asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to reform the Leasehold Reform Act.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales told the House on 3 December in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), the Housing Bill will contain proposals whereby valuation disputes arising under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 will be referred in the first instance to local leasehold valuation tribunals.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there are more leasehold properties in Wales than in many other parts of Britain? In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Government consider setting up a special inquiry, or a Royal Commission, to look into the whole affair?

I think it would be wiser if we waited to see what happens when the valuation disputes proceed through the new proposal that we have made. There are, after all, a substantial number of similar properties outside the Principality.

Is the Minister contemplating extending rights under the Leasehold Reform Act to flats? Has he any such proposals? Is he also considering the removal of rateable value limits? Does he realise that the limits can cause considerable hardship?

I have little to add to the original answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). All I can say is that the Act at present applies only to houses for technical, legal reasons. We want to look at the question of extension to leases of flats in the longer term. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a complex position.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of my constituents are not covered by the Leasehold Reform Act because they are in Crown Estate property? Will he initiate discussions to see whether they can be brought in some way, if not by legislation?

That is a different angle from the original question. I shall certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Will the Minister reconsider the five-year limit on eligibility? Will he say why the Government opposed a formula for enfranchisement?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait in patience a little longer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to provide for minor changes to county boundaries to be made by statutory instrument in cases where there is general local approval of any proposed change.

The Local Government Act 1972 already empowers my right hon. Friend to make orders for changes in local government boundaries in accordance with proposals made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Does that reply include county boundaries? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the irrelevance of some county boundary lines, which run through newly created estates across streets and even through individual properties could, and should, be changed by speedier and simpler methods, especially where there is overwhelming local consent for this to be done? Is he aware that examples exist between the London borough of Barnet and Hertfordshire.

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the power exists at the moment. Where there is general agreement and there are exceptional circumstances, it is open to my right hon. Friend to make an order for this to be done. Fresh legislation is not required.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his discussions with the rugby unions of Scotland, England and Wales on proposed tours of South Africa.

The home rugby unions are fully aware of the Government's stance on proposed tours to and from South Africa as set out in our press statement of 14 September. This was again made clear during my recent informal meeting with the chairman of the tours committee.

Is not British participation in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games jeopardised?

We hope that anyone responsible for staging such a tour is aware of all the possible implications. Rugby is not an Olympic sport. The rugby unions are not affiliated to the British Olympic Association. It is for the International Olympic Committee to decide which countries should participate in the Games.

Will my hon. Friend state why he has adopted this attitude to proposed tours in South Africa.? Would he not agree that taking tours to South Africa can educate the peole of South Africa and speed up the processes that are already taking place in that country? If he does accept the attitude that he has expressed—I find it difficult to believe that he really does—how can he agree to the holding of the Olympic Games in one of the most barbaric and totalitarian countries in the world?

The Government's position was made clear in our statement of 14 September. We shall discuss possible changes with our Commonwealth colleagues if or when sufficient progress has been made towards the integration of sport in South Africa.

Is the Minister aware that yesterday evening a meeting took place in the House between representatives of the home tours committee of the Rugby Football Union and the sports group of the Parliamentary Labour Party at which it was indicated to us that no decision has yet been taken on the proposed tour? Will the Minister prevail upon the rugby authorities not to undertake the tour, bearing in mind that it is necessary to honour the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Gleneagles agreement?

The rugby unions can be in no doubt of the Government's position. It was set out in my September letter and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release of 14 September.

Why are the Government involved in the matter at all? What have they to do with sport?

The Government are concerned to implement the Commonwealth agreement. We have made our position clear to the rugby unions.

Is the Minister aware that his strong, sensible, intelligent and civilised stand will be supported by all my right hon. and hon. Friends? Is it not the case that the Olympic Games is the only occasion on which the youth of the world from 146 nations, irrespective of their backgrounds—political, racial or religious—come together freely? Is that not something which we ought to treasure and preserve rather than surrender? Does the Minister also agree that one sport has no right to jeopardise the thousands of hours of dedicated training put in by hundreds of our finest sportsmen and women, and jeopardise their chances of representing themselves and their country at the Olympic Games? Finally—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Show the right hon. Gentleman the red card."]—

Order. It is the red card for the right hon. Gentleman. He must know that the same rules apply to Front Bench spokesmen as to Back Benchers. Perhaps he will conclude his question. Let us say that I have shown him a yellow card.

