asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the numbers of buildings which have been listed as of architectural or historic interest.

A total of 360,590 buildings in England had been listed by the end of September this year.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and wish him well. Will he confirm that the objective of listing buildings is to conserve architectural excellence rather than just to preserve architectural mediocrity? Does he agree that it would be wrong to increase the numbers just for the sake of it, for example, to the round figure of 500,000?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's congratulation. I recognise his experience in these matters. My right hon. Friend is satisfied with the strict criteria adopted by the supervision of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and considers it a matter of some pride that, when completed, the resurvey of England will represent the most comprehensive record of buildings of architectural and historic importance in Europe.

Does the commission have enough skilled staff to do the listing?

Yes, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend recall the case of Monkspath Hall in the west midlands, a listed building which quite by chance was demolished one Sunday afternoon about four years ago by an Irish bulldozer driver to make way for an industrial estate? Does my hon. Friend agree that the penalties for accidentally demolishing listed buildings should be increased substantially to take account of replacement costs, and will he have discussions with the Home Secretary about the matter?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. He will be interested to know that 217 listed buildings were demolished in the year ending 31 March 1985, of which 214 were in grade 2. No grade 1 listed building was lost.

asked the Secretary of State for the environment when he proposes announcing the final details of the 1981–87 rate support grant settlement.

I hope to make an announcement before Christmas.

The House hopes so, too. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this rate support grant, when it is announced —and it will surely be cut for the fifth consecutive year —will look even more inadequate in the light of his Department's survey of housing defects, which showed a need for £18·8 billion to be spent? What advice and help will the right hon. Gentleman give to councils which are trying to tackle their housing problems, considering that their rate support grant will inevitably be cut?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my announcement. The grant percentage for next year will work out at about the same as this year, after allowing for holdback. We have already announced the provisional GREs for the hon. Gentleman's city, and he will know that the GRE for Stoke has gone up by 17·5 per cent.

While being fully aware of the needs of inner cities, which are emphasised time and again, may I ask my right hon. Friend, when he makes his announcement, please to take full account of the situation facing low-spending shire counties, and in particular Government commitments to them in the past about rate support grant?

Yes. After the abolition of targets, penalties and holdbacks, we shall introduce a system of caps to ensure that the transition is smooth.

When the Secretary of State or his officials discussed with Phillips and Drew the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87 for the city of Liverpool, what concessions did he make, or what concessions were made by the council, so that the books could be balanced for 1981–87?

The rate support settlement was not discussed by Phillips and Drew or by the bankers. They approached my Department only to ascertain whether the deferred purchase agreement was legal. I answered this question yesterday. The Government have not given a penny more to Liverpool to balance the budget.

Is my right hon. Friend doing everything possible to ensure that adequate safety nets are being constructed so that prudent local authorities do not suffer excessive grant cuts?

We are introducing a system of caps and safety nets to ensure that the progression from the existing system to the new system is phased.

When the Government draw up their grants for the coming year, will they take account of the report that has just been published by the Church of England? It represents two or three years of serious work and appears to show that there has been a major failure by the Government to meet the pressing needs of some of the inner city areas.

I refute completely the right hon. Gentleman's allegation of failure by central Government. During the lat six years we have provided substantial additional resources to the inner cities. I shall make this clear in the Government's response to this report and to other reports about the problems that face the inner cities. The rate support grant system and the grant related expenditure assessments recognise the needs of the inner cities. They recognise that they are areas of social deprivation and that grants should flow to them to deal with these problems.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the appointment of a Secretary of State who has a sense of realism and compassion about the problems that face such cities as Birmingham? Will he use that goodwill to ensure that cities which face great problems in their inner areas get not just a fair crack of the whip but justice?

