asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his consideration of the report of the review group on the Development Commission and its associated organisation, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas.

I hope to complete my consideration very shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas have done excellent work in my constituency, by supporting small businesses and private enterprise? Will he give an assurance that the activities of those bodies will not be curtailed when the review has been completed?

I think that my hon. Friend will be as pleased as I am that I am able to confirm the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. The purpose of such organisations is well understood and their continuation is assured. We are reviewing the way in which they function and the methods of their work. We hope to reach conclusions shortly.

May we take it that the sensible appointment of my constituent, Mr. Nigel Vinson, as the new chairman of the Development Commission is a sign that the Government wish to remove the shadow of uncertainty that has hung over the commission while the review has been in progress? Is it a sign that the Government are prepared to commit themselves to continuing that excellent work?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and welcome his support. When Mr. Nigel Vinson—who is an admirable choice—was appointed to the task of chairing that organisation, the fact that he was a constiuent of the hon. Gentleman was not considered a qualification.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received advocating a reform of the domestic rating system; and if he will make a statement.

I have received about 900 letters this year from individuals and local groups, plus a handful of letters from national organisations. We are reviewing all main options to domestic rates but, as we made clear in the manifesto, reduction of income tax must be a higher priority.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to introduce legislation to reform the domestic rating system? Will not he agree that at a time of high inflation the iniquities of the present system—which is based on rateable values—are increasingly apparent, and particularly affect those on low or fixed incomes?

I agree that the incidence of this form of taxation at a time of high inflation primarily harms those who pay domestic rates. I confirm that the long-term abolition of domestic rates remains a priority. However, we should have to substitute £2.7 billion of revenue a year. That could not be done without a thorough review of all the options, which we are now carrying out.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is easier to point to faults in the present rating system than to find a viable alternative?

I agree that it is easy to point to the faults in the present system. It is difficult to make judgments about a viable alternative. That is one reason why those who have looked at this issue over the years have found it so difficult. We are having another look at all the options. I shall keep the House informed of any conclusions.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the higher the rates the greater the unfairness to many people? Is not the present system extremely unfair, particularly to those who live alone? Will he give us some comfort by saying that progress is being made towards finding an alternative means of raising finance?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's points. There are two sources of complaint. One is the level of inflation and the other is the unfairness of the system. The Government's top priority is the battle against the present level of inflation. When that proceeds and when we have achieved our priority of reducing income tax, we can reach conclusions on options to the rating system. No doubt my hon. Friend will understand that those who resent the present system would be just as concerned about any substitute system in many areas. No easy decision is available.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that prior to the last general election the present Prime Minister paraded up and down the country giving an assurance that a Conservative Government would abolish the system of local rating because of its inequities and anomalies? Is he further aware that the right hon. Lady gave the impression that the matter was urgent? Surely, therefore, the Government should give us some idea of when they propose to abolish the system and what they intend to put in its place.

I appreciate that the facts of history are not among the strongest pionts of the Labour Party and the hon. Member will appreciate that he referred to the wrong general election. My right hon. Friend made a specific pledge before the October 1974 general election, but after that we saw the significant increases in income tax that were the responsibility of the Labour Party. The reduction of those levels is the top priority of the Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the past 20 years the public have been fed up with hearing politicians talking about the unfairness of the system, yet doing nothing about it? We must do something, not only about the domestic rates, but about rates. I must tell my hon. Friend that if he does not take this matter on board, it will cost us a great deal—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should tell his right hon. Friend after Question Time.

I accept my hon. Friend's view that there is a great deal of disgruntlement about the domestic rate system. Most of that disgruntlement centres on the levels of inflation. If inflation were proceeding at much lower levels a great deal of the agony about the domestic rating system would not be as evident. My hon. Friend will be as aware as I that any alternatives to domestic rates that suffered from the same levels of inflation as has the rating system would be subject to just as much criticism.

——

Order. I appeal for shorter questions and answers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy regarding the provision of option mortgage facilities to retired non-taxpayers for the purchase of mortgage-linked annuities.

The proposal that my hon. Friend describes would require an increase in public expenditure for which no provision can be made at present. Moreover, within the housing public expenditure available we consider that priority should be given to those who need rented accommodation or who wish to buy for the first time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme is an excellent way of giving elderly home owners an income while enabling them to remain in their homes? Can not the Government see their way to giving that group a concession equivalent to that enjoyed by better-off home owners who get tax relief on similar annuities?

I am obviously sympathetic to the general intention of my hon. Friend to try to make it easier for elderly, low-income owner-occupiers to remain in their own homes, but it is an inescapable fact that his proposal would require an increase in public expenditure and we are not able to contemplate that at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that an increase in public expenditure will be needed anyway to house elderly people who own their properties, but can no longer afford to live in them? If he cannot introduce an option mortgage scheme, will he at least introduce a scheme allowing elderly people to sell the freehold of their properties and lease them back for the rest of their lifetimes? Such schemes are available, but they are limited and are operated only by merchant banks. Surely this is an area in which local authorities could play a useful role.

