asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are now operating low-cost home ownership schemes.

Inquiries indicate that some 165 local authorities currently have low-cost home ownership schemes.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, will he give wide publicity to the schemes, particularly in view of reports in the press about Lambeth council and the fact that there are 2,000 applications in Wolverhampton council that have not yet received attention from that authority?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving extensive publicity to low-cost homeownership opportunities. We are making arrangements to publish written infomation about it and we are also making a film about the low-cost opportunities available to all local authorities.

Is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that in a written reply two days ago he had to admit that in his constituency and in that represented by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not one house had been sold by the end of December under the new right-to-buy proposals?

The hon. Member will be aware that the right-to-buy took effect only on 3 October. I assure him that the record of district councils such as South Oxfordshire and Tonbridge and Mailing in giving council tenants the right to buy is better than that of most Labour, and some Liberal, authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in Lambeth wish to buy their council homes and that 300 to 400 letters are being held up? Does he agree that that is scandalous, and that something must be done as soon as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, there are later questions on the Order Paper about the implementation of the right to buy. I shall come to those questions and refer to Lambeth again shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his policy towards the Football League proposal to stage matches on a Sunday.

The decision taken by the Football League is not one in which I have any standing. The question of policy concerning sporting events on a Sunday is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the staging of matches on Sunday will bring extra revenue to the football clubs and will be of benefit to the players? Does he agree also that it will result in a certain amount of nuisance for the residents around the grounds and extra work for the police? Will he make representations to the Football League and suggest that these games should be the exception rather than the rule, so that we do not see a wholesale switching of games from Saturday to Sunday?

I note what my hon. Friend says. The games are relatively few at the moment. They are confined to a maximum of 6. those that have taken place in Divisions III and IV have been reasonably successful. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Football League should consider carefully the effect on the local environment and on the work load of the police, and the problem of public transport. However, those difficulties can be resolved.

This is not just a matter for the Football Association and the Football League. There is here a social problem. Does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of Division IV teams increasing their gates from 1,500 to 5,000? In some of the big cities, where the gates are 40,000 and 50,000, the grounds such as Maine Road in Manchester, are in the midst of hundreds of terraced houses, so that there are serious problems on the days on which the matches are played. Will the Minister urge the FA and the Football League to have discussions with local representatives and the people who live near the grounds before action is taken to play games on Sundays in those areas?

I accept what the hon. Member has said. He knows that so far there have been only Division III and IV matches. If there were Division I or II matches, and major games, there would be complications. I shall draw the attention of the Football Association and the Football League to the exchanges that have taken place in the House this afternoon.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing that people can do on Sunday is to go to church, and after they have done that they can engage in any lawful activity?

I support my hon. Friend's view. Of course, the wish of many people is to go to church and perhaps later go to a football match, but it is a new idea in this country to have these football matches on Sundays, and I think that we shall have to see how it settles down.

Does the Minister agree that the law on Sunday entertainment is totally unfair as between one leisure activity and another? For example, music and the theatre are lawful, cricket, athletics, golf and Rugby League matches are tolerated, Association Football is experimenting, and racing wishes to come under starter's orders. In these circumstances, will the Minister take action to clear up the confusion and also to do what I believe most hon. Members wish to do, namely, relate the social implications to the sporting considerations, which also are involved?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the interpretation of the Act is for the courts. It has always been considered in the House that a change in the law is a matter for Private Members' legislation, and on the last occasion when such a Bill came before the House in 1974 it did not get a Second Reading.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that all local authorities supplying information on the value of land held for publication in the register of vacant and under-used land do so on a comparable basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to compel local authorities to dispose of vacant and under-used land.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the setting up of registers of vacant and derelict land; and what steps he plans when the registers are complete.

The compilation of registers for 33 districts and London boroughs is under way, with the aim of publication in April. Public bodies are providing information according to standard criteria, under guidance from my Department. This does not include information on land values. I already have power to direct the disposal of land entered on a register, but I am hoping that the publication of site details, coupled with supporting work by the local authorities and business communities, will in most cases be enough to activate disposals.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but will he try to ensure that no delay arises from either bureaucratic or cost reasons due to the overvaluing of land in public hands?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says, since I think that overvaluation can be a major stumbling block to the release of land. I shall certainly want to look at that, although it will be a matter in which the district valuer will have a crucial part to play.

