asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to require the compulsory double glazing of all glass used externally on future building projects; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Designers and builders are free to use double glazing where they consider it appropriate. We have no reason to restrict their freedom in this matter.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is an urgent need to conserve energy and that legislation that made compulsory the use of double glazing would assist public energy conservation and the glass and glazing industry, which is seriously affected by the present economic situation?

Possibly, Sir. However, we believe that the building regulations are too blunt an instrument for such fine tuning.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he will receive much support for extending the use of double glazing from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy? As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) has indicated, there is considerable feeling that if such measures and similar ones were taken, energy conservation would be considerable. Will the hon. Gentleman consider calling for a report on the validity of the argument contained in the question?

I think that what I have said covers the point. If people think that double glazing will benefit them, there is no reason why they should not double glaze and make fuel savings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses, in both the private and public sectors, he now expects to be completed in the current financial year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimate of housing starts for 1980 in the public and private sector, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector housing starts there have been since April 1980, compared with the equivalent period last year.

The latest figures for England are as follows. Between April and September there were 25,500 starts and 48,000 completions in the public sector and 47,400 starts and 57,000 completions in the private sector. Between April and September 1979, there were 39,300 starts in the public sector. Completions in the rest of 1980–81 in both the public and private sectors will depend on the rate of progress on dwellings already under construction.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those figures mean that this year there will be the lowest number of houses built in Britain for 30 years in both the private and the public sectors, and that there is a great danger that existing houses will become slums faster than they can be replaced or modernised under his regime?

This will be a year of low figures for housing in both the public and the private sectors. In many ways I find that as disturbing as the hon. Gentleman does. However, the reduction in public sector housing has been going on for some years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when translated into human terms, these figures will mean acute hardship and misery for thousands and thousands who will not be able to be rehoused? Bearing in mind how much the right hon. Gentleman has undermined and sabotaged housing, is he not ashamed to hold his present position?

The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that the reduction in public sector housing is continuing along much the same lines as under the previous Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dismay and bitterness that is felt by housing associations that are facing a reduction of about 60 per cent. in loan approvals? Is he able to say something to encourage the good work of the housing associations that are faced with such a catastrophic decline in their finances?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are expecting to see an expenditure of £420 million through the Housing Corporation and housing associations this year. By no means can that be described in the sensational language that the hon. Gentleman chooses to use.

Are the Government financing the printing and circulation of the cards that have been produced by the Liverpool housing associations and supported by the Housing Corporation? Will he say something about the use of public expenditure for this purpose?

Although I do my best to keep abreast of what is going on in my Department I should require notice of that specific question. If my hon. Friend lets me have a look at the cards in his hand, I shall examine them carefully later.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I know of the concern of many housing association tenants in Liver-pool, and I know that many people live in houses that have no inside sanitation? Will the Secretary of State tell us what hope there is for Merseyside housing associations? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that what used to be regarded as the third arm of housing is becoming the dead arm of housing as a result of his policies?

The hon. Gentleman must know that the only hope of improving housing is to get real growth in the national economy. That is the objective of the Government's policy.

When my right hon. Friend listens to strictures from the Opposition about the housing programme, will he bear in mind that far more dwellings would be available for occupation if the Opposition removed their dogmatic objections to shorthold leases?

My hon. Friend is right. The House might like to know that, according to the latest figures, there are about 100,000 empty local authority accommodation units, which could be used for those who are looking for houses.

Why does the Secretary of State constantly fiddle the figures that he presents to the House? Is it not a fact that local authority starts in England for the first six months of this financial year equal 15,070, and that the total is falling all the time? Does he not accept that in September, the latest month for which figures are available, there were 1,900 starts, which represent an annual rate of 22,800? That is by far the worst total for generations. Will the total reach 30,000—which would be appalling enough—or will it fall to 22,000 as a result of his disgraceful policies?

