To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of city grant money awarded to programmes in Birmingham in the current financial year.

Five city grants totalling almost £10 million have been awarded to programmes in Birmingham, including one of £3·2 million to support a major commercial and leisure development known as the Arcadian centre, which I have approved today.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the grant for the Waterlinks development in Birmingham is worth more than £6 million and is the second biggest city grant approved so far? Is that not convincing evidence of the Government's commitment to Birmingham's needs? Can thought now be given to a grant-aided scheme for the restoration of the Grand Union canal in Yardley, Birmingham and the areas around it?

I congratulate my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends on having so skilfully and effectively lobbied on Birmingham's behalf, in particular on city grant programmes. The answers to his questions are yes, and yes. The major Waterlinks development is the second biggest scheme approved so far and is equivalent in value to 10 per cent. of the annual approvals programme. I congratulate Birmingham on the exciting and imaginative schemes that it has submitted and I look forward to examining further schemes in due course.

How much of the city grant, to Birmingham in particular and throughout the country in general, goes to housing for rent? According to the terms of reference, houses for rent should be provided by those who receive city grants. When will the same amount be spent on providing houses for rent as is being spent on commercial undertakings in Birmingham? Does he agree that assistance should be given to provide houses for rent throughout the country.

The purpose of our inner city policies is to provide inner city people with job opportunities, to match their skills to the jobs available, to provide retraining, better homes, better community facilities and a better environment in which to live and work. We have increased the amount spent on city grants from £29 million in 1987–88 to £67 million in 1988–89 and we intend to maintain that rate of552 increase in future years.

Does my hon. Friend accept that we are mindful of the fact that the Government have been generous towards Birmingham? They understand that Birmingham needs a lot of money for the changes that need to take place. Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to ensure that the spine road to the Birmingham heartlands, which will set it on the road to growth, goes ahead so that Birmingham can be given a real chance to provide something of great worth to its people?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Four large projects in Birmingham are under appraisal, including one in the heartlands area. My Department and I look forward to working with heartlands. We shall continue to support worthwhile city grant schemes. However, because of the complexity of the problems in heartlands, schemes may take longer than usual to appraise. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to speed up their consideration. I completely agree with my hon. Friend that important infrastructure improvements are vital to inner city regeneration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

I met my European Community counterparts as recently as Tuesday 28 November at the Environment Council in Brussels, following which on 30 November I gave a report of the meeting to the House in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright).

I intend meeting my European Community counterparts again at the next Environment Council on 22 March. The Republic of Ireland takes over the presidency of the European Community on 1 January 1990, and it will be for the presidency to determine the Council agenda.

Has the Secretary of State discussed with his European counterparts the speeding up of Britain's full compliance with EC water quality directives? Does he agree that instead of the taxpayer having to fork out more than £3 billion for privatisation, the money would have been better spent complying with those directives earlier? If we are supposed to enter the single European market in 1992, why do we have to wait until 1995 at the earliest for better quality standards?

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that we have the most comprehensive, fully funded and obviously committed programme of investment in raising our water quality standards so that they will be in full compliance with EC directives and, perhaps even more to the point, so that we can meet all our standards, some of which are higher than those set by the European Commission. In the other parts of the question, he hon. Lady seemed to be muddling together a number of facts, but I am sure that she will be as delighted as the rest of the House at the extremely successful flotation of the water industry and at the large number of new shareholders in the water industry.

In dealings with his European counterparts, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no wasteful overlap between the activities of the European environmental statistics office, the European environmental CORINE programme, the European environmental agency and the European environmental monitoring and information system? It all sounds rather excessive, as though it involved creating or adding to the bureaucrats' paradise.

We are all against other bureaucrats' paradises, although we may be in favour of our own. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of avoiding overlap. I believe that the establishment of a European environment agency, for which we pressed so strongly at the last Council meeting, will help to establish a common basis for information and debate on European environmental issues. I believe that Britain would come out of such debate pretty well.

When the Secretary of State next meets his colleagues in Europe, will he ask them how France and Germany are managing to secure reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, while in the United Kingdom they increased by 2·6 per cent? In view of his comments outside the House, does he believe that more intelligent public transport policies and energy conservation measures have contributed to those reductions, and will he be recommending that we take similar action?

I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman's last point. Since the substantial increase in investment in public transport announced in the Autumn Statement, I believe that we are now looking forward to the largest investment in British Rail since the move from steam to diesel, and we should all welcome that. Carbon dioxide emissions will be a major issue on the international agenda in the next few years. It is extremely complicated, and I am surprised that the Opposition have found it so simple to resolve, but I am sure that the rest of us will continue to do what we can to stop global warming and prevent climate change.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that despite vigorous opposition from the British Government, the EC imposed VAT on non-domestic construction work in the United Kingdom? If the matter comes before his EC counterparts now or in the immediate future, will he give them notice that in no circumstances do the British Government want VAT to be imposed on domestic construction work in the United Kingdom which would increase house price inflation?

I well understand my hon. Friend's concern and the argument that he has put so vigorously. Were the issue to come to the Environment Council, my first reaction would be to tell my distinguished colleagues that it should be discussed not by the Environment Council but by other Councils in the Community. I assure my hon. Friend that I would want the closest consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about any such proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last month on the community charge.

I have received about 150 representations from local authorities and others on transitional relief. I continue to receive many representations on the community charge.

Do not the Government accept by now that the poll tax is utterly and totally discredited in the minds of people throughout the country? Can he not see that the people who gain are those who live in large, expensive properties and those who lose are those who live in small, inexpensive properties? In so far as the poll tax is now discredited because it is grossly unjust, is it not time that the Government withdrew the legislation and set about re-evaluating the rating system once again?

No, no and no. Things are on course for the successful introduction of the community charge on 1 April next year. As for the position of the hon. Gentleman and his party, what is discredited is the present rating system, which all major parties now agree should be abolished. We believe that we have a fair and simple alternative. The hon. Gentleman should not pontificate on these matters until he and his colleagues have decided whether they wish to pursue their plans for twin-tax torture for the British people or whether they have some other alternative to bring forward.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House at this stage what proportion of the British public have registered for the community charge?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I am able to publish today the community charge population figures for England. They show that the proportion of the Government's estimate of people liable to the charge who have been registered is 99–95 per cent. on average throughout the country.

Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling in Tameside about the way in which the poll tax formulae have been applied? He will be aware of the representations that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and myself to the Department, and of the puzzlement of people in Tameside as to why Tameside appears to have done so badly under the formulae compared with other towns such as Rochdale and Oldham, which are within the same area of Greater Manchester. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at the particular problems of Tameside and the way in which this treatment has been particularly unfair to that authority.

We do not regard as unfair the fact that we have increased the total spending for local authorities next year by 11 per cent. above the current figure and the amount of external finance by 8·5 per cent. Obviously, we are now in a consultation process and I would not want to comment further, except to say how delighted I am that in Tameside more than 100 per cent. of people—[Interruption]—have now registered.

So that local authorities can levy a community charge which is fair and is seen to be fair, has my hon. Friend had representations from local authorities worried about the treatment of reserves and balances which, as he knows, distort the perceived spending and perceived needs of each authority, making it difficult for my hon. Friend to assess a reasonable and sensible support grant?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The use of balances has always distorted the picture for local authorities. To compare like with like, we have endeavoured to leave the use of balances out of our calculations. Their use can create the kind of problems to which my hon. Friend refers.