How much time will my right hon. Friend give to local authorities to make an effective start on the disposal of vacant land before he takes action?

My hon. Friend will understand that it is not just a question of the local authorities. It is all publicly owned land. I intend that the review of the registers should begin as soon as practicable, under the leadership of my Department, after the establishment of the registers in April.

What further steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the land referred to in his original reply is released for sale or is utilised as quickly as possible, without regard to historic or book values, so that high valuation prices do not inhibit its being dealt with?

My hon. Friend will understand that, in the end, value is the figure which a particular piece of land can realise on the open market, and I shall have to bear that in mind. However, I assure him and the House that no time will be lost in scrutinising the lists of sites that appear on the registers. I have already begun the process of setting up a tripartite team in each area, consisting of a representative of the local authority, of my Department and of the private sector, to go through every site on those registers, and I shall want to be satisfied before I agree that such sites should remain in the public sector.

In view of what the Secretary of State has said, will he confirm that the real purpose of these registers is to force local authorities to sell public land, whatever the future value of that land to the public might be? Why is he putting on statutory or semi-statutory tribunals representatives of private landed interests?

I think that in his quest to find some sinister motive the hon. Gentleman has grossly misrepresented the situation. The power to direct disposal lies in my hands, subject to the House, but I am entitled to look for advice on the widest possible basis, especially in these matters, if I may say so, following the precedent established by the Labour Secretary of State when he put forward the proposals for the urban programmes in the first place. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no sinister motives. I am just trying to get land released so that jobs and wealth can be created, which I should have thought was an objective that he would support.

Since land is our most valuable natural resource, is it not criminal that local authorities, statutory undertakers and public corporations are sitting on land, and will my right hon. Friend therefore consider extending this register beyond the 33 local authorities to the country as a whole?

As this was a new method of achieving the disposal of land, I felt that it was right to proceed at a reasonable pace in the first instance and to take 33 registers as a means of finding out how the process worked. I am now considering requiring local government as a whole to declare its holdings of land in general. This would mean that there would be availability of knowledge, but that would not be the same as establishing a register in the first instance. The establishment of a register carries with it the power of compulsory disposal, and that would be the second step if I felt that the revelations coming from disclosure of land in the hands of local government justified such a register.

As the Secretary of State has taken power to order land on the register to be disposed of to private interests, will he now put his belief in competition to the test by instituting a register of privately owned land and then taking power to order that to be sold to public undertakings?

What the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that the private sector cannot afford to hold land. There are already all the disciplines of the market place. If it was so apparent that devices of that sort were necessary, why did the Labour Party not introduce them?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has plans for the privatisation of the Ordnance Survey; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to make a statement about the future of the Ordnance Survey.

I hope in the next few weeks to be able to make a statement on the recommendations of the Ordnance Survey review committee and on an immediate operating remit for the Ordnance Survey. I also have in hand an examination of the possibilities for giving the Ordnance Survey a more independent status. This last study will take rather longer to complete.

May we have an assurance that the Minister will not jettison 200 years of expertise for the sake of party political dogma, without a full debate in the House? Secondly, will he accept that the pressures on private businesses are too great for them to ensure the excellence of cartography maintained by the Ordnance Survey, an excellence that private business cannot emulate?

I have the highest respect for the quality of the work of the Ordnance Survey, and I believe that that respect is widely shared throughout the House. Nevertheless, I wonder whether hon. Members are aware that the Ordnance Survey will this year make a deficit of about £21 million. This is an expensive facility, and it would be irresponsible for any Government not to see how that facility, which the whole House prizes, might be organised in such a way that the call on the public Exchequer might be modified.

In view of the considerable interest in Ordnance Survey matters in the House, will the Minister give a guarantee that he will make an oral statement about his proposals? Secondly, will he bear particularly in mind the recommendation of the Serpell committee that there should be major investment in the Ordnance Survey to ensure that its mapping techniques could be brought up to date, with particular regard to microprocessors and the like?

The first matter is not one for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Clearly, however, we shall wish to keep the House well informed on our proposals. As I have said, we hope shortly to make a statement to the House, in whatever form is thought approporiate, about the review, and later to make a statement about a possible alternative status.