With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, when I was a referee I always took provocation into account.

Order. That is what I am doing.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister agree that it would be the greatest disservice to the Commonwealth if rugby tours to South Africa ended the Commonwealth Games or turned them once more into whites-only games?

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I know that many sporting bodies share his fears about the future. I am sure that the rugby unions will have heard what has been said in the House and will bear it in mind in their decision on any invitation to tour South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of the sales of commercial and industrial assets owned by new town development corporations and the New Towns Commission to date.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on developments on the sale of commercial property in new towns.

In the present financial year industrial and commercial assets worth almost £4 million have so far been sold. The sale of assets worth another £24·5 million has been agreed but not finalised, and other assets valued at about £43 million are on the market.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many tenants of industrial properties, particularly small business men, whom his party promised to help, are up in arms against his policy? Does he recognise that small business men are not permitted to buy individual units when they form part of an estate, but are told that the estate must be sold as one unit? Is he also aware that they are not allowed to buy as sitting tenants, but have to put in a bid, which means that their property may be bought over their heads? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about those problems or recognise that the Government are striking a blow at many small business men who have worked to build up their businesses for many years in my constituency and others like it?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the small industrial community. I have ensured that guidelines are available in the disposal programme so that the small business owner gets every reasonable chance, subject to considerations of national financial concern, to buy his own property.

The right hon. Gentleman is selling them out.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the new town in my constituency and in other new towns about the policy of selling commercial property? Is he further aware that the profitable enterprises will be snapped up and the remainder will be left to be added to the burden of the public purse? Does he agree that the principles of the private Stevenage Development Authority Bill, which is before the House, are of major importance and worthy of the Government's support?

The Stevenage Bill is in conflict with Government policy and we shall oppose it on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are determined to widen ownership in this country and our policy is in line with what we were elected to achieve.

Will my right hon. Friend note that, contrary to the remarks of Labour Members, many of us who represent new towns believe that his proposals are welcome to sitting tenants? Will he give us a categorical assurance that he will make every effort to throw out the Stevenage Bill, which is a weasel designed to transfer resources to district councils?

Given the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am optimistic about the last part of the question. I have no doubt that the announcement that we intend to offer for sale properties in new towns has been widely welcomed by those who will now have an opportunity to own their properties direct.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are a number of local authorities that have the best reasons for wanting to purchase some of the assets currently in the ownership of new town development corporations or the New Towns Commission, because without being able to do so, and particularly without being able to gain the freehold on town centres, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out the sort of redevelopment work that they may need to do in future? That is possible in areas that have not been predominantly under the ownership of new towns.

Different powers are needed for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind and it is our intention to ensure that those reasonable powers are available to local atuhorities.

What advice has the Secretary of State received from the new town chairmen about the advantages to the community of selling the assets leasehold rather than freehold? How and when does he propose to respond to that advice?

We have discussed the matter. The arguments for selling leasehold or freehold have been well rehearsed and are known to all hon. Members. The Government's view is that we should sell freehold wherever possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public expenditure implications of his policy on the sale of council houses.

I intend to publish an appraisal of the financial effects of the sale of council houses for the parliamentary consideration of the forthcoming housing Bill.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that over a period of about 20 years the short-term gains from selling council houses could be converted into a loss of about £8,500 per house? Does he accept that his policy of selling council houses is denying homes to many couples and families in high-rise flats? Does he also agree that, by failing to give similar purchase rights to private tenants, he is busily supporting the principle of private affluence and public squalor?

If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in the figures, I do not understand why he did not press his own Government to publish the figures that were obviously available to them. As I, unlike Ministers in the previous Government, am to publish a detailed assessment of the matter, it would seem reasonable to await publication before trying to analyse the contents.

