asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what approaches he has received from local authorities for financial assistance for remedial treatment or the replacement of houses and flats built by industrial and semi-industrialised systems; and if he will make a statement.

Local authorities, in making bids for their HIP allocation, have included, along with other special local needs, provision for the remedial treatment or replacement of houses and flats built by industrialised and semi-industrialised systems. I have, in addition, received a number of ad hoc requests for special financial assistance.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his reply and for the letter that he courteously sent to me on this subject. Are Ministers aware of the dimension of the problem nationally? For instance, does the hon. Gentleman know that the necessary decision by the Leeds city council to demolish the Hunslet Grange flats in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) means that, because of the debt charges remaining, the Leeds housing revenue account will have to bear the cost of £1 million a year for the foreseeable future? It also means that every council house tenant in Leeds will have to pay 22p a week extra in rent for the next 40 years to offset the cost of this one block of flats. Does the Minister think that that is a fair burden to place on council tenants in Leeds? If not, what further proposals do the Government have in mind to deal with this alarming position?

I am aware of the issues facing Leeds Members and hon. Members in other parts of the country. The Government are generally not willing to encourage the demolition of public assets. We hope that local authorities will view such a policy as one of last resort. If they decide to pursue such a policy, they must assess the financial consequences. I cannot, as a general rule, justify providing Government financial support, which would have to come from other local authorities' new build programmes.

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said, but there is a problem with this special type of building in different parts of the country. The Government should examine this as a unique problem which arose from a policy advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, by architects and by people in the construction industry. This peculiar problem requires special attention.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that previous Governments have encouraged the use of industrialised systems to increase the output of the house building industry, but it does not follow that the Government must be responsible for defects in design or in construction which have now emerged. The need for capital expenditure for dealing with such problems is taken into account in determining HIP allocations.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more Back Bencher from either side of the House on this question before I call a Front Bench Member. Then we shall have to move more quickly.

Does the Minister realise that his remarks will appear appallingly complacent and heartless to the thousands of tenants who have suffered in these dwellings for many years? Will he reconsider the position of the Leeds city council, which has a housing waiting list of 22,000 and is building only 400 new dwellings a year? Will he at least agree to meet representatives of the Leeds city council and Leeds Members of Parliament to discuss what is a genuinely serious matter for many thousands of tenants?

I am always prepared to see Members of Parliament who wish to discuss constituency issues.

Is my hon. Friend changing standards and keeping his eye more firmly on the production of industrialised and semi-industrialised systems?

Yes. In conjunction with the local authority associations, a defects prevention unit at the Building Research Establishment has been set up to advise on design and site practices and to assist in the prevention of building defects. If resources were switched to tackling the specific problem mentioned, they would have to come from somewhere else in the building programme.

As the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, may I ask him to accept that it is not good enough to fob off on to a junior Minister a major problem affecting many thousands of people in most of our large cities? Does he agree that we are talking about a major national issue? Will the Secretary of State take the initiative on what his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) said was the responsibility of successive Governments and call a conference of the leaders of the local authorities involved to discuss these grave issues?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard the request. I am sure that he will respond to it in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest forecast of the level of activity for the construction industry in the financial year 1982–83.

The Government do not make forecasts of construction industry output, but it is encouraging that the value of total orders for new construction increased by 5 per cent. in real terms last year, that commercial new orders were at their highest level since 1973 and that private sector house building starts, public sector house building starts and home improvement grants have all risen sharply in recent months.

Is that not good news and a reflection of the Budget provisions? In the coming months will my hon. Friend liaise closely with the House-Builders Federation and those involved in restoring sewers in inner city areas to ensure that that programme goes forward at an ever-increasing rate?

I assure my hon. Friend that we keep in close touch with the House-Builders Federation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services keeps in touch with the water industry. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. The revival of private sector house building over a substantial period is a further indication of the way in which the Government's economic policies are beginning to pay off.

Contrary to the Minister's rose-tinted view, is he aware that in many areas local authority house building is virtually at a standstill? What remit has he given to the Building Research Establishment to produce good housing design to help local authorities?