If it can be done without an increase in public expenditure, I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will provide me with details.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many structure plans are still to be submitted to his Department.

Six, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the updating of structure plans is less wasteful and time consuming than their initial preparation?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our purpose in bringing forward as many plans as possible for approval is to have available for planning decisions something that we consider to be essential. In no sense do we believe that the preparation should be followed by changes such as my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the whole structure plan concept, which replaced the old development plans 12 years ago, is a sufficiently flexible instrument to deal with the rapidly changing demands and trends of local populations and land use? Will he look into the matter, because many believe that structure plans are far too bureaucratic an instrument nowadays?

It is because we accept that weakness that our purpose is to get the structure plans accepted as quickly as possible. We shall then look carefully at the whole system. Where necessary, local plans will obviously fulfil an important need.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Southampton structure plan, which was commenced in the late 1960s, was out of date before the conclusions were made known to the public? Is that not a colossal waste of public money?

This is a matter for local authorities, particularly county councils. I am sure that it is a source of distress to the whole House that plans have taken so long and involved so much expense. My hon. Friend is right to say that by the time many of them have been approved they are out of date.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received proposals from Alnwick district council for the repair of the Amble north pier breakwater.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister realise the great difficulties from which the negotiations are suffering because of the huge cost increase that occurred when the Ministry of Defence pulled out of its project? Since everyone accepts that the breakwater will be repaired, will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the block that he is putting on investment by the Ministry of Agriculture in the rest of the harbour, which is desperately needed and which the Ministry of Agriculture would approve if the hon. Gentleman did not block it?

Prudence dictates that the question of the breakwater should be settled first and any necessary improvements made. It is wrong to suggest that my Department has put a block on other improvements to the pier. The Ministry of Agriculture rightly decided that there was currently no way in which grant could be paid on that work since the work could be affected if the breakwater was not modernised or improved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing associations are currently being assisted by the Housing Corporation.

Seven hundred and sixty-nine housing associations are currently receiving development finance from the Housing Corporation.

I am grateful for that answer. Does my hon. Friend share the impression that I gain from the case of the East Boro Housing Trust and another housing association in my constituency that the standard of services being provided by the Housing Corporation to housing associations is seriously deficient? If so, what action is he prepared to take?

I am not familiar with the instance to which my hon. Friend has referred, but if he will provide me with details I shall be glad to look into it. He may be referring to the general problem of the project control of housing association projects, on which we have been having extensive discussions in a working party with the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations. The issue of project control of housing association projects raises some profound issues of public accountability for substantial sums of taxpayers' money. We are hoping to reach conclusions on that matter as rapidly as we can, but in the meantime, if my hon. Friend will give me details of the scheme that he has in mind, I shall see whether I can help him.

How many people from the North-West of England serve on the board of the Housing Corporation? Will the Minister tell us whether the percentage reduction in money made available by the Housing Corporation to housing associations in the North-West was the same as that in the South-East of England?

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's statistical question at the moment, but I shall be glad to write to him. I can say that, overall, the cash allocation to the Housing Corporation for the financial year 1980–81 is only about 10 per cent. below our estimated outturn in the previous financial year.

Has my hon. Friend any plans to introduce legislation to make the Housing Corporation either directly accountable to local authorities or more directly accountable to the Department of the Environment and, thus, ultimately to the House?

We have no plans to introduce legislation to make the Housing Corporation more directly accountable to local authorities and I do not think that it would be generally welcomed in the housing association movement for associations to become direct arms of local authority activity. However, we have made provision in the Housing Bill for the administration expenses of the Housing Corporation to be brought more directly under the influence of Ministers in the Department of the Environment through a system of grant-in-aid, which we hope to be able to introduce in the course of the current financial year.

How many co-operative housing associations are being assisted by the Housing Corporation? Have housing associations been affected by the high minimum lending rate brought about by the Government? When do the Government intend to bring down the high minimum lending rate which is damaging owner-occupiers and dissuading people who might otherwise wish to buy their own house?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, decisions on MLR are not for me but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the number of co-operative association projects currently funded.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will raise the level of house improvement grants.

My right hon. Friend will be making changes to the present eligible expense limits for improvement grants following the enactment of the Housing Bill.

Is the Minister aware that, with raging inflation, it is becoming impossible for home owners to contemplate taking up improvement grants? Will the hon. Gentleman consider registering housing associations under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 to enable housing associations to carry out improvement work and tender in competition with private enterprise?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is " No." With regard to his second question, if he will write to me I shall look at the matter.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, where local authorities take up improvement grants, the work is carried out competitively, not necessarily by direct labour organisations, but by the private contracting industry? What checks can the Government provide to ensure that houses bought by local authities and subsequently sold are not sold at a loss.