Will my right hon. Friend be in no way deterred from implementing our election pledge on the sale of council houses? Does he recognise that by implementing that pledge at the earliest date we shall be fulfilling the dreams of tens of thousands of would-be council house buyers?

My hon. Friend puts the matter extremely accurately. I am sure that those buyers will understand that we are implementing our policy in the teeth of Labour opposition.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the problem that he is introducing for local authorities when he instructs them to curtail expenditure? As a consequence of the Government's policy, more manpower will be required by local authorities in facilitating transactions for the sale of council houses. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make allowances to local authorities in their public expenditure to offset the burdens that he is imposing upon them?

I am sure that all local authorities will wish to make their own judgments on where the priorities for expenditure lie. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the authorities that have already sold council houses on a considerable scale have often produced large revenue surpluses as a consequence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures on which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has made his judgment are based on the assumption that rents will rise in line with inflation, which has never happened? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is now pushing the idea of increasing council rents all round.

I am sure that many hon. Members have come to regard with some suspicion the figures upon which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) bases his judgment.

Does the Secretary of State intend to sell, or persuade people to buy, at least one-third of the total stock of municipal houses? If that is so, is he aware that existing statistics indicate that rents will increase by one-quarter. Does that worry him?

If I were able to persuade one-third of council tenants to buy their homes, I should add 2 million owners to the present total. I should regard that as a remarkable achievement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the position in Southampton, where some tenants have been waiting for one year to 18 months to buy their council homes? Is he further aware that, through no fault of their own, their homes have been revalued in the meantime and the properties are costing between £2,000 and £3,000 more than the original verbal agreement? Is my right hon. Friend considering taking steps to reduce that problem? Is he finding that some local authorities' staff are slowing down the process through dogma?

I ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the Bill, which will answer his question clearly. There are two ways in which delays may take place. The first is administrative delay, which I deeply regret although in some circumstances it is understandable. What is totally unforgivable is the wholly doctrinal and dogmatic position of Opposition Members.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a crucial ingredient of the public expenditure implications of the sale of council houses is the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief on mortgage interest payments? Is he further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told me that it is impossible to make a meaningful estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the tax relief on the sale of any given number of council houses? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is not possible to make such an estimate, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do so?

I find the right hon. Gentleman's question difficult to square with the fact that we understand that a detailed paper was put to Ministers in the previous Administration which achieved exactly that purpose. Perhaps the question offers an answer that is important to the House. When I produce my financial analysis the House will realise that, according to the figures fed into the assumptions, so the results will vary dramatically. As one looks ahead for many years, one can make more or less whatever judgment one likes. That is purely a matter of personal opinion. It is for that reason, presumably, that the Labour Government considered the matter and decided that it was not worth publishing an estimate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of local authority staff numbers.

On 8 September 1979, the joint manpower watch figures, published today, showed 2,092,271 full-time equivalent staff in local authorities in England and Wales. This figure represents a decrease of 11,871 full-time equivalent staff since June 1979, but is still 18,185 up on the figure for September 1978.

Does not that put into perspective the outlandish scares about severe cuts in services, since councils are employing more staff than they were at this time last year? Currently it appears that the figure for the employment of local authority staff is standing at an all-time high.

I hope that all hon. Members, especially those who are most profuse in their complaints about the severe effects of cuts on local government, will take the opportunity to study the joint manpower watch figures published today. They will find that across a wide category of employment in local authorities there is a continuing increase in employment, even though we asked for a curb on further recruitment in the interests of economy.

Is the Minister willing to admit that the reason why there has not been a dramatic reduction in the number of staff employed by local authorities is that even Conservative-controlled local authorities are now standing out in opposition to the Government's policies, which are attacking local authorities and requiring them to cut services? Is he also aware that within local government, especially among Conservative councillors, there is a strong feeling that the Government's proposals to pay local authority chairmen and to reintroduce political honours is a cynical and mercenary attempt by the Government to buy off Tory councillors who are opposed to the Government's policies?