The basic responsibility for housing design should be with the local authorities. They can draw on the specialist housing design skills available in the private sector. It is encouraging that private sector house builders have produced a range of specialist designs for single people. I am glad to say that in the first quarter of 1982 public sector house building starts were 40 per cent. up on the previous quarter and 67 per cent. up on a year ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of publicly owned waste and vacant land shown in the land registers so far published.

The 350 registers now published contain details of 9,300 sites covering 83,500 acres of unused and underused public land. About 1,000 acres have already been removed from the registers because the land has been disposed of.

Is it not a national scandal that so much land is lying idle, particularly in the conurbations of London, Birmingham and Manchester? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the councils which own the land and have neglected it for years should sell it post-haste and reinvest the proceeds in improving houses and building new houses when local circumstances demand such action?

My hon. Friend is right. The new freedoms for capital expenditure given to local government mean that if local authorities sell such land they can use the money for any capital project. The issue is wider than that, because some of the land to which I have referred is owned by statutory undertakings and nationalised industries.

Is it not time that Conservative Members substantiated some of their erroneous statements about surplus land and ownership? Is the Secretary of State aware that investigations often confirm that such land is privately owned and has nothing to do with local authorities?

We have investigated and proved beyond peradventure that large areas of land are owned by the public sector and could be disposed of to create a substantial pay-off.

How does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that the land is used? Does the existence of the land allow him to revise his estimate of the number of green field sites that he requires for future housing development?

My hon. Friend refers to an important subject. He will be aware that the acreage of green fields now being taken for development is substantially down on what it was a few years ago. I am determined to pursue a whole range of initiatives to speed up the release of land on the land registers. I should be grateful for any help from right hon. and hon. Members in alerting local authorities to the opportunities and the potential.

Is not the real national scandal that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to be housed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in places such as Leicester the problem is not that there is no land, but that builders, mainly private builders, cannot sell the houses that they have built because unemployed people cannot afford to buy them?

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have been in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced substantial increases in housing starts. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes that as much as I do.

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

No. I am still considering my proposals and will make a statement as soon as I can.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on that consistent reply and on his incisive decision making. He has been telling the House the same thing since before the Christmas Recess. Is it not high time that he put forward proposals so that those who work for the Ordnance Survey do not have such continuing uncertainty? Does he agree that it is essential for good government to have good maps for planning and defence as well as for leisure and recreation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for praising my consistency. The fears expressed do most to undermine the confidence of the staff. I do not wish to contribute to that situation. My plans for the Ordnance Survey will enable it to build on its success.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the continuing uncertainty is causing anxiety to employees of the Ordnance Survey, many of whom live in my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that his statement will be not in answer to a written question on a Friday afternoon, but in the House so that we can ask him questions about it?

I am not unsympathetic to that request. The Minister responsible has seen the staff side and offered to have further meetings. Depending on the scale of any announcement, I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the precise form in which I should make my views known to Parliament.

During my right hon. Friend's continuing deliberations will he bear in mind the legitimate fears and interests of the private map-making firms, such as Bartholomews in my constituency? Will he ensure that any decision does not undermine their position by creating competition which is either unfair or subsidised?

I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already seen the representatives of the private map-makers to see how we can draw together the respective strengths of the private and public sectors.

If the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to make an announcement, can he at least say whether any of the bodies that he has consulted over the Ordnance Survey's change of status are in favour of the change? Has he any proposals to establish an advisory panel, as suggested by the Serpell report?

When I make my statement I shall let the House know the results of the consultation process. I am considering setting up an advisory body. It is important to consider the matter carefully and to get the decision right. There is no need for fear or apprehension about what I am trying to achieve. I am trying to build on the Ordnance Survey's success.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with progress in the liberalisation of planning procedures within the major towns and cities.

There has been welcome progress in speeding up planning decisions but more could still be done. In several towns enterprise zones have been established where there is broad freedom from control, and urban development corporations have been set up to promote development in the London and Merseyside Docklands. More generally we are seeking to ensure that permissions for development are not unreasonably withheld, particularly where it will bring jobs and benefit to the local economy.

