asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken following the publication of his inspector's report on the inquiry into the Wandsworth borough plan.

In the case of local plans such as this, the inspector reports not to me but to the local authority. It is for the local authority and not for me to decide what action to take. Meanwhile, I have made it clear that the inspector's comments on the housing policy contained in the plan do not represent the Government's view.

Is it not the case that, following the publication of the inspector's report, the Tory leaders of Wandsworth borough council asked the Minister to dissociate himself from that report because they did not like it and found it embarrassing? Is that not a travesty of what should be a quasi-judicial process and an example of blatant interference in the internal party politics of Wandsworth borough council?

I disagree. The council commissioned the report. A study was undertaken. I expect that the council appointed the members of the commission and required them to report back to it on matters appertaining to its proposals in the local plan. It was for the council to decide what to do with the report. That remains the position.

Is the Minister aware that the distinguished and impartial inspector denounced the Conservative Wandsworth council's plan as a wholly inadequate effort by a lot of petty party politicians?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in making that statement the inspector was exceeding his competence and made an error of judgment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to increase the amount of grant to be made available to local authorities for the clearance of derelict land; and if he will make a statement.

The amount available to county and district councils for grant-aided derelict land reclamation has been increased in 1982–83 to £45 million, an improvement of some 20 per cent. on last year.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the importance of reclamation to the older industrial areas, such as the Northern region? Has he seen the transformation that has taken place in some areas? Is he aware that there is a strong rumour that the money for derelict land reclamation is to be reduced? Will he scotch that rumour and acknowledge that the rest of the country owes a great debt to older industrial areas?

It is obvious that I believe the scheme to be important. That is why I have increased the money to be made available this year by 20 per cent. over last year. I cannot choose which rumours the hon. Gentleman cares to believe, but they have no foundation.

Will my right hon. Friend impress on local authorities the importance of refraining from taking over people's homes and businesses unless there is a clear plan to redevelop the land? Does he agree that people should not be dispossessed, only to witness land lying derelict for many years?

My hon. Friend will realise that tight procedures are associated with compulsory purchase orders. However, it is important to remember that the Government have revealed vast acreages of land in public ownership that could be put to better use. We are now seeking systematically to disgorge that land.

Does the Secretary of State recall his visit to derelict sites in West Yorkshire on 19 March and his press statement that day in which he was reported to have said that £70 million would be available for the derelict land programme? Arising out of that visit, will West Yorkshire county council receive further financial assistance for the derelict land programme?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I point out that the figures he mentioned relate to a different programme. The £70 million is the sum that I am earmarking for next year's programmes—a combination of derelict land and urban programmes—for development schemes in urban areas. The amount for the derelict land programme this year is £45 million. I discussed that with the West Yorkshire county council, which has made good use of derelict land grants in the past. We discussed a number of schemes. I understand that the council has submitted ideas to my Department, and they will be carefully considered.

Apart from such vast sums of money being spent—no doubt necessarily—is not this subject ideal for young people under one of the Government's many voluntary training schemes?

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that, through the various urban programmes to which I have referred, young people receive many opportunities resulting from my Department's expenditure programmes.

Bearing in mind that most of the areas with the highest levels of dereliction have the highest levels of unemployment, does it not make sense to encourage local authorities to employ unemployed men and women to restore derelict land? Will the Secretary of State set up a co-ordinating body for the English regions, similar to the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, to bring together the work of local authorities?

I should have thought that local authorities were capable of achieving such an objective if they felt it necessary. The hon. Gentleman has a working knowledge of the problems. He will understand that the idea of getting children with picks and shovels to take over from the bulldozers is not compatible with achieving the best value for money in terms of public expenditure.[Interruption.] The Opposition should be concerned about the question put to me by their spokesman. Expenditure under the derelict land programme involves a large amount of mechanisation. I should not carry the House with me if I suggested that we reverted to physical labour.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the speed with which planning applications are being dealt with.

In general, there has been a welcome speeding up of performance, but there is still scope for improvement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the third quarter of last year—the most recent period for which figures are available—40 per cent. of the applications to the Peak park joint planning board took over 13 weeks to determine compared with 16 per cent. in the rest of the country? Does my right hon. Friend regard that as satisfactory, and, if not, can he do anything about it?

I am concerned that in some areas the improved performance is not being achieved. The first step that I wanted to take was to publish the figures so that such questions could be publicly ventilated. I hope that individual authorities will react to their own performance without the need for central Government to become involved in trying to do the job that they are properly charged with doing. In the last resort, it would be appropriate for me to ask questions.