In view of the obvious dismay on the Conservative Back Benches at the fact that the £1 billion bribe offered to the electorate to soften the political impact of the poll tax is clearly not working, will the Minister tell the House whether there are any further plans for financial changes between now and 1 April, whether he understands the existing administrative chaos and whether he understands and appreciates the fact that, whatever the Government do to try to bribe the electorate and to provide what are becoming known as sweeteners, the poll tax will show its full implications when people vote in the local elections in May and display their disgust at and distrust of the Government's proposals to use their money to try to persuade them that the tax that they do not want is acceptable?

When the hon. Gentleman refers to administrative chaos, he can hardly be referring to the excellent work of community charge registration officers throughout the country in achieving a national average of 99·95 per cent. I greatly regret the fact that many local Labour parties have been associated with non-registration campaigns—which have been singularly unsuccessful. On implementation, we believe that the transitional relief scheme is generous and important in trying to overcome the problems in certain parts of the country. However, the certainty that is now present in the system will continue until 1 April, although we have not yet announced the results of our consultations on the amount of rate support grant and external finance.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider carefully all the representations that have been made to him recently about the community charge and especially those that were made by representatives of the borough of Poole to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) last Monday, when they demonstrated clearly that they had been treated unfairly in comparison with neighbouring areas? There must be other areas like this, so can my hon. Friend guarantee that they will all be considered carefully?

In paying tribute to my hon. Friend for the robust representations that he has made on behalf of his area, I confirm that all the points that he and the delegation that he headed made will be considered carefully.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of that reply and the fact that the Minister has refused to respond properly, I propose—

Order. All that is necessary is to announce that a matter will be raised on the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman need not go into the arguments now.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the war memorial and inscripted marble in county hall, London SE1 will be safeguarded in the event of redevelopment.

I understand that, as part of their proposals for the development of county hall, the London residuary body and the County Hall Development Group are prepared to provide for the restoration of the memorial and inscripted marble.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that the great majority of Londoners still find it most offensive that county hall, which was built with ratepayers' money to be the headquarters of the old London county council and then of the Greater London council, should be turned into something as wholly inappropriate as a luxury hotel? Will the Secretary of State take a message from this House to the spivs who propose to build a luxury hotel that the place will be taken back by the people of London for the government of London and that the Opposition will ensure that that happens?

My impression has been that most Londoners are able to contain their misery and despair a t the abolition of the GLC within the bounds of public decorum. The capital receipts from the sale of county hall will, in due course, be used for the benefit of Londoners—would that all the money which flowed through county hall in the past had also been used to the benefit of Londoners.

Talking of war memorials, may I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and the Property Services Agency for at long last illuminating the cenotaph in Whitehall? It is now a site of remembrance worthy or those who died for all of us and one of the most attractive monuments in London.

I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I agree with him about the importance of what has been done and about the attractiveness of the result.

Will the Secretary of State tell the people of Waterloo what direct benefits their community will derive from the conversion of county hall into a luxury hotel, and especially what the benefits will be for people sleeping in the nearby bull ring?

As the hon. Lady knows, one proposal for the development of county hall is before an inspector at the moment and another is before the courts, so it would be injudicious for me to be drawn into too much detail in responding to her question. I am sure that one result of the development of county hall which would benefit the hon. Lady's constituents would be the creation of more jobs.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people will be glad to hear that the war memorial is to be preserved and properly presented for the benefit of the people of London? Does he also accept that, whatever one thinks about the structure of local government in London, county hall will not be needed again by any body that is established? Will my right hon. Friend take care about answering questions from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because when the hon. Gentleman sees valuable things lying around county hall they tend to end up lying in his loft?

There are many places that I would like to visit, but I have never included the hon. Gentleman's loft among them. I accept what my hon. Friend said about the government of London. I also agree that it is important to protect the interior of county hall and, whatever our disagreements, that is a point on which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I agree.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if the Government allow the demolition of any part of county hall it will be seen as an act of vandalism motivated by political spite, and as an attempt by the Government to prevent the next Labour Government from re-establishing Londonwide regional government based at county hall? We shall not be deterred. County hall is as much a part of our heritage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking a question.

What is it then?

Order. Mr. Allan Roberts.

Is the Minister aware that county hall is as much a part of our heritage and of the Thames skyline as the Houses of Parliament? It is not surprising, however, that the Government refuse to intervene to protect the former workplace of Ken Livingstone, given that they refuse to intervene to protect the former workplace of William Shakespeare.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the building in question is part of our heritage, but I have never regarded the GLC as part of that heritage.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairperson of the Nature Conservancy Council; and what was discussed.

My colleagues and I regularly meet the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. The most recent meeting was on 23 November, when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside met Sir William Wilkinson to discuss proposals connected with the forthcoming reorganisation of the council.

Will the Secretary of State, who will shortly be addressing an important conference to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the national parks, accept that the transfer of responsibility and the decentralisation of the scientific base to Wales is generally acceptable in Wales and that the combination of the powers with those of the Countryside Commission will provide a new body able to promote conservation and encourage access, within limits, to the Welsh countryside? Will he now state that it is the Government's intention to organise a joint statutory committee to ensure that Great Britain-wide and United Kingdom-wide issues are dealt with in the reorganisation?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We intend to establish a joint statutory committee. People in Wales, as in England and Scotland, wish, as we do, to ensure that scientific matters which should be taken on a Great Britain basis are taken on such a basis.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that both within and outside the Nature Conservancy Council and its advisory bodies, many more people support his restructuring proposals than have raised their voices against them?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and one of those who have supported our proposals is the Leader of the Opposition.

Has not the proposed dismemberment of the Nature Conservancy Council met with almost universal hostility on the part of all those directly concerned with conservation? There is still time to withdraw the proposals and I urge the Secretary of State to do precisely that. Does he not accept that his proposed palliative of some form of joint committee has also been decisively rejected as an inadequate piece of sticking plaster for a wound that should never have been opened? Would it not be better if he stayed his hand from surgery altogether?

I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition is among those people who have not condemned the proposals. I have in front of me, as barristers are able to say, a letter from the office of the Leader of the Opposition which says:

"Mr. Kinnock … welcomes the proposal to establish a countryside council for Wales."

If the Leader of the Opposition welcomes the proposals for Wales, I do not see how he cannot welcome them for the rest of the country. Perhaps Labour party policy varies from one part of the country to another.

I share the hon. Gentleman's determination to ensure that we safeguard the science base of the Nature Conservancy Council's work. I share the Leader of the Opposition's determination to ensure that there is a profile for nature conservancy work in Great Britain. Our arrangements on the machinery allow for that. We are not talking about changing conservation policy, but changing the machinery, and that is justified. The only real difference between us and the Nature Conservancy Council now is whether or not there should be an independent chairman of the joint statutory committee.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what the governing bodies may have said or written to newspapers, the majority of Nature Conservancy councillors are firmly in favour of the changes, and the individual countries are particularly pleased because they look forward to a more practical involvement in nature conservation, with a stronger scientific base?

I note what my hon. Friend says. He has made a distinguished contribution to the work of the Nature Conservancy Council. I am sure that the majority to which he referred will be delighted at the confirmation that I have been able to give this afternoon and they will be delighted that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends that the level of payment to be made for water and associated charges in respect of domestic hereditaments will be determined in future; and from what date any change of system shall take effect.