When I was in Birmingham about 10 days ago I met Dick Knowles, the Labour leader. The leaders of the councils whom I meet at this time of the year always produce the most horrific stories about the likely rates increase: that it will be 40 per cent., 50 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. Dick Knowles said 60 per cent. I do not believe that, after I have made my announcement, it will be necessary for Birmingham to levy a rate increase of that kind. Birmingham is a very good example of what the Government have done by means of inner city aid. I went round the houses in Handsworth and round Lozells road, where I saw the results of enveloping and of bringing back into use as a result of direct subsidy property that was built 50 or 60 years ago in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

In view of the Prime Minister's constantly reiterated claim that the Government are spending more money on the inner cities, and in view also of the powerful evidence that has been produced by, among others, the Church of England, does the Secretary of State intend to provide additional money for the inner city areas in the forthcoming financial year through the rate support grant settlement? Does he intend to restore any of the major cuts that have been made in the last five years?

The hon. Gentleman knows how the rate-capping system operates, because of the rate capping of his own borough of Islington. He knows, therefore, that one of the results of rate capping this year was a flow back of grant to Islington. As Islington will be rate capped next year, there will also be a flow back of grant to Islington next year. The hon. Gentleman's council leader, Mrs. Hodge, said a year ago that 1,000 jobs would be lost in Islington through rate capping. Not one job has been lost in Islington. Since then the press relations officers have resigned from Islington because, they said, they were told to lie during the campaign.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the rate support grant settlement that he is to announce for London, when coupled with a revised London rate equalisation scheme, will ensure that no London boroughs' ratepayers are financially disadvantaged as a result of the GLC's abolition?

The effect upon the ratepayers of London will depend decisively upon the decisions taken by the respective borough councils. That will be clear when I make the rate support grant settlement. Those who budget prudently and run their affairs efficiently will, I think, be pleased.

Does the Secretary of State's original answer mean that he is confirming the statement by his predecessor in July of this year that next year the rate support grant will be at the same cash level as this year? If so, is he not announcing a real cut of about £700 million in resources for local authorities?

The hon. Gentleman will know, because he understands the complexity of the matter, that, as a result of abolishing targets, holdback and penalties, about £300 million to £400 million more in grant will be in the system next year. Local authorities already know that the provisional GREAs which were announced six weeks ago show a shift towards the towns and cities principally because the GREAs now recognise more fully the real demands for concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled and for social work.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the London Residuary Body; and what was discussed.

My right hon. Friend met the chairman on 27 November to discuss matters relevant to the Residuary Body's functions under the Local Government Act 1985.

I was hoping that the engine driver would answer my question.

The hon. Gentleman has not changed his spots. He will presumably know that County Hall is a listed building. The London Residuary Body will be aiming to sell County Hall as soon as possible. In order to do that it will be necessary for ILEA to make alternative arrangements for accommodation, and I understand that negotiations between the LRB and ILEA have already begun.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that any cash that is left over from the GLC will go to the London Residuary Body? What action is he taking to prevent Mr. Livingstone from buying himself a parliamentary seat in North London with bribes?

I can assure my hon. Friend that any balances which are left over —I understand that they will be considerable —will go to the London Residuary Body for distribution to the boroughs. I see that the Leader of the GLC has been named "Santa Ken" by some of our newspapers.

Is the Minister aware of the recommendation in the report "Faith in the City" that there should be an expanded public housing programme of new building and improvement'? Instead of describing the report as negative, as the Secretary of State did, can the hon. Gentleman be positive and give an assurance that the pot of gold of around £30 million of capital receipts held by the GLC will be used for house building and improvement in London, that the GLC house improvement teams which have done such splendid work in London, particularly in rundown estates, will not be broken up, and that the housing research function for London will he preserved? Will he, unlike the Secretary of State, not attack the Church, but say something positive about what can be done for housing in London?

I had not noticed that my right hon. Friend had attacked the Church. I would ask that when such reports are written, some figures should be put on the assessments made by the critics. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any of the balances that are left over will go to the Residuary Body and be distributed to the boroughs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned property, and I shall be looking into that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue for consultation a Green Paper on the spending of capital receipts from council house sales; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on 20 November, at column 246, that the prescribed proportion of capital receipts will remain unchanged next year. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish proposals for reform of the local authority capital control system in a Green Paper early in the new year.

