asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete the review of the domestic rating system.

We are currently examining all potential alternatives to the domestic rating system. There are, of course, major issues involved, and it is not yet possible to indicate when we shall be able to make a further statement.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's view that the domestic rating system is unjust? Is he satisfied that the current review is proceeding sufficiently quickly?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we are sure that the domestic rating system has great injustices within it. It is because we share his view that we gave the additional commitments to introduce changes. As for the speed at which those changes take place, we made it clear that, in view of the changed circumstances between 1974 and 1979, a different rate of priority would have to be applied while we pursued the public expenditure programmes we are now seeing through.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Conservatives promise to abolish the domestic rate, that promise will be just as worthless as the promises on VAT, prescription charges and unemployment?

I think that the hon. Member will be aware that the promises we make on this side of the House we keep.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system is now so filled with anomalies that abolition is the only real answer? Does he agree that another local tax would merely be another administrative tier, that no time would ever be the best time and, taking everything into account, should he not proceed now with replacing the existing system?

I agree with my hon. Friend's criticisms, but one must be sure that the criticisms we have and agree about the present system are not replaced by an equally deeply held set of criticisms about whatever we put in its place. It is in the second part of the judgment that there is need for caution and proper consultation.

While the Secretary of State is looking at the review of this system and at injustices, will he look at the injustice of his rate support grant and explain to the House, particularly to his right hon. and hon. Friends, why those authorities which have followed his precepts and tried to be prudent and those which have tried to sell council houses have come out worse? If he intends to devise an alternative system to rates will it be similar to the ideas of his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor who agreed that reduced direct taxation was at the expense of doubling VAT?

I think the right hon. Member will be aware of the anomalies that were created in the distribution of taxpayers' support as a result of the totally arbitrary allocations made by his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment. The real concern about the domestic rating system and the levels of domestic rates is the wholly unsustained levels of expenditure that he and the Labour Party are prepared to argue for in local government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures available for the annual totals of local authority housing starts and the number of houses currently included in their housing improvement programmes; if he will publish in the Official Report the corresponding figures for the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

The latest available information is that there were 29,800 local authority housing starts in England in the 12 months ending on 30 November 1980. The housing investment programme submissions by local authorities last August indicated that they were then planning to start about 29,600 dwellings and to improve about 96,000 council dwellings in 1980–81. I shall with permission publish the figures for the past 15 years in the Official Report.

Does the Minister accept that these figures are deplorable? Will he be honest and say that it is Government policies that have destroyed local authority housing programmes and destroyed all hope for millions of people who are on housing lists or are waiting for housing improvements? Does he accept that the Government are leaving a legacy of bad housing which will probably be with us until the next century?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that the previous Administration cut housing capital by half in the lifetime of the previous Parliament. He should also be aware that, at the choice of local authorities, there has been a substantial switch in the public sector from expenditure on new building to expenditure on improvements. So that the hon. Gentleman may have the complete picture he will want to be aware that in the last 12 months for which we have figures improvements to private houses have been the highest since 1975, to council houses the highest since 1973, and to housing association dwellings one of the highest ever.

Instead of just publishing lists of figures on housing starts, will my hon. Friend also publish a list of local authorities which hold empty properties, and the length of time for which they have held them empty? If they cannot or will not improve them, will my hon. Friend make them available to the private sector?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will be glad to know that a few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked me how many local authorities had had more than 100 dwellings empty for more than a year. The answer was published in the Official Report. My hon. Friend is entirely right that improvement for sale and homesteading represent excellent ways of bringing those empty properties into use.

Will the hon. Gentleman permit the loss caused by the six months' moratorium to be made good after April? Does he recognise that the projected 48 per cent. cut in housing expenditure by 1983 has already reached 51 per cent. with 18 months yet to go?

The moratorium has not affected the total allocation made available by my right hon. Friend for 1980–81. The initial allocation was about £2·2 billion, and that stands. My right hon. Friend has already made clear to the House that should authorities underspend as a result of the moratorium they will be permitted to add that amount of underspend to their allocations for 1981–82.