It is for each water service company to decide how to charge domestic customers for its services, subject to the limits placed on each company's charges by the Secretary of State and the director general, and the other conditions of their appointment. The use of rateable values as a basis of water charges will not be permitted beyond the year 2000.

Will the Minister therefore confirm three principles to the House now․first, that compulsory metering will not be introduced; secondly, that the new system, whatever it is, will have to relate the charge to the ability to pay; and thirdly, that nothing will be introduced that could be regarded as any sort of water poll tax?

There are provisions in the licence of appointment against any kind of unfair discrimination against different categories of customer. That is more than sufficient protection for water consumers.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that metering means that people will pay more for the water they use and that a household containing a bigger family will pay more than a household containing one person, and, what is more important, the more water that they use, the more they will pollute, and that will conform to our policy that the polluter pays?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Metering is used almost universally in other countries, but will not necessarily be adopted by the water service companies. It is for them to choose the most appropriate method of charging.

What will the Minister do about the impact of charges upon the customers of long-established private water companies, such as the Newcastle and Gateshead water company? Customers of those companies have already faced increases of more than 18 per cent., which is partly due to the demands of privatisation legislation. They will face greater increases, because those companies do not get the green dowry that is being given to the newly privatised companies.

We are engaged in discussions with those companies to decide the appropriate level for the limit on charges during the next 10 years, and those discussions are continuing.

Is the Minister able to confirm whether arrangements have been made for housing developers, with regard to the charges that they have to pay for the provision of water services to housing developments?

Infrastructure payments have to be made under the legislation by developers so that the costs that their developments impose on the water infrastructure are fully met.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has as to the number of tonnes of litter left on British streets every day; what was the average figure for 1988; and what was the figure for 10 years ago.

No statistics of this nature are available, but it is perfectly clear that there is far too much litter on many of our streets. We are determined to put this matter right, and we shall shortly introduce legislative proposals to tackle the problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to the Government's estimable anti-litter proposals is not just an increase in fines, but enforcement? The City of Westminster is undoubtedly trying to solve the problem, but all we see is innumerable signs telling us of fines and nobody backing them up, with the result that Marsham street, in which the Department of the Environment and I reside, occasionally resembles a street in Cairo rather than London.

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. There will be strong enforcement powers in the forthcoming Environmental Protection Bill. Litterers who default on paying fixed penalties within the prescribed time will be prosecuted. That is an important element of enforcement. Moreover, an aggrieved citizen will be able to apply to a magistrates court for a litter abatement order. That is broadly welcome and means that a citizen will be able to take the local authority to court if he is not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in its area.

Would the Minister care to estimate how many tonnes of litter are left lying on Britain's trunk roads all year long? Is it not time that he instructed his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Transport to clean trunk roads such as the East Lancs highway, which is in my constituency and is so littered with debris and shoulder-high weeds that it often looks like the main thoroughfare in a refugee camp?

I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered. He knows that I am familiar with that road. I am delighted to be able to tell him that we shall deal with that problem in the forthcoming Bill.

Will my hon. Friend enter discussions with supermarkets, brewers and the soft drinks trade to explore the possibility of introducing a system of refundable deposits on cans and bottles such as operates so effectively in Switzerland for example?

I am happy to confirm that we are anxious to talk, to supermarkets in particular. I am about to meet representatives of the leading supermarkets, and I hope to raise that issue with them.

Rather than extol the virtues of what Westminster city council has done, will the Minister face the fact that, for many years, that council did not charge for the collection of trade refuse? He has not so far got to the heart of the matter. What discussions is he having about the importance of waste reduction and waste minimisation, and applying a precautionary principle rather than enforcement? He is not giving local authorities the money they need to deal with competitive tendering. Where is the ability to recycle in this? Where is the Government's real concern about the environment?

I would not disagree with what the hon. Lady said about precautionary measures. When we are talking about waste minimisation, we are talking about recycling in the main. The Government have entered a partnership with Friends of the Earth to launch an initiative for recycling the city in Sheffield. I hope to have the support of the Labour party and other political parties represented in the House for it. We all hope that the initiative will be a success. We hope to learn from it and to replicate it elsewhere.

It is not fair for the hon. Lady to knock what Westminster city council has done. Its initiative to tidy up Westminster has been a tremendous success. The appointment of litter wardens has had a significant deterrent effect. We have chosen the city of Westminster as an example and are building the forthcoming Bill around it.

My hon. Friend has quoted the example of the work that is going on in Westminster, but is he aware that other London boroughs are taking just as much action and setting just as good an example to the rest of the country, for example, Kingston's "Bright and Clean" campaign involves both schoolchildren and the community at large and in Wandsworth, which sets so many examples to other local authorities, there is an anti-litter blitz squad?

I am anxious to pay credit where it is due and I am happy to confirm a number of examples in London where the local authorities have acted responsibly and can be held up as a superb example that the rest of the nation should follow. I hope to visit all the authorities that my hon. Friend has mentioned and I add to his list the London borough of Sutton, which has achieved a considerable degree of success in this area.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive a response from the European Community on the programmes presented to it to implement the tap water quality and bathing water quality directives.

I have received no indication from the Commission as to when it expects to respond.

Does the Minister agree that there is a good possibility that the Commission will insist on the implementation of both directives at an earlier date than many of the schemes that have been put before the Commission suggest that the Government are prepared to accept? Given that on the bathing water directive alone, the Government intend that £760 million worth of work will be done after 1993, does he agree that if the Commission insists on 1993 as the date, there will be a big shock for those people who are making short-term gains from the water privatisation?

No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. Our programmes, which are very detailed, provide for the work that can be done to be done as soon as is practicable. I cannot believe that the Commission would be so unreasonable as to insist on earlier dates. In any event, that would not be to the disadvantage of investors, who are entitled to a reasonable return on their capital in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the bad quality of the sea water along much of the coastline of south Devon, where a young lady swimmer caught hepatitis A last summer as a result of swimming in the sea? Does he agree that lengthening the outfall pipes will not solve any of the problems because it will simply divert the sewage right along the coastline to other beaches?

I agree that much needs to be done to improve the quality of our bathing waters, but the proposals of South West Water plc, in common with other plcs, amount to much more than simply lengthening the outfall pipes. Their proposals are carefully considered and prepared and will achieve compliance with the European Community's directive.

Will the Minister discuss with his EEC colleagues the rise in pollution in the Irish sea, which is so damaging to the marine aquasystem? Will he suggest setting up a tripartite commission involving the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man to study pollution and to make suggestions for its eradication?

These matters receive careful and continuous attention by those of my hon. Friends within the Department who have responsibility for them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the run-up to water privatisation Southern Water announced that it would invest heavily to improve the sewage situation in the English Channel in the Deal, Dover and Folkestone area? Is he further aware that the privatisation will bring that investment forward and that more money will be available to improve the quality of the water in that area?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both his constituents and mine will benefit in precisely the way that he has identified.

But if there are to be extra costs to meet EEC standards, who is to pay? Is the Minister aware that some stockbrokers are already warning the new shareholders that extra spending may require another rights issue? Will the Government allow that to happen or will Ministers step in again to put the interests of shareholders first? Will Ministers make taxpayers or consumers foot another bill on top of the £3 billion that the privatisation has already cost the taxpayers of this country?