Now that a wooden stake has been driven through sterling M3, will my hon. Friend assist in making a shallow grave for the policy that allows £6·3 billion of capital receipts from council house sales to lie idly in local authority bank accounts, earning interest that is used by profligate authorities in revenue spending?

The money is not lying idle. A substantial proportion of the cash from receipts has already been spent on the repaying of debt and also on repairs and maintenance. Councils are committed to spending a reasonable proportion of their capital receipts and, when they spend that money on housing, it must be replaced by further borrowing, which therefore drives up the local authority borrowing requirement, and that in turn drives up the public sector borrowing requirement, stake and all.

Will the Minister confirm that the much vaunted so-called increase of £200 million achieved by the Secretary of State in his Cabinet discussions was, when examined, found to be a net decrease of money? It was only because of an increase in housing receipts that extra money was to be available from council house sales. The Department of the Environment's budget for next year shows a cut in money for local authority housing —not a success at all. The Secretary of State's first battle was a loss to housing, not a victory.

That question is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman. There is more money there, and more money will be spent. There is more money because of the allocations and the receipts plus the head room that is necessary to account for the considerable overspending —alas —that local councils are indulging in this year.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his reply will be disappointing to some Conservative Members, particularly those who represent boroughs which have been highly responsible and prudent and have acquired those capital receipts in response to Government requests and Government policy? Will he therefore review the matter, bearing in mind that those councils have planned their expenditure for the future based on capital receipts, and not based on borrowing and upping the rates?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing exactly that. He is reviewing the system and will be bringing forward a Green Paper early in the new year. I pay tribute to the prudence of my hon. Friend's borough council and I remind him and all other right hon. and hon. Members that, for some reason, many councils seem to ignore the opportunities given to them to spend up to 100 per cent. of capital receipts on schemes to promote low-cost home ownership. That is a pity.

Has not the Government's housing policy been an absolute disaster? If the Minister wants proof of that, I suggest that he reads "Faith in the City". I have a copy, but I think that most Conservative Members have not been prepared to spend £7·50 to obtain a copy. I suggest that they read the serious points in the section on housing and recognise that the policy it puts forward, which is not entirely the policy of the Labour party, would begin to deal with the problems of housing —unlike the Government's policy, which does not.

The Secretary of State has said that we are considering the report and will consider it further.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer will cause some disquiet to smaller authorities whose council house sales are less than £1 million per annum? Will he therefore consider excluding those smaller authorities from that ceiling?

I am aware of the problems for smaller authorities to which my hon. Friend refers. We are considering exactly that point in the Green Paper which is to be published early in the new year.

Will the Minister confirm that of the "extra" £220 million of cash made available, only £160 million will be used on revenue, and that some of that will be used, not on construction, but to pay loan charges because of higher interest rates than those forecast? Is it not the case that Ministers do not know how much of capital receipt money is spent on housing? They have no information about the amount that local authorities use for housing. People outside cannot understand why £6·3 billion is in the bank when it could be spent on improvement grants for owner-occupiers, as well as putting right public sector stock.

Other adjustments are made to try to take care of the first point made by the hon. Gentleman. As to the second point, there is not £6·3 billion in the bank. A substantial amount of that cash has already been spent on repaying debt and on capitalisation of repairs and maintenance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of derelict land grants disbursed in the last 12 months for which statistics are available.

In the year to September 1985, £65 million was paid in derelict land grant to local authorities and other bodies. I have increased the resources available this year to £82 million. I shall shortly issue a circular on reclaiming derelict land —it is an essential tool for urban regeneration.

Will my right hon. Friend write today to the Archbishop of Canterbury and remind him that many Christians are also Conservatives who agree that the derelict land grant programme is a sensible way of helping inner cities, unlike the Archbishop's commission's proposals, which amount to worn-out Socialist dogma of spending an extra £4 billion of public money?

