asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from the water authorities in answer to his appeal for restraint in their budgets.

I have discussed with chairmen and chief executives of water authorities a number of ways in which economies might be made and performance improved. I have already received confirmation from certain authorities of the action they will be taking, and I am now considering the most effective ways in which these matters might be further pursued.

Is not the insensitivity of the water authorities such that my right hon. Friend should consider putting them into liquidation? Have not some of them shown great irresponsibility in their increases in charges, which the domestic consumer cannot avoid by saving water? Is it not a fact that the Southern water authority, which has a budget of many millions, does not even have a finance committee?

My concern is to make the present system work effectively. I do not think that my hon. Friend's initial suggestion would accelerate that process. I am considering a number of aspects of the structure of water authorities. On my hon. Friend's last point, I am concerned that there is no finance committee in the Southern water authority. That point has been made to me forcefully by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and by other hon. Members who came to see me. I shall take up the matter with the chairman of that authority.

Has my right hon. Friend received any proposals from the Southern water authority to improve its efficiency, cut its costs and ensure that the increased charges do not continue next year?

I took up with the chairman of the authority the question of its levels of manpower. I am pleased to say that I have received undertakings from him that there will be reductions in manpower levels, which is an important element, although not the largest element in its costs.

May I come to the defence of water authorities which, after all, are the creatures of a former Conservative Government and which were bitterly opposed by the Opposition? What do the Government intend to do for the North-West water authority, which faces the imminent collapse of its sewerage system over most of its area? Will the Government give any assistance to that authority rather than allow the burden to be placed entirely on water users in the North-West?

The responsibility of Ministers is not merely to pass legislation, but to observe clearly how that legislation is operated. I make no apologies for the fact that I appear to be the first Minister who has taken the trouble to see individually the chairmen and chief executives of every water authority to discuss the system's operation. As the House learnt on an earlier occasion, I am well aware of the state of the sewers in the North-West. It is a major problem, not confined entirely to the North-West, but the North-West water authority is considering it at the present time. I shall certainly consider its proposals with sympathy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward new measures for increasing the level of house building.

I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 4 June to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman).

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially on the Opposition side, are receiving complaints from brick manufacturers, who have millions of bricks in stock? Is he also aware that we are receiving complaints from bricklayers and others who work on building sites because as many as 250,000 are out of work and from builders—those who voted Tory—who are going bankrupt, as well as from the homeless who need houses? Why cannot the Government put all those ingredients together and stop their savage policy?

The ingredients come together in the fact that during the five years of the previous Labour Administration the national debt doubled, and the interest paid on it trebled. That Administration did not provide the economic growth to pay for the interest.

Is it not now becoming obvious that the Cabinet will be forced to relax the squeeze? Will the Minister press the Chancellor to reduce interest rates, to de-restrict council house building and improvement, and to remove the threat of a moratorium on council house building?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends are united in pursuing the Government's economic strategy.

rose—

Order. By mistake, I called two hon. Members from the Labour Benches in succession. I shall now call two Conservative Members.

As it seems unlikely that there will be a significant increase in the level of house building in the near future, should not we look to the better utilisation of our existing housing stock? In those circumstances, has the Minister any proposals for a revision of the Rent Acts?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential to many of the provisions of the Housing Bill that we should achieve a better utilisation of the existing stock. That is why we made it easier for owner-occupiers to sublet parts of their homes, why we have given council tenants the right to take in lodgers and to sublet and why we have introduced shorthold. It is a matter of the greatest regret that the Labour Party is not supporting us in bringing about that important means of increasing the housing stock.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of increasing the level of house building output is to encourage all local authorities to identify those areas of land which are not presently being used which they and other statutory undertakers own so that they can be used for the development of starter homes in partnership with the local authorities and the building industry?

That is exactly the policy which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services is pursuing. As my hon. Friend will be aware, powers are available in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill which will enable spare land to be identified. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has identified the initial local authorities which will be asked to compile land registers.