The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of fiddling the figures. In 1974–75 the figure for housing capital expenditure was £4·2 billion. In 1978–79 expenditure was down to £2·154 billion. If that is not a reduction, I do not know what is. If the right hon. Gentleman were to apply himself to the figures as opposed to rhetoric, he would find that the reduction in my programmes for capital account on housing is proceeding at a slower rate than the average for the last four years of the previous Labour Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if local authorities went back to the worst figure under the last Labour Government they would offer thanks when they compared them with what the right hon. Gentleman is asking them to do? Will the right hon. Gentleman for once give a straight answer in this House? Will the starts reach 30,000, or will they continue at the present annual rate of 22,800?

I shall certainly give the right hon. Gentleman a straight answer. During the two years for which I have been responsible for housing capital expenditure, it has been reduced by 14 per cent. per annum. During each of the last four years of the Labour Government it went down, on average, by 15 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the system of national parks and their supervising boards.

In the main, yes. For that reason I have decided not to proceed with a review of national parks administration in 1981, nor with a wider review of the designation system as suggested by the Countryside Review Committee. But I propose to consult on the proposition that district councils should have a statutory right of representation on national park boards and committees.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Peak District national park board, which has no directly elected representatives on it, is insensitive to the needs and wishes of my constituents, and arrogant in its dealings? Is he further aware that my constituents will examine this proposal with great interest?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that he offers such strictures about his national park administration. My original reply sought to make the point that local people living in the national parks should be given more say in national parks deliberations. At the end of the day, that will lead to better administration of those parks.

Does the Minister realise that his announcement will be applauded by many of those in the amenity world, who felt that the proposals put forward would have led to the desecration of many of the most attractive parts of the countryside? Is he aware that we support him when he says that he is generally satisfied with the work of national parks?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I know that they will be widely noted in the world of conservation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that any change involving district council representation on the park planning boards would be greatly welcomed by my constituents, who feel the need for such local representation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Changes will occur in the two board areas of the Peak District and the Lake District. There may be an additional member for the Peak District, and two additional members for the Lake District. If consultations go ahead as I anticipate, district councils will have statutory representation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. West (Mr. Parris) refers to the fact that access has been gained—as a result of initiative and expenditure from the funds of the Peak District national park and that that access has been applauded by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Countryside Commission and the ramblers and mountaineering associations? Does the Minister recognise that much-needed access has been guaranteed for climbers, recreationists and campers? The Minister's original answer needs to be discussed. He has put aside not only the Sandford report but the response to it. Is he aware that it is important that the national interest should predominate where national parks are concerned?

I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We considered the Sandford committee report very carefully, since it is valuable. However, we have made our decision and we shall not proceed with that review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps is he taking to protect housing for the elderly and disabled, in the light of the recent moratorium on all further local authority capital expenditure on housing.

I am considering the future operation of the moratorium in the light of figures provided by local authorities and will make an announcement in due course. I have already clarified the position on adaptations for the benefit of the disabled.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the survey that was carried out by Age Concern, which showed that 28 per cent. of those aged over 75 would like sheltered housing? Does he accept that the present amount of sheltered housing is completely inadequate? Does he further accept that the number of old people is rising rapidly? Given the cuts that he has imposed on the Housing Corporation and the fact that local authorities have slashed their programmes, does he accept that his moratorium will make the position even worse?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the moratorium is not designed to secure cuts in the existing budgets, but to ensure that we do not exceed the cash limits for housing. I sympathise with the view—that has been very much part of our approach—that there is a need to concentrate more of our available resources on such groups.

Does the moratorium on capital expenditure in public housing extend to capital expenditure on other public buildings, such as leisure centres and civic centres, which local authorities may wish to put up? If not, does the Secretary of State have any plans in that direction?

The moratorium does not extend to other capital programmes, because they are under a different heading, and do not come within the controls of the HIP allocation system. Next year there will be a different capital controls discipline, as provided in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. That means that there will be an overall one-block approach to capital expenditure, which will have the effect suggested by my hon. Friend.

Does the Secretary of State remember the promise that he gave to the House on 6 August, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, about the protection of old people's accommodation? Given that not a single old person's house in Glasgow, Edinburgh or the Borders region has been protected, does he consider that that promise has been fulfilled?

I have every faith in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fulfilling any promises that I make on his behalf.