In terms of the reductions that we are seeking, the cuts are nothing like as savage as those that were imposed on local authorities when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was Secretary of State for the Environment. The right hon. Gentleman imposed them as a result of the IMF cuts, and they had to be effected within that year. Part of the problem that we now face is that, having earlier recognised the need for economy, the right hon. Gentleman positively invited further recruitment last year, and invited local authorities to plan for growth. That was a totally irresponsible call in the light of the national economic position.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, notwithstanding the argument of the hon. Member for Bootle, (Mr. Roberts), one of the restraining factors in the attempt to reduce local government staff is the determination of certain Labour authorities to carry on as though nothing has changed, and to increase staff by 200 or 300 over the next year?

We hear some well publicised statements from some authorities, but I think that the great majority of responsible authorities now recognise the seriousness of the position. We still have a considerable way to go, but I hope that the figures represent a start. We shall look to local authorities in the coming months. As further figures come forward, we hope to see further encouraging trends.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to establish further urban development corporations other than those in Liverpool and London.

I have no plans to set up urban development corporations other than in Merseyside and in London Docklands.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he realise that many local authorities would dearly love powers similar to the UDCs for themselves, to enable them to cut through red tape and get on with the job?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that my proposals have been widely welcomed on both sides of the House and by a wide audience outside.

Does the Secretary of State recall a speech that he made in Liverpool in March or April of this year, when he said that the re-election of a Labour Government would no doubt mean the establishment of yet another quango to try to sort out the problems of Liverpool's dockland? What has suddenly brought about this great change of mind? Is he further aware that there are now 11 different agencies trying to sort out the problems of inner-city Liverpool? Will he say what accountability there will be on the part of the new UDC, and how much it will cost—

Order. It is quite clear that there are hon. Members who were not in the Chamber at the beginning of Question Time, when I appealed for brief supplementary questions to enable other hon. Members to be called.

I have never believed that everything that the Labour Party proposes is wrong—it is just that it usually is.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that private enterprise will come to the docks in Liverpool and London only if there are special financial inducements or tax advantages? Is it proposed that the urban development corporations will offer such inducements?

The urban development corporation proposals are included in a Bill which is shortly to come before the House. We shall have the opportunity in a wide-ranging debate to consider exactly what powers and areas should be considered as appropriate to the urban development corporations. I believe that we should wait until then before making any final decisions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all the experience of the new town movement suggests that the worst thing he could possibly do would be to set up urban development corporations in the teeth of local authority opposition in the areas concerned?

There are 5,000 acres of derelict land in the centre of London and 500 acres of such land on Merseyside. Unless we take the steps that I propose, that land will continue to be derelict.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the present levels of public sector rented housing are retained in all rural areas.

It is for local housing authorities to determine the appropriate levels of council house building in their areas within their capital allocations.

Will the Minister explain the apparent conflict between his right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Is he aware that farmers are being reassured that there will be no problems since relatively few rural homes will be sold? Does he agree that the purchase of many such houses will be sought, this creating severe problems in maintaining a social balance and an adequate rural economy?

The answer lies in the statistics collected by the Labour Government as a result of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The number of lettings made to those being rehoused under that Act amounted to half of 1 per cent. of the total number of relettings in rural areas.

Why, in rural areas as elsewhere, is the Secretary of State allowing council houses to be sold at values well below the cost of building them? Is the Minister aware that during the election campaign his right hon. Friend categorically stated that the Conservative Party could not agree to the purchase of homes based on values below the cost of building them? Why has he broken his word?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the consultation paper, he will be aware that the cost floor applies to all dwellings that have been completed since 1 April 1974.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the desire for home ownership is as great in rural areas as it is elsewhere?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Has the Minister noticed that whenever local authority houses are sold in rural areas they tend to fall into the hands of retired people from urban areas or of those who want second homes? Working-class families who live in rural areas are deprived of the opportunity of owning such houses. Why do the Government hold working-class people in rural areas in such total contempt?

The overwhelming evidence is that those who buy their council houses do so with the intention of staying in them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the expertise and knowledge acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the knowledge and expertise acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.