Is the deficit to which my right hon. Friend referred carried on the Defence Vote, or on the Vote of his Department?

I believe that it is carried on the Department, but I think that it comes under the Treasury as well.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before reaching a final decision he will have the fullest possible consultation with all the trade unions and staff representatives at the Ordnance Survey, and also with representatives of organisations which use Ordnance Survey maps extensively?

We have already informed the unions, whose concern about the matter we understand, that we are considering these matters. At an appropriate stage there will, of course, be further discussions with them. We shall certainly be consulting more widely, and also with the private sector, which is obviously concerned. As many hon. Members know, there is concern in the private sector about what, in certain aspects of the more popular maps, it feels is subsidised competition with which it has to compete.

My right hon. Friend will know that the whole of the Ordnance Survey is based in my constituency and that I have already presented a petition of about 2,000 signatures to his right hon. Friend—for whose acknowledgment I am grateful. Is it possible for the Member of Parliament most concerned in this problem also to be consulted? If this undertaking is to be privatised in any way, does my hon. Friend agree that full consultation should take place not only with the unions, but with the Member of Parliament, on the welfare of constituents who rely on pay packets from the Ordnance Survey? Is he aware that those people are very cooperative, but that, nevertheless, indecision breeds fear?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be very willing and anxious to hear any representations that he wishes to make on this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ordnance Survey is regarded throughout the world as a prize national asset of this country and that if he and his right hon. Friend tamper with that national asset for reasons of party dogmatism they will be committing an act of vandalism that will not easily be forgivable.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to this as though he were talking about some aspect of the national heritage—[HON. MEMBERS:"It is."]—as though it were in some sense like the Crown jewels or some inanimate object. This is a dynamic and important facility. It is involved in high technology in the development of new production processes for maps. It is not one that can be fossilised, put on the shelf and admired from a distance. It is one that must be properly organised. It is also an expensive facility. We recognise our responsibilities in this matter. We recognise the quality of the performance of the Ordnance Survey. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that that quality is achieved at a cost that the nation can afford.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been earmarked for the Liverpool urban development corporation and the partnership committee, the general development area and the traditional urban aid programmes on Merseyside; and what percentage of the total will come from central Government.

At outturn prices, the proposed UDC's initial allocation in 1981–82 will be £17 million. Further sums may be allocated in respect of certain land acquisitions. The Liverpool partnership will get £17·6 million, and Wirral—Merseyside's only programme authority—about £2¾ million, depending on the quality of its programme. The other Merseyside districts designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act—Sefton and St. Helens—will receive some resources for industrial and commercial projects—how much depends on demand and availability of resources. We hope to announce decisions on traditional urban programme circular 21 in April.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the principal reason why private investment and private industry have been driven out of the centre of Liverpool and other large cities is the increasing level of Government intervention? If he believes in joint enterprise between the Government and the private sector, and in real partnership, what is he doing to see that that takes place?

I have made it clear that in future the expenditure programmes under the urban programme will be authorised by me only if there has been full consultation with the private sector—for example with the chamber of commerce in Liverpool. I have also introduced—and we hope shortly to see established—an urban development corporation to reclaim the most difficult areas in Liverpool. That has substantial representation from the private sector, including, of course, the chairman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, of the total of national homelessness, what percentage there is in Greater London.

From the latest statistics supplied by local authorities in England, we estimate that in the first half of 1980 local authorities accepted responsibility for securing accommodation for about 29,000 households. Of these, some 29 per cent. were initially accepted by London boroughs.

Is the Minister aware that in the calendar year 1980 there were only 4,100 local authority lets in the Greater London area, compared with 24,000 in 1977? Does he agree that this not only deprives the homeless and those on the waiting list of any real hope, but is a damning indictment of the Government's housing policy and that of Conservative local authorities?

An even more damning indictment is the deliberate attempt by the Labour Party to sabotage shorthold and the inefficiency of the majority of London Labour boroughs in keeping houses empty because of party dogma.

Does my hon. Friend accept that while the well-documented aberrations of the Opposition, some of which he has just given us, are well-known and accepted on this side of the House—indeed, they ignore the national surplus in housing—there is a particular problem in London, which I earnestly commend to him and ask whether he recognises that the market alone is probably unable to cope with it.