Although I bitterly regret the moratorium, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remind the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that in 1976 the previous Labour Government imposed a moratorium for precisely the same reasons and that they imposed cuts of £140 million in the same year on future years' housing allocations?

My hon. Friend will remember how unfair it is to try to remind the Labour Party of any of the things that it did when it was in government.

Does not the Secretary of State see something cruel in having more than 1 million families on the waiting list at a time when unemployment in building and related trades has risen to 300,000, with worse to come?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one third of the people on waiting lists are already housed in local authority houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken by local authorities following the right to buy given to council tenants by the Housing Act.

Since 3 October 1980, virtually every local authority in England and Wales has been implementing the right to buy.

What advice can my hon. Friend give to the tenants of Greenwich council, whose Labour councillors have indicated that they seek to frustrate the law by not processing the forms for the right to buy?

I assure my hon. Friend that I deplore the action of any council that seeks to deny the rights of tenants given to them by this House. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said during the proceedings on the Housing Bill that he would deplore defiance of the law I look forward to his joining in the condemnation of any such action by Greenwich.

Will not the Government's moratorum on building, combined with the sale of council houses, lead to longer lists of those waiting to rent council houses, more overcrowding and greater problems? Is the Minister aware that in Liverpool the situation is even worse, because the local authority, Liberal and Tory combined, is not building council houses for rent? Is it not clear that the Government's policy must change so that those on waiting lists will have an opportunity in the future to have a home to live in?

As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the House, by a substantial majority, decided to give 6 million tenants the right to buy. The Government do not propose to change that policy.

The Tories do not care about people without houses.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties for my constituents that arise as they seek to buy their council houses from the fact that stamp duty on those purchases is being charged on the pre-discount value rather than the post-discount price? What steps is he taking to discuss the matter with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury?

Following a number of representations on the matter, we are having discussions with our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the increase in the numbers of homeless households as a result of his moratorium on building new council houses.

I do not consider that any such estimate could reliably be made.

I suppose that the Minister feels that it would be too damning for the Government's policy to make an estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to the increase in the number of families waiting for local authority housing. It is almost 1¼ million. About 8,000 of those are in Wolverhampton, which represents an increase of 1,500—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—

Order. Will the hon. Lady ask a question, then we shall all feel happier?

What response is the Minister making to the AMA's estimate of the shortage of houses in the next five years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. Is the Minister aware that the estimate of expenditure by local authorities for housing homeless families in bed and breakfast and similar accommodation is over £15 million a year? Is it not crazy to spend that money in that way?

One of the most constructive responses that can be made is for local authorities to address themselves to the problem of vacant dwellings. On the latest figures that we have from local authorities, 23,000 local authority dwellings have been vacant for more than one year. Of that number, one third—some 8,000—are dwellings in six Labour authorities—Manchester, Islington, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth and Camden.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that those authorities that have curbed their expenditure and are currently engaged on a programme of new building of housing for the elderly only and have contracts in hand will not be affected by the moratorium?

I understand the concern of authorities which, on their estimates, are underspending their allocation, but I am afraid that this afternoon I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend has said to the effect that he will wish to make a statement in due course.

If the Minister cannot make an estimate, does he accept the estimate of the Tory-controlled London Boroughs Association that, if his policies continue for a further five years, they will lead to an increase of almost ½ million in the shortfall of houses in this country?

The hon. Gentleman represents a London constituency. I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the number of empty local authority dwellings in London.

Will my hon. Friend clarify the position concerning the housing association movement? Will he confirm that there is no cut in the total budget this year but only a control of the overspending that was forecast?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The allocation made by my right hon. Friend in February of £420 million is entirely unchanged. There is £420 million to spend. Contrary to certain reports, the level of housing association improvements approved in the 12 months to September is the second highest on record.

May I return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), which the Minister did not even attempt to answer? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a variety of estimates have been made by various local authority bodies about the net shortfall of houses in 1984 and the shortfall between houses available and families needing houses, in part the result of an increase in family formation? Do the Government have a figure about how many houses will be needed by the time this Parliament comes to an end?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when the previous Government made such calculations they described them as being highly speculative. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the range of policies that we have put forward both to increase utilisation of existing stock and to bring forward new accommodation, such as shorthold. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not helping by his commitment to repeal the shorthold legislation.