The urban development corporations which I propose to set up for London and Merseyside Docklands will be modelled on the new town development corporations. Several of the new towns are setting a useful example through the improvement of the older settlements now absorbed into their areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. Does he agree that considerable benefit can be gained by involving private capital and private ownership at an earlier rather than a later stage in the development?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that that is one of the essential litmus papers by which the success of UDCs will be judged.

The Minister knows that 8,000 houses await completion in my constituency as part of the Beckton district plan. Will he give that plan the go-ahead and confirm the Docklands strategic plan so that regeneration may go ahead as soon as possible?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Beckton plan is an independent proceeding. I am anxious to bring as much urgency as I can to the development of Docklands.

Will my right hon. Friend consider forming an old town corporation run on new town corporation lines for inner areas where local authorities and national undertakings are hoarding land and leaving that land sterile and derelict?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I think that he has defined exactly what the urban development corporations will do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with local authority leaders regarding the publication of individual staffing figures, authority by authority.

The Department is discussing with the local authority associations how the central and local government joint manpower watch might be extended to publish centrally manpower figures for all individual local authorities. We have also invited them to discuss what manpower and other figures might be published locally.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the figures are made publicly available, individual authority by individual authority, so that ratepayers may know which authorities are increasing their staff levels at a time of restraint?

It is extremely important that the House, local authorities, councillors and local electors should have this information. I was unable to reply more fully to an earlier question about the performance of different local authorities in making economies because at present the information is aggregated and it is not possible to form selective judgments. Local electors are unable to form an informed judgment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he used to argue that public expenditure cuts were required to get the Government off the backs of the people? He then argued that they were necessary because of the economic situation. Is he now saying that there are no real cuts? Does he believe in keeping good public services?

I have tried to make it clear to the House—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me—that we must call for improved economies. The economies that have been made in certain areas have been used by a number of Labour Members as an excuse to make extravagant claims about the extent of the economies that are being asked for. Extremely worrying allegations have been made that have disturbed many people. The allegations were not true. I am not seeking to conceal the fact that economies are necessary. I merely wish them to be understood in their true perspective.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in local government quality is required and not quantity? Large local staffs do not necessarily bring the greatest benefits. We want fewer but better public services.

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's argument. That is why we think it important initially to call for a freeze on local government recruitment and to pursue that policy so that electors may know what is happening to the staffing levels of local authorities. My hon. Friend will have noticed, in an answer I gave which appeared in Hansard recently, that in the past 15 years employment in local authorities has increased from 1·5 million to 2·6 million. I accept that there are some good reasons for that increase. However, it poses a number of questions—for instance, whether the increase was justified in some areas.

What relevance do the figures have if they are not related to the needs of certain areas? Surely that is the factor which determines the number of staff necessary in a certain area.

The greatest value of the figures will be to reveal movements within individual authorities. I accept that it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between the employment levels of various authorities which may serve different levels of population. However, the figures will be helpful to individual electors in individual areas. They will be able to know what is happening to the movement of recruitment and employment within their authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that there will be no adverse environmental conditions created by his decision to allow a five-year extension to mine opencast coal at the Albert site in Hindley Green.

The letter giving my right hon. Friend's decision on this appeal sets out his conclusion that the need of the National Coal Board for the continued use of the Albert disposal point outweighs the traffic effects and other environmental objections. However, because of these objections, the life of the disposal point has been extended to November 1984 only.

Is the Minister aware that the decision made by his right hon. Friend to grant planning permission on the site, despite the fact that the county and district authorities have opposed it, has enraged my constituents who live in the Hindley Green area? Is he aware that when the site is fully operational there will be 24 lorries an hour leaving the site and heaving up and down the roads in my constituency? How can the hon. Gentleman justify a decision that will lead to great stress and hardship to those living in and around the area, who are sick and fed up of their environment being continually abused?

My right hon. Friend took into account all the matters that were brought to the inspector's notice. It is a temporary decision. In five years it is hoped that the NCB will find a more acceptable site. There were seven conditions attached to the decision, the seventh being that only 20 per cent. of the coal should be removed by road.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has, relating to the future of the Development Commission and its associated organisation, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas; and if he will make a statement.