Regardless of the massive reduction in public house building which is now taking place, is not the Minister also alarmed about the reduction in private house building which is taking place throughout the United Kingdom? When will he do something about the Government's disastrous record on mortgage rates, which is one of the greatest disincentives for people buying a new home of their own?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already taken substantial steps to release land and to speed up planning permissions. However, the Government's first and overwhelming priority is to restore the economy to a sound footing, from the chaotic situation which was left by the previous Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against local authorities which fail to re-examine their expenditure plans and do not make fresh returns to his Department by 1 August as requested in his circular letter of 13 June.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what sanctions he is considering against those local authorities which do not comply with his circular of Friday 13 June calling for further expenditure cuts.

The relationship between central and local government depends on voluntary cooperation. I have no evidence as yet to suggest that any local authority wishes to change that basis.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that that reply is just a reiteration of the circular letter which he sent to local authorities some weeks ago. Surely he is aware that, if local government is to be able to plan ahead, it needs to know what the Government's intentions are. Therefore, can I ask the right hon. Gentleman to cast aside his crusading inertia and tell local authorities whether he intends, first, to reduce the capital allocation available to local authorities; secondly, reduce the rate support grant settlement for this year; or, thirdly, reduce the rate support grant settlement for next year if they refuse to comply with his exhortations?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for local government to plan ahead. But the central Government also need to plan ahead. It is because the returns which have been submitted by the local authorities are so far in excess of the targets which they have been asked to achieve that I have asked individual authorities to resubmit their budgets. It would seem to me quite wrong to anticipate the judgment which each authority is now making by saying what I intend to do in a range of hypothetical circumstances. It is much more responsible to wait until the local authorities themselves have given me the facts upon which to make judgments.

Will my right hon. Friend consider using the powers in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill to bring into line those local authorities which refuse to revise their excess spending budgets? Is it not intolerable that an authority such as Manchester should employ another 1,000 full-time or part-time staff during the past 12 months, in defiance not just of Govern- ment policy but of the national economic interest?

It seemed to me that it was taking a reckless gamble with the livelihood of the 1,000 people to use them as pawns in a political game in this way. I agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot understand how, when the Government are asking for reductions in public expenditure, an individual authority could recruit an additional 1,000 people. I think that my hon. Friend is pursuing the right line of inquiry. But it still remains my view that we should now wait until local authorities have produced their revised budgets so that we can make a decision based upon the facts.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state categorically that he has ruled out the possibility of imposing a moratorium on capital programmes if local authorities fail to respond? If he is not willing categorically to rule that out, is he not admitting that that is one of the things with which he is threatening local authorities? Does he not realise that if he imposes a moratorium on, say, council house building, he will no longer be able to blame local government for stopping house building in the way that he is doing at present?

I looked at what the Secretary of State for the Environment did in 1976 in order to secure reductions in local authority spending. Of course, a capital moratorium was part of the proposals of the then Labour Government. It would be quite irresponsible of me to rule out that possible weapon, however undesirable I might think it to be.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that the imposition of a moratorium on local authority capital expenditure plans would be yet another grievous blow to the construction industry. Will he confirm that this would be used as a last resort? If he is minded to do it as a last resort, will he consider putting a longer moratorium on the profligate offending authorities rather than a shorter moratorium on all local authorities?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The weapon of a capital moratorium is an extremely undesirable one to use. What the Government clearly believe, and what they gave a year's notice of their intention of achieving, is that we must reduce the levels of current public consumption. Our failure to do that prejudices our ability to get the economy under control and will worsen the burdens faced by the construction industry along with the economy at large. Therefore, the responsibility now is for local authorities to respond, as they have traditionally, to the guidelines set down by the national Government.

May I refer to the uninformed point made by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) about the additional 1,000 workers employed by the Manchester local authority? Can I assure the Minister that that is not the case? Therefore, will he assure the House that in future, before Conservative Members respect statements which appear in the newspapers, they will check them?