I welcome the speed-up in the determination of planning applications, but is it uniform among minor or modest applications and more significant submissions? Is the welcome expeditious progress reflected in decisions on planning appeals in my right hon. Friend's Department?

My hon. Friend has a deep knowledge of the subject. I assure him that the improvement achieved by my appeals inspectorate is commendable. I pay public tribute to the work of Mr. Midwinter and his inspectors for the way in which they have responded to the demands that we have made of them. There has been an improvement by many authorities in dealing with some of the larger applications. That proves that if the will is there, one can move the planning mechanisms faster than in the past. I hope that authorities which have not achieved that progress will make better efforts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in increasing the level of improvement grants that are approved, following the new grant levels announced in the Budget Statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a progress report on the allocation of public funds for discretionary improvement grants at the enhanced rate of 90 per cent.; and whether he is satisfied with the response by the householders.

Following the Chancellor's Budget Statement, an additional £74½ million has been made available for home improvement grants in England in 1982–83. Bids for these resources were invited from all local authorities by 31 March. Authorities have received their provisional allocations today, and with permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall place the details in theOfficial Report. The order increasing the rate of grant to 90 per cent. for intermediate and repairs grant applications made before 31 December 1982 was approved by the House on 8 April and came into effect on 13 April. We shall be monitoring progress closely, but the present indications are that there will be a strong demand for the additional resources for home improvement, which we want to see being fully utilised.

Since the new scheme could make a worthwhile contribution to construction output and work load—and the work load is already beginning to improve—will my hon. Friend ensure that an energetic publicity campaign is launched not only by local authorities but by the construction industry?

My hon. Friend has been conspicuous in pressing for an expansion in the home improvement programme. I assure him that the Government wish to draw wide attention to the availability of the higher rate of improvement grant and the additional improvement funds. A national publicity campaign will begin in the middle of May. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. I hope that that campaign will be followed by similar efforts in the construction industry to draw attention to the increased availability of home improvement money.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the increased allocation to the Caradon district council. May we have an assurance that if the demand for improvement grants at the enhanced 90 per cent. rate exceeds his Department's allocation, additional funds will be made available so that the Chancellor's terminal date for applications of 31 December 1982 is honoured?

Applications relating to mandatory grants have to be processed by local authorities. I cannot undertake that there will be any overall addition to the total resources available. We make it clear to local authorities in the allocation letter that, where authorities are underspending on the additional allocation, we reserve the right to transfer allocations to other authorities which want additional resources.

The £75 million, which is the subject of the special allocation for home improvements, is additional to the existing general HIP resources announced in December last year. The December allocations represent a significant increase in the gross provision for housing for 1982–83.

I welcome the sensible decision to increase home improvement grants, but what action will be taken to force the hands of the many private landlords who are not prepared, even with increased improvement grants, to carry out essential improvements? Is the Minister aware that about 1 million homes are still without inside toilets, running water or bathrooms? What powers will the Minister give to local authorities to force private landlords to make basic improvements to homes?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, powers exist to enable local authorities in certain circumstances to compel the improvement of property. The position of private landlords relates to the overall economics of the private rented sector. The Government's aim has been to make an overall improvement in the fair rents system by a reduction in the phasing period from three years to two years.

I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, but will he monitor carefully how the scheme operates, to ensure that maximum benefit is gained from the announcement? Will he encourage local publicity, as well as national publicity, because that often has a greater effect?

The Government's wish is that there should be full use of the additional money. We shall encourage any private bodies—for example, the regional branches of the home improvement industry or local authorities—which wish to publicise the availability of the additional resources.

Does the Minister agree that £75 million is the merest window dressing? Has he considered the report by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, published in December, to the effect that about 2½ million houses are in serious disrepair and over 1 million are unfit for habitation? Does he accept that the allocation of £75 million neglects the problem?

The hon. Gentleman refers to window dressing, but there has been a large uplift in available finance for housing in the current year. The capital provision available this year compared with the outturn of last year has increased by about one-third, and home improvement expenditure has increased by about one-half. By no stretch of the imagination is that window dressing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the numbers of local authority housing starts and completions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present level of house building.

It is for local authorities to decide how much of their capital resources for housing should be devoted to new building. The provision for local authority gross housing capital expenditure has been increased this year by about one-third above the estimated level of expenditure last year. I hope that authorities will take full advantage of this.

As local authority house building programmes in both Conservative and Labour-controlled areas have been almost wiped out this year, does the Minister conclude that the devastation has been largely the result of Government policies? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those policies are destroying all hope for millions of people on local authority housing lists?