The functions of the Development Commission and COSIRA are currently under review.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those organisations are very important, particularly in rural areas, that they need adequate resources, that it is totally in line with Conservative policy to help small businesses, and that occasionally there is a real case for having seed corn?

I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and I know the value that many hon. Members place on the work done by the Development Commission and COSIRA. We are conducting a quick review, which I hope will be completed within the first two months of next year. We recognise the role that the Development Commission and COSIRA have played. On funding, we are anxious to find ways to encourage their work, other than through public resources, and I am encouraged by the response that the Development Commission has received. I understand that it is likely to get access to substantial funds from the private sector and from clearing banks, and that could be of great benefit. That is important in achieving our social and employment objectives without the restraint that may arise from public expenditure cuts.

Does the Minister recognise that frequently the biggest problem facing those who wish to set up a small enterprise in a rural area is that of obtaining industrial premises? Does the Minister accept the necessity of providing industrial estates where premises can be rented cheaply, such as were previously provided by new town corporations and which the Secretary of State now proposes to sell off?

I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman managed to drag new town corporations into the subject of industry in rural areas. There is a problem as regards premises, and many district councils are helping to support the installation of small new industrial estates. We also attach great importance to the use of existing buildings in rural areas. The Secretary of State and I have stressed to the planning authorities that they should allow better use of existing buildings, such as farm buildings, that are suitable for small industrial purposes.

Could not the grant-aided functions of COSIRA and the Development Commission be undertaken by the Department of Trade? Are not both of those organisations quangos which should go?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the Department of Trade would be the most obvious home for those activities. However, we are reviewing their operation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are concerned about the problems affecting rural areas and we are keeping these alternative propositions in mind.

Is the Minister aware that the Development Commission and COSIRA are held in high regard for the work that they have done? Does he recognise that that has been achieved because of Government aid? Is not the review a way of getting out of giving Government help? The right hon. Gentleman claims that private funds are available, but I doubt that very much.

We wish to discover how the rural areas can be helped most effectively. The obsession of Labour Members with public help has been a positive hindrance to making real improvements in rural areas. As I have said, the Development Commission, with our encouragement, has now found ways of increasing the funds available to it, by enlisting private sector financial support. Many of the projects in which COSIRA and the Development Commission are involved are perfectly viable and do not necessarily need to be funded purely from public funds.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now completed his study of the possibility of providing a statutory right of purchase for private and housing association tenants; and if he will make a statement.

Regarding private tenants, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on 11 June. As far as housing association tenants are concerned, we shall provide wide powers to enable housing associations to sell to sitting tenants, and are still considering to what extent such powers might be combined with a right to buy.

Is the Minister aware that that is an entirely unsatisfactory answer. Is he further aware that it is totally reprehensible for a Government who are supposedly committed to home ownership to apply double standards as regards a person's right to buy? The Government are acting like a tame pussy cat about private owners but like a dictator towards local authorities. Does he appreciate that the Government are making the housing tasks of those authorities very difficult?

On our best estimate, over the past 40 years, 800,000 private tenants have purchased their homes from landlords. I only wish that Labour councils had furthered the cause of home ownership to the same extent among their tenants.

Will my hon. Friend consider allowing tenants of private blocks of flats a collective right to purchase, when that block comes on to the market?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He has made strong representations to us as have other of my hon. Friends, and we are certainly considering that point.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether tenants who have lived in privately owned houses for a long time, and who have spent thousands of pounds in making those properties habitable, should be given statutory authority to purchase those homes?

The Government have the right to dispose only of assets that are in public ownership.

If the Minister is not prepared to give general consent so that all private tenants can become home owners, does he accept the principle that those who are living in homes where landlords will not provide inside sanitation should have the right to serve notice on those landlords of their intention to acquire the property and so become home owners and do the improvements themselves?

There are certain circumstances under existing legislation where privately rented property can be compulsorily improved. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the consultation paper on improvements, he will see that arrangements are being made whereby property can be improved on a piecemeal basis. That will make the basic improvements, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, easier to undertake.