Will my hon. Friend explode the myth propounded by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) that housing starts bear any relationship to housing waiting lists? The majority of people on housing waiting lists would as soon exercise the right-to-buy or rent in the private sector.

My hon. Friend is right. A considerable number of those on local authority waiting lists will buy—and willingly—if they have the opportunity to do so. It is significant that during 1980 the number of owneroccupied dwellings in Great Britain rose above 55 per cent. for the first time.

Will the Minister confirm that the figures for housing starts in the public sector for 1980 are likely to be the worst since 1925? In view of that appalling state of affairs will he give an undertaking that when the final figures are announced he will make a statement to the House and accept his full responsibility for that disaster?

The figures will be announced in the normal way, which has been admirably precedented by the previous Government. It is essential to look, not merely at the figures for new starts, but at other figures as well. If the hon. Lady is concerned about rented accommodation she could do a great deal to contribute to its greater availability by altering the irresponsible commitment by her right hon. Friend to repeal shortholds, which is having the direct effect of taking rented accommodation off the market.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's current assessment of the response of London local authorities to the rate support grant settlement for 1981–82.

In the rate support grant debate I explained why it was decided to reverse in part the substantial increase in London's share of the grant in recent years. With a few exceptions I believe that most are responding sensibly and prudently, and endeavouring to make the expenditure savings the Government have called for, to avoid excessive rate increases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that as a result of the responses of the London boroughs and the Inner London Education Authority it is becoming clear that the Opposition's estimate that £200 million of rate support grant would be lost to London in the forthcoming year is proving correct, and that the figure that the Minister was bandying about of about half that sum is not?

Clearly the extent of the grant loss for London will depend on expenditure decisions which are not yet finalised in a considerable number of authorities. In the present situation the amount of grant that London receives will depend on the expenditure decisions of those authorities.

May I tell my hon. Friend how much I welcome the new system of grant-related—Hon. Members: Question.

Order. The hon. Gentleman can get the same information over if asks his right hon. Friend whether he is aware.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how much I welcome the new system since it must be better to relate the grant to published criteria than to ministerial whim? However, is my right hon. Friend also aware that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends think that there should be a realistic safety net in this transitional year to avoid too exaggerated a loss by the inner London boroughs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comment. I am sure that it is right that we now have for the first time ever a system that is open to rational and proper debate, as was evident during the rate support grant distribution discussions in the House.

As an example of rational and proper debate will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the consequence of the system of distribution of grant introduced by this Government's Local Government, Planning and Land Act is that those local government areas that were foolish enough to elect Conservative councils which loyally complied with the Government's request to cut expenditure—these included Merton and Wandsworth—have suffered the most. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the article in the Financial Times of Monday by Robin Pauley commenting on the disaster that the right hon. Gentleman has created for local government finance as a consequence of his Act?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is incorrect, and I do not accept the second part either.

I recognise the need to curb overspending local authorites such as the London borough of Camden, but can my right hon. Friend give any reassurances to outer London boroughs such as the London borough of Sutton which has followed and observed all the guidelines issued by central Government and has had amongst the lowest administrative overheads of all local authorities?

May I say something that applies to all hon. Members? We have made no secret of the fact that the rate support grant settlement is very tough. It involves a 3 per cent. volume reduction for every authority. It involves a 1 per cent. reduction of grant. Both those create considerable problems for a considerable number of local authorities. They involve, also some shift in the share of grant for London compared with the past two years. I recognise that that poses problems for a number of authorities. However, London's share of grant is still at a higher level this year than it was in any year before 1978–79.

What advice can the Minister give to London boroughs such as mine in Enfield which are Torycontrolled and which have spent the past two years faithfully following every diktat and whim of the Minister, and yet have found that they have to pay this additional London tax? Will he invite the London borough of Enfield to send representatives to Marsham Street so that he can tell his political friends that the result of their devotion to his policies has been this additional kick in the teeth?

