted about local authority relevant expenditure, including that on local environmental services.

Does the Minister not accept that some areas need more resources in order to make swifter environmental improvements to compensate for rapid economic decline? Is she aware that the Minister responsible for sport recently visited South Yorkshire and is reported as having realised that the position is grave? Indeed, I believe that he used the word tragic. If his visit does not lead to increased support for my area, may we command the attention of the organ grinder rather than of the monkey?

In 1986–87 the hon. Gentleman's local authority is receiving some £400,000 in derelict land grant compared with the sum of only £300,000 that it received collectively for the previous three years. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a very realistic settlement yesterday. Consequently, it is to be hoped that the hon. Gentleman's local authority will be able to find adequate provision for local environmental services.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the money could well be used by local authorities to preserve the integrity of the green belt, which is constantly under attack? Is she aware that the green belt is particularly vulnerable when big and desirable projects such as motorways are put forward for development on the fringes, where people are trying to convert the green belt into extra work?

It is to be hoped that local planning authorities take great care not to infringe the green belt unless there is general consent for that among the local population.

Does the Minister not realise that her assurances fly in the face of reality? Will she confirm that the number of those employed in the key environmental agencies — the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Forestry Commission, and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas has fallen by more than 2.000 during the seven years in which the Government have been in office?

All those organisations have managed to increase their services and to improve on their excellence in discussion and consultation with central Government. Staffing numbers are adequate, according to their own lights.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a suspension of European regional development fund non-quota grants to local enterprise boards which wish to carry out environmental improvements in, for example, Lancaster? Will she affirm that such boards are eligible for grants from the ERDF, and expedite them?

My hon. Friend knows that ERDF funds have to be matched by funds from the local authority. I note what my hon. Friend says, and will take it into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to take to guarantee the safety from coastal pollution of bathers on beaches at holiday resorts in the United Kingdom.

In the next five years it is expected that some 80 schemes to improve the quality of coastal waters, costing over £300 million, will be in progress and completed throughout the United Kingdom. This is roughly double the rate of expenditure of the last four years.

That is a helpful answer. However, does the Minister agree that it is a matter of some concern that many of our resorts that have served the country well for years are being despoiled by raw sewage in our coastal waters? Will he comment on the reports produced by Greenpeace, whose independent analyses have shown that the level of pollution off Blackpool beach may meet Department of the Environment requirements but is five times higher than European limits? What does the Minister have to say about that?

I announced last year that we were undertaking a survey of all bathing beaches. The survey will be completed next spring. The preliminary results are quite encouraging and show that up to half the beaches probably meet European directive standards. There has been a problem at Blackpool and a project has been launched, with expenditure of over £30 million to put things right.

Would it not be rather more appropriate if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) confined his remarks to the beaches in Berwickshire and did not make disparaging remarks about the finest beach in the country, which is at Blackpool? May I congratulate the Government on their plans for improving the beach at Blackpool? I ask my hon. Friend to elaborate on what he said about that, as his remarks were rather difficult to hear.

I find it rather more natural to be talking about Blackpool in reply to my right hon. Friend. I hasten to say that there is nothing seriously wrong with the Blackpool beaches. There is no health hazard. As part of the improvement of Blackpool beaches, and a number of other beaches, we are bringing forward a scheme that will cost about £35 million to make further improvements. I can confirm that the already fine beaches will be even better.

Is it not a fact that the Government have abused their powers under the Water Act 1973, with the result that in real terms capital investment has declined by 12 per cent. since 1978–79? Even worse, it was reported in the Brighton Evening Argus of 15 July that in the Southern water authority area gross pollution of many of the traditional holiday spots is the result of capital investment declining by 28 per cent. between 1980 and 1985. It is no wonder that Mrs. Hargreaves found herself swimming in neat sewage off Seaford. She said that it was absolutely disgusting—just like the Government's policy towards the water industry.

Without the steady guidance of the leader of the Opposition's environment team, the hon. Member for Copeland, (Dr. Cunningham), things are getting rather out of control. Investment in the water industry is at the highest level that it has ever been. I have given figures to show that the investment in coastal water improvements is about to be doubled.

I recognise that progress is being made, but does my hon. Friend not find it incredible that raw sewage is still discharged into the sea and on to beaches, especially in parts of the south-west that are dependent on tourism? Surely this is an area that should be given top priority in any capital spending programme.

It is for that very reason that considerable resources are now being committed. The programme will not be finished at the end of five years and the expending of £35 million. Further resources will be committed after that. A steady programme of improvement will ensure that by the end of the century virtually all the remaining problems will have been removed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of strategic planning policies in the former metropolitan county council areas.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied.

I regret that I shall not be able to bring Mrs. Hargreaves into this supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that in the Greater Manchester area a number of property developers are seeking to develop large shopping sites in the different boroughs? The problem is that each local authority has an incentive to ensure that it is not the last to allow such development to go ahead. As the Government have taken away the strategic planning role of the Greater Manchester council, what does the Minister intend to do to ensure that we have a co-ordinated approach to what could be a serious development problem?

The local authorities must conform with the current local plans and, indeed, the Greater Manchester structure plan, the alterations to which were approved in January 1986. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not our practice to discuss current cases at the Dispatch Box.