My hon. Friend asks that local authorities should be able to decide the better method of carrying out local authority housing work. If local authorities chose to carry out those works through their own direct labour organisations, we should expect the best of them to anticipate the provisions of the Bill now before the House. When the Bill receives the Royal Assent those local authority direct labour departments that are blatantly inefficient will no longer be able to operate in a way detrimental to their ratepayers.

What is the good of raising improvement grants when the Government are busy slashing improvement and building expenditure? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today the Environmental Health Officers' Association, formerly the Health Inspectors' Association, after replies from 300 councils, is bitterly protesting to the Secretary of State about the cutting by half of building and housing expenditure over the next three years? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that 43 per cent. of councils have either ended or severely restricted improvement grants?

Hard-faced men of the Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that an organisation that was once the sanitary inspector's organisation is unhappy at what some of its local authority members are doing? We have merely told local authorities to decide the order of priority within the amount that we give them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our existing stock of houses is a great asset to the country? Does he further agree that it is much cheaper to improve existing property than to build new property, and that the environment is protected by improving existing property? Will he therefore give a little more consideration, especially when the economic climate improves, to increasing improvement grants, which is an economically sound policy?

I completely agree. That is why we went to the one-block system. Local authorities that blindly decide not to give improvement grants are acting against the interests of their residents.

asked the Secretary of State for the the Environment how many dwellings have been lost from the privately rented sector since the Rent Act 1974.

The precise information requested is not available, but between the 1971 census and the 1977 national dwelling and housing survey it is estimated that some 838,000 dwellings were lost from the private rented sector in England—an average rate of loss of 125,000 dwelllings a year.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the loss of that many dwellings affects the ability of people to move around the country when jobs necessitate such a move?

What jobs?

Will my hon. Friend accept that shorthold tenancies are an important contribution to overcoming the problem of the shortage of houses for rent in the private sector? Does he further agree that, had the Socialist Party taken action years ago, we should not now have 800,000 fewer houses in the private rented sector?

I entirely agree. A basic objective behind our shorthold proposals is that of trying to meet the need for short-term rented accommodation in the private sector. Such accommodation is required particularly by people who need to go to a town for a year or two for a job or course. It is greatly regretted that the Labour Party has introduced a wrecking commitment to try to repeal shorthold.

How many houses were lost in the rented sector through demolition and how many through properties becoming owner-occupied? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he is giving the impression that all the houses were lost because of the landlord's decision not to rent, but the figures disprove that? Are the Government planning further measures to stop the decline? At what rate do they claim that the Housing Bill will slow it down?

About one-third of the dwellings that I referred to were demolished. That is almost 300,000 dwellings, which is far too many.

Does the Minister agree that many individuals and families do not wish to buy houses or rent from the council? Will my hon. Friend accept that, if the Government are successful in bringing forward proposals to assist the private tenancy market, they will be widely supported?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In addition to shorthold, we are making it easier for owner-occupiers to sublet, giving council tenants the right to sublet and take in lodgers and we are introducing a system of assured tenancies for new build-for-rent dwellings outside the Rent Acts. We hope that the combination of those four important changes in the Housing Bill will improve the availability of private rented accommodation.

Since the Government have rejected the idea of a register of shorthold tenancies, how will the Government and the House know how many shorthold tenancies are created?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a requirement of shorthold is to have the fair rent registered. There will, therefore, be an application to the rent officer The more pressing need is to make dwellings available for those who want them, rather than closely to monitor the number of shortholds.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new town houses and flats have been sold or are currently in the course of sale; and what percentage of total stock this represents.

Since May last year 2,680 new town corporation dwellings have been sold. Negotiations are in hand on 5,270. These represent 9 per cent. of total new town tenancies. With permission, I will circulate the figures for individual towns in the Official Report .

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates the outstanding popularity of the Government's policy in selling public housing? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that those who wish to buy are not held up by bureaucracy and Socialist dogma?

I agree that the fact that nearly 10 per cent. of all new town houses have been sold in a year proves beyond question the large demand that exists for ownership in those areas. Those living in parts of the country under Labour control will have to wait for the enactment of the legislation now before the House which will give other council tenants the right to buy. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no bureaucratic delay in my Department in implementing the right-to-buy sales in new towns.