Do the Government have a figure on what the net shortage will be when this Parliament comes to an end?

As my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions, we regard such an exercise as fairly speculative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to bring forward any proposals to change the procedures for listing buildings of architectural or historic interest, or to discourage further the demolition of buildings of interest not on the statutory list.

My Department's listing procedures are currently under the comprehensive review which I set in hand following the demolition of the Firestone factory.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am deeply grateful to him for that statement and for his recent actions to save our architectural heritage? Does he agree that, no matter how subjective the judgment, we should decide as a nation which buildings should be listed and then concentrate our limited resources on conserving excellence rather than make a blanket attempt to promote mediocrity?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's views. I am grateful to him for his kind words about the initiative that I have taken.

Is the Secretary of State familiar with the recent literature documenting the losses to our fine heritage of Nonconformist chapels? Is he satisfied that his Department has enough of the best examples of such buildings listed at sufficiently high levels? Is energetic action being taken to see that the best examples remain with us?

For the inter-war period churches are a specific category to be considered, but many Nonconformist chapels belong to an earlier era. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of any examples of conspicuous architecture that are under threat, I should like to know about them.

May the voice of a Philistine be heard? My right hon. Friend says that he has had recommended 50 further factories built between 1914 and 1939 for addition to the statutory list. What, then, is the total?

If I were looking for the voice of a Philistine I would never look to my hon. Friend. I hear a great many Philistine voices from the Labour Benches. Let me clarify what I said. The HBC provided me with a list of 50 buildings, not 50 factories—though factories could be included in the listing. It is the first list of its sort applying to the inter-war period. Other buildings will be added subsequently.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for giving the Ordnance Survey a more enterprising and independent status.

I am studying various possibilities but have no firm proposals at this stage.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ordnance Survey has an historic and successful record, is a great British institution and that, like the Government Front Bench, it may from time to time need enlightenment and reform, but basically it needs conserving?

There can be no question but that I should agree with my hon. Friend that the Ordnance Survey has fulfilled a valuable role in our history and has a crucial role in future.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the talk in some quarters of giving the Ordnance Survey a more enterprising and independent status is simply a euphemism for allowing looters to take the more profitable parts of the organisation? Is he aware that the whole of the Ordnance Survey is necessary for the public interest and will he refute any suggestion that it might be carved up?

The right hon. Gentleman would expect me to look at all the options before rejecting them. That is what I am doing. I am having wide consultations on the various alternatives that might be before me. I am particularly looking at the Serpell report on this matter which was commissioned by the previous Government.

As a keen walker, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give the maximum assurance to the House that nothing will be done to the excellent Ordnance Survey which would detract from the high quality of its work which is unparalleled throughout the world?

My right hon. Friend has my absolute assurance that I recognise the standard and quality that has been associated with the Ordnance Survey and I shall do nothing to undermine that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had dozens of letters from Ordnance Survey employees who live in my constituency expressing their desire to remain within the public service and their grave concern at the possible threat to the service that they give to the public if alternative arrangements are made? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before he makes any decision he will have full consultation with the trade unions and staff associations involved?

Yes.

May I also declare an interest as a customer of the Ordnance Survey and say that I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell)? I too have many constituents who work for the Ordnance Survey. The word "unique" is one of the most overworked words in the English language, but the Ordnance Survey is a unique organisation. Will my right lion. Friend bear that in mind in any proposal that he makes for its future?

My hon. Friend will have heard me refer to the high quality of work with which the Ordnance Survey has been associated.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition believe that the standards of excellence of the Ordnance Survey must be maintained at all costs but cannot be maintained if the surveying side is to be divorced from the profitable publications? Is he aware that we need to maintain the service for the Royal Navy's hydrographic survey and maintain the principle of universal coverage which the Ordnance Survey continues? Is he further aware that we shall resist any attempts to divide the organisation between the non-profitable surveying sector and the profitable publishing sector?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have looked carefully at the underlying figures of the Ordnance Survey. If he had, he would not find it so easy to talk about significant areas of profit. I can assure him that they are not to be found. Let me make clear that I will do nothing that is not preceded by full consultation. I will certainly continue to hold discussions. I have reached no conclusions, but I believe it is right that all such organisations should be subjected to political scrutiny and that a wide-ranging debate about their activities should continue.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now completed his review of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.

