asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the work of the partnership committees is being effective in helping to revitalise the inner areas of the older industrial cities.

I am satisfied that the partnership committees are making an effective contribution, but I am continuing to seek ways in which this may be improved.

While my right hon. Friend is satisfied, may I ask whether he would agree that the revitalisation of inner cities depends to an advanced degree upon private enterprise and private investment? Does he therefore agree that it would be a good thing if private business were represented on these inner city committees, in the shape of banks, building societies and chambers of commerce?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, while such organisations are not represented on the actual committees, we have taken an initiative to set up monitoring committees for the partnerships, on which local and private enterprise is very much represented. We have already established this for Liverpool and for Manchester-Salford, and we hope shortly to establish one for Newcastle-Gateshead as well.

Would the Minister care to indicate clearly to cities such as Manchester, which are included in the partnership programme, what the allocations will really be? Will they be subject to cuts? Will he give some clear indication whether they are to continue as was originally intended several years ago?

I hope to advise the partnership very shortly on the allocation for Manchester-Salford. I understand the partnership's concern to know its figures for the next year as soon as possible. I hope that we shall be able to provide that information very shortly.

Will the Minister agree to look at the arrangements for the Liverpool partnership committee, with particular regard to the allocation to the voluntary sector? Is he aware that there is considerable feeling there that, unless this review is undertaken, some of the projects that have been started will have to terminate through lack of finance? Does he appreciate that that would certainly not be in keeping with the spirit which I know the Minister wishes to see coming out of the partnership committee?

We are most anxious to encourage the voluntary sector, as my hon. Friend will be aware, and we have this consideration very much in mind in the allocation proposals that we hope to announce shortly.

Will the Minister say to what degree he has been successful in bending the main programmes of Government expenditure towards the areas in which inner city partnerships are responsible, and can he say anything about the degree to which the rate support grant has been used in that respect?

I think that the hon. Member will be aware, from the statement made yesterday and from the very comprehensive documents that we have published, of the way in which the rate support grant allocation is being determined in future to try to take account of the relative needs of different areas. He will see, in that respect, that there are certain aspects in which the sort of characteristics that characterise inner city areas are reflected in the allocation arrangements. As regards the bending proposals, he will see from the announcements that we shall make shortly the extent to which this is being continued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the likely number of house completions in the public and private sectors in 1980 and 1981.

I cannot estimate future rates of completions, but between January and October this year there were 75,000 completions in the public sector in England and 90,000 in the private sector.

Is not that a most unsatisfactory answer? Does it not show a disgraceful neglect of duty in that the Minister is not evaluating the effects of the Government's savage housing cuts? Is it not a wilful disregard of the interests of the people on housing waiting lists, both present and future, who will have to wait years longer for a house, as well as the interests of the 280,000 unemployed building industry workers? Is it not a fact that only 190,000 houses in both sectors will be completed this year and even fewer next year? The Minister and his right hon. Friend are a malignant cancer on the body of housing, and they ought to be removed.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the five years of the Labour Administration housing capital was reduced by nearly half in real terms. He should also bear in mind that local authorities have discretion as to whether they use their available capital for new build or for improvements to existing dwellings. The pattern of expenditure in the public sector over the last six successive years has shown that by their own choice local authorities have chosen to increase the proportion that they are spending on improving the existing stock rather than undertaking new build. Despite all the gloom and doom which the hon. Gentleman is perpetrating, I remind him that the number of council dwellings which have been improved this year is higher than in any year since 1973.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems is that local authorities have been operating a land bank within the cities and have not released land to the private sector even when it was surplus to requirements? When shall we see some results from the lists which my hon. Friend is asking the local authorities to draw up?

My hon. Friend is quite right. He will know that the first authorities which have been asked to draw up registers of land have already been designated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. He will also be aware that it is not merely vacant land which is being held on to by certain local authorities but empty housing as well. The latest HIP returns show that seven authorities have had more than 1,000 houses empty for more than a year. The House should be aware that those authorities are as follows—Camden, with 1,080 empty houses; Lambeth, with 1,189; Southwark, with 1,196; Hackney, with 1,267; Knowsley, with 1,400; Islington, with 1,401; and Manchester, with 1,869.