Before the hon. Gentleman complains about underspending on housing, he should examine the performance of the local authority of whose area he represents a part. In the first nine months of last year Cannock Chase authority spent only 36·1 per cent of its HIP allocation plus housing receipts. It has also failed to obtain receipts from sales of council houses. Of 1,825 admitted applications, only 183 sales have been completed. The resources are in the local authority's hands waiting to be spent.

Why does the Minister deny that it has been deliberate Government policy to reduce substantially the amount of council house building? The figures that I have from the Library show that public sector house building is at its lowest since 1924. Instead of making references to local councils that have been so hard hit by Tory cuts, why do not the Minister and his team recognise the plight of thousands of people who are desperately waiting to be rehoused and who cannot buy homes of their own? Must the Prime Minister send the Secretary of State on another fact finding tour before he recognises their plight?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Public sector starts are well up on the 1981 performance. The latest figures show that they are 40 per cent. higher than a year ago.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) should stop crying crocodile tears and pleading on behalf of those who wish to have the right to rent? The Labour Party should agree that housing needs can be met——

The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.

—not only by building more council houses, but by producing shorthold accommodation, improving homes for sale and encouraging local authorities to build half and half homes for those who wish to rent.

My hon. Friend is right. Many local authorities have been wise enough to seize the many initiatives introduced by the Government. I am sorry that Cannock Chase has not developed schemes, such as low-cost home ownership. The resources of the private sector are also available to tackle the housing needs of this country.

The Minister has informed us that there will be more council house building this year than in 1981. Will he remind the House that last year's figures were the worst since records have been kept and that house building generally in Britain was at its worst level since 1924? Does the Minister accept that part of the problem for local authorities is his Department's inconsistent attitude to spending? One moment it tells local authorities to spend money, and the next moment it imposes new cuts on Cannock Chase and other authorities. That is evidenced by the letter that was sent to local authorities in June 1981 telling them to expect further cuts in their capital expenditure this year. Is not the basic problem that the Government came to office with the declared intention of cutting expenditure on housing by half and that they will not face the consequences of that policy?

The provision for local authority gross housing capital expenditure has been increased this year to about one-third above the estimated expenditure for last year. That in no way relates to what the hon. Lady said. I remind her that the Labour Government left office with the lowest number of starts since 1945.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters he intends discussing at his next meeting with the football authorities about arrangements for the World Cup.

The House is aware that my main concern in the World Cup arrangements has been, and still is, to advise the Spanish authorities about possible hooliganism by a minority of British supporters. My officials are in regular contact with our own football authorities, and the liaison group that I initiated last December met again on 31 March to discuss progress on all aspects of the matter.

Will the Minister clarify his written reply of yesterday, in which he urged a sports boycott of Argentina, especially as Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Argentina are all in the World Cup finals? Does he agree that a boycott of the World Cup would not help the oppressed people of the Falkland Islands, but could damage international relations if we allowed a Fascist dictator, such as Galtieri, to spoil one of the greatest international sporting competitions in the world?

There is no question of a boycott. Therefore, I have nothing to add to the written answer that I gave yesterday.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us agree with his advice? We must hope that FIFA will realise that many European and Commonwealth countries would not wish to be involved in a tournament with Argentina. Should not FIFA take the responsibility of removing Argentina from the World Cup if the present position continues?

I canot anticipate what action FIFA may take, but, as matters stand now, we have no objection to British teams taking part in international competitions where Argentina may also be represented. However, our position must be kept under constant review in the light of changing circumstances. I have nothing more to say now.

Does the Minister accept that if resolution 502 of the Security Council has not been honoured by the time of the World Cup the Government must consider what principles will govern their advice? The Labour Party would support the proposal by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that, in such circumstances, the right course would be for FIFA to exclude Argentina.

Many millions of British people would think it strange if our three teams were not to participate in the World Cup because of the action of an aggressive nation. All those matters are being kept under the closest review. I cannot comment on any events that may take place during the next few weeks. However, I am in close contact with the representatives of the football authorities, both nationally and internationally.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present position regarding the transfer of housing assets from new town development corporations to local authorities, including the conclusion of agency agreements pending final transfer.

I am hopeful that further transfers will take place once the financial terms have been settled. Meanwhile, we have been encouraging the making of agency arrangements where this is favoured by the parties concerned, as at Milton Keynes and Redditch.