Following is the information: SALES OF NEW TOWN HOUSES: POSITION AT 31 MAY 1980 Town Number of inquiries Number of inquiries resulting in firm negotiations Number of sales completed with effect from 18 May 1979 Basildon 6,030 1,800 1,252 CLNT 338 75 32 Milton Keynes 2,346 250 136 Northampton 1,086 429 231 Peterborough 2,013 146 498 Redditch 2,269 301 88 Runcorn 2,112 413 10 Skelmersdale 1,163 344 225 Telford 2,527 1,218 87 Warrington 1,305 68 44 Washington 1,240 226 77 TOTAL 22,429 5,270 2,680 Proportion of tenancies where there have been Inquiries Per cent . Negotiations or sales Per cent . Basildon 35 18 CLNT 13 5 Milton Keynes 22 4 Northampton 19 12 Peterborough 30 10 Redditch 34 6 Runcorn 22 4 Skelmersdale 15 7 Telford 26 13 Warrington 46 4 Washington 17 4 AVERAGE 25 9

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest quarterly staff figures for the regional water authorities; and how they compare with the previous year.

On provisional information, at 31 March 1980 English water authorities employed an estimated 56,540 permanent employees calculated on a full-time equivalent basis. This is 400 fewer than on 31 March 1979.

In the light of those figures, is my right hon. Friend now satisfied that the existing structure of the water authorities and the present arrangements for appointing their members ensure thorough and effective supervision of the way that they are run?

As I advised the House on an earlier occasion, I have been having meetings with the chairman and chief executives of all the water authorities. I am very concerned about some of the aspects of the ways in which the present water authority structure operates, and I am giving serious consideration to the implications of my discussions.

In view of the gross un fairness of water rates, will my right hon. Friend consider waiving domestic water rates altogether and imposing rates purely on commercial and industrial metered use—

Order. This question is about staffing. It is not about water rates.

Perhaps I may be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker—

We are dealing with Question No. 11.

—by transferring the cost of domestic water rates on to 1 per cent. VAT—an equivalent amount of money—thereby cutting the number of expensive staff required to send out these hundreds of thousands of bills by which people are being abused to such a great extent at the moment?

My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before. It would involve the need to raise resources from elsewhere. But I understand the concern which is motivating hon. Members about the level of water rate increases this year. We are looking at the situation very seriously.

Although the Minister may be obsessed with the number of staff working for local water authorities, is his Department aware of the very serious problems in the North-West of England water authority's area due to underground dereliction, where it is recognised that a programme of £2,000 million is required to restore the necessary provisions for the people, which will need staff to bring about these changes?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the condition of the sewers in the North-West because I have been in them. I am well aware of the very serious problems that we face in that respect. But I am not obsessed about manpower numbers, although I am obsessed about the need to ensure that in the water industry we get value for money for the consumer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve on existing legislation with a better grant scheme to assist first-time buyers of cheaper houses.

As my right hon. Friend said on 30 January—[Vol. 977, c. 1337]—in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), any such scheme must await improvements in the overall economic climate.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will not he agree that a £1 grant for every £2 saved up to a given maximum would do a tremendous amount to promote home ownership and would also cost the taxpayer considerably less in continuing subsidies for further council housing?

It would also represent an increase in public expenditure. But I share my hon. Friend's concern that we must try to give all possible help to first-time buyers. I remind him that in the Housing Bill and other legislation we are introducing our new improvement for sale scheme, we are making very important extensions to the use of shared ownership, we are giving local authorities new powers to guarantee mortgages, and we have increased" the stamp duty threshold. I suggest that the right to buy is without doubt the most substantial and the most generous first-time buyer scheme ever introduced.

Would not it also be a good idea to build some houses to rent?

Within the overall level of the finance that we can afford, we are giving local authorities the maximum freedom to use their capital investment in the best way that they can.

Has the Minister considered giving special help to first-time buyers through the construction, for instance, of starter homes and more assistance for self-build schemes?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been urging local authorities to do precisely that. I refer him to my recent speech to the Institute of Housing. As for self-build, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have widened the priority categories for local authority mortgages to include those who are members of self-build groups.

What has been the take-up on the Labour Government's scheme for first-time buyers? Has that scheme died the death?

I have not the figures for take-up before me, but undoubtedly they are very much less than when the home loan scheme was first introduced. The first benefits which are due to be payable under the scheme will be made in December, and we shall be fixing the house price limits related to that scheme by order in the autumn.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made on simplification of the building regulations.

I shall be publishing a consultative paper very shortly outlining proposals for changing and simplifying the building control system.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that the voluminous four sets of building regulations which operate in different parts of the United Kingdom are unnecessarily complicated, comprehensive and confusing? Does my right hon. Friend agree, further, that they could be considerably simplified without compromising safety in any way?

I recognise my hon. Friend's detailed personal knowledge and experience in these matters, and I shall be doing my best in my consultative paper to help him and the proposals which he is putting forward.

When the right hon. Gentleman consults local authorities about building regulations, will he consult them about the regulations for charging which the Department has issued under the building regulation procedure? Is not he now trying to blackmail local authorities into making charges, when the regulations are defective? If local authorities exercise their choice to make charges, under the new regulations they may have to make refunds. Is not the whole set-up a complete mess under his control?