As housing figures in the public sector are determined by the HIP allocation, can the Minister say what proportion of the housing investment programme, which was announced on Monday, is likely to lead to new building? Is it not a fact that much of that money is already committed and that one authority in Coventry which put in a bid for £25 million received only £7·8 million whereas it is already committed to £8·9 million? How many local authorities has the Minister placed in that position, and what does he intend to do about them?

I congratulate the hon. lady on her move to the housing front. The answer to her question is that this year all local authorities have not merely their allocation but also the ability to add to their allocation by the capital receipts which they get in from the sale of land, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has referred. That will be a significant factor in regard to the amount which they spend on new build or improvements.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what specialist advice is available to him for assessing the aesthetic quality of new projects under consideration by his Department.

A range of advice is available to me depending on the nature of the particular project—for example, from the Royal Fine Art Commission and the Historic Buildings Council.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that far too many country towns and villages are being spoilt by housing projects, the design of which owes far more to the suburbs than it does to the countryside? When planning consents are allowed on appeal, to what extent is the Department able to monitor the rural quality of the housing that is intended?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that there is the most exciting and innovative standard of design and also that, where traditional architecture is deployed, it should be of a high quality. However, I question whether it is in the broad sweep of policy that local planning committees or my inspectors should be involved in trying to arbitrate public taste as a superior factor to individual taste.

I declare an interest as an architect, albeit a non-practising one. What criteria does my right hon. Friend use in judging the aesthetic qualities of a new building?

My hon. Friend will understand the difficulty of answering that question in precise terms. It is because I am anxious that we should not try to enshrine a standard of taste in public documents that I issued my recent circular. I believe that there is a responsibility on the Secretary of State, where major national projects are being developed, to ensure that there has been an opportunity for matters such as the quality of those buildings to be discussed widely. I have expressed my view that, in order to enhance the architectural quality of what we are building today—much of which in recent decades has, frankly, been abysmal—we should use public competitions so that there is a much greater incidence of appreciation of the need for extra quality.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek to establish a new Regents Park in docklands.

It is for the proposed London Docklands development corporation and for the local authorities to consider what provision should be made for parks in the area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is fitting that each generation should leave a architectural monument to the British heritage? If he were to designate a Prince of Wales park for private development within the London UDC, that would be both a tribute to his foresight and imagination and a testament to all that is best in Britain in the 1980s.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Royal parks are part of the Sovereign's hereditary property and managed as public parks for the Crown by the Department of the Environment. There are no Crown holdings of potential parkland in the docklands area. Of course, there is the Beckton district park, which has been supported by substantial sums of public money, and there is proximity to Grenwich Royal park as well. I know that the need for open space in this area—perhaps not on the scale that my hon. Friend's imagination suggests—is recognised in the plans and proposals for the docklands area.

Does the Minister agree that when Beckton district park—which is at present being laid out so excellently by the London borough of Newham—is fully completed, the costs of maintaining that park should be in the hands of the borough? Is it not a fact that allowable expenses from the Secretary of State for that authority will be reduced because there is a diversion of funds to counties and provinces in general and to Northampton in particular?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has considered the grant distribution proposals which were put forward yesterday. However, I am sure that he will have noticed that the borough of Newham is not unfavourably treated.

Is it not the case that where a developer is prepared to redevelop London's moribund docklands, and has already had to face two planning inquiries, it is further bureaucracy for the Minister to institute a third planning inquiiry for the same development?

My hon. Friend is tempting me on to ground which comes under my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial responsibilities, and it would be wiser if I did not trespass upon it.

Does the Minister agree that however desirable projects of this kind may be, they must take a low priority in docklands in comparison with the need for housing, roads and other elements of the infrastructure?