Following the replacement of section 10 of the 1975 Act by section 51 of the current legislation, does my hon. Friend accept that there has been great uncertainty among local authorities about the Government's commitment to the transfer of assets to local authorities? Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government's policy that there should be no burden on the receiving local authority because of the transfer and that housing stock will be brought up to a satisfactory standard before transfer?

We hope to resolve the problems with the ADC, to which my hon. Friend has referred, when we receive the report towards the end of May. The principle is straightforward. The receiving authority—in his case Redditch district council—would have an entitlement to housing subsidy that would take into account both the extra reckonable expenditure resulting from the transfer and the increased rent resources available. The council has nothing to fear from such a transfer.

Is the Minister really satisfied that this additional butchery is necessary and in the best interests of the new towns and the people who live in them? Is it still the intention to favour individuals and speculators, leaving the difficult to manage assets to be taken by the authority, adding to its already difficult task with section 10 or section 51 claims and an unrealistic rate support grant?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has read out the wrong supplementary question. The question that he asked is about community-related assets. 'The question that my hon. Friend asked is about housing. The principles that govern the two are different.

Is the Minister aware that the transfer of these properties from the new towns to the local authorities may not be a transfer of assets at all, bearing in mind the rapid deterioration now appearing in industrialised and semi-industrialised built houses and flats not only in new towns, but in local authorities? Will the Minister consider what advice he can give to local authorities faced with this problem on an increasing scale? As the local authorities and new towns start to deal with this ever-increasing problem, which is not of their making, will the Government consider giving them some financial assistance?

That is a slightly broader question than the question facing development corporations. We have stressed to development corporations the need to ensure that their housing stock is in good condition be fore it is handed over to local authorities. We have made resources available to make sure that that happens. 'The hon. Gentleman has raised a slightly broader question about industrialised building, but the Government will certainly look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government links with the water authorities; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the North-West water authority on the consultative document relating to the structure of the water authorities.

We have received over 270 responses to our consultation paper on the membership of English water authorities. A majority of these stress the need to preserve close links between water authorities and local government. These include the North-West water authority, which also favoured no change in its present membership arrangements.

We are now considering these responses.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is keenly aware of the concern that is felt by local authorities lest in any new arrangements their links with the water authorities should be less sound than they are at present? Will he further assure the House that he will take into account their strongly held views in reaching any final decisions on this subject?

I am, of course, aware of what my hon. Friend says. We put forward five options for consideration, one of which was the possibility of increased local authority representation. One of the criticisms of the present arrangements is that not all local authorities within a water authority area are represented on the authority.

Is the Minister aware that throughout the North-West region there is unanimity about the current construction of the North-West water authority, which has 32 members, including representatives from local government? Does he accept that if he were to reduce in any way the local authority contingent on that water authority it would mean that areas such as mine in Lakeland and Cumbria would find that their rights were severely undermined by Goverment policy? Will he undertake to follow the matter very closely?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is considering the problem seriously, because it does involve difficulties. He will be aware that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission drew attention to the problems of running an authority such as Thames, which has 62 members, as the board, or Severn-Trent, which has 48 members. Its estimate was that it added £1 million to the cost of committees and the administration involved with such a substantial membership. These are considerations that we must look at, and the Government are considering all the responses.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a widespread view that water authorities operate a system of taxation without representation? Will he seriously consider the possibility of bringing in a system of directly elected members to those authorities?

That option has been advanced by others on previous occasions. One of my concerns—I drew attention in my earlier reply to the inadequacies of the present system—is that there is rather more representation than many people realise. I am concerned about how few people have the slightest idea about who the local representative is on the local water authority. I always make it my business in correspondence to draw attention to who the local person is.

Will the Minister confirm that every local authority that has been consulted on this matter wishes to retain local authority membership? That being so, will he take on board in this review the proposals that we put forward in an earlier White Paper to the effect that a national water authority should own all the water resources in the country, but that the distribution, the clean-off and the disposal should remain with the local authorities, which should be charged with putting wholesome water back into the system? Daily that appears to be a more attractive solution to the problem.

It was not the biggest surprise to emerge from the consultations that local authorities are in favour of keeping local authority members on the water authorities. That came as no surprise to us. We have no intention of pursuing the course of a national water authority owning all the water assets in the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the level of rate support to Greater London.

We have no plans to review the position of London regarding this year's settlement, but we are already in discussion with local authorities, including the GLC and the LBA, regarding the 1983–84 settlement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he noticed that Harrow's rate increase this year is nil, while the GLC's rate increase is 91 per cent., and that the two combine to produce a 13 per cent. increase in Harrow's total rates? What conclusion does my right hon. Friend draw between financial discipline on the one hand, and gross profligacy on the other?