One of the reasons why I have asked local authorities to publish the details of their manpower figures is that there can then be an informed and factual debate about what is going on in each individual authority. I think that my reading of the local newspapers in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman clearly indicates that a wide public debate is taking place in that area on this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ultimate sanction of the refusal of capital for major items ought to be exercised against those local authorities such as Wolverhampton which have increased their expenditure specifically to go against central Government policies, and have thereby imposed a massive increase of 56 per cent. in their rates this year?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the harm which flows from rate increases of the sort that he mentioned. I shall have to consider what I recommend to my colleagues, and put before the House by way of action, when we see the revised budgets of individual local authorities. The judgment that we shall have to make—the House should understand it now—is whether one expects all local authority organisations, including those which have responded and behaved in a responsible way, to bear any excess expenditure that there may be, or whether we look for methods which indicate a more selective approach. In what I have said so far I have made it clear that the Government's views on this matter have not yet been finally determined. Obviously, a selective approach is desirable in logic. However, the weapons needed to secure a selective approach are Draconian.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with representatives of British sports organisations to discuss participation in the Moscow Olympic Games; what was the outcome; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to contact the British Olympic Association about participation in the Olympic Games.

I was present at the 17 June meeting between my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and representatives of most of the sports bodies still committed to going to the Moscow Games. In the light of my right hon. and noble Friend's explanation of the wider issues involved, I remain hopeful that at least some of those governing bodies or competitors will think again about participating in these Games.

Is it not time for the Government to stop persecuting the British athletes? Does the Minister appreciate that next week the beleaguered Llanwern steelworks in Newport will start work on a major order from the Soviet Union—an order won in free competition? Does he not agree that this is the way forward rather than the cold war hysteria being whipped up by the Prime Minister and her acolytes?

It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has neither understood the argument over the last six months, nor begun to understand the horror and aggression being carried out by the Russians in Afghanistan. That is the reason for our stand on this issue. I hope that he will realise that our objective is to bring home to the Russians our total abhorrence of their action and that we shall not condone it in any way.

Is it not typical Tory Party cheek and hypocrisy for this spoilsport Tory Prime Minister to condemn world-class athletes such as Steve Ovett, Sebastian Coe, Linsey MacDonald and Alan Wells for taking part in the Moscow Olympics when the Tory Party chairman is making huge profits from supplying track equipment for the Olympics?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would set his sights a little higher, and not go for cheap publicity. I hope he will also realise the serious question that we posed to the athletes and other competitors. We understand that they wish to take part in the Moscow Olympics, but in the light of events in Afghanistan we believe that our advice was correct.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Socialist-controlled Watford borough council recently decided to give a donation of £500 to the Olympic appeal? Does he not consider that to be a disgraceful misallocation of ratepayers' money?

Yes, I most certainly do. It is astonishing that Socialist-controlled councils—hard-pressed as they say they are—are prepared to give large sums of money to the Olympic appeal—[Interruption.] Those Labour Members who cheer their action should think more of the women and children in Afghanistan rather than the money that is being put forward by those councils.

Now, like it or not, the athletes are going to Moscow. Do Ministers wish them well?

Over the years the hon. Gentleman—

Answer the question.

Of course I shall answer the question. The hon. Gentleman has been putting questions to me for six months; I am not going to dodge one now. It is clear that the Government's position has been to discourage our competitors from going to Moscow. Therefore, it is our wish that they should not be in Moscow this month. I warmly applaud the efforts of superb quality by Coe and Ovett last night, but I am more delighted that they were successful in a country that will not be sending a team to Moscow. I do not wish any of out athletes to be in Moscow this month.

Will my hon. Friend say specifically whether he is satisfied with the action of the Sports Council in supporting the Government's policy towards the Olympics? Will he also say whether it may be possible to abolish this less than satisfactory organisation and give its functions to the Central Council for Physical Recreation?

I am perfectly satisfied with the actions taken by the Sports Council and by its chairman, Mr. Dick Jeeps. They have fulfilled the wishes of the Government admirably. I have no intention of removing the Sports Council from its position. The Central Council for Physical Recreation knows where it stands. It has an important part to play in the development of sport. But both organisations must operate together in harmony.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what, in his estimate, will be the number of public sector and housing association starts in the years 1980–81, 1981–82 and 1982–83, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates are available to his Department of the number of public sector and housing association starts for 1980–81 and the two subsequent years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the anticipated number of local authority houses to be completed in the current year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates are available to his Deparment of the number of public sector and housing association starts for the three years 1980–81, 1981–82 and 1982–83.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of public sector housing starts for the three years 1980–81, 1981–82 and 1982–83, respectively.