The limits on price rises that I announced in August provide for the £24–6 billion investment programme which will take place during the next 10 years and accounts for the industry's predictable investment needs. The success of the privatisation lay behind part of the hon. Lady's question. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in the Financial Times of 14 September that

"Success … will be measured in terms of how enthusiastically the small investor goes for the issue."

I am content to accept his criteria, and on that test it is clear that the issue was a resounding success.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this hostage to fortune matches in its eloquence and efficiency the hostage to fortune put forward earlier this summer by the hon. Member for Dagenham's colleague who said that South West Water would not be a triumph when it was offered for privatisation? That is now selling superbly.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party was determined to wreck the privatisation, did everything it could to wreck it and manifestly failed to do so. All we have from it now are the sourest of sour grapes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase access to the countryside for walkers and ramblers.

The Government are committed to protect public access to the countryside through the rights-of-way network. We fully support the Countryside Commission's initiatives, working with local highway authorities, to raise the profile of rights of way work and improve the quality of access.

Does the Minister accept that walking is a growing recreational activity in this country and that the number of people who enjoy it both in wild and mountainous areas and on urban fringes is steadily increasing?

We should look for new areas to which people can obtain access to avoid the overuse of some of the existing honeyspots. What are the Government doing to improve access as opposed to protecting existing access?

We must put this matter in context. The 140,000 mile network of rights of way is, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the main means by which the public can gain access to the wider countryside. Walking as a recreation is certainly on the increase. The Countryside Commission has come forward with a new initiative entitled "Enjoying the Countryside". It has made specific recommendations to which we are anxious to respond and has also made specific recommendations to the highway authorities to which I hope that they will respond.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many districts around the urban areas of this country, footpaths are cluttered with a horrible accretion of discarded supermarket trolleys? When he meets the supermarket operators, will he take a strong line with them and ask them to introduce a system whereby before trolleys are taken into the stores supermarkets demand a deposit which can be reclaimed when the trolleys are left behind in the parking lot?

I am sympathetic with the point made by my hon. Friend. I shall certainly ensure that this matter is on the agenda when I discuss the issue with the supermarket chiefs.

Since 20 per cent. of the nation walk in the countryside each year and the Countryside Commission has just reported to us that up to half the rights of way are difficult or impossible to use․it estimates that one cannot walk further than two miles before reaching a ploughed right of way or some other obstruction․will the Minister consider asking the Countryside Commission to take a new initiative to propose, with the regional sports councils and recreational councils, a new development plan for walking? That is desperately needed in this country. Will he consider increasing the Government grant to highway authorities from £14 million to £21 million so that they can meet their programme? Will he kindly consider giving the Countryside Commission default powers to deal with ploughed footpaths which need to be opened up but the landowners or farmers are unwilling to do that.

I shall try to remember all those questions. In reply to the first, I am happy to respond positively to the right hon. Gentleman's request that we should approach the Countryside Commission to see whether we can enter into partnership with the regional sports councils. That seems to be a good idea. In terms of the amount of money that the Countryside Commission referred to in its report and the initiative that I mentioned earlier, the Commission suggests that a great deal can be achieved through money being made available by local authorities. The amounts are between £40,000 and £90,000 ․not high amounts but that money could go a long way. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the ploughing of footpaths which he said can destroy public enjoyment of the countryside. Of course there is legislation which says that footpaths should be reinstated within two weeks. I am not entirely satisfied that that is happening. I welcome the opportunity to say that farmers who break the law must expect to face the penalty.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.

My Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities met the Association of County Councils on 6 December and discussed the proposals for the 1990–91 grant settlement.

When my right hon. Friend meets the association in the near future will he make it absolutely clear that if community charge levels in Derbyshire are higher than expected it will be solely due to the profligacy of the county council whose spending included the cost of sending a delegation to that well-known home of liberal democracy, North Korea? Will he urge the county council to emulate the example of Amber Valley borough council which has saved a huge amount through competitive tendering and which has ploughed much of that money back into improved services, including environmental schemes and recycling?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to suggest that life would be much happier for charge payers and people in Derbyshire if Derbyshire county council were as prudent as the Amber Valley district council. My hon. Friend asked me to make representations to Derbyshire county council. Alas, as it is not a member of the Association of County Councils, I would not be able to get through to it in that way.

Does the Association of County Councils share with many other bodies, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the serious concern about the inadequacy of Government regulations, especially with regard to toxic waste․an inadequacy which is deplorably and sadly continuing and is a very great problem in my constituency?

I hope that our proposals in the Environment Protection Bill will help to deal more sensibly with waste. As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have made proposals to the other members of the European Community about toxic waste and I hope that we shall have Community support in trying to follow them up in the OECD.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Association of County Councils, will he tell it that the community charge protects and benefits many people on low incomes? I am speaking especially of single pensioners and single-parent families. In my constituency 80 per cent. of council house tenants in receipt of housing benefit will not pay the full community charge and that also applies to 38 per cent. of owner-occupiers and private tenants. The only real danger to those people is from Labour-controlled county councils who will heap additional costs on the community charge in order to try to win seats that are held by Conservative Members.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The best way to help all charge payers, including those who are less well off, is to ensure that councils provide value for money and reduce their spending to what is absolutely essential. My hon. Friend was also right to mention the substantial support being given through benefits to charge payers. That will amount to at least £2·5 billion.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has a meeting scheduled with Nirex before Christmas to discuss the disposal of low and medium-level nuclear waste.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not expect to meet representatives of Nirex before Christmas.

Although the Secretary of State will not meet representatives of Nirex before Christmas, will the Minister take this opportunity to bring some Christmas cheer to the north of Scotland? Will he instruct the nuclear agency to accept the democratic and overwhelming vote of the people of Caithness against the Nirex proposals? Does he accept that that vote, in line with other expressions of opinion throughout Scotland, makes it clear that no area of Scotland will consent to be somebody else's nuclear dustbin?

We must put the matter into context. First, we are talking about planning applications not for the facilities but for test bore drilling. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman addresses. The matter is before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and he is obliged to take into account views expressed by local people.

Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for Energy? Does he recall that when the Secretary of State was Chief Whip, he and three of his hon. Friends were not anxious about having that low-level nuclear waste dumped in their constituencies? Now that the former Chief Whip is the Secretary of State for Energy and seems to believe that nuclear power is God's gift to the human race, perhaps he has changed his mind. Perhaps he might like to have it dumped in his constituency. Will the Minister ask him?

Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is completely irrelevant to the question about Nirex. The principal point is that the safe disposal facilities have been suggested and welcomed by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment and the House of Lords Select Committee. I need hardly point out that those are all-party Committees.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to protect school and community playing fields; and if he will make a statement.

It has long been Government policy that local authorities should consult sporting and recreational interests in considering any application for the development of recreational land. The Department is currently preparing a planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation which will consolidate and update the existing guidance.

Is the Minister aware that we are in danger of becoming a nation of Billy Bunters?

Not all of us.

I did not say of all ages but perhaps I should have done. We are in danger of becoming a nation of Billy Bunters because playing fields are disappearing owing to local authority pressure on them for building. Is he aware that in my constituency the beautiful Cayton road playing fields—17 acres with trees and the rest․have been children's playing fields for over 50 years? The national Labour party says that it is in favour of retaining playing fields, but Ealing Labour-controlled council is doing its utmost to build on them and to take them away from the community and from children. Will he do something about it?