I should be happy to meet the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss the problems of the inner cities with him. I would draw to his attention —some parts of the report recognise it —the considerable resources that are applied to dealing with the inner city problems. The increase in derelict land grant has been from some £23 million when we came to office to £82 million this year —well in excess of the rate of inflation and a substantial increase in real terms. I think that the money is very well spent in dealing with many of the problems mentioned by the report —housing, enterprise workshops and regenerating our inner cities. I should like the country to recognise the enormous amount that we are doing.

With one quarter of the industrial sites in Manchester now lying vacant, what assistance will the Government give for demolition and the refurbishment of those sites in the north-east of Manchester?

I am well aware of the problems of the decline of some of the industrial base of Manchester. We provide extra assistance through derelict land grant. I have seen several projects in the city, some of which are part of the urban programme, which are revitalising the centre, particularly the old central railway station, which I hope will become a magnet for exhibitions and so on. That programme will continue. This year I am concentrating the urban programme more on the cities and towns with the greatest need.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how important these grants are in my constituency? Is he aware that last year his Department gave a derelict land grant of £1·4 million to the Normanby park steelworks site, and that currently the local authorities have put in an application for more than £16 million? Will my right hon. Friend consider that application sympathetically?

My hon. Friend has been to see me twice about those matters. I was glad to approve a grant of £1·4 million for private derelict land recovery of the old Normanby steelworks. My hon. Friend is right in saying that a substantial application is before me and my Department. It emphasises the importance of that spend. We have to bring that derelict land back into effective use.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Archbishop of Canterbury, will he tender a collective apology on behalf of all Cabinet members, or on behalf of only a few of them? Will he pass on to the Archbishop the message from the chairman of the Conservative party that he is now praying for the Church of England?

I speak for the Government in these matters. There was some talk that the report had been leaked before the weekend, when it had been intended for publication on Tuesday. However, I understand that it was on sale on Saturday morning in Dillon's bookshop.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received since his statement on 19 November, Official Report, column 148, about future grants for countrywide voluntary organisations currently funded by the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council.

My noble Friend the Minister of State discussed this and other matters with representatives of the London voluntary sector last week, but there have been no written representations on the matter of countrywide organisations.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a disappointing response from his Department to the transitional bids made by local authorities, with only a low percentage of bids being accepted? In view of that, of what value are the promises made in this House and in another place last year during the debates on abolition?

The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities were disappointed with the allocations. However, we announced some time ago that we would help with £20 million worth of transitional projects. Indeed, a few weeks ago we announced allocations for projects of exactly that value. That is additional money to the rate support grant and other resources.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many constituents are writing to Members of Parliament who represent areas within the metropolitan county councils that are covered by voluntary organisations? Those organisations wonder whether they will still receive the grants that they currently receive, and whether the money that is recycled by the metropolitan county councils will still find its way to them. Can my hon. Friend clarify that? The Greater Manchester council is the authority involved in my area.

As a Member who represents just such an area, I am well aware of the correspondence to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Is the Minister aware that many excellent voluntary organisations in Yorkshire, currently in receipt of grant, are concerned about their future? Will the hon. Gentleman go beyond the block amount available and tell the House what process there is for evaluating projects to decide whether they are worth funding in future? That is the question to which most voluntary organisations want an answer.

That decision rests with the local authorities. My Department has indicated the provisional amount of money available to local authorities for transitional projects. It is for local authorities to decide which projects to fund with transitional help and which to take on board themselves.

The Minister's answers simply are not good enough. They reveal a lack of knowledge of the magnitude of the problems that will face voluntary organisations, which have told me that the transitional grants are not sufficient. The additional spending power of boroughs on a county-wide basis under section 48 is not good enough. Why did the Minister not consider the solution offered by a number of organisations—that the section 137 2p rate should be increased to 4p for borough councils?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first intervention from the Dispatch Box. As he knows, we debated these matters at length when the abolition Bill passed through the House earlier this year. I am satisfied that the Government have done all they can to ensure that worthwhile voluntary projects are not out of pocket as a result of abolition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of derelict land owned by public bodies were sold during the last 12 months.