Accurate estimates cannot be made in advance. Starts by local authorities will depend on the proportion of their housing investment programmes which they decide to allocate for new building. Their submissions for 1981–82, to be received in August, will indicate the starts and completions they expect this year, though in past years even those have not been very reliable. Housing association starts similarly will depend on the present and future plans of associations. Final decisions for future years will only be taken closer to the years in question.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first the five hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the Government's public expenditure policies will have a serious effect on the level of local authority house building starts during the next two or three years? Does he further realise that in Ipswich the housing situation has never been more serious, and in its effects to cope with a record waiting list the Ipswich borough council is being frustrated by financial restrictions that are forcing it into a declining level of housing starts in the face of serious problems?

I understand that there is a declining level of public provision of housing—as there has been for the last four years or so. The question that the hon. Gentleman must join me in trying to answer is whether there is any way in which we can create the wealth that alone will sustain improved provision, unless we continue with the policies that the Government have adopted. My firm conviction is that there is no alternative.

Does not the Minister accept that waiting lists are increasing, and that there are as many as 1 million people waiting for council homes? Will he explain to the House how he connived at these major cuts in expenditure on housing without knowing the consequences of such cuts?

The cuts that I have introduced are a continuation of the cuts that the previous Government—

Not true. Stop misleading the House.

As the right hon. Gentleman suggests that what I am saying is not true, it may be helpful if I remind the House again of the figures from 1976 to 1979.

No, no, no—

I was going to provide the facts. It may help the House to know that there were 176,000 starts in 1976, which declined to 81,000 in 1977, which declined to 67,600 in 1978, which declined to 46,647 in 1979. By my standards, that is a declining programme.

This year there will be the lowest number of housing starts since the war—as the figures for 1979 were the lowest since the war. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's cuts are inhibiting Labour-controlled councils, such as that in Bradford, in providing decent, low-rent accommodation for newly married couples and elderly people? What message have his hard-faced Tory Government, most members of which have two or three residences, for the nearly 1,000 people on the housing waiting list in Keighley who see little relief from this Government?

The message is partly to explain that the situation has been deteriorating, along the lines of the figures that I gave, for years; partly to explain that if there is to be a real prospect of improvement in public provision of services for those people there has to be real wealth; and, finally, to remind them that the record of the last five years of the previous Labour Government was one of decline, in public expenditure terms, and in the whole provision of all goods and services in the public sector. That record is a devastating indictment of the economic failures of that Government. The reversal of those directions is absolutely central, and can be achieved only if we rein back on the public sector and allow the wealth-creating sector of the economy to expand.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he would be well advised to stop his parrot-like repetition of the Labour Government's record, which is daily becoming more flattering when compared with this Government's record? Will he admit that his personal contribution to the collapse of the United Kingdom's economy, which the Government are hastening, is to bring public house building to its lowest ever post-war record with rising waiting lists and increasing numbers of people being unemployed in the construction industry? The Secretary of State a moment ago said that the Government need to plan ahead. What do the right hon. Gentleman's future plans contain for public house building?

When the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was master-minding the decline of the house building programme at the Department of the Environment, I am sure that he must at least have learnt the difficulties that a Government have in trying to predict what local authorities would do and in giving accurate figures for future building in local government. That is why it must have been galling for him to hear the Labour Government say that in 1977 there would be 95,000 local authority houses—actually there were 81,000—and that in 1978 there would be 95,000 when in fact there were 68,000. That indicates beyond peradventure that it is extremely difficult for central Government to make forecasts in advance of the events. I have looked carefully at all the statements made by Ministers in the previous Labour Government and realised that the lesson of those statements and predictions is that central Government do not know about the figures that they continually parade. Therefore, it is better to tell the House frankly that one does not know and to rely on what is patently the real situation when the local authorities send in accurate returns.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the acute family and housing misery that will be caused throughout the country as a result of council house building virtually coming to a stop? Is he aware that the charge against him is that, instead of trying to defend housing at Cabinet meetings when discussing the cuts, he clearly has become the most enthusiastic supporter of the savage cuts which are taking place?