May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), namely that where blocks of flats are sold, particularly in inner city areas, tenants should collectively be given the opportunity, under the new legislation, to match the price of a particular transaction? After all, it is their homes that are involved.

My hon. Friend has already written to us on that point and we are considering the matter.

Now that the Minister has come out of hiding and admitted that the sale of council houses is part of a policy of disposing of public assets, rather than assisting home ownership, now that he has asserted that he does not wish those who live in privately tenanted houses to be able to buy them, and as lie has not given a commitment that tenants of housing associations will be given the right to buy—although they are public sector tenants—does he agree that the Government are simply pursuing a vendetta against local authorities?

With regard to housing association tenants, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to await the details that will be found in the Bill when it is published. Only the right hon. Gentleman could conclude that the policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants does not encourage home ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from local authorities to his request for economies in local government spending in 1980–81.

Local authorities have not yet completed their plans for 1980–81. However, the local authority associations have assured me that the economies which we are seeking can be achieved.

I am grateful for that generally encouraging reply. What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take over authorities such as the London borough of Lambeth, which have expressed their unwillingness to co-operate with his calls for economy?

I shall ask the House to give me powers to deal with those authorities which have flagrantly and consistently ignored the Government's request for proper and prudent management of their affairs.

Does the Secretary of State agree that enormous economies have already been made in local government during the last four or five years? Has it not now reached the point where any further economies will lead to the public being deprived of services to which they are entitled?

In one respect I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, capital expenditure by local authorities was gravely reduced on a wide basis. Of course, on staff levels, as my right hon. Friend has said, we now have a situation where we have the largest ever number of people employed in local government, subject only to the change that my hon. Friend has just announced.

Will my right hon. Friend note the shining example of the borough of Preston, which reduced its rates from 32p to 8p in the pound, which reduction was brought about, among other things, by a reduction in staff without hardship or heartbreak? Will he offer that as an example to the London boroughs of Lambeth and Haringey as a way in which they could reduce their staff and rates to the benefit of their ratepayers?

It would be very difficult for me to improve on my hon. Friend's contribution.

Is it not time that Ministers stopped shedding crocodile tears about the role of the voluntary bodies, and in particular stopped urging local authorities to continue their support for them while at the same time cutting off the essential funds that make it possible for that to happen?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Labour Party voted so often for policies of that sort that they must have become used to it by now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the persons and organisations who have submitted evidence to him in connection with his review of the building regulations.

We have received comments from a wide variety of people and organisations. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall place a list in the Library, excluding, of course, those private individuals who wrote in confidence.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he give the House some indication as to when we can expect some liberalising of the building regulations because many industrialists in particular find that building regulations are a gross inconvenience in relation to the future development of their industries?

I hope that it will not be too long. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that, although a variety of comments have been received, all agree that building control needs substantial change.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the minimum standards of thermal insulation will be uprated rather than removed?

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we recognise that energy conservation is a vitally important issue, for which provision will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the efforts of local authorities to control their expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14 November to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in which I welcomed the assurance I had received from the local authority associations about the co-operation of the vast majority of authorities.

In the light of the concern about local government waste and failure to trim unnecessary expenditure, will my right hon. Friend perhaps give his moral support to the creation of "fiscal vigilantes", comprised of local people, such as has been started in respect of the Birmingham housing corporation, to keep an eye on local government expenditure? Does he not consider that local ratepayers are perhaps the best people of all to point out what they consider to be misdemeanours in expenditure matters by their own local authorities?

My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The answer that I would give him is simply that the powers that we shall seek from Parliament is the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill will enable us to ensure that a wide range of information about the performance of individual authorities is available, which will enable local people and the local press to make much more informed judgments upon such matters than they are currently able to do.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is deep anxiety among county and borough councillors about the financial proposals in the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill that will shortly come before the House? Will he have serious consultations with the local authorities before that monstrous Bill is presented?

I think that it is now too late to promise further consultations with the local authorities, but we shall now have the widest possible consultation process, which is what the procedures of this House are all about.