The share of grant that London receives is at a higher level than in the first three years of the Labour Government. We believe that this is a fair basis for the rate support grant distribution. My advice to the London borough of Einfield and to every borough and council in the country and their ratepayers is that their interests are best served by a prudent and responsible council which seeks to minimise its expenditure, and that the long-term interests of the ratepayers will be severely jeopardised by authorities that do not follow that advice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his reasons why the private sector is not included in the membership of the partnership committees.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his reasons why the private sector is not included in the membership of the partnership committees concerned with urban problems.

We want to keep the partnership committees and the attendant bureaucracy as small as possible. But we believe that involvement of the private sector is vital to the regeneration of the inner cities, and intend to make urban grant conditional on there having been effective consultation with local industry and commerce.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that that answer is most welcome? Does he agree that the revitalisation of city centres such as that of Newcastle upon Tyne is heavily dependent upon private enterprise and the private sector, and that his answer will be welcomed in every major city?

I confirm the views of my hon. Friend. I am delighted that we are able to contribute towards the success of the urban programme in Newcastle upon Tyne and towards the enterprise zone opportunities which we have also brought there.

I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said, but does he accept that involvement of the private sector in the membership of these committees would give a new and more commercial impetus to their work?

I have considered the point put to me by my hon. Friend. However, I do not believe that involving the private sector in those committees would give a new momentum. The procedure which we have adopted will have a greater effect. It ensures that the private sector is deeply involved in the formative and consultative processes that lead to decisions on those programmes.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision and consider involving not only the local chambers of commerce, particularly in the partnership committees, but the voluntary organisations, which feel that they are being excluded from the workings of partnership committees?

We want to secure the maximum involvement of the voluntary organisations. However that is difficult because of their large numbers. It is also difficult to have a process which genuinely involves them in decision-making. However, I am sympathetic to the role and scope for support in the voluntary sector.

Will the Minister explain what the logic is of excluding the private sector from joint enterprises, when public/private partnership is at the root of urban revitalisation?

If I have given that impression to my hon. Friend, I want to remove it at once. When we took over responsibility for the urban programme, there was no effective involvement of the private sector. We have now ensured that future decisions about the scale and scope of the programme will be conditional upon consultation with the private sector.

Does not the Secretary of State recognise that membership of the partnership committees does not matter a tuppenny damn but that what matters his recognition of the problems of the inner cities and facing up to them?

I do not think I would use the precise words used by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the flavour of what I was saying was not far away from the point he made. It is precisely because we realise the need for a public/private sector commitment to the inner cities that we are pursuing our present policies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes have occured in the instructions given to the Property Services Agency about the disposal of airfields and other Government properties since May 1979.

My right hon. Friend stated on 13 June 1979 that surplus land should be offered for sale as soon as practicable and abolished the procedure whereby surplus Government land had first to be offered to other public authorities.

That came early after the election. If the purpose was to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, why was Wisley airfield sold in such indecent haste to Lord Lytton at an agricultural price, when an appeal had been lodged which, if successful, would have raised the value of the land from a few hundred thousand pounds to several million pounds? Was that at the instruction of the Secretary of State?

I gave a full explanation in my reply to an Adjournment debate on 24 July 1980 of the circumstances which surrounded the sale of that property to the successor of the former owner. Since that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) has referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and a planning appeal is in train. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail at this stage.

Is the Minister aware that there are a number of Service personnel about to retire and living in houses outside the county who would like to purchase their houses? Will my hon. Friend facilitate that?

If my hon. Friend would care to send me details, I should be glad to consider those cases.

Everyone knows—except probably the Minister—that the forerunner of this organisation has lost hundreds of millions of pounds. Is he aware that the so-called investigation now going on will again cost millions of pounds, mainly going to the very highly paid lawyers who come up with condemnations, but no action will be taken? Can the Minister guarantee that some of these people will be sacked for the way in which they have milked the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of pounds?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have no intention of prejudging the case.

As it is well known that municipal airfields all lose money, will my hon. Friend take steps to persuade or coerce Kent county council to dispose of the disused West Mailing airport and not to waste the Kentish ratepayers' money in trying to bring it back into unwanted and unwarranted service?