If I dare to venture a forecast which is helpful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman, as well as to the hon. Gentleman, it is that we shall find that council house building does not come to a halt as has been widely forecast on the Opposition Benches. The House will have the information on which to make judgments about how informed the views of the right hon. Gentleman were when he said that there would be no more council house building, or words to that effect.

One of the difficulties about making estimates concerns the need to have a realistic assessment of future need. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how helpful he found the 1977 Green Paper in making assessments of need for housing over the next few years?

I have seen the 1977 Green Paper. It made some estimates of need and it had the frankness to state that its figures were highly speculative. I had to decide whether there would be any public gain in going through that exercise again when the broad underlying facts about housing need will not have changed significantly. They may have changed by a few percentage points, but there is so obviously a need on such a scale that we do not need to have precision about that need to know that we require a significant housing programme.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in talking about flexibility of choice for local authorities when everybody knows that he has provided them with no money for house building, improvements or mortgages and that they cannot choose between any of those items because they have no money for any of them? We understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to provide figures. However, I should like to ask him a simple question about his intention, for which presumably he is answerable to the House. Was his housing investment programme statement in February made with the intention of ensuring that this year there should be the lowest number of starts for public house building since the war?

It was not my intention, but it was almost certain to be the direction in which the level of starts would go, provided that the trends of the last four years were continued. It was not an unreasonable assumption that both Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities would continue in the direction in which they had gone in consequence of the policies of the past four years. So that the House may understand, there is a public sector provision for housing in excess of £2 billion. Anyone who can describe that as a non-programme is using language that has no real meaning.

rose—

Order. I appeal to the House for short questions and answers, if possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local authorities would find it much easier to provide the housing necessary for the really needy if we could have all-party support for a system of shorthold to bring into operation housing which is already in existence and could be used were it not for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) who has made more people homeless than any other Minister?

My hon. Friend has made a critical point. Significant numbers of people in the greatest need are now to be denied the opportunity of rented accommodation in consequence of the deliberate decision of the Labour Party to frustrate shorthold. There was an opportunity to move in a direction that would have opened up a new area of letting. The Opposition are doing everything in their power to keep those people without homes in a cynical way which I find inexcusable. The Government are determined to pursue their policies and to widen the opportunities for letting, particularly for council tenants who will have the right to sublet their properties to people who otherwise might not get homes. We are pursuing the widest range of initiatives in housing that this country has seen since the war.

If the right hon. Gentleman regards shorthold as so important a part of his policy, why in the talks that he held with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and me did he refuse to accept even one of the safeguards in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)? Why has he completely abandoned those safeguards, as a result of which the Labour Party maintains its pledge to repeal the shorthold tenancy when it returns to office?

The Labour Government, when they came to power, pushed up the levels of public expenditure and increased the number of public sector starts. They then found that they had bankrupted the economy and they had to pull right back, leaving the country with a projected public sector expenditure based on a wholly spurious level of growth.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Allerdale district council regarding the operations of the Government's strategy on housing by those local authorities, part of which fall in a national park.

My right hon. Friend has had no consultations with Allerdale district council about the right-to-buy provisions contained within the Housing Bill.

Is the Minister aware that, at great expense, the South Lakes authority and Allerdale district council sent a delegation to the Select Committee to put their case about the right to buy? Has the Minister read the minutes of the Select Committee? What comments does he wish to make as a result?

I have read the minutes. I remain of the view that, as amended, the clause is fair.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest annual figures of the number of homeless families housed by local authorities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.

In 1979, local authorities in England reported that they had accepted about 57,000 homeless households under the Act.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are concerned because the Act is increasing the amount of time that certain people have to wait before being rehoused? Can he take any action to relieve pressure on local authorities that are being subjected, through no fault of their own, to lengthening queues?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are carrying out a review of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, during which we shall review both the Act and the code of guidance. We are anxious to announce conclusions as soon as possible. As a result of recent court decisions, we have had to consider several supplementary submissions very carefully.