I think that we all recognise the work that the Government have done in trying to reduce red tape. They have also reduced the staff of the Department. What can my hon. Friend do to reduce the extent of bureaucracy elsewhere? Is he aware that there are 400 architects in Manchester and 350 planners in Birmingham? Can we do anything to reduce those numbers?

Sack the lot.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) will be aware that there are sufficient pressures on local authorities to reduce costs and to cause them to examine all posts. We intend to ensure that many more local authorities come within the eight weeks' advice period that we offer for planning applications as set out in the development control programme.

Is the Minister aware that the Financial Times last Thursday reported that his right hon. Friend intends to introduce a special Bill to enable normal planning procedures for the European Ferries site at Vauxhall to be circumvented so that work can begin more quickly?

My right hon. Friend announced last evening that he intends to lay an order before the House for that purpose.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Manchester city council architects provide a service for the 10 surrounding districts and carry out architectural works for the police, the health authorities and numerous other services that are not within the city?

I trust that means that there will never be any delays in the processing of planning applications in Manchester.

As a non-practising architect and planner, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees with the general proposition that it is not the liberalisation of planning procedures or the amending of town and country planning Acts that is necessary, but the application of those Acts and regulations by those in planning offices? Will he keep an eye on the quickening of the determination of such planning applications? Will he also bear in mind that there is great support for using special planning procedures in special cases to encourage development, such as that which is to take place on the Vauxhall site?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comment in support of the special development order procedure. He will recognise that it is and must remain a rare procedure. I am delighted to report that the latest figures for the October to December quarter show that 70 per cent. of planning applications were decided in eight weeks, as against 64 per cent. in the previous quarter.

rose—

Order. It is high time that I made another appeal for shorter supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what permissions he has given in the last month to development undertaken, or grants made by, the London Dockland Development Corporation.

Since the beginning of April my Department has approved four proposals by the London Dockland Development Corporation: first, the phased purchase from the London borough of Southwark of the Downtown estates for private sector redevelopment and rehabilitation; secondly, the letting of an annual contract for site investigations in the urban development area; thirdly, the payment of a rent grant under the Inner Urban Area Act to a roofing firm in Wapping; and, fourthly, a reconstruction of Thames Road, Silvertown.

Does the Minister agree that he makes other requirements on less spectacular expenditures? Will he examine these and ensure that only those that are likely to produce local disagreement are referred to him, not matters that should be within the remit of the dockland joint committee, as it was, or the LDDC as it now is?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's comment to relate to the extent to which my Department has control over capital expenditure and revenue spending within the LDDC. It is our intention to ensure that public money is spent effectively. That is the critical examination that I am sure he wishes to apply.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that many Londoners who have applied to purchase housing in the London Dockland Development Corporation area have been turned down because they do not live within the area? Does he agree that that shows that there is a large and untapped demand for housing in London that is not being met by local authorities?

My hon. Friend is correct. Our first intention, and that of the corporation, was to provide housing for those who live within the area. It is important to note that by 10 May, 270 homes on the Beckton housing development had been sold, 119 of them to Newham council tenants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria an inspector is required to follow when hearing an appeal against a council decision based upon a development plan determined by that council.

In determining an appeal under section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 an inspector is required by section 29 to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material to the application, and to any other material considerations. When a local plan has been adopted by the planning authority it becomes part of the development plan for that area and an inspector must therefore have regard to the relevant policies and proposals in that plan.

Does my hon. Friend agree that where a council has adopted a reasoned development plan to restrict certain activities to a particular area—for example, Morecambe's decision to restrict amusement arcades to one area of the town—it is understandably frustrated when an inspector grants an appeal that is inconsistent with the reasoned development plan, unless he gives reasons to show that the plan was unreasonable in the first place? Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter to ascertain whether the criteria need strengthening to take that into account?