The review of the Act and the associated code of guidance is still in progress. We hope to announce our conclusions fairly soon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the review has been going on for 20 months? Will he assure the House that he will bring forward amendments to the Act to ensure that those without a local connection will no longer be allowed to overtake those who have had their names on local housing waiting lists, often for many years?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the homeless persons legislation is a difficult and sensitive area. At least one local authority association wished to revise its views after its original submission and I think that it was right that we took into consideration the latest views from the local authority associations. I assure my hon. Friend that the aspect that he raised is within the compass of the review.

Is the Minister aware that some of us believe that if any changes are needed in this necessary and compassionate Act they should be to strengthen its provisions and not to weaken them? Will he help our future discussions by telling us now, or publishing subsequently, the net effect of the Act on authorities such as, say, Bournemouth and how many houses they have been required to provide that they would not have been required to provide had the Act not existed?

There is fairly extensive publication of statistics about the operation of the homeless persons legislation and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that most of the statistics that he wants are available there. If I can give him any further assistance, I shall gladly try to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Act's obligations on a local authority such as Hillingdon, which has Heathrow airport in its boundaries, result in local people believing that foreigners are jumping the housing waiting list—whatever my hon. Friend or Labour Members may say? Will he take into account that that is bad for community relations and that the only way that the problem can be avoided is if the Act is amended to confine the obligation on local authorities to rehouse those with a local connection in the United Kingdom?

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), the question of the local connection is one that we have in mind in considering the review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is (a) the estimated number of housing starts in the public sector for 1980–81 and (b) housing capital expenditure for 1980–81; and what were the corresponding figures for starts and expenditure, at constant prices, for 1976–77.

Provision for gross capital expenditure on housing in the public sector in 1980–81 is £2,040 million at 1979 survey prices. The corresponding figure for 1976–77 was £3,517 million. In April to September 1980 there were 25,500 public sector starts in England, compared with 84,700 in the same period in 1976. Public sector starts in 1980–81 will depend largely on the proportion of their allocations which local authorities have decided to devote to new building and on how far we are able to allow them to make any further commitments this year.

In the light of those figures, which show that in 1976—the year of the Labour Government's moratorium—there was the second highest number of starts in any year during the 1970s and the fact that those starts were four times the number likely to be achieved by the present Government, may we have an end to the wilful and palpable falsehoods from the Government suggesting that their housing policy bears any relationship to the Labour Government's policy? Will the Secretary of State for once have the honesty to admit that his housing policy is to abandon local authority housing as we have known it in the past 25 years?

I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member, but he is right to take the public sector housing starts in Britain in 1976, when they totalled 170,000. The next year the Labour Government reduced them to 130,000, the year after they were reduced to 107,000 and the year after that they were reduced to 80,000.

Will my right hon. Friend also remind the House that not once in the five years of the Labour Government did the performance reach the objectives laid down in public expenditure White Papers? Would it not be helpful if my right hon. Friend reminded us that district authorities that sell assets can bolster their HIP allocation?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Labour Party's performance never met—or did not usually do so—the figures that it put forward. I have never expected the Labour Party's performance to live up to its promises.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that, in addition to the national picture, which is tragedy enough, in my constituency we have five starts this year, with over 2,000 people on the housing list, and that in the critical year 1981–82 there is the possibility of only 25 completions? The local authority has asked the right hon. Gentleman more than once if he will discuss with it the nature of its problem. Why does he persist in refusing?

If the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given are a true reflection of what is happening in his constituency—and I am not suggesting otherwise—they mean only that the local authority concerned has decided to spend its substantial HIP allocation somewhere else.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the construction industry to discuss the effects of his moratorium on the building of council houses.

I met the Group of Eight last week.