That is precisely why we have proposed, and the House has acepted in the Act, subject to the approval of the orders, the creation of an urban development corporation for London docklands. We have done this precisely because of the Government's conviction and determination to get action and improvement in an area which for far too long has been allowed to deteriorate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many London boroughs have contributed to his Department's development control statistics requested in form PS1 and PS2.

Twenty-nine of the 33 London authorities have contributed to the quarterly statistics since they were introduced in May 1979. Of these, 23 now regularly complete both forms. Four have not completed any.

What plans does my hon. Friend have, if any, to seek the co-operation of the remaining London boroughs that have not been involved? Is there any way in which he can review the process by which the figures are brought forward by his Department, as it seems to be taking rather a long time?

We are concerned that all local authorities should submit these figures. We see them as an important part of our package to speed up the planning system and make it more efficient. We would hesitate to use the statutory powers that are available to us. We are certain that, through encouragement and persuasion, we can get the remaining four London boroughs to conform.

Will my hon. Friend say slightly more about the extent of the reductions in statistics sought from London authorities in view of the fairly dramatic reductions in Government money available to certain inner London boroughs?

We gave these matters careful thought before we drew up the forms. We were supported by the Expenditure Committee in its eighth report and by George Dobry. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the need to limit any extra burdens on local authorities. We bear that in mind always.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to redraft the development control policy notes issued by his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to redraft the development control policy notes of his Department.

A number of the development control policy notes have been overtaken by our development control circular 22/80. I have therefore started a review of the existing series. The local authority associations and developers are being consulted on their usefulness and the format of any replacement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that several local authorities, including Wirral, are concerned at the new rules on enforcement procedures, especially the burden placed on the local authority first to find an alternative site for the illegal business if possible? Is he further aware that there are worries that this will lead to a serious increase in the administrative burden on local authorities? Will he please look at this again?

My hon. Friend may be referring to the draft circular. We modified the enforcement requirements before issuing the circular. The general welcome that the circular has received reflects the better balance. I think that the House will recognise that when there is such concern about employment we must consider the problems of small businesses and give them all the help that we can.

I welcome the relaxations already made by the Government in planning restrictions. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that change of user permission should more readily be given by planning authorities, especially to small firms that need to develop and grow? Will he consider that need if and when redrafting takes place?

We are giving that matter consideration. As my hon. Friend will know, we hope shortly to bring forward further amendments to the general development order, which will exempt certain minor developments from planning controls in an effort further to help all areas in the move to assist small businesses.

Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the freedom from planning considerations applying in the enterprise zones to the whole of the urban areas surrounding them? Such an extension would allow private enterprise to do the very things that the Government are asking it to do.

We have made clear that our proposals for the enterprise zones are for a limited number of experimental projects to ascertain whether it is an effective approach. We shall look for a constructive and positive approach from planning authorities throughout the country. I hope that that will go some way to meeting the point that my hon. Friend fairly raises.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the house that planning relaxation will not reach the stage when the means by which people are protected from abuse—for example, the setting up of a tannery next door to them—are withered away? Planning control is designed to help the community as well as providing a means of control of small businesses.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read our planning circular. It starts with a clear reaffirmation of the importance of planning and the value that it has for society. We are concerned that planning should be respected but that it should not be over-bureaucratic and restrictive in unnecessary aspects. Protection must remain for the community from obnoxious developments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the effect of his present policies on the balance of local government expenditure between inner city areas and the rest of the country.

Local authorities are responsible for deciding on their own level of expenditure, and it is ultimately their decisions which will determine the balance between urban and rural areas.

Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State made the decision to transfer resources to shire counties and away from cities—especially away from inner London—before he finalised the block grant formula? Does not that suggest that his motives were political rather than springing from a genuine consideration of disadvantaged inner city communities?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that there are many inner cities outside London which receive many of the major local services provided by the shire counties. Such counties provide about 80 per cent. of the total expenditure of local government outside London. When the House has had a full opportunity to consider the grant-related expenditure factors that we issued yesterday, I think that it will realise that I was trying to measure on a more independent basis the real needs of individual authorities. Having done that, and having taken into account the various levels of expenditure, I came to realise, as I had often suspected, that the shift of about £300 million from the provinces to London over the past five years was not warranted by the calculations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a view among county councils that they were victimised by the Labour Government? May I assure him that they will welcome his start to reduce that wrong? Will he be good enough to tell Labour Members that all the problems in local government are not restricted to inner cities and that there is such a thing as rural deprivation?

My hon. Friend has a real knowledge of the workings of local government and, therefore, produces an informed comment on what has happened. We have now produced a series of factors that indicate how we think local government entitlement under the rate support grant should be broken down. If there is a wish to be involved in the debate on how the factors should be altered, adjusted or improved, we shall offer the first opportunity ever for politicians, the national press and experts in every area to become involved in the widest and most profound debate about local government that Britain has ever seen.

When the right hon. Gentleman is taking part in the academic exercise of considering all these factors, will he bear in mind that the people of inner London will be suffering, despite the fraudulent figures that he circulated yesterday, because the target figures for expenditure for the Inner London Education Authority and the inner London boroughs will be £320 million less than is being spent this year?

I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade the majority of his colleagues that my figures are fraudulent and that there is no justification for reversing the drift to London of recent years. If his right hon. and hon. Friends come to the conclusion that the factors that I have introduced are wrong, they will doubtless advise me where I should change them. The hon. Gentleman will understand that every time the factors are changed one authority will gain and another authority will lose. All that I am doing within the block grant scheme is to readjust the distribution. Those in the provinces are as entitled to say that they have need as are those who live in London.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following his letter to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South of 7 July, the Government are now planning to make any legislative, administrative or financial changes in the present system of charging for cesspool emptying; and if he will make a statement.

I am now receiving replies from local authorities to a questionnaire about numbers of properties without mains drainage, arrangements for removing effluent, and cost. When all the replies have been received, we shall consider whether any changes as my hon. Friend mentions are required.

As well as looking at the cost to owners of unconnected properties of disposing of their drainage, will my hon. Friend also look at the cost that the water authority levies on the local authority for disposing of the collected drainage? Many people feel that the water authorities are charging too much.

This is a complex question. Some hon. Members have suggested that this duty should be performed by water authorities rather than by local authorities, in which case the situation would be even worse. But included in our survey will be the whole question of costs incurred between local authorities and water authorities.

Does the Minister now agree, however, that the previous Conservative Government's Water Act 1973 is clearly seen as a particularly foolish piece of legislation, not least because of the harmful effect upon over 1 million rural residents dependent upon cesspools? Does he now regret the fact that the Conservative Opposition of a couple of years ago blocked the previous Labour Government's attempt to relieve this problem? When can we expect him to take action on behalf of those whom he purports to represent?

I think that, with hindsight, all Governments regret certain policies. Concerning the reorganisation of water, sensible people realised that something had to be done about the situation that existed then. In terms of cesspools and the hardship that has been created, we are looking very carefully at this matter. It was under a Labour Government that a decision was taken in the High Court—in Daymond versus South-West water authority—that brought all this to light. However, we shall make certain that we do the best we can for those about whom the hon. Member is concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has made of the report "British Freight Waterways: Today and Tomorrow", and if he will make a statement.

The study, which the Inland Waterways Association published last month, is being examined at the moment. It raises questions which I shall need to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I shall then consider whether a statement would be appropriate.

Will the Minister explain why virtually all Government documents assume that the only waterways in commercial use are owned by the British Waterways Board, why, as a result, two-thirds of Britain's commercial waterways are omitted from official statistics, and why the Government continue to neglect the wasting asset of an under-used, non-pollutant, commercial waterway freight network?

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a significant Government investment in the South Yorkshire canal, specifically as a flag bearer for what British Waterways hopes will be a development of freight potential. He will be aware that the bulk of our canal system was designed in the eighteenth century and is not of a scale that is likely to prove a commercial proposition for freight. However, I should like to look into the point that my hon. Friend raises in the first part of his question.