I think that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the particular problems of London, but it is right to point out, for example, that London's HIP allocation is about £548 million, which represents £200 for every household, compared with £85 per household in the rest of the country? London has not done all that badly. It must also be remembered that if Labour boroughs started selling their properties to the tenants they could augment their HIP allocations.

I congratulate the Government on at least providing £12 million this year for the renewal of many of the hostels for the homeless that are run by the Salvation Army and the Church Army, but is the Minister aware of the press conference held last week by the Archbishop of Canterbury and those two organisations? Is he aware of the great anxiety felt by those organisations, which deal with homeless people? Is he prepared to meet them to discuss the major crisis that they are experiencing, in view of the fact that they say that £12 million will not be enough to cope with the growing problem of homelessness that they are trying to tackle?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I are always delighted to meet anyone who has a view to put. It is perhaps a trifle unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention, first, that this is the first time that any Government have done this sort of thing, and secondly, that the Archbishop congratulated my right hon. Friend on this initiative?

Does my hon. Friend agree that the last Adminstration's destruction of the private rented sector did more than anything else to precipitate homelessness? Will he try a little harder to reverse those policies?

We hope very much that the provisions of the Housing Act 1980—apart from shorthold—to encourage the private rented sector will indicate to people that this is a very important sector. The most helpful development in the provision of additional housing would be for the Labour Party to live in the 1980s, and not in the 1930s.

When the Minister quotes the HIP allocation for Greater London this year, does he acknowledge that that HIP allocation is less than 50 per cent. of what was requested? Will he also acknowledge that the London Boroughs Association, which is Tory controlled, now says that 75 per cent. of all the boroughs' lets in 1982 will be taken by homeless families, and that the real problem is that they do not have the money to make any housing starts over the next few years?

I hope that the hon. Lady realises that it would be unrealistic to allocate the limited housing capital available on the basis of bids. The greediest would make the biggest bids. We have tried to relate housing to need. That is what is required.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will abolish the Lambeth and Hackney, Islington partnership committees.

No, Sir. I have already announced that after a review of inner city policy I do not intend to change the present status of partnership authorities. However, as I indicated in my statement of 18 September last year, I have refused to authorise expenditure on new statutory schemes by Lambeth and Hackney London boroughs, which are not only high overspenders but have acted contrary to the spirit of partnership in ignoring the Government's calls for current expenditure reductions in 1980–81.

As it is clear that my right hon. Friend is dissatisfied with the working of the partnership agreements, will he abolish them?

In the majority of authorities, partnerships contribute towards solving the problems of inner urban areas. That is why I decided to continue with them. Unfortunately, there are a small number of authorities that seem determined to do the maximum amount of damage possible to their areas by high overspending. I am not prepared to add to the burden that has already been placed on ratepayers, by continuing with the projects of those specific authorities.

Is the Secretary of State aware of his hon. Friend's impudence in raising matters that affect constituencies other than his own, which is exceeded only by his invincible ignorance about those areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that an area such as Hackney faces enormous problems of deprivation, which he has simply failed to recognise? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the uncertainties that he has created for that local authority and for industries operating in that area are mutilating the authority's prospects? The right hon. Gentleman has the sole responsibility for that.

The Labour Party has put forward an interesting new doctrine, to the effect that hon. Members should not raise matters that affect the constituencies of others. I look forward to that admirable suggestion being taken up by his right hon. and hon. Friends. I care very much about the employment prospects in those boroughs where partnership arrangements exist. It is because I am appalled by the high level of rate increases—which the Labour Party has encouraged—and by the job-destroying effect that that has on those areas that I have taken such steps.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the way that local planning authorities are operating section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 agreements relating to regulating the development of land.

I have already asked the Property Advisory Group to examine this question. I expect it to report by the middle of the year and I shall then consider whether any action is needed.

As my right hon. Friend's Property Advisor}' Group identified this problem and brought it to his attention in a report as long ago as February 1980, will he deplore the increasing tendency of many local authorities to insist that a potential developer should provide council facilities and, in one case, a substantial amount of money, precedent to the granting of planning permission? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that planning determinations should be based on planning considerations only and not on the size of an applicant's pocket?