Will my right hon. Friend offer his unqualified support to the anti-waste drives that have been launched by a number of newspapers, such as the Leicester Mercury, in areas where local government waste is apparent at the moment?

It adds to the strength of local democracy if local people and the local press become involved in the debate about the wide range of options for reducing public expenditure. I have no doubt whatever that there are a considerable number of areas where local authorities can reduce public expenditure on a scale that has not yet been requested.

If the right hon. Gentleman believes that local people are the best people to decide what they want, why is he and the Government interfering with that right by imposing policies on those local authorities which the local people freely elected to do the things that they wanted to be done?

Because the policies that the Government were elected to carry through with regard to the sale of council houses carry the mandate of the whole of the people. What hon. Members must clearly understand is that this House has a right to prevail over the local authority view so long as there is a mandate to do so in a general election. That is exactly the claim that was made by Labour Members when they pushed the Education Act through this House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the original total of the housing investment programme allocations for 1979–80; and what was the total of the reductions in those allocations which was notified to individual housing authorities in August.

£2,862 million and £318 million respectively for authorities in England, both at 1979–80 outturn prices.

Is the Minister aware that there is all-party agreement on the Conservative-controlled Leeds city council that the cuts this year will make even more difficult the problem of dealing with the 15,000 people on the waiting list, the 19,000 pre-war council houses that require improvement and just as many private tenants who require their homes improved? Can the Minister explain why the HIP for next year has recently been withdrawn from regional offices back to Whitehall? Does that indicate that there will be further cuts in the HIP for next year? Will not that make housing problems even more difficult to resolve?

With regard to Leeds, I am not able to offer an increased allocation for this year. However, as the council so far, in the first half of this financial year, has spent somewhat under half of its allocation—about 44 per cent.—I am sure that it will wish to make certain that it takes up its allocation in full. In addition, it has some tolerance from the previous year which it is able to carry forward. As to the HIP allocations, I am not yet able to make those.

With regard to the HIP allocation for 1980–81, which has been very much delayed because of the strange processes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) referred, can we be assured that it will be brought forward in sufficient time to enable local authorities to make their plans? Secondly, can we be categorically assured that it will not be sneaked out during the recess?

I do not have the actual dates for the recess in 1978, but I notice that in that year—the financial year 1978–79–the allocation was made on 4 January.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a final decision on his proposed amendments to the central Berkshire structure plan.

The final decisions will be taken when we have completed our consideration of the objections to the proposed modifications.

In the meantime, can my hon. Friend confirm that he will take carefully into account the stern interview that he had yesterday with four Conservative Members of Parliament from the county of Berkshire and assure me that he will take account of the many representation that he has already received, and will receive, in this matter?

I can assure my hon. Friend that, along with the many other objections—the closing date being tomorrow—the fullest consideration will be given to these matters before my right hon. Friend announces his approval.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the deep concern in the county of Berkshire to the effect that the infrastructure costs for providing services for the projected 10,000 houses may fall upon the ratepayers of Berkshire?

The most forceful point that was made yesterday concerned the question of funds for the infrastructure. Certainly, within our proposals, those matters will be very fully considered.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these proposals have caused more trouble in the county of Berkshire than any other proposals that I can recollect? However, I am quite certain that he will take into consideration all the objections that have been put to him, particularly the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair- Wilson) about the infrastructure and who will pay for it.

Brekshire is perhaps under more pressure than any other part of the country in certain respects. It is because of that that we shall give the fullest consideration to all these points.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his proposals for speeding up the release of land for building.

A number of proposals to streamline the planning system and encourage the release of land for development will be set out in our Local Government, Planning and Land Bill.

As it is difficult, in structure planning, to reconcile the need for an adequate amount of land for the house building programme with the need to conserve good agricultural land, is it not all the more important to see that surplus public sector land is released and that inner-city improvement area schemes go ahead as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have a proposal to encourage the bringing on to the market of under-used publicly-owned land in urban areas. We hope that that will help to meet the important need of land availability for house building.