Does the Minister accept that far too little attention is given to the state of British waterways, both with regard to their maintenance and certainly with regard to the way in which they can be exploited for further freight traffic? Will he urge upon his ministerial colleagues the need for developing freightage on the waterways and the need for the extension of that service in the larger industrial areas, where energy cost savings can be a very reckonable feature?

I know that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like to see a revival of our waterways. We must face some fairly tough facts. There is very substantial Government support for the waterways, merely to retain the fabric of what is, as I have said, in many parts a late eighteenth—century structure. This is raising major problems for us, but certainly, even within the very difficult economic situation with which we are faced, we are doing our best to maintain the support for the essential repair work that is needed if we are to maintain the fabric of the canal system.

Will my right hon. Friend study carefully the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who made a valuable point about statistics? Is he aware that the report is a valuable document and it gives the whole scene, so that the Department can look at the value of the commercial waterways and how they should be exploited?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in this subject. We shall be looking at this document very carefully.

Has the Minister noticed that in the Armitage report on lorries there is a recommendation that more traffic should be transferred to the waterways? In relation to transferring or changing the criteria for statistics, is the Minister aware that the Government can, virtually overnight, increase the amount of traffic on the waterways and fulfil that recommendation with no cost apart from changing the statistics? Will he look at this matter immediately with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport?

We are giving very close consideration to the Armitage report. I have no statement to make on that today.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authority associations about next year's rate support grant order.

I have had frequent discussions on this subject in the consultative council on local government finance, the latest of which was on 4 December, prior to my final announcement of the settlement on 16 December.

During the discussions, did the Secretary of State tell the local authorities what the cut in real terms in this year's RSG is compared with last year's settlement? Will he now tell us what those figures are? Did some of the local authorities tell him that next year many local authorities will be faced with reducing their staff, reducing their services and considerably increasing their rates?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will remember that yesterday I gave the House all these figures, and, of course, I also gave them to the local government consultative council, so I think that they are well established in the public mind.

As the right hon. Gentleman travels back to his modest Oxfordshire homestead for Christmas, will he have a look at the front page of today's edition of the Financial Times and see the list of those areas of the country that will benefit from his announcement yesterday and the list of the areas that will suffer? Will he reflect on the fact that among the areas that will suffer are some of the most impoverished areas of Britain? How many people does he expect to be sacked by the ILEA and the London boroughs, and how much unemployment does he intend to create in London, in order to comply with his announced target that ILEA must spend 14 per cent. less next year?

The economies that are made by any authority must be a matter for the authority. It is my responsibility to allocate on a national basis and according to general rules. But what the hon. Member will, perhaps, want to remember is that if authorities do not make the economies that we request, they will have to raise the rates, and raising the rates destroys far more jobs than authorities create in local government by maintaining their existing pay rises.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his RSG settlement will be welcomed in my part of the world because it will go to reverse the ever-increasing rural deprivation that was experienced as a result of the steady removal of RSG over the last five years of Labour Government?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that by introducing for the first time factors which all right hon. and hon. Members can understand, I am making a readjustment. [Interruption.] If I thought that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) understood the RSG that his Government produced, it would be one of the more surprising things that I have heard in the House. The fact is that I am providing facts to indicate how the sums are distributed on a basis that can be understood for the first time.

Was the right hon. Gentleman thinking about his relationship with local government when he recently spoke to the CBI saying that he felt like Wellington before the battle of Waterloo?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long preamble and I am a historian—or at least I used to be.

Will the Secretary of State say whether he is now satisfied that he has complied with section 56(10) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act in holding a statutory meeting with the local government associations before agreeing to this year's rate support grant settlement?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the housing investment programmes for the financial year 1981–82.

My right hon. Friend announced the housing investment programme capital allocations on 15 December.