I am not aware that it is in anything like the state that the hon. Gentleman describes. But I say to him what I have already said publicly—that I am reviewing the system that we have introduced, and I shall take a view about the system when it has been in operation for six months to see whether changes are necessary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most Members of Parliament have had an enormous post-bag about these fees? If he agrees, will he also agree that he ought to see the Leader of the House to discover whether a debate can be arranged once his consultative paper has been issued?

I am always pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But it would remain essentially for him to decide whether there should be a debate. It is not a matter for me. I appreciate that there has been wide interest in this Government innovation. It is in response to that that I have offered to look again at the proposals which are currently operating when they have been tested after six months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds he is planning to make available in addition to the urban aid programme for urban areas under the Inner Urban Areas Act and for partnership and programme authorities for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, what funds, in addition to the urban aid programme, he will make available for urban renewal under the Inner Urban Areas Act and for partnership and programme authorities for the current financial year.

Partnership authorities have been allocated £110.8 million and programme authorities £42 million in the current year. Other districts designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act have been allocated £5.6 million for work under the Act and similar purposes. There are no proposals for further allocations for urban renewal.

Does the Minister agree that many of the problems of inner city areas have been created by too much Government intervention and by a lack of private investment? Will he take an early opportunity to lean heavily on the clearing banks and suggest to them that, to fulfil their social and financial obligations to the inner areas, they should invest some of their windfall profits in urban renewal?

I very much agree with the idea that the amount of effort which can be expended dealing with the serious problems that we face in many inner urban areas should not be measured by the amount of public assistance and public funds which can be contributed towards them. There is a considerable contribution for the private sector to make as well. I am glad to say that there are encouraging signs that it is taking up this challenge, and we shall give further encouragement to that end.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether, in his new proposals, there will be an opportunity to cut back on the vast local authority bureaucracy which has diminshed funds in inner city areas and resulted in the prolongation of planning applications?

The first impression that we had, especially of the partnership authorities when my right hon. and hon. Friends became concerned with them, was of the excessive amount of bureaucracy and paper work involved in getting action in these areas. We have concentrated on getting results with the minimum of bureaucracy and committee work.

Is the Minister concerned about the low level of ministerial involvement in committee meetings? May I draw attention to the fact that at a recent Lambeth partnership committee meeting, although seven Ministers are members of the committee, only two, including the Minister of State, turned up? Is that a matter of policy, or was there a major race meeting that day as well?

Our concern is to get results. It is typical of what I call the " unessential" approach of many Opposition Members to be over-concerned about whether there were Ministers there, even if there were not subjects concerning them on the agenda. We are concerned to get results, both to cut down the paper work and to cut down the costs of the attendance of a lot of people who are not involved in a particular meeting.

With a view to cutting back on the need for vast amounts of urban aid in the future, may I ask what my right hon. Friend is doing to stop socialist local authorities from despoiling their areas and frightening employers away so that in future there will be no jobs and a great requirement for central Government money?

I accept the point behind my hon. Friend's question. When we are seeking to stimulate economic revival in inner city areas, it is positively counterproductive if some local authorities raise their rates to levels which drive out small businesses from their areas. We can make our contribution, but it has to be a cooperative effort with the local authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend's message will be heard more widely.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he is satisfied with the local authorities' response to his request for reductions in their staffing levels.

On the basis of the available statistics, I am not at all satisfied. The Government's public expenditure plans require a much sharper reduction in manpower than is revealed in the December 1979 return of the Joint Manpower Watch.

Will my right hon. Friend continue with his sterling work in publicising local authority staffing levels? Does he recollect that the decline of the Spanish Empire was attributed to the fact that one in four adult males was in the Holy Roman Church? Is it not possible that the same fraction of Britain's working population is employed in either local government or central Government and that this is also responsible for the decline of Britain?

My hon. Friend refers to a period a bit before my time. I think a fair number of the people he mentions would have claimed divine inspiration. I do not think that applies to many people in local government today. There is plenty of room for reduction. It is necessary that, in the economies now before us, we should concentrate on reducing the levels of consumption rather than capital.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that these cuts in staffing levels also mean cuts in social services, education provision and in house improvement and building? The only thing to which they add is the dole queue.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who supported a reduction of 20,000 employees in 1976 compared with 5,000 last year, had those points much in mind. When structure plans are now largely complete, when far fewer public sector houses are being built, when the school population is falling and when fewer roads are being designed, it is humbug to talk about an inability to reduce local government manpower.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that far too many local authorities are still protecting staffing levels at the expense of services? Will he not further agree that this is a dereliction of their responsibilities to ratepayers?

My hon. Friend makes the point most eloquently. The fact is that manpower could be reduced. This would make available more resources to provide better services and better value for money.