In the 12 months ended 31 October 1985, 6,300 acres of unused or underused land on the land registers have been sold. A further 3,500 acres have been removed from the registers because their owners have brought them back into use.

I welcome pressure on councils to dispose of surplus derelict land, but may I ask my hon. Friend to assure the House that he does not expect councils willy-nilly to sell off public parks and open spaces, such as the amenity land in front of Eagley Bank infants school in my constituency?

As it happens, I can reply to my hon. Friend with some degree of authority, for I have recently visited Bolton twice in his company. The issue to which he refers is twofold. First, there is a piece of vacant land, which has been vacant and unused for a long time, which needs to be disposed of. Secondly, the problems of the after-use of that land can be dealth with by the borough council through the normal planning process. It is the borough council's task and responsibility.

How much derelict land is owned by Government Departments? What pressure does the Minister put on his colleagues to dispose of surplus Government land? In particular, what pressure does he put on the Secretary of State for Defence to dispose of derelict land that is surplus to requirements?

It is certainly true that Governemnt Departments own derelict land. I am not able to give the exact figure as I do not have it to hand, but I shall write and let the hon. Gentleman know the result. Just as Government Departments have surplus land —and we are making major efforts to get them to dispose of it as quickly as possible —so, too, besides local councils, do nationalised industries, and they need to get rid of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is to lead our disposal drive in 1986, will be after the nationalised industries.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about nationalised industries hanging on to unnecessary land. A great deal has been done to squeeze out surplus land from public authorities and utilities, but a good deal of land that nationalised industries call operational is sometimes not operational at all. Will my hon. Friend assure us that he and his colleagues will press other Departments and public utilities to get this surplus land, which is often derelict, back into housing or green and leisure facilities?

My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. Large public bodies, such as British Rail, or, for that matter, water authorities, sometimes own substantial amounts of land, which they should dispose of for re-use. We hear a great deal about the need for more investment in sewers. If water authorities got rid of more of their unused land, they could invest the proceeds in capital infrastructure.

The Minister mentioned that he was going to encourage water authorities to sell off unused land. On much of that land there is access for walkers. Will the Minister give the assurance that, de facto, not de jure, access will be enshrined in any deals to sell off such land?

We recognise the important amenity value of land which is held by water authorities and of the water itself, which provides important amenities. Water authorities will be looking carefully at their legal duties to preserve access where that is appropriate.

How much derelict land is there in inner city areas controlled by the Labour party? In view of the comments about inner cities made recently by those in another place and elsewhere, is my hon. Friend aware that about six members of the commission are also members of the Labour party? Is there any correlation between those two facts?

I was aware of some of the facts to which my hon. Friend has referred. When I visit councils which complain about their housing —understandably —such as Hull, which has been under Labour party control for 38 of the last 40 years, and look at the land register, I find it hard to understand why they have just under 1,000 acres of unused, unsold land.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the improvement, reclamation and development of Maryport harbour.

The Allerdale district council and English Estates are jointly preparing proposals to redevelop Maryport harbour. English Estates is to decide in the new year whether or not to go ahead with development. My Department has agreed in principle to provide derelict land grant for a good reclamation scheme leading to new investment and new jobs.

Will the Minister join me in expressing the view that a development of Maryport harbour is crucial to the development of Maryport as a whole? Does he recognise that the construction of a road bridge linking the town to the harbour's infrastructure developments would spark off all sorts of private sector involvement? Can we look to the Government to provide us with the money to secure those infrastructure works?

A good scheme would have the effect described by the hon. Gentleman, and I recognise the importance of a bridge to a good scheme. If a proposal is made to us, we shall consider it sympathetically.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to make orders under section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 setting up any further urban development corporations.

None at the moment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that these corporations could bring speedy, effective and non-bureaucratic action to tackle inner city deprivation? Will he look at this matter again, because, apart from anything else, such corporations would attract substantial private sector money?