I can understand my hon Friend's concern about this matter. It raises issues that are of great concern to the House, including whether this is a proper use of planning power. The report, which I expect in June, will be very helpful on this matter, which—as my hon. Friend knows as well as anyone else—is complicated. I would rather not comment further at this stage.

When my right hon. Friend considers the subject will he bear in mind the fact that there is considerable disquiet in parts of the Lake District, where the planning authority is the Lake District special planning board? That board uses section 52 to grant planning permission on condition that the dwelling in question is inhabited by someone who is employed locally."Employed locally" has been defined on some occasions as meaning within the parish. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such conditions may not be legally enforceable? Will he further agree that they are, in any event, wholly unreasonable?

I should like to consider the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I was not aware that the provision was being used in such a restrictive way. Its use does not seem to be in line with the original intentions of section 52. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I shall have the matter considered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some developments involve local authorities in massive costs in terms of infrastructure and that there is bound to be considerable hard bargaining between developers and local authorities, particularly where highway development is concerned? Does he agree that his new capital expenditure control system, which severely limits capital expenditure even further, makes the possibility of reaching section 52 agreements even more difficult?

The hon. Gentleman's question merely underlines the wisdom of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his policy that where a house is built in a position which does not comply with planning consent it should be removed.

Not necessarily.

I thank my hon. Friend for that brief reply, but is he aware that by the ingenious use of the appeal machinery it is possible to delay almost indefinitely the demolition of a house that has been improperly built? Does my hon. Friend think that that is right? Will he consider a way of speeding up the machinery, so that if it is admitted that a house has been built in an improper position it can be demolished without delay?

My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many cases in which buildings can be ameliorated. Therefore, those buildings would not require demolition. We must ensure that we strike a fair balance, and that is why there is an appeal system.

Will the Minister accept that there is scope for great abuse in a system that makes it possible for someone who has applied for planning consent and had that consent refused and his appeal rejected to hold up the enforcement procedure while a fresh application is made? Does my hon. Friend agree that the procedure can go on almost indefinitely, and that legislative action may be needed to prevent that?

I appreciate that there should, and could, be ways of speeding up the appeals procedure so that such matters can be dealt with more quickly. My right hon. Friend and I are looking at the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what works or repairs are currently being carried out on the Palace of Westminster; at whose recommendation; and at what cost.

I have authorised essential structural repairs to and repainting of the roof of Victoria Tower at a cost of £80,000 after receiving professional advice from the Property Services Agency. A further £ 11,000 is likely to be spent in the current year as part of a continuous programme of replacement of the weathered statues around the colonnade.

Do the Minister's plans include the repair of the masonry around the Members' entrance, part of which collapsed this week? If not, will the hon. Gentleman be less selective in the dangers that he perpetuates and arrange for some of the masonry to fall outside the public entrance as well? Is the hon. Gentleman waiting for a by-election, the recess, or the death of all qualified stonemasons before the Palace is put into proper order?

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to exaggerate. We have already removed the potentially dangerous coping stones and string courses. We have brushed off all the spalling stone surfaces. We have spent over £105,000 on making sound the stonework above doorways. At some time during the Summer Recess we propose to start the replacement of the stone copings. As I have had to indicate to the House before, there is a major problem. With the best will in the world, we cannot, in a limited time, repair the weather ravages of a century or more.

When will work start on cleaning the whole of the outside of the Palace of Westminster? Does my hon. Friend agree that it badly needs doing? Would it not be far cheaper than giving aid to the nationalised industries?

I shall not allow myself to be drawn into the subject of aid to the nationalised industries. We are still trying to decide how best to allocate the limited funds available, bearing in mind that, as hon. Members will have seen in the Select Committee's report, the total cost is about £5 million.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government have no plans to privatise the Palace of Westminster?

This side of the Chamber has no such plans.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters his Department has received from council tenants complaining that their local authorities are hindering their right to buy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now satisfied that tenants of all councils are exercising their right to buy effectively and without hindrance from their local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking in connection with those local authorities who delay in processing the sale of council houses to their tenants who wish to buy.