I am prepared generally to consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises. He was right to raise it in respect of an individual matter. When a local plan is prepared and published, in most instances it will have priority over, for example, a county structure plan if that is also prepared and published.

What is the delay within the Department in coming to a decision on the applications that are sent to it? When can the Humberside county council expect replies from the Department on four or five applications that it has been sitting on for varying periods of up to one year?

It follows that any matter requiring adjudication on appeal is extremely complex and goes outside the normal run of planning appeals. Therefore, it is likely that the time taken by the Department will be that much longer. The average time is about 47 weeks as opposed to 17 weeks for determining appeals through inspectors by the written representation method.

Will my hon. Friend consider what steps he can take to persuade councils to take more decisions on planning applications and not always pass them on to public inquiries so that they may get rid of the responsibility to take decisions?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that local authorities recognise that the changes made from the 1980 Act onwards mean that they have more power to determine their own planning decisions within the eight-week period. I hope that they will continue to operate this system. My hon. Friend knows that we are publishing tables showing the performance of authorities in determining planning applications.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the percentage changes in staffing of city councils in principal conurbations in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of local authority staff at the latest available date compared with May 1979.

Information on the percentage change in staffing in individual local authorities in England during the 12 months to December 1981 is included in the most recent joint manpower watch press release, copies of which are available in the Library. Overall, the metropolitan distric councils reduced their staffing by about 2 per cent. in the year. This remains an inadequate rate of reduction if the Government's expenditure targets are to be met. The total number of local authority staff in England at December 1981 was 1,890,770 full-time equivalents. Taking account of seasonal factors this represents a decrease of 80,145 or 4·1 per cent. since June 1979.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Liverpool city council employs 59·8 staff per thousand head of the population, which is a far greater number than any other district council on Merseyside? Wirral, for example, employs 43·7 per thousand and Sefton only 39·8. Does he agree that until Liverpool city council reduces its staff and cuts commercial and domestic rates, there cannot be an economic upturn for the area?

What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about Toxteth?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's suggestion that high staffing levels and consequently high rate bills seriously affect the commercial viability and attractiveness of an area. Liverpool's staff ratio per thousand head of population is high. Significantly, it is exceeded only by Manchester.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there will be burning resentment from many people in the private sector at his answer, which shows that councils have not reduced staff in line with what has had to happen in business and commerce? Will he take action to reduce councils' overall costs so that they reduce their staff, particularly in my constituency in the West Midlands county area?

I have repeatedly asked local authorities to make reductions. There has been a wide spread of performance. By and large, Conservative authorities have made substantial attempts to meet our targets and Labour authorities have not. Local electors have the ability to make judgments on that performance.

What are the advantages of reducing staff numbers if those people merely join the unemployed queues and have to be supported from public funds for doing nothing? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he is to reduce the number of staff, others in the Government must take steps to reflate the economy to give those people jobs elsewhere? Further, does he recognise that many of the people being dismissed are performing a vital public service which will be gravely missed?

There is little compulsory redundancy in local government to secure the staff cuts. By and large, it is a question of not replacing those who resign of their own free will. The public would find it difficult to distinguish between the quality of service of councils that have made the cuts and of those that have not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the extent to which the European Community directive on the quality required of shellfish waters is being complied with in European Economic Community countries.

The implementation of the directive in other member States is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. In the United Kingdom we have designated 27 shellfish areas under the directive. The directive is concerned only with the quality of waters, both estuarial and coastal, and to that end seeks to ensure that designated waters provide a suitable habitat for shellfish. It is not a public health measure and sets standards that are not relevant to those that would be needed for the protection of consumers.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the directive is really necessary? Can he allay the feats of fishermen in non-designated areas that the directive is working against them?

I can give that assurance. The directive does not bear on the marketing of shellfish. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I are aware of discrimination against the sale of shellfish from non-designated areas. We are satisfied that the shellfish can continue to be marketed, provided that they meet the local health authority requirements.

Has the directive made any difference to the possibility of designating marine nature reserves? Is that why the Government have failed to designate any, even though 12 months have passed since we fully debated the matter on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill?