As vast numbers of single homeless people are often forced to seek accommodation in shabby hostels and lodging houses—which have been debated during the past 12 months —when does the Minister intend to issue the report of the housing advisory unit?

At the Report stage of the Housing Bill I said that I hoped that the report would be available before the Bill's proceedings came to an end. That remains our objective.

Notwithstanding the particular case of Hillingdon, which is being heard by the Court of Appeal this afternoon, will my hon. Friend consider boroughs that have ports of entry into the United Kingdom? Does he realise that at present those boroughs have a statutory duty to house homeless people who come into their area?

As my hon. Friend knows, the statistics show that the legislation has substantial geographical variations. London boroughs that are situated as my hon. Friend has described are particularly affected by the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. We are taking that factor into account.

As revision of the Act is taking some time, will the Minister reassure the House that circular No. 18/74 of the Administration headed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), which sets out the priority groups, will not be disturbed? Will he also take great care about the figures that are reported by airports and docks, and ensure that they are up to date? Is he aware that I believe that those figures are nothing like the ones that have been made out in the House and elsewhere?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, detailed statistics are collected by the Department from local authorities in accordance with the Act. The figures are published as soon as possible and copies are provided in the House. They are the best statistics available on an authority by-authority basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the review the National Water Council is carrying out in connection with the problems associated with the extension of optional metering to domestic households.

I understand that the working party expects to submit its report to the National Water Council by the end of September, and I would hope to receive it shortly afterwards, together with its advice.

As Thames water authority consumers are already paying a considerable subsidy to consumers in other areas, and as consumers sometimes have to pay water rates on garages that have no water or sewerage connections, will my right hon. Friend ensure that authorities have to offer the option of metering to all water consumers?

As my hon. Friend appreciates, some authorities offer that option. I should like to await the report before I consider the matter further. We shall look at this issue seriously.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the entire water industry again? Does not he accept that there are major problems not only in metering, but in the entire carry-on of all water authorities?

My hon. Friend may have missed my reply to question No. 1, in which I made clear that that was what we were doing.

What is the estimated public expenditure costs of instal- ling water meters in all domestic households?

The figures were last estimated in 1975, and the top range was £950 million. An approximate estimate might be £1,500 million.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce a further list of local authorities which are to be required to publish land registers.

In the autumn.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the plot size identified in the requirement for local authorities to register land is adequate if sufficient land is to be made available? If experience shows that a variation in the plot size is advisable, will he make that change?

Yes, Sir. We wish to start with the main areas of land. Initially, we do not want to have too small a plot size, as that would greatly complicate the exercise. At a subsequent stage, we shall reduce the plot size.

Has the Minister any estimate of the cost to public funds of gathering the information needed for the publication of such registers?

The cost will be modest, but it will be dwarfed by the savings that will be made to public funds by the better use of public assets. There are considerable amounts of under-used or unused publicly-owned land. Such land is lying derelict, and could be put to profitable use. That would be an asset to the public sector. I hope that when the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill is discussed, our proposals will receive widespread support from both sides of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a statement on the discussions he is having with local authorities on the rate support grant for the current year and 1981–82.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a statement of the discussions he is having with local authorities on the rate support grant for the current year and for 1981–82.

The rate support grant settlement for 1980–81 was made last November. The settlement for 1981–82 —including the increase orders for 1979–80 and 1980–81—will be the subject of discussions in the consultative council on local government finance later this year.

Has the Secretary of State seen press reports this morning about the speech made by the chairman of the Association of County Councils? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman urged complete opposition to the Government's proposals? Does he acknowledge that he has succeeded in uniting the whole of local government against the vindictive proposals affecting local government finance? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect or deserve the co-operation of Conservative and Labour councils when he has dismissed their reasonable, alternative proposals derisively and arrogantly, and in other ways as well?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we shall table some amendments to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill in order to meet some of the recent criticisms that local authority associations have put forward. I do not wish to give any impression other than that local government is concerned about the provisions of the Bill, particularly those concerning block grant. The Government's view is widely understood outside the House of Commons. We believe that incentives must be given to authorities that manage their affairs prudently and carefully, and keep to reasonable levels of public expenditure. The present method of distributing the rate support grant encourages high levels of expenditure. We have therefore decided to change from the regression analysis to the block grant mechanism.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that when the Labour Party came to power in 1974 it made a major shift in RSG in favour of Wales, ostensibly to recognise the increased cost of the provision of water there? Does he recall that the Welsh water authority services part of Herefordshire and Cheshire? Will he bear that in mind when deciding how best to assist local government in its funding next year?