The Department has received approximately 2,000 letters from tenants complaining about delay in a small minority of local authorities. Each of these individual complaints is being pursued by the Department with the authority concerned. In addition, the Department has now taken up formally with the following 16 authorities their rate of progress in implementing the right to buy. The authorities are Bolsover, Bristol, Doncaster, Great Yarmouth, Hull, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Wolverhampton and the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Camden Greenwich, Lambeth and Newham.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that depressing reply, bearing in mind that this is the law of the land? Will he examine the situation in which some local authorities are not passing documents to the valuation departments to enable the purchasing process to be continued? Following the exchanges on Lambeth, will he come to the House when he has investigated the matter and make a statement about the scandal that is mentioned in the newspapers today? Will he even consider putting in commissioners, bearing in mind that this is the law of he land and that we are here to defend the rights of the citizens?

On the general point that my hon. Friend rightly makes, I can assure him that the Government are concerned to see that all local authority, new town and housing association tenants with the right to buy are able to exercise that right. The Government will ensure that they are not denied that right through delays or administrative inaction by Labour-controlled local authorities.

What advice does my hon. Friend give to the many thousands of tenants of Labour-controlled authorities that are dragging their feet, and have not yet contacted his Department about what they can do about this matter? What positive assurance does he give that the Government will take action to oblige those recalcitrant councils to perform their rights and duties?

It is open to any tenant who has submitted a right-to-buy application form and who has not received a response notice to it within the statutory period, to tell the local authority and also to tell the Department. We have made that clear in the right-to-buy application form. Any tenant can make direct contact with the Department of the Environment and give the Department information about the application.

Will my hon. Friend consider adding to the list the district council of Gateshead where, it is understood, threats are being made to potential purchasers regarding the type of neighbours that they may receive if they proceed with a purchase? Is not this a subtle threat to a would-be purchaser and an infringement of the rights that exist under the Act? If my hon. Friend considers it as such, will he. in this type of case, exercise his powers under section 23 and intervene with the local authority concerned?

I shall be glad to consider any information that my hon. Friend cares to send me about the rate of progress in that authority. I assure him that I deplore absolutely any steps taken by elected councillors to try to intimidate or prevent people exercising their rights under the law.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has also received correspondence from people who are against the sale of council houses? Will he confirm that he has received from me a petition from the Townswomen's Guild and many other people, including the whole council in Swindon, against the proposed sale of the Railway Village, a listed building, erected in 1840, which proposal has aroused fears that our heritage will be destroyed?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the electorate as a whole had a chance to express a view in this matter in May 1979 and decided to give council tenants the statutory right to buy their homes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 1,000 of my constituents in Watford have applied for the right to buy from the local authority but have now received a letter from the local authority informing them that no repairs will be undertaken in their homes? Since the local authority, they believe, is dragging its feet, they find themselves in a position where no repairs can be made to their houses while no offers for them to buy have been made to them? What does my hon. Friend say about that situation?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the statutory responsibility of a local authority in respect of repairs to a given council house continues for such time as that council house remains in its ownership.

The hon. Gentleman persists in attacking Labour local authorities over the sale of council houses. Will he admit that his Department and its civil servants are responsible for compiling the statutory forms which have resulted in such confusion in Manchester that 29 per cent. of the 4,000 applications have had to be returned? This is a direct result of the guidance given by the Department of !he Environment. Is he aware that at the same time, in Manchester, the housing aid department has seen a doubling in the number of applications for a house in which to live?

I can inform the hon. Gentleman that I had the pleasure last Friday of meeting representatives of the Manchester Tenants Housebuyers Association. The entire burden of their remarks was that many thousands of applications for the right to buy have been submitted to Manchester council and many hundreds of applications—which I hope will soon become some thousands—have been acknowledged. The difficulty tenants experience is getting an adequate rate of progress from Manchester council.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been earmarked for the two urban development corporations, the six partnership committees, the 15 programme authorities, the assisted areas and the traditional urban aid programmes to rejuvenate the larger industrial cities; and what percentage of this comes from central Government funds.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been earmarked for the two urban development corporations, the six partnership committees, the 15 programme authorities, the assisted areas and the traditional urban aid programmes to revitalize the towns and cities; and what percentage of this comes from central Government funds.

The proposed allocations for 1981–82 at outturn prices are £82 million for UDCs, £113 million for partnerships, £49 million for programme authorities, £5 million for other designated districts and £44 million for the traditional urban programme. Urban programme grant is normally 75 per cent. UDCs will be 100 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is recognised in such old cities as Newcastle upon Tyne that Government assistance with rejuvenation is considerable? Will he also accept that revitalisation depends very much on private investment which can get our cities going? Will he encourage private investment to the maximum of his influence?