The directive has made no difference to the policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to change the structure and responsibilities of local government in London.

No.

I am grateful for the assurance. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's constant criticism of ILEA, London Transport and the GLC smack of a political vendetta? Will he give a further assurance that there will be no change to the structure and functioning of local government in London except as part of a national review of the metropolitan tier of local government?

The hon. Gentleman may have missed an important point. The deluge of criticism of the GLC and ILEA results from their profligate expenditure and rating policies. It is not orchestrated by the Government. We do not need to contribute to something that is happening under its own momentum.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if London Transport is taken away from the GLC—and the sooner the better—the GLC will fulfil no useful function? Does he agree that it is no more than a party political racket at the expense of London ratepayers?

The party in control of the GLC is an eloquent testimony to my hon. Friend's wisdom.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that any defects in the structure or function of London local government pale into insignificance when we consider the problems created by the Government meddling in London finance and rate support? Will he repeat his assurance that he will not respond to politically motivated demands for the abolition of the GLC and consider the future of London local government only as part of a national review?

I would not respond to a politically motivated demand, but a rational and well-presented case would be a different matter.

As Greater London housing has gone to the boroughs, the ambulance service to the NHS and sewerage to the Thames water authority, as the intention seems to be to put London Transport under a different authority and as the Home Secretary could easily run the fire brigade, why should the GLC continue? Is it not nonsense to talk of a political vendetta when, since its beginning in 1964, the GLC has spent an equal time under the control of both parties?

I am constantly searching for coherent answers to my hon. Friend's questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish a White Paper on rate reform.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from the general public on the rating system since the publication of the Green Paper on rating reform.

I have received more than 1,100 responses to the Green Paper, including 658 from members of the public. These are now being analysed by my Department. When the analysis has been completed, I shall be making proposals to my colleagues. I can assure my hon. Friends that I am committed to achieving real reform as quickly as possible.

Notwithstanding the longer term nature of some of the options in the Green Paper, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will be able to bring forward legislation in the next Session of Parliament to relieve the burden on hard-pressed ratepayers, particularly those on pensions and fixed incomes?

I know how important the issue is to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are considering the matter, and I cannot anticipate the Government's findings.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the alarm among ratepayer organisations that the Government may be considering a poll tax on top of rates, so that there will be two taxes instead of one? May we have his assurance that, if he cannot achieve the comprehensive reform that many of us wish for, he will do nothing at all?

I cannot give an assurance that I shall do nothing at all, but that is very different from stating what I shall do. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). While I am making proposals and submitting summaries to my Cabinet colleagues, it would be wrong to anticipate their judgment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in any rating reform he will not include spending targets, spending penalties and exemptions from penalties, since his present system of unlawful targets, penalties and exemptions has resulted in local authorities spending £1·4 billion more than he wishes to be spent? Will he also give an assurance that there will be no midyear holdback to deal with the £1·4 billion overspend?

Under our regime, for the first time for 30 years, local authority current expenditure has been brought under persistent control. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seaks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that rate reform is extremely urgent in areas of high unemployment like Humberside, where the Labour council has in the past year increased county rates by 61 per cent., thus making it extremely difficult to attract industry to the area?

I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend. There is no automatic association between high levels of unemployment and high levels of rates. The almost automatic relationship is between Labour control and high levels of rates.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread support for changes in the rating system? Will he confirm that he is holding consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in the course of his review of the rating system following the Green Paper?

I can confirm that there is widespread support for reform of the rating system. There is an equally widespread difference of view over what the reform should be. I shall keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable support for maintaining the rating system for non-metropolitan district authorities and introducing a local income tax for county councils?

It is perfectly correct, as my hon. Friend puts it, that there is a measure of support—

Not here.

—but it is obviously not wholly universal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 3p in the pound of the increase in rates in Humberside is due directly to cuts made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in higher education in Humberside? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of policies followed by his right hon. Friend, more money is being paid in support of students reading sociology than is being paid for students reading such subjects as engineering and applied science? Would it not be a good idea if the right hon. Gentleman, before he starts looking at rates, had a word with his right hon. Friends about the types of cuts that they are making in things that are essential for the prosperity and employment of people in Humberside?