I am afraid that I know nothing about Mrs. Hargreaves, but I know that we do not need a thumping great county hall to exercise overall strategic planning control. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment can do just that. Bearing that in mind, will my hon. Friend call in the seven planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres now being applied for in the Greater Manchester area, one of which is for over 1 million sq ft? At a time when we are trying to regenerate the inner cities, would it not be foolhardy to put our town centre shopping areas in jeopardy, and all the jobs that go with them?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at all material considerations before calling in any planning applications, but I repeat that we cannot discuss current planning applications at the Dispatch Box.

Is Mrs. Hargreaves involved in these strategic planning policies? Is she a floating voter, and who will get her out of it?

I fear that that has nothing to do with planning.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the Local Government Act 1986 on the activities of local councils, with particular reference to political publicity and information campaigns.

No formal procedures have been instituted to monitor the effects of the 1986 Act, but I am watching its operation carefully.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Basildon district council continues to flout the law by spending ratepayers' money on propaganda to bolster Labour councillors' chances in marginal seats and by telling the editor of Link magazine not to photograph local Conservative Members of Parliament or report their presence at any event? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such bias is quite wrong?

I entirely agree that such bias as my hon. Friend alleges is quite wrong, but I encourage him to use the remedies of the civil law, which are there to interpret the 1986 Act. Even if we strengthen those powers it will still be a civil law requirement to enforce them. That is where my hon. Friend's remedies should properly lie.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will describe the administrative process by which he negotiates with county councils on their structure plans.

County councils must submit to me for my approval their proposals for alteration or replacement of their structure plans. Normally an examination in public is held, at which the council can explain its proposals. I may then publish draft modifications for comment before the plan is approved.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and, indeed, for answering the question itself. Will he confirm that the initiation of structure plans and, indeed, the initiation of the revision of structure plans, is primarily the responsibility of the county council, and not his Department? Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that his Department responds after the county council has produced its proposals, and does not pressurise county councils before they produce their proposals? Finally, will he confirm that Dorset county council's revised structure plan for south-east Dorset is entirely its own responsibility?

I can confirm that all that my hon. Friend has said is correct.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not seek to impose higher levels of development upon county councils presenting such structure plans? Does he recognise that in counties such as Dorset, whose present structure plans, development, and population levels have already been substantially exceeded, any suggestion that new structure plan proposals, levels of development or population should be exceeded would be greeted with great dismay and would be contrary to the wishes of the residents of such places?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on any specific county plan or on any planning application. The description of the system which I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is accurate and the policy on the green belt is well known. It is difficult to discuss any general concept of planning without reference to the particular. However, I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is deep concern among the people of Hampshire, including Winchester, and possibly a certain Mrs. Hargreaves, about the fact that his Department has decided to impose an increase of 65,000 additional houses on the south Hampshire structure plan, which is greatly in excess of the infrastructure available and which is drawing much-needed resources from city centres in the south and north of England? Will he please assure the House and the people of Hampshire that he will look into this matter and ensure that the locally and democratically expressed views of the people of Hampshire about housing are adhered to?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. However, it appears that Mrs. Hargreaves comes from the north, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not be grudging about affording her a house if she were to arrive in his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters were discussed at the meeting with the chairman of the London Residuary Body on 19 May 1986.

Matters relevant to the residuary body's functions under the Local Government Act 1985 were discussed.

Does the Minister recall the answer that she gave to me on 11 July regarding the timing of distribution of balances from the London Residuary Body to the London boroughs? She said:

"The timing … is a matter for the"—

The chairman of the London Residuary Body came to see the former Secretary of State on 19 May about an announcement that he was to make on the balances, which he subsequently made on 20 May following his discussions with the then Secretary of State. In relation to the further balances, following the Law Lords' decision striking down the GLC's last-minute forward funding package, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the LRB has the power to distribute balances to the boroughs and to decide the timing as and when it pleases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite our local representations, the residuary body has placed Hainault Forest under the control of three different authorities? Is she further aware that this is bad management and is making it more difficult to deal with the problem of the gipsy intrusion? Will my hon. Friend consider this problem?

As my hon. Friend is aware, this is a matter for the London Residuary Body. I shall, however, consider the matter.

When the chairman of the London Residuary Body next meets the Secretary of State and asks why he and the House were tricked by the Secretary of State yesterday about the total of the rate support grant settlement, what answer will he receive? Specifically, what answer will he receive when he asks why the Secretary of State yesterday deliberately withheld from the House information that the level of grant-related expenditure assessments will be £1,260 million below the level of current expenditure? It means that £1 billion is being given to local authorities, yet £1,260 million will be taken away from them.

That was an unworthy question and the hon. Gentleman is totally incorrect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer, 25 June, Official Report, column 320, he will recommend the wet, dripping water technique rather than dry blasting for cleaning all buildings for which he is responsible.

No. The most appropriate method will be used in each case.

Is the Minister aware that this is not a joking question, as the dry blasting technique has been an absolute disaster? Is not the wet healing technique much better?

I am advised by the English Heritage Commission on technical matters of this kind, and I understand that in a few cases the dry method is preferable.