Were it not for the Government's sensible policy on these matters, the danger referred to by my hon. Friend might well exist. I know that he has made a strenuous effort to fight for the retention of the playing field to which he referred but he will understand that, as the decision may come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I cannot comment on the matter further today.

Does the Minister know of any case where playing fields sold for redevelopment have been returned to use as playing fields? Does not the absence of such cases make vital a proper national Government strategy rather than mere guidelines?

We have asked the Sports Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association to combine to consider the matter and to determine whether it is desirable to compile a register of playing fields. That might go some way to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's points.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional lettings over the next two years are expected to be made available for the homeless as a result of his Department's homelessness initiative.

The Government estimate that around 15,000 additional lettings will be made available as a result of the extra £250 million to be allocated over the next two years to local authorities and housing associations for schemes to assist the homeless.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is extremely welcome news and that two ways of encouraging a reduction in homelessness are first, to encourage private tenancies rather than discourage them by rent controls and other restrictions and secondly, to encourage housing associations rather than rely or impose too heavily on local authorities? Will he confirm that the Government's policies are achieving precisely that?

My hon. Friend has certainly set out our objectives clearly. That is why, for example, we are proposing to double the Housing Corporation's programme in the next three years, which will allow it to produce many more homes. That is also why we have encouraged the private-rented sector through legislation and in other ways. I am delighted that the business expansion scheme is providing an additional £350 million for private renting.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that almost every housing organisation recognises that this panic-striken cash hand-out is nowhere near enough to meet the disgrace of homeless teenage children begging on our streets, possibly for the first time in 80 years? Why does he not do what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) urged a previous spokesman on housing to do, namely allow local authorities to use capital receipts from council house sales to build, repair and renovate? Why was it that when that Minister made that recommendation, he suddenly became a junior Minister fin the Northern Ireland Office?

The hon. Gentleman is the first person to describe the £250 million initiative that we have launched in that way. The figure that we announced a few weeks ago exceeded some of the figures we had been pressed for by housing associations, including one which represents the Labour party. It is insulting to refer to Northern Ireland as the hon. Gentleman did. Moreover, there would not have been any receipts from the right to buy if the Opposition had had anything to do with it.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the Government's responsibility for the growing housing crisis; deplores the rise in mortgage interest rates which has destroyed family budgets, cost some their homes and placed home ownership beyond the reach of others; warns that Government-inspired increases in council rents above the rate of inflation will cause hardship to many low-income people; deplores the Government's failure to maintain the condition of the housing stock and the consequent shortage of affordable housing; and believes that the scandal of growing homelessness is just the most visible sign of a wider housing failure.

Of all the mistakes made by the Government, and there have been many, none is more resented, none is more painfully felt and none is more likely to cost the Government support than the steep and sustained increase in interest rates․a rise which in itself is an admission of economic failure and is a sign of desperation in the pursuit of economic policy, and a rise which has its most immediate effect, and does its most immediate damage, in its impact on mortgage rates.

The anger and resentment that that has caused are not just the result of the damage that it has done to family budgets, although that is real enough. Average monthly repayments for the country as a whole since May 1988 have risen from £259 to £347, an increase of no less than £88 per month. In London, the figures are even worse, because they reflect a rise of £162 per month. Increases of that magnitude will have shattered even the most careful of household budgets and will have plunged thousands of families into the most desperate of financial plights.

But the anger and resentment arise not just on that account, nor just because, for a tragic minority, the increase has meant the shock, despair and humiliation of losing their homes. In the first half of this year there were 6,350 building society repossessions. There is precious little comfort to be gained from the fact that that high figure represents a small decrease from the even higher figure of the earlier year or two; little comfort because the lower figure reflects the fact that building societies are playing a somewhat smaller proportionate part in the provision of mortgage lending, and even less comfort because, in prospect, the outlook is much grimmer.

Already we see the volume of mortgage arrears growing fast. In June this year, no fewer than 45,100 mortgages were between six and 12 months in arrears, which represented a jump of more than 20 per cent. What is already a grim reality for many people is rapidly becoming a frightening prospect for many more.

But the true reason for the widespread resentment and anger is the sense of betrayal felt by many thousands of people who recall that they were enticed on to that treadmill of spiralling house prices, of ever-rising mortgage repayments, by a Government who told them that we were enjoying an economic miracle; a Government who made them glib promises to the effect that home ownership was a risk-free one-way bet; but a Government who, with equal irresponsibility, threw everything into reverse when their own mistakes caught up with them and then blamed the victims of those mistakes for being so easily duped.

It is the Government's heartlessness, their almost moralistic zeal in turning the screw, which has added insult to injury, and it is that which has created mortgage misery for millions. In case anybody thinks that that easy alliteration conceals nothing much, let us be clear that it conceals a true degree of desperation. It is that desperation which has made home ownership an impossible dream for some and an impossible nightmare for many more.

It is not just mortgage payers who are suffering. Tenants, too, find that their housing costs are going up sharply. It is not surprising that tenants feel somewhat aggrieved at what they consider to be the excessive attention paid to the interests of mortgage payers. They, too, find that housing costs are rising inexorably against them. Council tenants have been put on notice by Ministers․including the Secretary of State․that the Government intend to force their rents up to near market levels. The new subsidy arrangements and the ring-fencing provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 mean that the Government now have the power to make their writ run, whatever local democracy may require or suggest. Council rents are set to rise much higher than the inflation rate, often against the wishes of local authorities and almost always against the interests of some of the lowest-income families in our society.

At the same time, private sector rents will also rise sharply. The Housing Act 1988, which allows market rents to be charged in place of fair rents and reduces security of tenure, is just beginning to have its malign effect. What that will mean in terms of affordable housing is clearly shown by a survey commissioned by the Department of the Environment and carried out by Price Waterhouse, which was published in August. It shows that a married couple with two children and an income above the qualifying level for housing benefit would be able to afford a market rent for a two-bedroomed house in only two cities in the country․Leicester and Newcastle. For the rest, market rents will mean that private rented accommodation is placed beyond their reach. That is a prime instance of the futility of looking to the market to meet unmet housing needs.

Even housing associations, which are now looked to by the Government as the instrument of salvation, will find that their rents will rise as they are forced to turn to private sector funding. It is little wonder that over the past year housing association rents have risen by no less than 24 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the London borough of Newham, we will be faced next April with rent increases of about 21 per cent. because of Government diktat? Is he also aware that, because of the benefit changes last April, rent arrears—not only in Newham but throughout the whole of London and the country․went up by an average of 38 per cent.? What impact does he think that this enforced rent increase will have on rent arrears throughout the country?

My hon. Friend lends detail and substance to the point that I am making. His experience in his borough is echoed and repeated up and down the country ․certainly in my part of London. He is right to point out that rent arrears have risen and the difficulties have become manifest before the real impact of the recent changes has been felt. Therefore, as I have argued on other issues, the prospect is even grimmer than the current reality.

Wherever people turn, as owner-occupiers or tenants in the public or private sector, they find that the cost of housing is moving sharply and inexorably against them. That is sometimes because of deliberate and direct Government policy․as with the recent legislation—and sometimes because the market is distorted by the excessively high interest rates imposed by the Government.