I hope that the whole House will share my concern about the possible impact on jobs in London of the 91 per cent. increase in rates by the GLC. It is a most serious matter. We shall see the figures mount, if they continue to be portrayed on the roof of the GLC, and we shall know whose responsibility it is.

Is the Minister aware of the crucial importance to London of rate support on issues such as housing, employment, and improving the environment? Surely he is aware that whatever help private industry may get, the real support has to come via the Government in rate support if we are to tackle the problems of inner London. The Minister can run away if he likes, but the problems will not run away.

The hon. Gentleman's question shows his total ignorance of the settlement that took place this year. He mentioned the share of the rate support grant. Does he realise that the share of the rate support grant that London received this year is bigger than it received in all but one of the five years of the Labour Government? He should not criticise this Government by saying that London has not received an adequate share. Is he aware that the average rate increases in London are the lowest of any part of the country for this year? My only disappointment is that Labour authorities have not followed the pattern of Conservative authorities. In inner London, the Conservative increases in the borough rates are less than half those of all the Labour boroughs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Ealing has reduced its rate by 5·1 per cent., but that the effect of the 91 per cent. GLC increase has been to put up substantially the rate to domestic ratepayers? Is he further aware that people living on the border of my constituency side by side with others in Brent are paying half the rates of those that are being paid in the Labour-controlled borough of Brent for identical properties? Is he aware of the effect of these high rate increases by the GLC on jobs in London?

I note that the rates on an average house in Ealing of the same rateable value would be £340 and that those in Brent would be £516. The figures that my hon. Friend gives confirm that.

Will the Minister consult his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), on his recent visit to Brent, and compare the inner city and demographic problems that that borough faces with the enormous amount of work that has been done for the disabled, the 10,000 people on the waiting list, and all problems of industrialised buildings having to be repaired because of the Government's previous policy on industrialised building? Will he recognise those factors, as well as the arithmetic?

I should like to recognise all the factors that are applicable to the efficiency of a borough's operation. I hope that the hon. Member will turn his attention, in the interests of all his constituents, to the way in which economies can be made, for instance, in the better provision of services, perhaps in his own borough of Brent, and then consider how those services and economies can be better applied in the areas to which he attaches the greatest importance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many submissions were received on the Government's Green Paper "Alternatives to Domestic Rates".

By Friday 16 April, 875 submissions had been received in my Department. We shall complete our analysis of this response as quickly as we can while ensuring that submissions receive the close and careful attention they deserve. I should like to express the Government's gratitude and thanks to all those who have contributed.

Is my right hon. Friend yet able to indicate whether a large percentage of those submissions requested a continuance or even an enlargement of the percentage of local authority expenditure that would be met by some locally determined revenue? If they did, will my right hon. Friend undertake, at least as far as possible, to make that a main principle of any reform that the Government may undertake?

I know how much concern my hon. Friend has for that approach to local government finance, but it would be wrong for me so soon after the conclusion of the consultation period to try to anticipate the analysis that is now being made.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many of those 875 submissions advocated a poll tax instead of or in addition to existing rates? Will he examine carefully the suggestion of a poll tax, which could be wide open to evasion, difficult to administer and more inequitable than the existing rating system?

A significant number of representations have advocated a poll tax. If the right hon. Gentleman has such firm views, it would have been helpful if his party had responded to my invitation to join in the consultative process, which it refused to do, unlike any other party to which I addressed the invitation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a system to facilitate voluntary arrangements for house or flat purchase by private sector tenants; and if he will make a statement.

As, at a rough estimate, some 150,000 to 200,000 private tenants have voluntarily negotiated the purchase of their homes over the last decade, the hon. Member's proposal does not appear necessary.

Why does the Minister repeatedly refuse to introduce legislation to give private tenants the same rights as council tenants? Since the Government are hounding local authorities to force them to sell houses, if that is such a good system why does it not apply to private tenants? Or is it the case that the Tories have double standards of private profit and public exploitation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous answers, the Government do not consider that they have the right to require the disposal of houses that have been purchased by private individuals with their private assets. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is in favour of the right to buy in the private sector, I cannot see why he wishes to fight the next election under the banner of a party that is committed to withdraw the right to buy from the public sector.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a fair number of people who are voluntarily trying to buy their own homes from housing associations are running into some difficulty? Will he do everything possible to encourage those associations to ensure that people who genuinely wish to purchase their own homes are able to do so?