I am examining this matter, because my hon. Friend is right. The London Docklands Development Corporation is conducting the most successful recovery of a derelict part of an inner city, and we have every right to be proud of it. So far it has attracted over £1 billion of private investment into the area. There is another development on Merseyside. This year I am providing resources of £95 million for the two corporations.

Does the Secretary of State accept that while everything that the two development corporations have done is not all bad, their greatest flaw is that there is no democratic accountability? Will he confirm what he said on the "London Programme" on Friday —that where there is very little derelict land, the structure of urban development corporations would be highly inappropriate? Surely what is needed is confirmation by the Government of faith in the inner city, and faith in local government. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he needs to support local government in tackling the problems of other deprived areas rather than giving such problems to appointees of his Department, who are not accountable?

Our faith in the inner cities is demonstrated by our commitment to them. Since we have been in office, we have put £1–5 billion into the inner cities through the urban programme, derelict land grants and urban development corporations. That is a substantial commitment, and there is no doubt that the development corporations have been a success. I reiterate what I said on the programme. The corporations have been particularly effective in the areas where there is much dereliction and where a great job has to be done. That job is now being done. Before the LDDC was set up in the east end of London, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the councils could not agree, the GLC could not agree and there was nothing. The record speaks for itself.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the achievements of the LDDC, which he rightly extols, have been effected in the face of a persistent and consistent campaign by the Left in those areas against everything that the corporation is trying to do? Will he comment on that aspect, given the rather quiet attitude of the Labour party?

One of the councils supportive of the LDDC has already come out in favour of the Canary wharf development. Some elements have constantly criticised, but such criticism is against the interests of the area. There is real regeneration in east London, and we should be proud of that.

Irrespective of the merits of any one development, does the Secretary of State agree that one of the so-called popularities of the development corporations is that they have the unique power of selling public land together with planning permission, in certain cases without the normal safeguards of a public inquiry? Does he now agree that, irrespective of its merits, the Canary wharf development in the West India docks could and probably would have an enormous strategic impact on Greater London in general, and east London in particular? Why will he not permit a public inquiry?

I have already decided not to call in that development. In making that decision I had to consider all the various factors. We are talking about the creation of a new financial centre and mobile investment. If it is not to be built in the docklands area, it will not be built in another part of London. Instead, it will go to Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam or elsewhere. The project is the largest civil investment programme for many years. It is a £1·5 billion programme that will provide 10 million sq ft of space and probably 40,000 to 50,000 jobs. I cannot take the risk of losing that sort of opportunity.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of London docklands is that the urban development corporations have put the emphasis on urban development, not on party politics? Is that not an example that we should repeat in other inner city areas throughout the country?

My hon. Friend is right. The corporations have been extremely good instruments, and we are assessing their effectiveness. It may be that we can use other forms of agency, such as private trusts, for the rehabilitation of certain derelict sites or areas in other parts of our cities. I am sure that the entire country and all political parties have a great deal to learn from the success that we are experiencing with the two corporations.

Whatever the successes or otherwise of the corporations, how does the Secretary of State expect focal authorities to tackle the problems in their areas when, for example, the Government have reduced housing investment by 69 per cent. since they came to office? How does he expect local authorities to tackle the problems that face them when there has been a persistent reduction in rate support grant, which cumulatively exceeds about £16 billion? Why have the Government been able to find more than £22 billion in tax reductions for higher rate taxpayers since they came to office, while persistently withdrawing resources from inner cities?

If, as I believe, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the problems of the inner cities can be resolved by throwing more resources at them, I must ask him to consider the record of the 1960s and 1970s, when vast sums were literally thrown at the inner cities. It was during that period that the slums and the problems with which we are now dealing were built. That is generally agreed as an analysis. We must target moneys much more effectively, and that is the process in which I am engaged. We must find ways of introducing private sector money more effectively. That is another important element.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he estimates it will take to complete all the repairs identified in the report of the inquiry into the condition of the local authority housing stock in England on the basis of existing public expenditure plans.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the estimated amount of repair and modernisation work needed to council owned residential accommodation.