However, affordable housing is a matter not just of price but of supply. Here, too, the record of the Tory Government is appalling. Housing completions have fallen steadily throughout the decade. In the public sector, they have fallen from 113,800 in 1978 to just 24,800 last year. The total number of housing completions has fallen also․from 240,800 in 1978 to just 184,600 last year. Those figures complete a picture of a grim decade for house building. Worse is to come. I expect the Minister—

rose—

The Minister rises on cue.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 2 million houses have been built in this country since the Government took office? Does he regard that as a record of failure in house building?

I am grateful to the Minister for putting the question in that direct and simple way because I can give him a direct and simple answer. Yes, that is housing failure. When it is measured against the unmet housing need․which I will come to shortly․the record is appalling.

It is far worse than the house completion record under the Labour Government. The Government having decimated․in literal terms, having far more than decimated․public sector house building, the prospects for the Government's policy on private sector house building are equally grim. Even the brief 1988 revival in private sector house completions has come to a sticky end as the construction industry grapples with the full brunt of high interest rates. During the first six months of 1989, there was a 17 per cent. slump in private sector housing building. Comparing the second quarter of this year with the second quarter of 1988, we see that fully a fifth of what was then achieved has been lost.

It is hard to understand how value added tax on new domestic house construction will help. I, in common with many others, felt a sense of alarm when the Secretary of State failed earlier this afternoon at Question Time to rule out in absolute terms any willingness by the Government to accept diktats from the Commission in Brussels.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point, because it was the reply to my question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to which he has just referred. My interpretation of his answer was not quite the same as the hon. Gentleman's. My right hon. Friend said that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that all possible opposition was mounted if the EC threatened to impose VAT on domestic house construction. The hon. Gentleman is a responsible Member of the House. He should not try to attach such a dishonourable interpretation to my right hon. Friend's answer.

I bear with equanimity the fact that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation and my interpretation of what the Secretary of State said are different. We start from different points of view. The hon. Gentleman is intent upon finding the most favourable interpretation. However, the hon. Gentleman has gone even further. Perhaps he should have given the answer at the Dispatch Box; it would have been a much better answer than that given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is fair and honourable. I am sure that he will concede when he consults Hansard tomorrow that he added substantially to his right hon. Friend's answer and that my interpretation was exactly correct; that the Secretary of State promised only to consult the Treasury and that he gave no assurance, either on his own behalf or that of the Department or the Government, that he was implacably opposed to the imposition of VAT on domestic house building.

Housing costs have risen. Housing supply, in terms of new build, has fallen below what we have a right to expect. Housing supply is not just a matter of new build; it is also a matter of the condition of the existing housing stock. The brutal fact is that the condition of the existing housing stock is growing worse. There are now 2,400,000 houses in serious disrepair, or 13 per cent. of the total. To put those houses into proper repair would cost an estimated total of £30 billion. That is a shocking record for any civilised country, but it is especially shocking for a country and a Government who have enjoyed over £120 billion of North sea oil revenues. Surely the Government ought to have spent some part of that bonanza on providing decent housing for all our citizens.

The failures have not happened by accident. The problem is․we have had 10 years' experience of it․that the Government prefer dogma to decent housing. They are prepared to carry on a war of attrition against the most obvious and efficient instrument for the provision of housing, particularly for low-income families․the local authorities. The homeless and the badly housed are the innocent victims of that unilaterally waged war.

Local authority housing investment programme spending has fallen consistently over the past decade. In 1980–81, it was £3·37 billion, in 1982–83 it was down to £2·84 billion, and by 1988–89 it had decreased to £1·12 billion in total. The most lunatic expression of the Government's vendetta against local authorities and their role in the provision of housing concerned the spending of capital receipts. The councils have £ 8·5 billion of capital receipts which they want to spend on improving housing stock and housing provision. Incredibly, they are prevented from doing precisely that by central Government diktat.

I hold a regular surgery in my constituency, as I am sure most hon. Members do. Perhaps 80 per cent. of all those who come to see me have housing problems. The inability of hon. Members to deal with those problems is one of the most worrying aspects of our job. I rarely conclude my surgery, which can go on for many hours, without a feeling of desperation and sadness that I can do so little to help. When people come to me and say, "Why can't the local authority spend a little more on putting my house into proper repair; why can't they build a few more flats for young married couples; why can't they spend some of the money that they must have received from the sale of council houses and council property?", I tell them that local authorities are not allowed to do that, as the Government have consistently prevented them from spending more than 20 per cent. of their receipts on those obvious and worthwhile purposes.

Almost invariably, my constituents look at rue pityingly. One can see the disbelief spread across their faces. They think, "Here is yet another politician flannelling on about absolute nonsense." They cannot believe that any Government could be so misguided and illogical as to impose such a stupid and damaging restriction.

Most of my constituents who come to see me also have housing problems. What they have in common with the hon. Gentleman's constituents is that they are tenants of Labour authorities. Can he explain why the vast majority of empty houses, outstanding repairs and uncollected rents are in Labour-controlled areas?

That is a familiar canard. The rate of empty property in local authorities is lower than it is in housing associations and in the private sector, and substantially lower than it is in the rest of the public sector, where Government Departments predominate.

A housing crisis is building in Britain. Any conscientious Member of Parliament who carries out regular constituency surgeries will have seen the evidence. Those hon. Members who profess to be unaware of the growing housing crisis, the housing time bomb that is ticking away, must be uniquely advantaged and live in the most prosperous parts of the country, because elsewhere a growing tide of humanity is condemned to a miserable, depleted and distorted existence because people do not have proper housing.

Undoubtedly the most tragic victims of the housing crisis are the homeless. Let no one say that there is no homelessness crisis in Britain. Last year, 117,550 families were accepted on to homelessness lists. That means that 337,369 people are homeless. Even that figure is dwarfed by the 242,000 families that applied for the status of being homeless. Homelessness is not a problem only in London. It is a problem in Gateshead, where homelessness has risen by 27 per cent. in the past year. In Colchester, it has risen by 48 per cent. and in leafy Salisbury by 52 per cent.

Those appalling figures do not include the most distressing manifestation of homelessness. The young people who are forced to beg by day and to sleep on our streets by night are not included in the figures, yet they are part of the daily experience of everyone who walks the streets of our major cities, particularly our great capital city. They are a blot on the face of this country and in particular on the Government's record. It is a sight that we had assumed had been pushed unmourned into the less salubrious pages of our history. Faced with that problem, the £250 million spread over two years which was announced in the Autumn Statement is no more than a drop in the ocean. It is totally inadequate to deal with the size and the seriousness of the problem of homelessness.

This problem has not arisen by accident. Homelessness is simply the most visible sign of a wider, deeper housing failure. A housing failure is not just an ordinary failure of Government policy; it is a failure by the Government to fulfil one of their basic duties to the people. There is something peculiarly shocking about the failure of a rich, self-proclaimedly civilised country that fails to provide a decent roof over the head of each of its citizens.

rose—

I am about to finish.

There is nothing more fundamental to human dignity than a house of reasonable comfort and security.

rose—

I am about to wind up.

There is nothing more destructive of family cohesion or individual self-respect than condemning people to unacceptable housing conditions.