Is the Minister aware that now we are sorry that he did? Will he confirm that the real cut in Government capital expenditure on the housing investment programme is 30 per cent, not 15 per cent. as the Secretary of State announced? That is because 15 per cent. has been allowed for speculative capital receipts from sales of council houses, and these are not selling to the extent that the Minister expected, although he will not give the figures. Will he confirm that there is a 16·5 per cent. allowance in the housing investment programmes for increases in building costs and that that compares with only 11 per cent. for increased costs in the rate support grant settlement? Which is correct?

The hon. Member can be assured that the reduction that my right hon. Friend announced was correct. The total permitted spend for local housing authorities next year is £2·201 million. That includes £430 million of capital receipts, and those are not speculative items. They relate, certainly, to sales of council houses and sales of land, but also, to a considerable extent, to mortgage repayments on debt incurred in previous years. We welcome the ability of local authorities to benefit directly when they are pursuing policies of home ownership in their areas.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the sum going to the Housing Corporation this year for housing associations is the same as last year? Is he aware that the housing associations in Liverpool are continuing to spread slanderous statements to the effect that the Government are cutting money to the associations?

My hon. Friend is correct. In the allocation that we have made to the Housing Corporation next year, we have maintained the real value of the £420 million that we provided this year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend's statement on council house rents the other day, in view of information given to me in a written answer from the Department of Health and Social Security, will cost that Department between £300 million and £400 million a year? What will be the total cost to the public purse of these rent increases, bearing in mind the part of rent rebates that will be borne by the Government? How will these massive increases in rent help housing?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the increase in rents announced by my right hon. Friend will produce a net saving in public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman's question, however, demonstrates that about 45 per cent. of all local authority tenants have the protection of the rent rebate and supplementary benefit systems. That is one of the major justifications for the level of gross rents that my right hon. Friend announced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take into consideration the backlog of street repairs which include footpaths and roadways in the metropolitan borough of St. Helens when making up his rate support grant for the borough.

Block grant is distributed in accordance with a formula of general application to all local authorities. The distribution is based on an analysis of the costs and spending needs of all local authorities for all of their services, including road maintenance. I refer the hon. Member to the document on grant-related expenditure published yesterday with the rate support grant settlement for an account of how this analysis was done.

Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend misled me yesterday when he replied about St. Helens, saying that he had visited St. Helens twice and he knew the town well? Will he permit me to escort him to parts of the town where roads and footpaths have not been repaired for many years and which consequently constitute a danger to pedestrians and traffic? Is he aware that many of the derelict sites cannot be reclaimed because of financial controls? What does he plan to do about that?

I am flabbergasted. The hon. Member is more concerned with the account that my right hon. Friend gave of his visits than with recognising that in this settlement St. Helens will receive a fairer allocation than it did under the previous settlement. I would have imagined that, with his responsibility as Member of Parliament, he would have been most vociferous then in his complaints at the treatment of St. Helens. At least, he should recognise that the objective analysis in our proposals acknowledges the problems of individual areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the work of the Sports Council.

The Sports Council is an independent body constituted by Royal charter which sets it clear objectives. I am satisfied that these objectives are being met, and a review is, therefore, unnecessary. I keep in close touch with the work of the council through my regular informal meetings with its chairman and principals, by attending some of the council's meetings, and by the regular contact of my officials with those of the council.

At his next meeting, will my hon. Friend consider recommending that the council requests local authorities to provide reduced entry fees to leisure and sporting facilities for unemployed youth? Will he further recommend that it encourages sporting personalities such as Kevin Keegan, Sebastian Coe and Mohammed Ali—who has been but is now no longer watching our proceedings—to meet these unfortunate young people?

I agree that sport and recreation can play a valuable part in meeting the needs of the unemployed, particularly the young. The Sports Council fully recognises that and is anxious to help. Finance is difficult, but the Sports Council is planning to earmark some £100,000 to be spent on one or two pilot schemes for young people who are out of work. In this way it can see how best it can help within the resources at its disposal.