I refer the hon. Members to the replies given on 12 November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle).

Does the Minister accept the Audit Commission's assessment that an extra £900 million will have to be added to the outstanding repair bill for council housing every year? Does he deny that at the present rate of spending it will take about 90 years to clear the nearly £19 billion-worth of defects which were revealed in the Department's report, which was published only recently? What hope can he give to the hundreds of thousands of families who are condemned to live in cold, damp, condensation-ridden substandard council housing?

I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government are the first Administration to go into this matter comprehensively and to publish a complete report. That was done as a result of the initiative of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I take this opportunity of paying tribute to him for what he did as Minister for Housing and Construction.

Does the Minister recognise that the vast amount of work that has to be done is largely the Government's responsibility because HIP allocations in the past few years have been entirely inadequate for local authorities either to repair or modernise on the scale required, and certainly inadequate to allow them to build? Is he aware that local authorities should have the financial means to allow them to carry out the work that is necessary so that they do not have to hand over estates to private property speculators and spivs?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has some difficult estates in his constituency, such as the Rosehill estate. That is why we sent the urban housing renewal unit to visit it on 22 November. Councils have to make their own priorities in housing expenditure. Surely their first task is to rehabilitate houses which they have in their ownership. They should have been doing that for many years. It is because of underspending by councils for decades that many housing estates have got into such an awful condition. They are now being renovated with the help of private sector money, which should be welcomed in a non-ideological way by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the worst local authority housing was built in the 1960s, which was the last occasion on which we tried to build our way out of the problem? Does he further agree that the best thing to do now is to say never again to proposals to build large-scale, windswept council estates, in which we merely condemn people to misery, to sell off as many houses as we can and to make effective repairs to those that are left?

Large-scale solutions do not seem to have helped in the past. The right to buy is certainly helping now. I wish that councils which complain the loudest, like Southwark, which has a reported £24 million of uncollected rents, would collect their rents so that they might spend the money on keeping their housing stock in the state in which it should be kept.

Does not the abysmal state of so much local authority housing stock make a case for actively discouraging the building of any more local authority houses?

It is the first duty of councils to manage properly and to repair and rehabilitate their stock so that tenants are properly treated. The forthcoming housing and planning Bill will contain provisions to make sure that the voice of tenants is better heard, as it was in Thamesmead, where the tenants voted to leave council control because they were dissatisfied with it. That is characteristic of the GLC.

The Minister is talking absolute rubbish in accusing local authorities of underspending, when his Government have cut HIP allocations to local authorities by almost 70 per cent. over the last six years. We want to hear from the Minister within what time scale he will give permission for local authorities to raise money or spend their own money to deal with the appalling backlog of housing which has been highlighted by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and confirmed by his own Government's report. Why does he not allow them to go to the market to get money, if they want to, or to spend their own money on this essential purpose?

There was widescale agreement by all the local authority associations represented at the housing consultative council meeting last week about the fact that more work needed to be done and about the priority to be accorded to work that should be carried out before proper timetabling could be organised. While we are talking about the AMA, which speaks loudly about the need for more money, I wonder why it is spending on plush new headquarters in central London the sum of £7 million raised from its own ratepayers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current levels of expenditure upon the upkeep of ancient monuments and list those voluntary bodies which receive support from the Government in that work.

In the current financial year the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission will spend £13 million on monuments in its care —an increase of 25 per cent. over the previous year —and over £7 million on grants to owners of other monuments. My Department will spend over £18 million on the upkeep of monuments in the Royal and Crown Estates. My right hon. Friend recognises the important contributions of voluntary bodies in this field and offered grants of over £250,000 towards their administrative expenses.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he reassure us that he considers that we are getting good value for money from voluntary organisations? Does he think that we are getting the balance right between access to and protection of historic sites?

I think that we are getting very good value for money. In this country we have some of the finest examples of ancient monuments. This is recognised throughout the world and is evidenced by the number of visitors to them. As to granting public access to monuments, the HBMC weighs all the necessary factors in determining the strategy for each monument.