At the next meeting will the Secretary of State explain why he is crippling the construction industry when there are thousands of families on the waiting lists for a home and 300,000 construction workers on the dole? In view of the strong possibility, especially after yesterday's CBI conference, that such a meeting might end up in a bare-knuckle fist fight with the captains of British industry, will Tarzan be taking along the Mace to defend himself?

It is apparent that the CBI is trying to take lessons from the Labour Party conferences. I do not need to wait until the next time, because I explained to the Group of Eight exactly what were the difficulties for the Government in trying to find the cash to fund the level of pay increases for which the last Government were responsible as a result of the Clegg commission. As long as we have to meet bills of that sort, capital programmes are likely to come under pressure.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, as the question referred to the moratorium, that it is of no long-term advantage to the construction industry, or to the homeless or the less fortunate, for Governments, national or local, to live beyond their budgets?

My hon. Friend will remember that the Labour Party when in power was continually forced to come back to a realisation of that, usually at the behest of an outside organisation that forced reality on it. The truth is that its attempts to increase public expenditure by going in for extra borrowing, which is what it is now suggesting I should advise my colleagues to do, led to declining levels of public expenditure in real terms whilst it was in office.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the Group of Eight, including the trade unions, said to him? Did its members say, as some of them have been saying in the press, that the Government's policy in relation to construction was lunacy? Is it not time the Government recognised that if they go on as they are the construction industry will come to a total halt?

What the Group of Eight said to me, with which I have great sympathy, was that broadly speaking the country was increasing its consumption faster than its wealth, and that as a consequence it was squeezing its capital programmes. If the House has not realised that, it has not studied what happened in the last few years under the Labour Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many building companies do not mind the moratorium on council house building? Does he realise that they would prefer to be building housing for sale, as well as factories and investments that pay for themselves, instead of uneconomic housing?

I am sure that there is much in what my hon. Friend says, but the one thing that the Group of Eight impressed upon me above all else was that it wanted to see the levels of interest rates brought down. That cannot be done unless we control public expenditure.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Ron King, president of the House-Builders Federation, has said that the private sector as a whole—whether manufacturing industry, the construction industry at large, or the house building industry—has been slimmed down to danger point? Is he further aware that that same gentleman said that the present Government had brought private industry almost to its knees? Can the Secretary of State say whether that has come about deliberately or by mistake?

It has come about entirely as a consequence of the economic inheritance for which the present Government assumed responsibility, including the fact that the Clegg award cost the country £1·6 billion in extra wages, which has to be funded in the public sector without any increase in wealth to achieve it.

There is no wealth now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made by his Department of the loss of business to private contractors arising from the moratorium imposed by him on local authority housing.

My right hon. Friend's action is designed to hold local authority housing investment to its originally planned level for the year, not to cut it. He is now considering the latest figures, and the effects on the construction industry will depend on the nature and timing of those decisions.

When will it penetrate the collective mind of the Cabinet that public authorities and public corporations are the major customers of private industry, and that to decimate public expenditure, so far from being any help to the private sector, is undermining its very existence?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that a great deal of the work of the construction industry is generated by the private sector. I am interested to note his concern for the future of private contractors in Sheffield. In view of the great deal of new house building work that in the past has been carried out by the direct labour organisation of Sheffield council, I look forward to his enthusiastic support for the direct labour provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill when they come into effect next year.

Whilst I accept that the moratorium applies only to public sector building and not to other capital expenditure, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that many local authorities are now not giving improvement grants other than statutory grants, as a result of the reduction in HIP allocations? Does he not think that that is regrettable? I appreciate that improvement grants now come within the single block allocation, but will my hon Friend do everything in his power to encourage local authorities to give improvement grants as one of the most beneficial ways in which money can be spent?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know the figures. Private sector improvement grants paid in the year to September 1980, were higher than in any year since 1975.

As the Minister has told the House during Question Time of the amount of money that he will be saving by his cuts in housing expenditure, will he tell the House how much money he has caused to be spent through higher unemployment? Does he not think it ridiculous that in regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside, if things go on as they are, 1981 will not be far advanced before more building workers are on the dole than in employment?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that our overall capital expenditure on housing in the course of his financial year is about £2¾ billion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose the urban simulation games financed by his Department have been used; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose the urban simulation games operated by his Department have been used; and if he will make a statement.