The solution clearly requires a fundamental reappraisal of many aspects of policy․the growing regional imbalance, the failure to use planning law to establish adequate new provision of housing, particularly in the south-east, the allocation of resources both between housing and other services and within the housing budget between owner-occupiers and others. Of course the solutions require fundamental reappraisal, but much more immediate steps can be taken․the reversal of the serious and avoidable mistakes in housing policy which have been made by the Government and which have made our housing conditions in modern Britain not just a crisis but a scandal.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,

"welcomes Her Majesty's Government's commitment to home ownership throughout the last ten years which has enabled many more people to own their homes; recognises the benefits which have resulted from the introduction of the Right to Buy for council tenants; further recognises that the Government's sound economic policies have played an important part in facilitating the growth in owner-occupation; and urges the Government to maintain those policies in the interests of home owners, first-time buyers and the nation as a whole."

In common with speeches that we are accustomed to hearing from the Labour Front Bench, that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was long on a description of problems, much of it inaccurate, and short, almost to the point of non-existence, of any suggestion as to how he and his party would set about tackling those problems. It was so lacking in any substance that, as a serious contribution to debate on housing policy, it was little short of a disgrace.

We should not be too hard on the hon. Gentleman, because we know what trouble he gets into when he embarks upon the task of suggesting what policies might be used to deal with these problems. We know of his contributions to clarifying the Labour party's policies on housing, even before he was given his present responsibilities. His television appearances on these and other matters have become collectors' items, and we greatly look forward to more.

What about our homeless?

I am coming to that. I am interested in dealing with policies. Thanks to Brian Walden's revealing interview with the hon. Member for Dagenham, we know what the hon. Gentleman's policy would be—to target and penalise all those who seek to move to a larger house. People with growing families would bear the brunt of the policies which the hon. Gentleman did not dare mention during his long speech this afternoon.

The hon. Gentleman even had the good grace during the interview to tell these growing families that, although they would be "hit", they would be "fully warned", and, in any event, his proposal was "in their interests". He finally assured them that their inability to house a growing family would be simply a "fairly marginal impact" of Labour's policies. The hon. Member for Dagenham was advocating direct controls on mortgages.

None of us should be surprised by such an approach, because it is the approach of the Socialist down the ages. Socialists believe that, if one sees a problem, one should slap on a control and form a queue. The Labour party is never happy without a queue or two, or preferably three or four. It satisfies its natural predilection for the hair-shirt. Its approach has always been that if everyone cannot have something, it should ensure that getting it becomes as painful as possible for those who can.

The Minister mentioned hair-shirts. Has he bothered to ask himself how many of his own constituents are obliged to wear the hair-shirt because of the Government's policy of high interest rates? How many repossessions have occurred in his constituency, or has he not bothered to find out?

I am well aware of the problems. I shall deal with them in my speech, and I shall deal with high interest rates as well. The hon. Member for Dagenham has clearly advocated the imposition of physical controls on those who wish to move into a larger house because they have a growing family. That is his policy, which was announced clearly in the interview to which I referred. It is right that we should all know about it, and that none of us should be under any misapprehension.

I had hoped that the Minister would not pursue this futile course for much longer, but as he insists on misdescribing what I have said․and what many others beyond the Labour party have said, including many Conservative Members․I must make it clear that we have always sought not to prescribe policies for 1991 or 1992, when a Labour Government will at last come to the rescue of the British people, but to rebut the suggestion that is constantly put from the Dispatch Box that there is no alternative to high interest rates.

There is a huge consensus across the board, embracing hon. Members of all parties, including some of the Minister's hon. Friends, that the Government are wrong to impose mortgage misery on so many people on the pretext that there is no alternative but high interest rates. The last thing that I․or anyone else․has done is to prescribe policies in this respect for the next Labour Government. We are saying that at present, in the dilemma and mess that have been created by this Government, it is simply not the case that there is no alternative to high interest rates.

The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I have here the full transcript of his interview with Brian Walden, in which he clearly and specifically set out his alternative to higher interest rates. His alternative was the imposition of direct controls on the amount that a person could borrow if he wanted to move into a larger house. I want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. His great merit ․although I am sorry to see him resile from it somewhat this afternoon․is candour. He is very open about these matters.

Some Labour Members find the hon. Gentleman's approach uncomfortable. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) could not wait to slap down the hon. Member for Dagenham. He went on to the Walden programme the next week․the earliest possible opportunity․to disown his hon. Friend. He said:

"there is no way in which we are going to penalise a family which wishes to buy a larger house".

The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was equally unhappy. He put forward his own remedies. He has it in mind to solve the difficulties by entering into a social contract with the clearing banks. He would not come forward with straightforward controls, as the hon. Member for Dagenham did. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East believes that he could achieve the same objective by nudges and winks, and by backdoor deals with the bankers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham on his straightforward approach. It was no doubt his remarks that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) had in mind when he wrote a letter to Roof, the magazine of Shelter, in which he said:

"Our plans for owner-occupiers are not for the fainthearted."

If the Minister proposes to speak for the same length of time as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), he must now be more than halfway through his speech, yet he has not touched on the greatest problem of all in our society, which is the large number of homeless people. What attempt has he made to count the number of homeless people, especially in London, and what measures does he propose to take to do something about it? Is he aware that one telling manifestation of this great sickness in the Government's policy is that nearly every evening someone sleeps right outside the Palace gates? Is not that a disgrace, and is it not time that the Minister reached the part of his speech dealing with the subject about which people want to hear?

Homelessness is an aspect of the problem which we must take very seriously indeed and with which I shall certainly deal during my speech. But we do not get anywhere by describing problems without advancing solutions to them. The hon. Member for Dagenham spent his whole speech in an inaccurate description of the problems without giving us so much as a paragaph of solutions.

You have already said that.

Order.

The Minister has said that.

That is why—

rose—

Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, hon. Members must restrain themselves.

It is on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, it is, is it?

Mr. Speaker, we have a Standing Order that requires hon. Members to desist from persistent repetition. We have already heard, on four occasions, the Minister's attack on the Labour party, and we are anxious to hear what the Government propose to do. I invoke your support, Mr. Speaker, because tedious repetition is out of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little confused. Although I have been in the House for six years, I do not seem to have caught up with things. I thought that today was an Opposition Supply day and I thought that those were the days on which the Opposition, in addition to attacking the Government, helped the House towards a better understanding of their policies. I came here this afternoon in the hope that I would be educated about the Labour party's housing proposals. So far, I have not heard one scintilla of a positive suggestion of what the Labour party intends to do in its housing policy or of how it would cost its proposals.

That is more a debating point than a point of order.

A propos tedious repetition, if I had judged that there was tedious repetition, I would have intervened, but I did not judge it. We should get on with the debate. A great many hon. Members wish to participate, and if the Front Bench spokesmen are constantly interrupted, other hon. Members may be disappointed.

It is precisely because of the omissions of the hon. Member for Dagenham that it falls to me to tell the House what the Labour party's policy would be, and that is what I have been trying to do.

Our policies for owner-occupiers could not represent more of a contrast with those of the Labour party, and our approach has been proved effective by 10 years of success. Since 1979, the proportion of owner-occupied households has increased from 57 to 68 per cent. We have one of the highest rates of owner-occupation in the world—higher than that in the United States․and the number of first-time buyers in 1988 was about double the number in 1979.