The Secretary of State has persistently refused to give information about housing. Since he now says that fewer houses are being built this year, will he say how many fewer than last year?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, as a supporter of the policy, that the number of public sector houses has been reduced every year for the last four years. Rather than trying to make irrelevant points about numbers in precise terms, the right hon. Gentleman would be better employed in remembering that only 12 months ago he was supporting the very policies about which we are now talking.

The right hon. Gentleman has persistently refused to give information about housing. Will he say how many fewer houses will be built this year than last year?

The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the Secretary of State in the previous Government constantly believed he could forecast the level of local authority building and failed to get the figures right.

Answer.

I have learnt by that experience. I do not intend to make judgments when I do not have the information to support them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what degree of flexibility he allows in the implementation of structure plans.

Once a structure plan is approved my right hon. Friend remains involved only where there is an appeal, or a departure from the development plan, or where he sees fit to call in a proposal or to issue a statutory direction.

Since the Secretary of State initiates regional strategy, his responsibility is total. If my hon. Friend has the doubts that he expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Chapman) about the efficacy of these structure plans, will he set up his inquiry rather than introduce the further six structure plans that he suggests? Does he agree that the gestation period for these structure plans is such that, with the shortage of resources that prevails today and with urban development a key policy, many of the plans are bureaucratic prophesies that have turned out completely wrong?

My hon. Friend is right in that we considered carefully whether this exercise should continue. The years that had elapsed between made it imperative that we should get these plans approved as speedily as possible. The length of time in preparation obviously makes these plans less relevant. Flexibility becomes more important. In my hon. Friend's own area especially with housing proposals, a local plan has yet to be prepared that will be site-specific. At that level he will get what he wants.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the structure plan is used by local authorities as an excuse to be more inflexible than necessary? In my constituency, villages are dying because no development is allowed due to the structure plan that my right hon. Friend's predecessors accepted. There must be some kind of flexibility. This can come only from the top. Is he aware that local authorities use these plans as an excuse when making their decisions?

The purpose of structure plans was to lay down broad policy and a general programme. As my hon. Friend suggests, there are considerable problems. We are tackling them. As a result of one or two circulars that are in preparation or have been sent out, complaints similar to those that my hon. Friend brings forward will become fewer. I am aware of the serious situation he has drawn to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the review of the future of Ordnance Survey maps.

The Government are considering the report of the Ordnance Survey review committee in the light of comments received following its publication last October. I hope to make a full statement shortly on the Government's response.

Will the Minister reconsider his answer? The remit of the review committee was to produce a plan for the 1980s. The Government seem to be promising continually to make statements but never actually produce them. Does he realise that, if they are not careful, a large period of the remit for the review will be up before any opinion has been offered?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman wants me to withdraw. Does he not wish me to make a full statement of the Government's views? This is an important report. The hon. Gentleman, I know, takes some interest in these matters. We have considered carefully the comments made to us and the consultations that have taken place since the publication of the report. We shall make a statement shortly.

Is the Minister aware of the large increase in the cost of Ordnance Survey maps? Is he satisfied that they have not been raised to a price at which people will stop buying them?

We are examining a whole range of aspects of the operation of the Ordnance Survey in connection with the review committee report. I would ask my hon. Friend to await the full statement that we shall make.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the staff of Ordnance Survey should be carrying out their duties preparing maps or whether they should continue to compete with private surveyors in offering surveying services?

This is one of the matters included in the report. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would await the full statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assurances he has received from local authorities that the special housing needs of the elderly and disabled will be protected, in view of the reduction in the housing investment programme allocation 1980–81.

It is for local authorities to decide how to spend their housing investment programme allocations which are now given as a single block. However, in announcing the allocations for 1980–81, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he believed the emphasis of public sector housing policy should now be on meeting particular needs such as those of the elderly and the handicapped.

Will the Minister accept that the stock reply to the effect that local authorities will work out their own priorities is becoming more meaningless in the face of massive reductions which have effectively robbed local authorities of any element of choice? Is he further aware that over half the occupants of property which lacks at least one basic amenity are either of pensionable age or are disabled? As with other legislation promoted by this Government, those who will be most hurt are the pensioners and the disabled. Will he have another look at the allocation to housing associations and local authorities?

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that, in the 25 years he and I spent in local government, we would have given our eye teeth for the flexibility that our new system offers.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that the whole philosophy of selling council houses and thus remitting half the proceeds of the sales back to the HIP allocation will provide houses for those genuinely in need, particularly the elderly and the disabled?

My hon. Friend is right. That would particularly apply to the London borough of Camden.

Is it not clear that the reduction in the housing investment programme in 1980–81 will cause immense and devastating hardship for people in housing need? Why do Ministers say that these matters are for local authorities when that is simply not true? Ministers are not telling the truth because local authorities, as a result of the reduction in the housing investment programme, do not have the money to carry out the sort of house building and modernisation programmes they would like.