That supplementary question does not arise from this question. However, I shall draw it to the attention of my appropriate hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish a Green Paper on the administration of the building regulations.

My right hon. Friend expects to publish a Command Paper by the end of this month.

That answer will be welcomed by everyone. However, can the Minister give an indication on how he intends to enforce the regulations, bearing in mind that there could be complications if responsibility is given to private organisations and taken away from local authorities?

As the hon. Lady will understand, I cannot anticipate the proposal which will come forward in the Command Paper. However, I assure her that while we wish to see and explore the possibility of a significant measure of self-regulation by the building and construction industry in this area, we also see a continuing important role for local authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is nearly 14 months since the Secretary of State spoke to the National House Building Council and launched the consultation process on this matter? Are we not past the stage of Green Papers? Should not we be getting on with decisions and action?

My hon. Friend will see from the answer which I have given that I referred to a Command Paper, which denotes something between a Green Paper and a White Paper. I assure him that we shall want to combine some specific proposals with elements of this new scheme, which we wish to expose to further consultation.

Will the Minister take into account that no matter what kind of building regulations we have, some builders will build faulty houses, even for owner-occupiers? There have been two such cases in my constituency. Will the Minister ensure that builders who build faulty houses and go into liquidation must, before being allowed to build, put money into a special fund so that owner-occupiers will be compensated if necessary and not be dependent on local government?

As the hon. Member will be aware, extensive cover is provided through the NHBC guarantee scheme. As building societies will not normally advance, except on properties covered by that scheme, virtually all new building falls within the scope of that scheme.

As well as dealing, it is to be hoped, with matters relating to unifying and simplifying the building regulations, will the Command Paper include the crucial matter of dealing with the law of liability which is overdue since the Anns v. Merton case?

My hon. Friend will be aware that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has specific responsibility for reviewing the law in this area. I assure my hon. Friend that the issue of liability and indemnity, which is one of the central questions involved in any change of the existing system of building control, will be covered in the proposals that we want to put forward.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he expects to meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss the level of grants to housing associations for 1981–82.

My right hon. Friend announced on 15 December that the Housing Corporation would receive £491 million in 1981–82 for distribution to housing associations. I expect to receive the Housing Corporation's formal programme for approval very shortly and will be discussing it with the corporation's chairman.

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State has undertaken to make additional funds available for the frail elderly? On the next occasion that he meets the chairman of the corporation, will he tell him how much extra money will be available to ensure that this group and the disabled get special help?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the specific increased allocation of £12 million for 1981–82, which is to be spent on the provision of additonal hostel accommodation by the Housing Corporation. Detailed decisions on which schemes will be covered by that allocation of £12 million are for the Housing Corporation, but I expect that some of it will be devoted to schemes for the elderly.

Will the Minister make a statement very soon about his intention to allocate the £12 million for the housing of the single homeless, because some housing associations have difficulty in understanding his proposals in that regard?

As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), the detailed allocation of the £12 million for special needs hostels will be a matter for the Housing Corporation. As I have also said in reply to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), I assure the House that that sum will not be concentrated solely on London. There will be a regional distribution, and that will be a matter for the Housing Corporation.

Will my hon. Friend discuss with the chairman of the Housing Corporation the discrepancy between the numbers of acquisitions and completions by the Housing Corporation? Will he further discuss whether it is necessary to have the double scrutiny that takes place now between the DOE and the Housing Corporation?

There is a substantial discrepancy between the numbers of properties acquired and their completion. That discrepancy has continued over many years. The Housing Corporation is in the process of examining whether schemes which have been acquired and approved to be acquired previously are likely to go ahead in the near future and whether there is any scope for reducing the number of schemes in the pipeline in that way.

When discussing these matters with the chairman of the Housing Corporation, will the Minister place some emphasis on the co-operative form of housing association and the way in which development there has been almost arrested in the last year? At the same time, will he make a statement about his staircase policy and how that fits into the management of a housing association by the tenants?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a variety of co-operative forms of housing associations. Neither the Housing Corporation nor the Department makes any distinction between the approval of schemes of normally constituted housing associations and co-operative housing associations. They are treated on the same basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, in order of priority, the criteria he has established to determine the level of rate support grant; if coastal erosion is on the list; and, if not, whether he will include it next year.