Is the Minister aware that we have 20,000 ancient monuments in Coventry, 1,000 of them unfit for human habitation, 6,000 without hot and cold running water, baths, showers or inside toilets, and 14,000 requiring repairs of over £5,000 to make them fit for people to live in? How many more years under the Tory Government will working-class families in the centre of Coventry have to live in ancient monuments of houses over 100 years old that are unfit for human habitation?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has addressed that question to the wrong Minister. Our inspectorate would certainly find it difficult to agree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage co-operative housing associations and trusts in the regeneration of housing estates.

Tenant management co-operatives, housing associations and trusts have an important potential for the regeneration of rundown council estates, providing better management and giving tenants a bigger say in how their estates are run. The forthcoming housing and planning Bill will enable local authorities to delegate their housing management functions to a range of other bodies. The Department's urban housing renewal unit is encouraging local authorities to consider the scope for innovative solutions of this kind. The unit is also examining the best way to provide start-up and training resources for new tenant co-operatives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent decision democratically reached by Thamesmead tenants shows that local authority tenants would rather be masters of their own destiny than servants of the GLC? Does he further agree that the forthcoming Building Societies Bill will enable responsible and prudent private sector capital to be made available through the building society movement, pension funds and other institutions to liberalise the situation and to ensure that estates are given a breath of fresh air and a new personality?

I applaud the decision of Thamesmead residents in October to reject the cosy solution of life with the local authority and to take the bold step of taking their future in their own hands. One reason for that decision was that it would give them access to private sector capital so that Thamesmead could be completed at a faster rate. My hon. Friend is quite right. There may be a message there for other parts of the country.

Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if in the forthcoming housing and planning Bill, instead of delegating authority to local authorities, the Government followed Labour party policy and gave local authority tenants the statutory right to decide whether they wish to run their own estates, rather than leave it to public landlords? Is he aware that giving tenants the right to organise their own estates is fully in line with Labour party policy and that we are happy to support that, but that we will not support a Government who give power to local authorities to kick tenants out so that the houses can be done up and sold off?

If the hon. Gentleman tables an amendment to that effect, it may well receive support from the Government. Anything which gives tenants greater rights is entirely in line with our tenants' charter, which seeks to give tenants greater independence from sometimes remote local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the national parks.

Our policy is one of firm support, represented by the necessary financial and statutory backing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the splendour of our national parks is regularly spoilt by a selfish minority scattering litter wholesale? Will he give strong support to the Keep Britain Tidy campaign and encourage the national parks to provide more facilities for the disposal of litter?

I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said. The Department gives considerable support to the Keep Britain Tidy group, and we intend to continue that support. There has also been increased support in real terms for the Countryside Commission and in the national parks supplementary grant in recent years.

After Okehampton, the Minister's assurances about national parks have a somewhat hollow ring. As the Bill which effectively creates a national park in Norfolk has been declared hybrid, will the Government provide time for the introduction of that Bill, which will have the support of the House?

After Okehampton —in fact, that Bill is still being debated in another place —I draw entirely the opposite conclusion. The care that both Houses have taken over that matter shows that no decision affecting a national park can be taken lightly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the conditions of the civilian workers on the Falkland Islands; and if he has any evidence that the excessive consumption of drugs and alcohol is affecting the efficiency with which they are carrying out work under Government contracts.

The civilian workers employed in the Falkland Islands on contracts let by my Department occupy good living accommodation close to the sites at which they work, where a wide range of sporting and other facilities are also provided. General allegations of drunkenness and drug abuse are without foundation. The work force regularly works a 70-hour, seven-day week and its efficiency can be judged by its excellent performance and productivity in maintaining the tight timetable for the construction of the major airport and associated Army facilities.

If press reports about drugs and whacky-baccy parties are without foundation, should they not be challenged?

Although the hon. Gentleman and I attended the same school, that particular form of entertainment did not take place when I was there.