The hon. Gentleman seems totally incapable of assimilating the fact that the Government to which he gave nominal support while he was not a Member of Parliament were pursuing a policy of accepting that local authorities did not necessarily wish to go on building large new estates, but wanted freedom to decide within their allocation what to do.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most successful schemes ever produced for housing for the elderly is sheltered housing where the local authority's housing department and the DHSS combine and share the cost? Is he aware that this is the most imperative objective of housing for the elderly? I hope that in future we shall provide all the help that is possible for this scheme.

My hon. Friend is right. That is a most important point. It is also right to remind the House that two specific steps have been taken which should be of immense help. The first is the revision of the housing cost yardstick allowances for old people's dwellings for single persons. The second is allowing the cost of providing lifts in two storey dwellings to qualify for subsidy. It is interesting that because those are useful points the Opposition choose to ignore them.

Is the Minister aware that the words " freedom " and " flexibility " fall strangely from his lips since the. Government have taken from local authorities the money that would give them that freedom and flexibility?

While the alliteration of the "f's" is interesting, I could add a third which might not be in order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of manpower employed by the Property Services Agency.

On 1 May 1980 there were 36,322 staff in post, a reduction of 8.9 per cent. on the numbers in May last year.

What steps does my right hon. Friend plan to take to farm out work from the PSA to the private sector?

I have made it clear that I intend that a continuing, increasing, proportion of work that can be put to the private sector should find its way there.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cannock, Official Report , 26 March, column 585, what are the reasons why he will not seek powers to enable local authorities to publish and advertise details of privately-owned houses for sale within their area.

Because ratepayers should not have to pay for unnecessary local authority expenditure.

Does the Minister accept that in this period of financial stringency it is important to remove from house purchasers and sellers the necessity to make payments to parasitic house agents? Does he accept that in this way the local authority could effectively compete with estate agents by providing the service at no cost?

I am glad to note the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the involvement of local authorities in the sale of houses. However, I suggest that the priority for Labour councils such as Cannock is not getting into the business of selling houses they do not own, but getting on with selling the houses they do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to take steps to redress the balance of central Government grants so that rural areas get a better proportion of funding.

We acted in the 1980–81 rate support grant settlement to halt the drift of grant from the rural areas which had occurred under the previous Administration. The new grant arrangements now being developed should provide for a fairer distribution of resources in future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has already done. Is he aware that Suffolk suffered so much cutback that its share fell from just under 1 per cent. of the rate support grant for the whole country to 0.7 per cent. in four years of Labour Government? We desperately need a fairer share of the money that is available. Does he realise that the country areas have their priorities as well, and there is rural poverty which is no more attractive because it happens to be thatched?

I understand why my hon. Friend raises this point. In checking the figures I noted that during the period of the last Government Suffolk suffered a 24 per cent. drop in its share of the needs element, which obviously raised considerable hardships such as were faced by many other shire counties. We are anxious to achieve a fairer settlement. I am glad that we were able to make some small movement in that direction in this year's settlement. We have these issues very much in mind as we continue to prepare the new system of needs assessment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that towns exist within rural areas for rate support grant purposes? Such towns as Macclesfield which, like Manchester, were in the vanguard of the Industrial Revolution, require considerable funds to bring their infrastructure up to date. That applies particularly to drains and sewerage, which was referred to earlier today. Does this aspect feature in the Minister's consideration of allocation?

Drains and sewers are a matter for the water authority. We are considering the position of the North-West in the allocation of capital expenditure graints for water authorities. I am well aware, as I previously stated, of the problems that exist. The issues that my hon. Friend raised are part of the difficulties that we are tackling to try to achieve a fairer method of distribution between the competing claims of different parts of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average time taken for the determination of a planning application.

In the period April-September 1979, 60 per cent. of planning applications were dealt with in the eight-week statutory period, and a further 26 per cent. were dealt with within 13 weeks. Statistics are not collected in such a way as to give an average.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the delays in processing planning applications mean increased interest payments which manifest themselves in increased prices for the houses that are eventually built? What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to reduce the delay in processing planning applications, and will he publish a list of those local authorities which delay in these processes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I strongly support what he said. I have made a number of proposals in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill to eliminate duplication in the planning machinery between two tiers of authorities. I have agreed a 28-day time limit on consultations with local authorities and those—particularly statutory undertakers—that they have to consult. I am proposing increases in the levels of permitted development under the general development order, and I certainly intend—indeed, I have already started—to publish statistics showing the performance of my Department and local authorities in handling planning applications and appeals. The House will know that £8 billion of construction work goes through the planning machinery in a year, and any percentage decrease in the time taken to process that ought to flow straight through into the economy.