I do not have detailed knowledge of the educational priorities of the Humberside authority. I am, however, aware that it was not a consequence of the ongoing education provision but a consequence of the change of political control that precipitated the very large rate increase in Humberside.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to increase the levels of private investment in urban renewal by extending some of the advantages offered within the enterprise zones to inner city areas.

We are watching closely to see how effective the enterprise zone advantages prove to be. The results so far are encouraging but it is too soon for a definitive assessment. We shall not consider extending the advantages until that is available. In the meantime, we have taken a number of other initiatives to promote investment in the inner city, including my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of the urban development grant.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the success so far of the enterprise zones, especially in North-East England, is very much appreciated? Will he nevertheless realise that existing firms in cities are fearful of the enormous trading advantage of firms coming into the zones? Will he do his best, in the operation of Government policy, to ensure that firms that are established and that have, through their enterprise, provided much employment, do not suffer unduly.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety that the existence of enterprise zones, because of their advantages, may affect existing enterprises located outside them. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the enterprise zones are essentially catalysts, around which increasing economic activity can be provided, and that they are located in areas where such a catalyst should not be detrimental to generating economic activity. In fact, the reverse is the case.

Will the Minister enlighten the House about how many existing businesses just outside the Tyneside enterprise zone have applied to move into the enterprise zone? Will he resist the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and instead increase the money available for inner city partnership schemes?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of initiatives announced by my right hon. Friend, including the urban development grant, will result in £70 million being available in 1983–84. I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall write to him on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to ensure that all publicly owned undertakings and companies are instructed to offer surplus land to local housing authorities before selling such land on the open market.

No, Sir. This would delay disposals as well as being an unreasonable limitation on the bodies concerned.

Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that many housing authorities find difficulty building the number of houses that they would wish to build because of a serious shortage of land, especially in inner city areas? Is he aware that they cannot use the capital sums produced by council house sales because of that? Will the Minister allow them to compete on equal terms with other authorities that want to buy land so that they are not caught by the housing cost yardstick operated by his Department, which prevents many local authorities from building the houses that they need?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to the land register system, the registers for the first 35 districts showed that about 21,000 acres were available, of which about one half was regarded as being capable of being developed. A great deal of housing land can be made available within local authority areas for development if the authorities are so minded. That is the objective of my right hon. Friend's initiative.

Would it not be absurd for public undertakings to be compelled to sell vacant land to local authorities which themselves have undeveloped vacant land? Is it not more acceptable that the land should be sold to the private sector, where one hopes it would be speedily developed for construction purposes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The important point about the land register system and the requirement for local authorities to appraise their land holdings is to bring land into more beneficial use. The more that local authorities recognise that they will not only obtain beneficial use from it but increased rateable value, the better.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 29 April, Official Report, c. 331, if he has since reviewed the question of participation by Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in the World Cup.

I keep the position under constant review.

At least in relation to Scotland, where most of us in the industrial belt have a rather different perception of the whole Falklands issue than the Southern English, will the Government make an effort to ascertain the views of the Scots on the task force before pressurising the SFA to withdraw from the World Cup?

I cannot give any assurances or guarantees on that topic or that approach. At this stage the Government see no objection to the three British teams taking part as planned in the World Cup finals next month. I have said previously, both inside and outside the House, that many millions of people would find it odd if we as the non-aggressor nation, were not taking part in the World Cup finals.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and I raised this question a month ago in the House? Since then, have any of the home football associations or any of the countries that have supported us in the United Nations raised through FIFA the possibility of the Argentines being thrown out of the World Cup? They are the aggressor, not us. We should be going and they should not.

I understand what my hon. Friend says. A dialogue obviously takes place between representatives of FIFA. I have no specific knowledge of any detailed dialogue involving our senior vice-president, Mr. Harry Cavan, of the Northern Ireland Football Association, or precisely what he has said. The Brazilian president of FIFA has made it clear that Argentina will not be excluded from the World Cup.