Will the Minister confirm the grant for the Sports Council to continue this excellent work? Will it be 7 per cent. as reported? If so, how does he square that with the 14 per cent. increase for the arts, which is an increase of £10 million, which none of us begrudges? Does he recognise that in these days of great youth unemployment the work of the Sports Council is more necessary than ever and that it needs funds at least equivalent to those being granted to the arts to carry out its work? Why are the Government discriminating against sport in this way?

I have not announced the Sports Council grant and do not intend to do so this week, because it has not been decided. The Department of the Environment has many major decisions to make, and the right hon. Gentleman well knows that we have made reductions overall. These figures have to be carefully worked out relative to all the environmental services. When I am ready to make an announcement, I shall do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inquiries his Department has received since the date of Royal Assent about the new shorthold provisions of the Housing Act.

No figures are available in the form requested. However, since the commencement of the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act on 28 November, the Department has received more than 9,500 requests for copies of its booklet "Shorthold Tenancies".

Does my hon. Friend agree that his reply indicates that there is already a substantial amount of interest in the provisions of the Housing Act by those who are in a position to help to alleviate the housing problem? Will he further agree that that interest contrasts strangely with the policy of Labour Members who seek to frighten those would-be landlords, thereby, one can only conclude, delaying even further the housing of some people who are presently without homes?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a considerable demand for the use of our shorthold provisions under the Housing Act 1980, and it is clear that it would be greater still were it not for the totally irresponsible commitment of the Labour Party to repeal it.

Has the Minister taken the opportunity to read the predictions of the Tory-controlled London Boroughs Association to the effect that the introduction of shorthold in the London area will at best produce about 800 to 3,000 dwellings in shorthold use?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that shorthold is a form of tenure that is available nationally, and I believe that there will be a significant national response.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that while the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act will help to provide the right to rent for homeless families this Christmas, and perhaps next year, they also hold the key to job mobility? Will he intensify his Department's campaign to make the shorthold provisions more readily available to landlords and tenants alike?

I assure my hon. Friend that the shorthold provisions will make a major contribution towards mobility, as will the new provisions making it easier for owner-occupiers to let part of their houses. The House may be interested to know that since 28 November we have separately, and in addition, received over 900 applications for our Department of Environment booklet which gives guidance to resident landlords wishing to let part of their houses.

Bearing in mind the fact that there is a private landlords' lobby on the Tory Benches, does the Minister believe that the shorthold provision will be as popular and successful as the Conservative's Rent Act of 1957?

I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman, who from time to time expresses concern about housing need, finds that there is something odious about meeting that need in the private sector. At present, it is highly desirable to make the best possible use of available accommodation, whether it is in the private or the public sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the total number of jobs which have been lost and the total cost incurred by local authorities as a consequence of his moratorium on housing investment.

The decision to halt the letting of new local authority housing contracts was taken to prevent expenditure exceeding the cash limit for the current financial year. That cash limit, and, therefore, the employment and work load that it may have been expected to generate, remains unchanged.

Does not the Secretary of State perceive that there is a staggering increase in building industry bankruptcies? Does he not realise that the rate of unemployment is increasing to the point where the cost is now £450 million more each month? In view of that, does not the moratorium appear to be socially absurd or economically extravagant in many parts of the North of England?

I realise that the fact that we have had to impose a moratorium on a capital programme to keep within the cash limits presents short-term difficulties for some authorities. But the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the consequences of not maintaining proper control over the national economy. During the period of the Labour Government, the whole of local government capital expenditure was halved.

Does not my right hon. Friend accept that while many hon. Members welcome any determination by Governments to keep within their budgets, one of the continuing problems in housing is the failure to distinguish between investment and revenue expenditure? Is he aware that many hon. Members would welcome greater attention being given by the Government to that aspect, which, in isolation, would do more to assist the construction industry than many other measures?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noticed from my announcement this week that the further cuts that I was requested to make by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of housing bore almost exclusively on current account. The House will recognise from my statement about council house rents that it was very much in recognition of the thoughts of my hon. Friend that we switched the emphasis in public expenditure reductions to current, not capital, expenditure.

Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the gloom and doom referred to earlier by the Minister for Housing and Construction results from the Government's cuts? Does he intend the moratorium that he announced in October to continue until April? If so, does not that mean halving this year's housing starts, which are already the lowest on record, not simply since the 1930s but since the 1920s?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has failed to understand that the imposition of the moratorium did not reduce the cash limit. We have already fully used, to within a small percentage point, the available cash limit for this year. The hon. Gentleman is asking about the use that local authorities make of that available resource. The local authorities are switching more and more to other purposes rather than to new build. If we give local authorities the power of discretion, they have the power to do that, and if they do so it must be because it reflects the needs in their areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to chair a meeting of the Liverpool inner city partnership committee; and what subjects are likely to be on the agenda.

On 12 January. The main item will be the partnership's programme for 1981–82. In addition, there will be a review of progress this year and discussion of the independent review team's report.

When the Secretary of State visits Liverpool in January, will he meet the representatives of the housing associations and co-operatives, who are complaining bitterly about the massive reduction of the HIP in Liverpool? Is he aware that all hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies have been inundated by representations from the housing associations regarding that problem? Will he also have the guts to meet leaders of the tenants' associations to explain the proposed massive increases in council house rents? Is he aware that in many cases in Liverpool the increase will be more than 20 per cent.? How can he or the Government expect public employees or people on low incomes to accept a 6 per cent. wage increase?

The short answer to the question why they should accept a 6 per cent. increase is very much the explanation that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) gave to the House when he was trying to deal with the same problems. He made it clear that if moderation did not prevail there would be more unemployment. The issues are the same today as they were then. The more that we pay ourselves higher inflationary wage increases without creating extra wealth, the more the wealth-creating sector will bear the burden and the number of jobs in the country at large will be reduced. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.

When the Secretary of State meets the partnership committee, will he consider making an announcement on the future of small businesses on Merseyside, bearing in mind the effect of the moratorium on small builders? Will he particularly bear in mind the effect of massive rate increases this year and consider deferring those rate increases by transferring money that will otherwise be spent on the Liverpool inner ring road?

The hon. Gentleman will be able to anticipate my visit to Liverpool by telling the small builders that we have released from the moratorium the improvement grants in the private sector for all under-spending authorities. He will also be able to spread the encouraging news that the urban development corporation, which I hope will come into existence shortly, will bring an enhanced level of public commitment to the regeneration of that important area.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that under the agenda item "any other business" the committee discusses the need to use partnership money to lever private money? Is he further aware that the revitalisation of an area such as Liverpool will depend upon the amount of private investment and private money that the partnership can bring back to old industrial areas of this kind?

My only qualification in agreeing with my hon. Friend is that I should not wish to wait for the "any other business" item for that thought to dominate our attitudes. That thought has led to the recasting of the expenditure pattern of the programme money in Liverpool since I have been responsible for the chairmanship there.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the number of empty homes in the private sector.

Local authorities' estimates of the number of private sector empty dwellings as at 1 April 1980 were about 500,000.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the majority of these homes could be let under the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980? What does he propose to do to try to counter the dogmatic opposition of the Labour Party, and in particular the threat to repeal this provision by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)?

The figure that I have just given, which has remained fairly constant for the past three or four years, represents a variety of dwellings that are empty for various reasons in the private sector. I agree with my hon. Friend that a proportion of those dwellings are available for shorthold. When there is this clear evidence of the potential for shorthold, it is irresponsible of Labour Members to continue with their repeal commitment.

In view of the fact that so many houses are empty in the private sector, many of which are awaiting a buyer, does the hon. Gentleman approve the policy of many Conservative councils of keeping empty those houses which could be let until a buyer can be found for them?

That is a matter for decision by each and every authority, but if the hon. Member was in the Chamber a little earlier he will be aware that I read out the names of seven authorities, all of which have had more than 1,000 dwellings empty for more than a year—and none of those was a Conservative authority.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given to my question. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.