I refer my hon. Friend to annex J of "The Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1980" for the indicators used in the calculation of grant-related expenditure. It is not possible to list those in order of priority. An indicator relating to expenditure on coast protection is included.

Does my right Friend agree that expenditure on coastal erosion should nevertheless qualify as essential rather than desirable expenditure? Does he accept the principle that if a bit of England falls into the sea, England should pay?

My hon. Friend will be able to pursue his arguments on this point more effectively under the new system than under the previous system, under which it would have been impossible to know what sums of money were effectively allocated for this purpose or the basis on which they were distributed. I am not satisfied with the present system, but it is the best that could be introduced this year. Owing to the lack of adequate statistics on coastal erosion, it does not take that factor as fully into account as I would like. There is scope for improvement. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make constructive suggestions as to how this might be handled.

Whatever the criteria for the rate support grant, is it not a fact that the Department of the Environment is cutting back? Where is the sense in cutting back the rate support grant, forcing local authorities to cut back in both the private and public sectors, and simply transferring money to the Department of Employment in larger payouts on lengthening dole queues? It is crazy economics and it makes nonsense for those joining the dole queues.

The numbers who join the dole queues will be very much influenced by the attitudes of local authorities to the levels of the rating bills that they face.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria guide him in giving grant aid to a district council that applies to him under the urban programme Circular No. 21.

The criteria are set out in the circular. Generally, all projects should operate in or for the benefit of urban areas where there is special social need, and aim to alleviate the deprivation identified in that area.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the Fenland district council, which wrote to him, now has a much worse situation than at the time of writing? With the closure of Smedleys, the second largest employer in north Cambridgeshire, the position needs all the sympathy that the right hon. Gentleman can give to it.

I am aware of the difficult situation in Wisbech as a result of the announcement of that closure and the problems that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised in the House. We shall not be able to make an announcement on the urban programme grants until early April. However, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed the announcement that I made yesterday about the improved arrangements for COSIRA, which is active in his constituency. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the new arrangements under which COSIRA in the SIA areas will now be able to be a lender of last resort, and will operate schemes for fifty-fifty workshops in conjunction with local authorities in those areas, which we believe will help to provide employment in such areas.

Will the Minister assure the House that any district council which, through the urban programme circular, funds citizens' rights centres and neighbourhood advice centres will not subsequently have that funding removed on pseudo-political grounds as his noble Friend has recently done in Sunderland?

We believe that such advice centres should be genuinely operated for the service of the people in the area, not on a party political basis for propaganda and other purposes. We shall stick closely to the guidelines that were laid down by the Labour Government and by the Labour Lord Chancellor who said that such advice centres should not be used for political purposes. We intend to see that that is implemented.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the present moratorium on new council house building has on housing subsidies payable in the current year under section 2 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975; and whether any decrease in subsidies will be carried over in the calculation of the base amount of housing subsidies for 1981–82 payable under section 98 (1)(b) of the Housing Act 1980.

The only subsidy effect of the moratorium has been to avoid payments being incurred on capital expenditure in excess of the national cash limit. The base amount for subsidy under the new subsidy system beginning on 1 April is the amount of subsidy payable in respect of 1980–81.

Is the Minister conceding that the moratorium on building basically means that there has been no new capital costs subsidy earned during this period and that, as a result, there will be an artificially low level of subsidy incorporated in next year's base amount, or is he saying—I am not clear—that it will not take into account the lower capital costs subsidy which is clearly going to local authorities as a result of the moratorium?

I assure the hon. Lady that subsidy is still being paid on projects that are in the process of construction and completion now. Those subsidies have continued since the moratorium started. The only effect of the moratorium is to try to ensure that the national cash limit that was previously agreed is adhered to for 1980–81. I do not accept the hon. Lady's view that there has been an artificial reduction in the amount of subsidy. We are simply trying to keep the level of expenditure down to the level that was originally announced.