As the news from the Falklands grows more ominous by the hour, can the Minister say whether his advice will still hold, what discussions he has had with the three football associations and in what circumstances the Government might think it right to change that advice? Will he say what advice he has given the football associations about representations to FIFA along the lines discussed in the House three weeks ago?

I think that all hon. Members will share my view that, at the moment, this is a matter that has to be held under constant review and that ultimately it is a matter very much for the football authorities. I am reviewing the matter day by day. I cannot answer hypothetical questions about what might happen over the next seven to 10 days—I have no means of knowing—except to say that the British Government see no objection at the moment to the British teams going to the World Cup finals next month. I hope that the competition can continue under normal circumstances.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, and many people in the country, will support his view that we should put no pressure on the football associations to withdraw as we are the innocent parties in this dispute? Does he agree that it is right to go to Spain and to take part in the competition, but that if any British team has to face the Argentine team we should withdraw from the competition and put the onus on FIFA to expel Argentina, if it thinks this is absolutely necessary?

My hon. Friend raises many hypothetical points. I wish to make it clear to the House that I have put no pressure on the three British football associations. The matter is under constant review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those local authorities which decide on average less than 50 per cent. of their planning applications within eight weeks.

Yes, Sir. I am arranging for the latest information to be circulated in the Official Report.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his positive response. Does he agree that the swift determination of planning applications is of immense importance to industry, commerce and individuals? What plans does he have further to hasten the response to such applications by those authorities that are still extremely slow?

I share my hon. Friend's view that this is an important aspect of development. There has already been a welcome speeding up of decisions. From October to December 1981, planning authorities decided 70 per cent. of all applications within eight weeks compared with 62 per cent. in a previous quarter. However, I propose to make a direct approach to those authorities whose performance seems seriously inadequate.

In his desire to speed up planning decisions, will the Minister ensure that the rights of individuals who object to planning decisions are not jeopardised?

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that time is money in the building industry and that the long delays in planning inquiries that are now taking place cause unnecessary expense? I refer especially to the inquiry on the western esplanade scheme in Southampton, which is tying up many millions of pounds and is preventing more than 3,000 people from obtaining employment on the site?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's assiduous inquiries about the future of that scheme. It is a matter that my Department must examine. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the average time for determination of planning appeals through the written representation method is now 17 weeks as opposed to 21 weeks a few quarters ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to expedite the publication of the report on repairs to houses in new towns which was begun by the National Building Agency.

The report to which the hon. Member refers is not due to be received, under the terms of the contract, until the end of this month. My latest information, however, is that this timetable will be adhered to.

Does the Minister recall the many occasions on which I have raised with him the problems of housing in Peterlee new town, in my constituency? Must I remind him yet again of the desperate position of hundreds of my constituents? Recently, it has even been necessary to demolish houses in a new town. Will he stop prevaricating and make money available immediately instead of waiting for reports, the contents of which he well knows anyway?

There is no question of prevarication, as I told the hon. Gentleman when he last raised the matter at Question Time. The report is due at the end of May and we have not yet reached that stage. As to the existing position, in making the HIP allocations we have borne in mind the prolems to which he refers. We have made it clear that if authorities use their HIP allocations to make the repairs to which he refers, that is without prejudice to their entitlemment or to any later decision on grant.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has taken the necessary precautions to ensure that National Building Agency records are fully available in case such problems occur in the next few years?

If there is anything to be learnt from the records of the National Building Agency, I see no difficulty in their being made available, subject to any copyright provisions.

Will the Minister confirm and repeat his previous assurance that once the report has been received and before he comes to any conclusion, he will ask for the views of the associations and the councils, so that they will have the opportunity not only to read the report but to examine its findings? Will he also bear in mind that, when he finally determines the percentage to be given towards the cost for councils to save the vast housing stock that is under threat, the percentage of grant must be substantial?