We are most anxious to do that. However much public money is available—it is obviously limited at present—we shall not get the improvements that are needed without the maximum contribution, to be used as pump-priming, from the private sector. I share my hon. Friend's desire in that respect.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the loss of rate support grant in London which may amount to £200 million could seriously hinder the rejuvenation of our capital city? Should there not be some tighter safety net to limit any furher loss?

I would not like to comment on the figures used by my hon. Friend. This matter will depend on the rating and spending decisions of individual authorities. This is a difficult problem. As my hon. Friend knows as well as anyone in the House, expenditure decisions by certain authorities can do more damage to the sort of objective we all share for urban programme or partnership objectives, which it is then impossible for public money to repair. We are most anxious to strike a proper balance in these matters.

Will the Minister accept that urban problems are not solely confined to industrial cities? South Tyneside faces as many problems as some industrial cities. Will he also accept that when the partnership and urban programme schemes were introduced it was stated that they would be reassessed, from time to time, with a view to grading them? In view of the high level of unemployment in South Tyneside, primarily due to the Government's policies, the cutback in local expenditure because of the redistribution of the rate support grant and the fact that the housing investment programme allocation means that virtually no new houses will be built and that many construction workers will be thrown on the dole, will the Minister now accept that South Tyneside should be reassessed as a partnership scheme instead of a programme scheme?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we reviewed the urban programme and the issue of partnership and programme authorities. We decided to make no change. South Tyneside is a programme authority and receives significant help in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have shown interest in the new film on low-cost home ownership made by his Department.

The Department's film on low-cost home ownership is attracting widespread interest, not only from local authorities, but from new towns, housing associations, private housebuilders, professional bodies and lending institutions. Arrangements are being made to show it to all housing authorities in England, approximately two-thirds of which have already arranged to see it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Opposition were so keen on the prospect of low-cost house buildings that they refused to allow the inclusion of a date for a showing of the film in The Whip? Will my hon. Friend encourage the remaining one-third of local authorities to make use of the film and thus stretch slender resources further under this admirable plan?

I assure my hon. Friend that outside the House there is some interest among Labour Party supporters in seeing the low-cost home ownership film. I am ready to acknowledge that a number of Labour-controlled authorities are engaging in homesteading, shared ownership and improvement for sale projects. I hope that we can reach a measure of agreement across the Floor of the House on the desirability of using this means of extending home ownership.

Does the Minister accept that instead of merely producing a film on low-cost home ownership it would be better, and much more in the interests of those buying their own homes, if he were to bring down the mortgage rate to the level that obtained when he became responsible for housing matters?

I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that despite the level of the mortgage rate we have had a significant extension of home ownership during the lifetime of the Government. We have on the statute book the most far-reaching means of extending home ownership that there has ever been.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of interest shown in the shorthold provision of the Housing Act.

It is still too early to assess the impact of shorthold in terms of lettings.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he estimate how many people are living in bad housing conditions because of the Labour Party's vindictive prejudice against the shorthold provisions and the private rented sector?

It would be difficult to give a precise figure. There is a significant number in the position that my hon. Friend has described. On the other hand, it is not as large as the number who are living in inadequate accommodation as a result of the Labour Government doing nothing to deal with the private rented sector, in which so many could otherwise have been housed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the decline in the private rented sector stems from the fact that the majority of those who have been unable to escape from that sector have incomes that are inadequate to enable them to pay rents that will give a return to landlords to allow them to compete with the subsidised return of a house purchaser. Does he accept that the fact that a house purchaser is subsidised and a private rented tenant is not lies at the root of the sector's decline?

No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are rent allowances to protect those on low incomes in the private rented sector. The root cause of the decline is inflation, which has placed capital values way above the income returns from controlled rents. We have tried to introduce a more flexible system to combat, in part at least, the trend that I have described, and that is why the shorthold experiment should be welcomed, as opposed to being deliberately sabotaged by the Labour Party.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the shorthold provisions, which, if properly respected, should go a long way to deal with the shortage of private rented accommodation. However, does he accept that two factors militate against the release of the large quantity of vacant space in private houses? The first factor is the difficulty of obtaining repossession once a tenancy has been granted. The second factor is the weight of the Rent Acts. Will he give further consideration to amending the law in both respects?