Will the Minister come completely clean on this matter? Is he aware that the Government have stopped local authority housing programmes in their tracks for nearly six months? Will he now make clear to the House whether, in addition to that, he is now pinching subsidy from those local authorities as a result of his preventing them from incurring capital costs?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question of any subsidy being pinched. The rules on subsidies have remained unchanged. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to recognise that, as a result of the changes that we made with the introduction of a new system, there will be a number of significant items of expenditure that will be admissible for subsidy for the first time from 1 April.

Is the Minister aware that we need to get this matter absolutely clear? Is he further aware that under section 92 of the Act it is perfectly clear that the subsidy for the next financial year is very much affected by the base amount? May I ask the Minister to make clear to the hundreds of local authorities that are affected and want to know their subsidy entitlement whether the depression of the base amount caused by the moratorium will mean that they will lose subsidy in the coming financial year?

The subsidy rules applying to this current financial year are wholly unchanged.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what priority the Government are giving to the public expenditure in the new towns as against investment in the inner urban areas.

As the new towns programme reaches completion the level of public investment is bound to decline. Our new initiatives in the inner cities will increase the level of public investment there. Expenditure in both areas has, however, to be considered in the light of available resources and demands from elsewhere. There are no precise formulae for measuring the relative priorities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speedy winding up of the new towns commission and the new towns corporations would help to free a large amount of public expenditure, which could then be used for urban renewal?

I shall with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a further statement about that later this afternoon. If we do not spend so much public money on the new towns, resources will be available for expenditure elsewhere. However, it does not follow that savings in the new towns would flow into the inner urban areas.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman discriminated against new towns, in that he has applied a rate support settlement to them which in many cases has deprived them of the necessary funds and housing subsidies? Is he aware that to date he has postponed and refused to reach a settlement on section 10 grant matters, which means that many of the new towns are unable to deal with the problems of maintenance and design defects of the houses which were passed on to them by the development corporation? Is that not a matter about which he should be ashamed?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that a meeting will be conducted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in about two weeks to discuss the precise problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I would not in any way accept the criticisms implied in his question about the rate support grant. We have simply reallocated to other authorities whose cases, on the measure of an independent basis of analysis, seemed to be more critical than those of the authorities that lost grants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been given to councilors regarding the extent of local authorities' statutory duties.

Although we do not issue guidance to councillors as a matter of course, we seek to respond helpfully to specific requests. Generally, the responsibility for advising councillors on these matters rests with their officers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many local authorities officers lead councillors to believe that they have a statutory responsibility, whereas sometimes the councillors could exercise discretion? Would it not be a good idea to publish a code of responsibility so that councillors know in which areas they could exercise discretion and those in which they have statutory responsibilities?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have been reviewing the range of statutory duties. In the Local Government, Planning and Land Act we removed about 300 controls and duties that were applicable to local authorities. At present we are having discussions with the associations on the further review that has been conducted on statutory duties. On completion of those discussions, we may find that there is some good sense in my hon. Friend's proposition.

Is it not a fact that local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient houses fit for human habitation under the Public Health Act? Is not the Minister aware that the policy of the Government in running down housing completions to the lowest figure since the 1920s is an attempt to stop councils from carrying out their statutory duty to ensure that people have decent homes?

I imagine that the Labour Government had that statutory duty in mind when they halved the housing programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the effect of the rate support grant settlement on the London borough of Bromley.

My hon. Friend has written to me on this subject. I have also received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims), and my Department is engaged in correspondence with the borough council on a detailed aspect of the calculation of block grant.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bromley has a long and proud tradition of prudent housekeeping and steady rate levels? Is he further aware that because of his rate support grant settlement there is now talk of a 30 per cent. rate increase next year? Should not local councils which have always followed sound Conservative policies be rewarded and encouraged, rather than penalised in this way?