I cannot anticipate our conclusion on the question of percentages, but we have already made it clear that we shall publish the report in conjunction with the Government's conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to involve the private sector in the activities currently undertaken by the Ordnance Survey.

In my statement to the House on 22 July 1981 I encouraged the Ordnance Survey to engage in joint ventures with the private sector for the profitable use of the Ordnance Survey topographical archive. This policy is being actively pursued. Several joint venture publications have appeared and more will follow.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that private enterprise firms are very unhappy about the slow progress in this area? They believe sincerely that they can carry out the work more quickly and more cheaply.

I take my hon. Friend's views seriously. I have made it clear to private sector firms that I am only too anxious to hold proper discussions with them. I was not aware that their feelings were as strong as my hon. Friend suggested.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people who have great knowledge of such matters consider that the steps that he has taken to involve the private sector will reduce the quality of the work that has been established over many years? In those circumstances, will he review what he is doing and ensure that we can maintain the long-established standards of the Ordnance Survey?

There is no question of reducing the standards. I believe that the combination of public and private sector expertise in this area will enhance both opportunities and standards.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to legislate to protect the landscape in England and Wales more effectively.

No, Sir. The provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and other countryside and planning legislation offer adequate safeguards for landscape conservation.

As the pace of change is rather more ruinous than the Government appear to be ready to acknowledge, and as the Government seem to be acting on a complacent assumption, as revealed by their disgraceful blocking of the Hedgerows Bill, will the Minister agree at least to convene a meeting of the conservation bodies, especially the informed and responsible bodies, to discuss whether the changes proposed can be considered?

Progress is best achieved through co-operation with the farming community, including the use of management agreements, as provided for in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Countryside Commission is currently engaged in several initiatives to promote hat approach. We must give it a chance to succeed, but knowing the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed to me, I shall discuss the matter with the chairman of the Countryside Commission.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in all planning applications that are referred to the Department of the Environment the importance of preserving our natural heritage is always given high priority?

I give that assurance. It is always uppermost in my right hon. Friend's mind.

Is the Minister aware that the cooperation for which he has asked is not occurring between the farmers and the Nature Conservancy Council in the case of West Sedgemoor, where 40 to 50 acres of land have been drained, resulting in a large threat to wildlife, especially otters? As the Nature Conservancy Council will not act and there is no sign of a declaration of a site of special scientific interest, will the Minister involve himself in the matter, because it is of great importance to the nation?

I give that undertaking to the House. I and my ministerial colleagues in other Departments are well aware of the problem and we are in touch with the interested parties.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is deep anxiety about this subject and that Government bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council do not always represent the best interests of our natural heritage? I refer to the problems at Alderley Edge and a commercial decision to try to open the old copper mines, which will be a great disadvantage environmentally to all of that beautiful area of Cheshire.

My hon. Friend has drawn the matter to my attention. Perhaps he will give me further details and I shall examine it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are proceeding with the sale of council houses at a satisfactory rate.

Most authorities now appear to be making satisfactory progress, but a number have been told in recent weeks that my right hon. Friend expects them to accelerate their rate of completion substantially. All complaints of delay from individual tenants are being pursued with the authorities concerned.

As this policy has been a tremendous boon to many people who otherwise would not have the opportunity of owning their houses, and as it has improved the environment in which people live in many parts of our cities and elsewhere, will my hon. Friend think of further ideas for accelerating this valuable and worthwhile scheme?

My hon. Friend is right. It is significant, and of great benefit, that until the end of last year about a quarter of a million council dwellings had been moved into owner occupation during the lifetime of the Government. That is a social advance of great significance and we hope to see that advance accelerated.

Is the hon. Gentleman's Department monitoring council house sales to the extent of ascertaining how many money borrowers have fallen down on their repayments and cannot keep up mortgage payments? The economic situation has led those people astray.

Many hundreds of thousands of tenants have successfully purchased their homes over the years and I am not aware of any statistical basis for suggesting that there is a greater number of defaulters among purchasers from local authorities as opposed to the majority of owner occupiers.