I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I think that he will find that the recent Housing Act has gone some way towards easing the situation and redressing the balance. The most dramatic advance that we introduced was, conspicuously, the shorthold concept. Nothing indicates more clearly the difficulty of trying to get genuine provision of more housing in the private rented sector than the deliberate sabotage on the part of the Labour Party. That indicates that it is far more interested in party dogma than in housing conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to continue rehabilitation and redevelopment assistance to those local authorities where new town corporations are to be wound up.

I shall be consulting the local authorities concerned about the implications for them of the target dates for winding up the relevant development corporations. I shall, of course, consider any points they raise about future assistance for urban renewal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Central Lancashire new town has received no official notification of the winding up of the corporation and that no consultation has been carried out with either the Central Lancashire development corporation or the local authorities concerned? Bearing in mind that the leader of Lancashire county council, together with an all-party delegation of boroughs affected by the winding up, is coming to Parliament this afternoon to discuss with Lancashire Members what should happen, has he any message that I can give them?

I am perturbed to hear what my hon. Friend says. A letter was sent to the chairman of the development corporation, as is normal and customary. I cannot be responsible for non-delivery, but I can firmly assure the House that the normal courtesies were rightly observed.

Is the Minister aware that many residents of new towns are now becoming convinced that the Government are prepared to discriminate against them? If there is to be any rehabilitation, or if further funds are to become available, what hope is there that the Government will behave any better than they did in the shameful matter of the settlement of the section 10 claims?

I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was designed to follow question 18.

No, it was not.

However, I am glad to answer it. I believe that the Government are doing all that they can to assist, within the resources available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet reached agreement with those local authorities to which new town houses have been transferred on the settlement of claims under section 10 of the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976.

No, Sir.

How does the Minister justify the disgraceful procrastination that has taken place on the settlement of the section 10 claims, which is preventing local authorities from carrying out essential works such as those required to be done in my constituency on a defective district heating scheme at Brocklesmead? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that unless some early action is taken he should not have the effrontery to criticise other authorities that keep houses empty? Does he understand that he is making it difficult for good authorities with good records—such as that enjoyed by the authority in my constituency—to keep their houses in a state in which they can be occupied?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that negotiations on the defects began when the Labour Government were in office.

They are still going on.

It is a difficult problem. I have made it clear time and again—the local authorities know this, even if they have not told the hon. Gentleman—that the settlement of the claim need not prejudice their starting on urgent repairs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present levels of house building, housing improvements and the level of rents in both the public and private sectors.

I am satisfied that local authorities now have the necessary powers and discretion to obtain the optimum housing value for the available public expenditure, and that in the private sector the building industry will respond very positively to the Government's low-cost home-ownership programme.

Does that mean that the Government are satisfied with the growing needs of those affected by the moratorium, by the inflationary increases in rents and the cost of rent rebates and rent allowances, which involves an enormous transfer of resources? Does it mean that the Government are satisfied with the high level of unemployment in the building trades, while the condition of the nation's housing stock deteriorates? Should not the Government be profoundly dissatisfied with their record over the past two years?

The hon. Member will be aware that as from 1 April it will be open to local authorities to increase the HIP allocations by the use of capital receipts. My latest information is that nearly 4,000 right-to-buy applications have been received by Rotherham district council, which suggests that the hon. Gentleman should be giving full support to a rapid processing of those applications, in order to increase the availability of housing capital expenditure in his constituency.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the anomaly building up in the public and private rented sectors, in that private rents are now far below the public rents that are paid through councils? Rent officers in the districts, certainly in Southampton, have had no indication from the Department of Environment—or any other indication—and they are still assessing rents on the basis of a formula that has not changed for the past five years.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the fixing of rents in the private sector is done on a statutory basis and it is not open to Ministers to intervene in the way in which the rent officer service carries its statutory responsibility. In the Housing Act 1980 we reduced the period between fair rent reviews from three years to two years to ensure that a fair rent maintained its value in the light of the current rate of inflation.

Can the Minister say whether council housing starts will reach 20,000 this year?

That will depend upon the decisions that the individual authorities take between improving their existing stock and starting new building.