As I sought to explain to the House earlier, there is a problem for London this year. In previous years its share of grant has increased from 13·3 per cent. to 17 per cent. of the national share. That means that other authorities in different parts of the country had their share correspondingly diminished. On an assessment of need, we thought that the shift of grant was excessive. That resulted in a shift back of the grant. The grant for London is still at a high level in historic terms, but I appreciate that this year it poses problems for a number of London authorities. I recognise the difficulties of Bromley, and I note the remarks of my hon. Friend about the efforts that it has made to economise in the past.

I regard that as a constituency question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by local authorities in disposing of land which they bought under the Community Land Act.

Information on such disposals is no longer being collected as the remaining sites have now been merged with the general land holdings of local authorities. We are urging authorities to dispose of land suitable for private development.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the local authorities bought a lot of land under the Community Land Act but resold hardly any? Is he further aware that the process of resale that was required under the Act should be carefully monitored by his Department to ensure that the land is sold?

I fully accept my hon. Friend's view that we must do everything possible to persuade and urge local authorities to dispose of land that is suitable for private development. I shall bear his point in mind.

Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend and others that, although they are now complaining that the Community Land Act resulted in land being bought, only a few years ago people such as the Minister and most of his colleagues on the Tory Front Bench said that the Community Land Act should be scrapped because it was not doing any good and land was not being purchased?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the sheer costs involved in the transaction have shown a poor return on the money spent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the fact that 1981 is the International Year of Disabled People, whether he will sponsor a conference on designing for the disabled.

I have no plans to sponsor a conference, but my Department is undertaking a wide range of measures, some of which cover designing for the disabled, in connection with the International Year of Disabled People. These were set out in the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on 19 January.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, many buildings are still being constructed in this country in which the access for handicapped people is inadequate, to say the least? Is he further aware that many of those buildings are in the public sector? Does he not agree that the time has come for the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends to act at least catalytically with local authorities, public bodies and private builders to try to get it right? Is he aware that the technical knowledge is there, but there is a lack of action?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are commissioning a film on housing for the disabled, in order to demonstrate what can be done. [Interruption.] Perhaps there should be a little less levity on a matter which causes deep concern to many of us. There is clearly a need for new initiatives, especially involving the private sector. I hope that the film will stimulate interest among private developers as well as local authorities and housing associations.

Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that the disabled will be able to get access to the film? Will he show an earnest of his intent by supporting a Private Member's Bill on the subject of access, supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House? Will he please now give a firm undertaking that he will not oppose the Second Reading, and give us a chance to discuss the matter in this Chamber and upstairs?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that my Department is specifically interested in trying to get a proper focus on housing for disabled people. That is why we have joined with the Royal Institute of British Architects and with the National House Building Council to have a special focus on housing for disabled people by means of a design award.

Should it not now be mandatory for every public building to have adequate access for the disabled? If we took that action alone, it would be a significant step forward.

I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of public buildings constructed over the past decade or so have the provision for which he is asking. It is much more difficult to conjure out of the air access to buildings that have already been built. I recall that Labour Members were not saying this when their party was in office.

Will the Minister stop havering about conferences and films and give the House a clear undertaking that he will take administrative—and, if necessary, legislative—action to ensure that there is proper access for disabled people, particularly those in wheelchairs, into all public buildings?

I covered that point in the last answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of grant take-up under the Government's homes insulation scheme.

The take-up of allocations varies from district to district, but we expect a much higher level of take-up nationally in 1980–81 than in the first two years of the scheme, when only 44 per cent. and 56 per cent. of the large sums allocated for the homes insulation scheme were spent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he tell us what proportion of the insulation grants will go to the elderly and disabled? Is he satisfied with the take-up by these groups of people? If not, what will he do to improve the take-up?

My hon. Friend will know that the special scheme for the elderly was recently introduced only, and it is too early to give the House any proper detail. All I can say is that, from the evidence that we have from all over the country, the majority of local authorities still have funds available for this special category.

Will the Minister accept that a great deal of money is being wasted by heat being pumped into people's homes and going out through the roof because of inadequate insulation? Will he also agree that there is a need to use many of our unemployed building workers by embarking on a scheme that would be. not only environmentally desirable but also economically advantageous?