Does not the process of charging for planning applications mean that, under the weird system which is proposed in the order, that the Minister has put before the House, it will take longer to determine the fee to be charged? Is it not true that in certain circumstances the fee is miscalculated? Is not the only decent and proper course open to the Minister for him to withdraw the order, stop the smokescreen about reviewing the position in six months' time, admit that his officials have agreed that the order is defective and stop—if the report in The Guardian yesterday is right—blackmailing local authorities into making charges?

The hon. Gentleman has made a number of interesting points. There is only one difficulty. We have put no such order about planning charges before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to extend the advantages of the option mortgage scheme to elderly owner-occupiers who are not liable to income tax.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury).

Is the Minister aware that I thought at that time his answer was most disappointing and I am sorry that, 25 questions later, he has not managed to change it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential to try to keep within the community elderly people who are facing problems in maintaining their homes so that they do not fall as a charge upon the State? If the hon. Gentleman cannot introduce the option mortgage scheme or some system whereby these people can be given capital to maintain their properties, will he look at the possibility of low-cost loans, from either the local authorities or the banks, to enable elderly people to maintain their houses, which must be in the interests of all concerned?

As I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, we are certainly sympathetic towards the objective of trying to help elderly owner-occupiers to remain in their homes. However, I am afraid that we are not able to contemplate the increase in public expenditure which the schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be bound to involve.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make arrangements to transfer unused or under-used allocations within the housing investment programme from authorities which do not wish to spend to those which have pressing housing needs.

To date, I am not aware of authorities whose allocations are likely to be significantly under-used in the current financial year.

In the event of the diminishing number of Tory-controlled local authorities being unwilling, or unlikely, to spend the money that has been allocated, can the Minister assure the House that there will be a system for transferring surplus funds that might arise in that way to Labour-controlled authorities, such as Sheffield, which is willing and anxious to build up its public and private housing stock?

Just before the last election the Sheffield council wrote to the last Government to say that its HIP allocation was too high. If there is a repetition of that this financial year obviously we shall consider how to deploy the funds.

Is the Minister aware that many cities with housing stress, such as Salford, used the whole of their allocations last year? Does the Minister accept my hon. Friend's proposal that authorities which make a further cut beyond that which the Government require should provide some of the extra money for housing stress areas? Is not that a sensible suggestion?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to examine another alternative. He should take seriously the arrangements that we have made to enable local authorities to increase their HIP allocations if they realise housing capital receipts by the sale of council houses. It the hon. Gentleman supported that policy in Salford, its HIP allocation would go much further.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a pre-emptive option for tenants or leaseholders to purchase their residential property when offered for sale by the freeholders; and for connected purposes. I have entitled the measure the Tenant and Leasehold Protection Bill in part to follow the example that you, Mr. Speaker, set some years ago. Freeholders often sell properties occupied by tenants or leaseholders and do not inform the tenants or leaseholders that the sale is about to take place. I do not understand why they do not tell them, because tenants and leaseholders are likely to offer as much as, if not more than, other potential purchasers of investment property.

The Bill requires a freeholder who intends to sell to inform the residents of the property, whether it is an individual house or flat, a block or a cottage estate, as in my constituency.

Secondly, the Bill provides for the tenant or leaseholder to take over, at the price agreed, the purchase of the property in which he is living. For example, if the owner of a property sells at a certain price during a specified time the tenant or leaseholder can pre-empt the sale and buy at the same price.

No extra Government expenditure is involved, and there will be no loss to the freeholder. The two provisions will help to extend freedom of choice by providing information and the opportunity for a pre-emptive option. The connected

purposes of the Bill cover more information that freeholders should make available to tenants and leaseholders about service charges, and so on. The two essential parts of the Bill provide for notice to be given to the tenants and leaseholders when a sale is about to take place and for the establishment of a preemptive option to take over a purchase.

I rise to oppose the Bill, for three reasons. I am not against the idea in principle, but it is undesirable that a motion such as this should be introduced so soon after the Housing Bill was presented. The provisions could have been included in that Bill and they would have had a chance of being accepted.

The Ten-Minute Bill procedure is useful, because hon. Members can raise an issue and the House can express an opinion. However, it often happens that an issue is raised, the House approves it unanimously, and the Whips quietly oppose it on a Friday. It is important that hon. Members should have an opportunity to express a view. One of my hon. Friends is prepared to act as a Teller so that we can discover how many hon. Members are in favour of the Bill. I hope that that will ensure that the Government take notice of it. My third reason for opposing the Bill is that on such a day as this it is useful to have a roll call of hon. Members.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to .

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the House has expressed its wish on this matter in so overwhelming a way, when will the Government provide time for the legislation?

It is a very good question, but it cannot be answered now because it is not a point of order.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. John Major, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. John Heddle and Mr. Michael Shersby.