As from this moment, it will be a matter which I shall never forget. It is certainly something that I shall examine when we come to make detailed assessments for next year.

If the Secretary of State is saying that he will make the decisions about the increase order only at the time of the annual meeting of the consultative committee does he realise that that means that it will be impossible for those local authorities that have been threatened with some loss in that increase order, under the legislation that is going through Parliament now, to make proper financial decisions? Will he accept that instead of just swinging through the municipal jungle making vague threats, he has a duty to give local authorities a clear indication of what money they will have to spend this year?

The hon. Member will be aware that within the workings of the RSG settlement there is an element of clawback which is not totally predictable in advance to local authorities in the normal way. However, the logic of his question is that on the basis of returns of expenditure and rates, in which I do not have sufficient faith, I should make decisions about the changes that are to be made to secure compliance with the Government's public expenditure programmes. That would be an act of irresponsibility. The only way to avoid that is to get revised budgets, which I have asked local authorities to submit.

During these discussions. will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the totality of local government expenditure, contrary to the publicity in recent years, has been, in the last four years ending 1979–80, less than the totality agreed at the date of the RSG discussions, and that this bears well and favourably on the reputation of local government?

Yes. My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There is a variation of between 1 and 5 per cent. between the volume forecasts and the actual out-turn. My problem is that the latest returns show a budget in excess of 5·6 per cent., and I cannot rely on that 5·6 per cent. disappearing in the way that my hon. Friend suggests has sometimes happened in the past.

May I remind the Secretary of State that under the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill he proposes plans to penalise a number of local authorities in November? When will those local authorities know that they have been chosen to be penalised? More importantly in terms of equity, when will he establish and publish the rules against which local authorities can measure whether they will incur his wrath? At present, most of them are operating absolutely in the dark.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting that local authorities are operating in the dark. We have sent to every local authority a precise figure showing exactly what we believe their levels of expenditure should be to secure compliance with the Government's targets. Every authority has got that figure clearly stated. Therefore, I do not believe that there can be any doubt in the minds of many authorities as to exactly what the figures are all about.

Just in case anyone believes that the Secretary of State understands his own Bill, may I ask him to confirm that the precise figures for local authority expenditure are for what happens for next year and not what happened for this year, and that his answer is based on a total misunderstanding of his own Bill, which we shall be debating next week?

I should have to examine in detail with the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—the precise words that I used. But when he comes to check the record he will find that what I have said is totally in compliance with the existing legislative proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has of owner-occupiers applying to council housing departments for rehousing as a result of inability to meet increased mortgage repayments caused by high interest rates.

The only evidence we have is from statistics supplied by local authorities of homeless households accepted by them under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. In 1978 about 3,300 and in 1979 about 2,700 households in England were accepted as homeless because of mortgage default or inability to pay for owner-occupied accommodation.

In view of the Government's phoney election campaign about home ownership, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the city of Manchester is now being confronted with owner-occupiers applying to be considered for council houses at the rate of 60 per month? That can be repeated in many other cities as a consequence of the high mortgage interest rates. In view of the hon. Gentleman's policy, what does he intend to do about this matter?

I think that the city of Manchester could solve the problem simply by selling council houses, which would enable the many tenants in Manchester who want to buy to have the opportunity of getting a mortgage. It would also enable the city of Manchester to add to its HIP allocation and to increase the availability of local authority mortgages in the next financial year.