I have to remind the House that a massive amount of progress has been made with regard to uninsulated roofs since the schemes were first introduced and supported on each side of the House. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about something like topping up, I can only say that the cost-effective benefit of insulation comes in the first amount and not in topping up.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that adequate publicity is given to the availability of insulation grants, particularly bearing in mind that the funds available for those grants next year will be a full 30 per cent. greater in real terms than is the case at present?

I shall do my best to make everybody aware of the benefit that people will get to their own pockets from insulation, apart from any grants which may help them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the council of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed about the effects on it of the rate support grant settlement.

I have received a letter from the mayor.

Will the Minister explain why the council of the borough of Berwick is threatened with penalty under the rate support grant system if it does not raise its council house rents, not by £3 a week as in other areas but by £5 a week, bearing in mind that it has not been making subsidies to council house rents out of its rate funds? Why should good housekeeping be penalised, and why should the tenants in Berwick-upon-Tweed have to pay that increase?

This issue is concerned with the sharing out of grant. It is a matter of how to distribute a fixed sum of grant. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is that more grant should go to the authorities charging lower rents than to those charging higher rents. If he thinks the matter through, he will see the logic in the distribution formula that was adopted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the increased net cost to the Exchequer of cutting local authority staff is in line with the Chancellor's criteria for reducing the public sector borrowig requirement.

Under present policies on local authority current and capital expenditure, there will not be any net cost to the Exchequer of cutting local authority staff. On the contrary, there will be a net gain to public funds leading to a reduction in the PSBR in line with the Chancellor's objectives.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider that reply in the light of the experience of, say, the London borough of Haringey? If that council had carried out the recommendations made by the Secretary of State, it would have sacked about 3,800 members of its work force, at a total cost of about £16½ million to the Exchequer, assuming that those displaced people would not get other employment. Is that not in excess of the saving for which he is looking from the London borough of Haringey? Would it not therefore be a net cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The hon. Member completely fails to take into account what the damage will be in terms of rising unemployment if that authority imposes on the private sector the level of rate increase that it characteristically imposes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county of Leicestershire, although it has had its rate support grant reduced this year, has nevertheless managed to restrain its proposed rate increase to only 4 per cent., and that this is a marvellous effort in the interests of business and other ratepayers.

I am sure that the response from the private sector as a result will be totally different from that which is achieved in the London borough of Haringey.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to protect the environment of the River Thames in 1981.

I shall continue to use the powers available to me to try to improve the quality of development near the River Thames in London.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the River Thames at and near Twickenham is an asset that is very highly valued by the community, with its views, its parks and its trees? Will he ensure that it is the policy of his Department to stop the construction of any large or ugly buildings along the river banks?

I must not talk in detail about particular proposals which might prejudice my quasi-judicial position on planning matters, but in general terms I have as a high priority the raising of the quality of architecture for development on Thamesside.

Will the Secretary of State accept that in the dockland area of London many of the inhabitants believe that the environment should be protected from the urban development corporation and from the powers of the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that if the urban development corporation is established in London dockland, he will direct its officers to secure the full co-operation of the boroughs, and that he will do everything to ensure that that is provided by them by their free will?

I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that this matter is now being considered in another place, and that it will be considered again in this House. It would be wrong for me to follow him down the line of potential controversy when what I now seek is a far better deal for the people living in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the existing town and country planning legislation, including the development control system and relevant structure plans, is adequate to protect the countryside generally, and good agricultural land in particular, from the pressure for industrial, commercial and residential development in the vicinity of the M25 London orbital motorway.

Yes, Sir.

I am only partially reassured by that answer. Recognising that there will be unique pressure on land because of this motorway, is my hon. Friend prepared to ask his right hon. Friend to call in any planning application that is contrary to an approved structure plan to which a local planning authority is minded to grant permission?

As my hon. Friend will know, I cannot comment in detail on the plans now being called for in a public inquiry in relation to motorway development.