I am informed that an urban simulation game was commissioned by my Department during the last Administration. I understand that it was used at that time by officials as an aid in formulating policy for establishing inner city partnerships.

While I appreciate the Government's non-responsibility for spending the £9,000 for the games, I should be obliged if I could have details of what kind of games they were. We have had difficulty enough over the past year. I should also like to know whether the games are still being played, and if so, where? Are they being played only by the civil servants.

I understand that the whistle was blown some time before the present Government came into office. Although they may seem the subject of some hilarity, such games are not an unknown management tool when trying to simulate circumstances in which to identify the best policies for inner city partnerships. That is why the previous Government set them up. We have no proposals to introduce any further such games.

Precisely who is responsible for all this tomfoolery? What has been learnt from these expensive games? Would it not be much more appropriate to send Monopoly sets to Socialist councils.

My hon. Friend's choice of words at the beginning of his supplementary question was somewhat unfortunate, because the matter has nothing to do with me. My hon. Friend will have to direct the question to any Labour right hon. or hon. Member who can tell us how the games influenced changes of policy. That is now a closely guarded secret of the previous Government, details of which I imagine will appear in about 30 years, or perhaps in a diary published earlier.

Will not the Minister agree that it was hypocritical of him to launch publicly the Council of Europe urban renaissance programme in this country when all his policies are designed for urban decline rather than urban renaissance?

That is the most misleading and damaging statement that could possibly be made. The hon. Gentleman came to the colloquy representatives of the Council of Europe. Every single Minister from the countries represented recognised the tremendous contribution that could be made by community involvement. The issue of the capital funding, while significant, is far from being the only issue. To say to people, at a time of economic restraint, that there is no hope for them in community action and interest in improving their areas is a disgraceful comment.

Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that there is no need to simulate rural games to know that the most grave damage has been done to housing in rural areas by the refusal of the Labour Party to support the proposals for shorthold that would do more to alleviate homelessness in my constituency than anything else that has been proposed?

At the risk of trespassing on my right hon. Friend's territory, I would confirm, from my own observations, that what my hon. Friend says is true. The failure of the Opposition to support this measure will contribute—this is confirmed by observations in my own constituency—to an increase in homelessness.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his policy towards the National Water Council's consultation document, "Charging Households for Water."

After I have received notice from the council, following its consultation with consumers and other interested bodies on the provisional conclusions set out in its document.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if metering is to be voluntary, it is likely that only those people who will gain from it will want it, and the water authorities will suffer a loss of income?

This is one of the considerations discussed in the document. I await with great interest the responses to the consultation document. There is great public concern about present methods of charging for water. That is why I asked the National Water Council to publish the consultation document. It has done so. I hope that all hon. Members will take an interest in this issue.

Is the Minister aware that the campaign for metering following this report is now shown to be a dubious economic exercise and a piece of ideological nonsense? The annual cost of installing, reading and renting a meter is likely to be about £15 a year against an average bill of £52. In addition, it will add 8 per cent. to the 20 to 30 per cent. increase on all other households that do not go in for it. Is it any wonder that the National Water Council concluded by saying that savings, even in the long term, would be insufficient to offset the cost of the metering? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that conclusion and chop this ridiculous campaign?

The House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope that hon. Members will prefer to make up their own minds rather than adopt the closed view of the right hon. Gentleman. It is for hon. Members to study the options available and not to be preached to by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on the terms of transfer of development corporation properties to local authorities in the case of second generation new towns.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State hopes to discuss transfer terms with the Association of District Councils before Christmas.

Does the Minister understand that the local authorities—both district and county councils—cannot agree to accept the transfer of these properties until the terms are known? Is he aware that there is an increasing need for transfers in areas such as Redditch where a terminal date is already set for the winding-up of the development corporation?

As my hon. Friend may know, I am planning to visit Redditch early next month. I can assure him that it is the Government's firm intention to produce a fair basis of transfer both to taxpayers and to ratepayers. I hope that we shall be able to reach an agreed basis to enable transfers to take place on the due date, 1 April 1982.