Bearing in mind how many members of the Labour Party, Labour councillors, and probably some Labour Members of Parliament, want to buy their own council houses, what does my hon. Friend intend to do about those Labour-controlled councils, such as Preston, which regrettably are putting a stop on the sale of council houses?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that I hope that within a matter of weeks the right to buy legislation will receive the Royal Assent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the hon. Member for Uxbridge concerning the repair of flats constructed under the Bison wallframe system; and if he will announce his policy for assisting local authorities to remedy the defects that have now emerged as a result of using this type of building for their housing programmes.

My hon. Friend has made representations both through parliamentary question and correspondence. We have concluded that we cannot offer special Government assistance under the existing subsidy system. It remains for decision whether the costs of such remedial works should count under the new subsidy system which we propose bringing into effect on 1 April next. We expect to make our view on this point known in the near future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the light of the defects which have now come to light in the Bison wall frame system, it is reasonable to cast doubt on the validity of the National Building Agency certificate? When will his Department make available to Hillingdon council its appraisal of the remedial work required? Will it give guidance on carrying out such work?

The situation on industrialised building is that successive Governments have recognised the contribution which the use of industrialised building methods can make towards meeting housing need at reasonable cost. Concerning the NBA situation, I shall need to have further consultations, but I hope that it will not be too long before the requisite information is available.

Will the Minister give a rough estimate of how many of these Bison wallframe system flats are likely to be purchased under the right-to-buy provisions? If the people living in that kind of accommodation do not purchase what chance will they have of getting a transfer out of this catastrophic accommodation into other houses, if they are all sold off?

Bearing in mind your injunction, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the first of those two questions. The properties would have a reduced value, and I am certain that a large number of tenants would be delighted to have the chance to buy, which is denied by authorities such as those of Manchester and Birmingham.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is planning to introduce legislation to limit the number of people employed by local authorities.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that in many local authorities, where there are high unemployment rates anyway, local authorities are being faced with the cruel dilemma of having to decide whether to cut services or to sack employees? Does he not, therefore, think that it is the height of arrogance and a slap in the face to civic leaders from the city of Liverpool to turn down their recent request to meet the Secretary of State to discuss these difficulties?

I understand that my right hon. Friend has met the leader of the council of the city of Liverpool on a previous occasion. Obviously we are anxious, whenever it is reasonably possible, to meet leaders of principal local authorities. But in these difficult decisions, the Government have to face difficult expenditure priorities, as do local authorities.

Is it not right that in order to meet the difficulties of the past five years, private enterprise has had to cut the number of people that it employs? Are not those employees extremely upset that local authorities, far from cutting their staff, seem to go on increasing their staff without any good reason being given to the electorate? Who pays?

One of the concerns of local authorities is the level of employment in their areas, yet many local authorities seem quite unaware of the serious impost that rate burdens place on industry. It is the largest single tax impost that falls on manufacturing industry. Undoubtedly in certain areas the level of rate increases has led to considerable unemployment among many industrial concerns.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to encourage the transfer of public land to private builders on a leasehold basis, similar to the scheme recently announced for Belfast.

A number of authorities in England have already undertaken or are considering undertaking partnership schemes with builders. As part of my drive to promote low-cost home ownership I am already encouraging all housing authorities to consider promoting such schemes to help meet the housing needs of their area.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the scheme in Northern Ireland whereby the land will be let on a leasehold basis to builders and then the freehold will be transferred later to the purchaser by the housing authority in Northern Ireland? Is that not an ideal scheme to keep down the costs of new houses, for first-time buyers in particular?

As the hon. Member knows, this scheme is in its infancy. It is an interesting scheme. I believe that something not dissimilar in principle is under way in Liverpool. Of course I shall watch experiments of this sort, and, wherever possible, I shall encourage them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in accelerating the speed of determining planning applications.

I have set in train various measures which should result in substantial improvements in the handling of planning applications. Trends in speed of decision will become apparent in due course from the regular statistical bulletins which my Department is now publishing.

Is the Secretary of State aware that an additional delay is often caused at the local authority end? Will he consider introducing some form of instant decision-making on this matter?

I have secured agreement from the local authorities that they would also publish the details of the time taken for them to reach decisions on planning applications. I also intend that my planning inspectors should give their decisions within a matter of days of the inquiries being concluded in a large number of cases.