About 6 million people have bought their own homes for the first time over the past 10 years․more than I million of them under the right-to-buy provisions against which the Opposition fought so bitterly. The Labour party would still interfere with the unrestricted right to buy. The housing resolution passed by the Labour party conference in October supported the right to buy,

"providing that the local authority replaces the stock sold, and those wishing to resell allow the Council first option to buy."

The Labour party has still to come to terms with the undoubted aspiration of the vast majority of people in Britain to own their own homes. That is an aspiration which the Government unequivocally welcome and will do their utmost to assist.

I acknowledge that many home owners find the present level of interest rates very difficult indeed, but that difficulty must be seen in perspective. It would be wrong to make any simplistic links between mortgage interest rates and homelessness. There are many causes of mortgage arrears other than high interest rates. One of the most significant of them is unemployment, and the reduction in unemployment by 1·5 million since 1986 has significantly helped the overall picture on mortgage arrears, as it has helped in so many other ways.

Clearly, we have nothing to learn from the Opposition about owner-occupation. We promote it, and they obstruct it, and the sooner that people understand that difference, the better.

When we last discussed housing, the hon. Member for Hammersmith alleged that the right to buy was the Government's sole housing policy. That is also a travesty. During the next three years, total central Government spending on housing and their grants and credit approvals to local authorities for housing will add up to almost £20 billion. That sum of money will largely benefit the minority of the population who are not owner-occupiers. I hope that even Opposition Members will acknowledge that £20 billion is a large sum by any standards. It is worth noting that no sums are mentioned in the Opposition's policy review.

Opposition Members come to the House day after day, promising to spend more on houses, as well as everything else under the sun, but the shadow Chancellor constantly says that any extra spending would have to await the creation of additional resources. The promises of the Opposition are not worth a row of beans. We do not rely on promises, we rely on action․£20 billion worth of action.

My hon. and learned Friend is talking about resources. Will he bear in mind the need for a balance between new housing and the environment? If my constituents are successful in their High Court battle with Barratt's today, will he remind Bolton's Labour council of its duty to defend covenants and to ensure that Birtenshaw farm remains free from development?

I will not be drawn into making comments about a case that is before the High Court today, but I know how hard my hon. Friend has fought for the cause of his constituents.

We acknowledge that owner-occupation is not the answer for a minority. Some people do not want, or cannot afford, the responsibility of home ownership. That is why we are working to restore quality, diversity and choice to the residential sector. The deregulation of new lettings in the Housing Act 1988 will help to revive the private rented sector, which was almost entirely killed off by the rent controls introduced by successive Labour Governments.

Already, some £350 million has been invested in business expansion schemes to provide private sector tenancy lettings. Private sector finance is now being attracted to support housing association projects.

The Opposition want to destroy that revival. The hon. Member for Hammersmith conceded in the Financial Times last year that some private investors may be frightened of investing in rented houses when they realise that a Labour Government would impose rent controls. Some? All private investors would be frightened, and the revival would be utterly destroyed. Not only would the Labour Government reimpose rent controls, but tenants of non-residential private landlords would be given the right to buy, or to transfer to a council landlord.

Do Opposition Members believe that any of Labour's policies to penalise the private rented sector would encourage investment in it? How can they endlessly bang on about housing shortages, but at the same time make proposals that by their own admission would scare away much-needed investment in housing? If people who can afford market rents choose to rent privately and withdraw from the market, they will release more subsidised rented homes for those people who are most in need. That is an objective which should be encouraged by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

In the private rented sector, there has been an increase in the number of houses available for rent, because people have had to move out when they cannot afford to keep up with the mortgage payments. Estate agents have put houses that are up for sale in to the rented market. That increase has happened by default.

Can the Minister explain another statistic? Ten years ago, nine families were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Newham; now, the number is 1,151, yet only 3·5 per cent. of our own housing stock is vacant.

If the hon. Gentleman examines the statistics on repossessions and the causes for them, he will see that the assumption that lay beneath the first part of his question is without any foundation whatever. The facts simply do not support it. It is typical of Labour's approach that its one and only solution to the problem of housing shortage is to increase our municipal housing stock, although we already have the largest in western Europe.

What about bed-andbreakfast accommodation?

I am coming to that.

Our approach is to encourage choice in the social rented housing market. We do not want to increase the number of monolithic council housing estates or to strengthen local authorities as the monopoly suppliers of rented housing. That is why we want new provision to come primarily from housing associations.

In the next four years, we shall more than double the Housing Corporation's main programme, from £815 million this year to more than £1·7 billion by 1992–93. That should permit a doubling of output to about 35,000 dwellings in that year alone. Such steps to increase the supply and diversity of rented accommodation will help to tackle the imbalance between supply and demand, which is one of the causes of homelessness.

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I must press on.

In the meantime, we fully acknowledge that further immediate action is required to help the homeless. That is why we are providing an extra £250 million over the next two years for local authorities and housing associations in stress areas. Those additional resources should provide approaching 15,000 extra lettings. That should be compared with the total number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, who number about 12,000. That is our response to this problem. It is a serious response and on a considerable scale. It will have a considerable impact.

rose—

rose—

Order. The Minister is not giving way.

The motion refers to the Government's alleged failure to maintain the condition of the housing stock. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that its condition was getting worse, but he failed to support that assertion with one piece of evidence. He is wrong: nothing could be further from the truth.

There are 2 million more houses in England today than there were in 1979, and the English house condition survey shows that, between 1981 and 1986, the number of dwellings that lacked basic amenities fell by no less than 41 per cent. That gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Moreover, there has been continued improvement since 1986, so there is not a shred of evidence to support the assertion in the Opposition's motion. It is a typical piece of undiluted scaremongering, and I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will have the decency to recognise that and to withdraw it. I give him the opportunity to do that now.

Will the Minister enlighten us by telling us the number of houses that are in serious disrepair?

The hon. Gentleman's argument was that matters are getting worse. [Interruption.] I challenge him to produce one piece of evidence in support of his assertion that matters are getting worse. [Interruption.] He cannot do so. His silence speaks volumes. [Interruption.]

We suggest that more should be done to improve things. Unlike the Opposition we make no apology for concentrating assistance on people in greatest need. [Interruption.] We have acted․ [Interruption.]

Order. Let us have an end to this running commentary. It does not help the debate at all.

We have targeted home improvement grants on people on the lowest incomes. We have almost doubled the amount of money available for home improvement grants, and now we are ensuring that the increased resources go to those who need them. Labour's policy review says:

"We will review the renovation grant system so that it relates less to people's means."

That is a typically cockeyed approach.

We have established programmes for Estate Action and housing action trusts that will provide huge additional resources for the most rundown inner-city council estates. Yesterday in Sunderland I announced the appointment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the first shadow chairman of a housing action trust. I also visited Hartlepool, which I understand is a town of particular interest at the moment to those in powerful places in the ranks of the Labour party. On one estate alone in Hartlepool, we have made available £3·5 million over three years to improve the conditions of the people living there. Those improvements are dramatic and have transformed the lives of those people. While the Opposition table carping, whingeing motions, we are getting on with the business of improving people's housing standards.

The Minister challenged me to produce figures to support my contention that the condition of the housing stock has got worse. If he will look at the figures for dwellings in serious disrepair, he will see that in 1976 there were 859,000 such houses, representing 5 per cent. of the total; that in 1981 there were 1,178,000 such houses, representing 6 per cent. of the total; and that in 1986 there were 2,400,000 such houses, representing 13 per cent. of the total.