Bearing in mind that the burden of maintaining these properties is only one of the many problems that face the councils of new towns, when will the Minister be prepared to publish the comprehensive Government policy for the future of new towns that he has promised the House more than once?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have already announced our conclusions on the target population sizes and proposed dissolution dates for the first and second generation new towns. We are left with the remaining third generation towns. My right hon. Friend will wish to make a statement as soon as he can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if local authorities are keeping within their estimates of expenditure for the current year; or, if not, by what percentage these are likely to be exceeded.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with local authorities' forecasts of their likely expenditure in 1980–81.

The revised budgets submitted by local authorities in August showed that for current expenditure they were still planning to spend in aggregate some £350 million at 1979 prices above the level envisaged in the 1980–81 rate support grant settlement. I took the view that there is a risk at outturn that they might be overspent by about £200 million. I therefore announced on 18 September the measures which I believe are necessary to bring expenditure back on course.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the level of overspending by local authorities is far less than overspending by central Government and that the level of competence in the management of their affairs by most local authorities is far higher than that displayed by the present Administration? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reply to the leader of Rotherham borough council who has written to him suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman would be elated if he could keep his expenditure within 1 per cent. of estimates, something which the Rotherham authority has managed to achieve without inflicting extra redundancy or unnecessary cuts?

I am sympathetic to the claims of local government that it has managed its affairs a great deal better over the years than central Government. Undoubtedly the figures show that this is the case. It is true of the last five years—

This year.

This year the situation broadly indicates that there is more likelihood of an overspend than in previous years. It still remains the fact that local government has a record of keeping to its capital and revenue budgets which is better than that of central Government. That is no argument for saying that, now that there is a risk that they will overspend this year, I should ignore the risk.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the overspenders are to be made to pay the cost of the extravagance?

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, when we have the new system of distributing taxpayers' money through block grant, there will be much more of a relationship between the measured need of an authority and the amount of central Government support. It will be possible for central Government to ensure that, if there are levels of overspend in certain authorities, those authorities are likely to suffer most, as opposed to the present system where it is largely those which have kept within the Government's guidelines which suffer.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the borough of Sandwell is exactly on target in its housing expenditure and is not an overspending council? Is he aware that two weeks before his moratorium regional officials of his Department met officers of the borough to discuss the borough taking up allocations not taken up by other authorities? Does his Department know what is going on in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? Is he aware that many people in local government—officers and elected members—feel that the best service he could provide to local government would be to tender his resignation?

The hon. Gentleman might take into account that someone else in my place might demand even greater sacrifices.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that housing expenditure by local authorities is a balance of income and outgoings? Will he repeat the invitation to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to give his view on the decision by Greenwich borough council not to abide by the law and sell homes to those tenants who want to buy?

The whole House would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman made clear that he thinks that all local authorities should keep within the law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the rate support grant settlement for 1981–82.

I shall announce the 1981–82 rate support grant settlement early in December.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this year's settlement will not discriminate unfairly against efficient county councils such as Cambridgeshire which in recent years has accepted a vast population overspill from cities without any corresponding increases in its proportionate share of the grant?

I think that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not anticipate the basis of the RSG settlement, which I shall announce early in December. It is the intention that the RSG system we are now introducing should have a greater relationship with measured need as opposed to past expenditure.

Will the Secretary of State give the House of Commons the information about next year's rate support grant settlement that he gave to Lord Ridley shortly before the House of Lords debated the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill?

I have had no conversations with Lord Ridley.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lift the moratorium on council house building.

I am studying the estimates of committed housing investment expenditure for 1980–81 which local authorities have submitted. I shall announce my decision as soon as possible.

Is the Secretary of State unaware that, as a result of the imposition of his moratorium, not only will many more people be stuck on waiting lists for years but a million people will still be living in houses requiring sanitation and over 200,000 construction workers will be in the dole queue? What economic or social sense does that make?

The hon. Gentleman is confusing my determination to keep within the cash limits with an assumption that I have cut the programme. I am trying to ensure that the Government do not overspend on programmes announced some months ago.