asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of houses built in the United Kingdom during 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to increase the rate of municipal house building in 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state separately the number of private and public houses started and completed in 1973 or, if not yet available, his estimate for that year ; if he will give the comparable figures for each of the preceding five years ; what steps he proposes to increase the programmes in both private and public sectors ; and if he will make a statement on the future of the housing programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current rate of house building.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what, at the latest date, are the figures for house building, public and private, for 1973 ; and what are the comparative figures for 1972.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were completed in 1973 both in the public and private sectors ; and how this compares with the previous five years.

The latest house building figures, to the end of November 1973, were published on 31st December and are in the Library, as are copies of Housing and Construction Statistics which contain figures for previous years. Figures for the whole of 1973 are to be published on 31st January.

In view of that lengthy reply, would it not have been better for the Minister to have stated the figures? Is he not aware that housing completions last year were the worst for 20 years? Does he realise that the electorate will be able to see at first hand the utter incompetence of the Government, while those figures will continue to mean for people living in my constituency and many others the absolute human suffering that they have to endure to find somewhere to live? Is housing to be given priority, or is this to be another issue from which the Government will run away?

The hon. Member asked me why I did not give the figures. I did not do so because I do not have them for 1973. I have already told the House that the figures will be published on 31st January. When they are published, no doubt the hon. Member will wish to table a Question in February, when I should look forward to answering him.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when we last had a severe economic crisis house building was severely hit? I refer to 1968. Will he ensure that in future such difficulties do not fall on the house building industry? Will he attempt to have a rolling programme for housing to ensure that it continues to maintain a high priority?

As I told my hon. Friend—I am sure he agrees—housing is exempt from reductions in public expenditure. That shows the high priority which the Government attach to house building, in both the public and the private sectors. The Government will take every possible step to try to help house building during the present difficult situation, but it would be misleading the House to pretend that it can be wholly exempt from the situation presently confronting the country.

Will the Minister admit that the Government cannot blame the miners for the collapse of the building programme? Council house building is the lowest since pre-war and it should be stressed that many local authorities, including Manchester, are now forced to offer 13¾ per cent. per annum on short-term loans and that for building firms there is an even higher rate of interest. What will the Minister do to stop the further reduction in the housing programme which will result from this factor? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing."]

The most important thing that any of us can do to try to maintain the momentum of the house building sector, which I believe both sides of the House are genuinely anxious to achieve, is to create a situation in which it will be possible for the essential materials to be provided and so make it possible for people to work to achieve the desired number of houses that we all want.

Is the Minister aware that we have now had 15 months' operation of the Housing Finance Act, which was introduced with the theme that more houses would be built as a result of the increased rents which the Government sponsored? Is he further aware that what we have seen is the worst housing slump in 20 years, with £320 million being put into the pockets of Harry Hyams and other property speculators and with 11 per cent. mortgage rates of interest—and that that cannot be blamed on to the miners?

If the hon. Member wishes to take that line, let me give him the facts. In our first three years, over 1 million houses have been completed and nearly 1 million improvement grants have been given to enable people living in obsolete accommodation to get decent homes. That means that, in the first three years of this Government, nearly 2 million decent homes have been provided, either by new homes or by improving older homes. That is nearly half a million more than when the last Government were in power.

While one recognises all that the Government have done and are doing in this important sector, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that results could be even better, particularly in rural areas, if planning permission were more readily and quickly forthcoming? Will his Ministry circulate local authorities again to encourage local planning committees to be less obstructive in this matter?

As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, new planning guidelines were recently issued which I am sure local authorities will wish to follow. My right hon. and learned Friend last week received the interim report by Mr. George Dobry. My hon. and gallant Friend's views will certainly be noted in this important matter.

Is it not remarkable that, when we have a Labour Government at Westminster, a state of affairs which may not be too long delayed, and Tory councils throughout the land, we have good private housing and terrible public housing figures, and that when the situation is reversed, as it is today, we have housing figures which are saved from total disaster only by reasonable public housing figures? I wonder, is there a moral in this?

The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was complaining just now about public sector figures. I am very glad to have the hon. Member's support in that respect.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather coincidental that, since we have had Socialist-controlled local authorities, we have had such deplorable rates of building?

I think it is remarkable that the Labour Party, when it was out of power in the local authorities, said that it would build many more houses. Then it came into office, and it is now seeking every excuse for its lamentable failure. [Interruption.]

Order. If the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, Northwest (Mr. Greville Janner) wishes to ask a supplementary question, he must rise. I thought he had a Question on the Order Paper which was being answered with Question No. 1.

Is the Minister aware that in most of the large cities large blocks of offices remain empty at the same time as housing waiting lists are getting longer and longer? Second, will he give an absolute undertaking that the house building figures for 1973 will be published on 31st January and not get lost, like other figures?

I know of no other figures that have been lost. I have already said that the house building figures will be published on 31st January. That is the practice which has been followed under successive administrations. The subject of office building raises different issues and my right hon. and learned Friend has already made a statement about that matter.

My hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of supply of building materials. I think general opinion has it that the general success of the Government's improvement and conversion policy has led to shortages. Is not this a difficulty with which the building industry is having to cope?

That has certainly been a problem, as has been the obtaining of skilled labour in certain areas because of the great success of the improvement grant policy. It remains a fact, as I said a few moments ago, that nearly 2 million decent homes have been provided, either by new building or by improvement grants. That is a great deal more than was achieved in the previous three years.

On a point of order. Was your reference just now to my putting a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, an indication that Question No. 2 was taken together with Question No. 1, or that I could put a supplementary to Question No. 1?

The Minister said that together with Question No. 1 he was answering Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and 12.

I did not hear that, Mr. Speaker. In that case, on Question No. 2, is it not correct that, dealing specifically with public sector housing, the figures are approaching an all-time low and that this is yet another disgraceful example of the Government's total failure to protect the worst-off sections of the community from the price rises which they assured the electorate, particularly in Leicester—the Prime Minister himself did so during the election—they would hold down? What do the Government propose to do about public housing, if they are given any time to do it anyway?

The hon. and learned Member is wrong and he should be fair about this. [An HON. MEMBER: "He will not be."] He should be ; whether he will be is a matter for the House to decide. In spite of the tendering difficulties which applied throughout most of the year, the number of dwellings in tenders accepted by local authorities in England and Wales in the first 11 months of last year was 28 per cent. up on the corresponding period of 1972. I did my best before Christmas to announce new tendering and contractual procedures, notably the reduction for a trial period from two years to one for firm price tenders. I think that that will have an effect on local authority housing and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes the fact that numbers in tenders have risen so considerably.

The Minister is certainly not being fair: he is evading every question that has been put to him. Is he aware—indeed, he must be—that extrapolation of the figures for the first 11 months of last year shows that the total of completions last year will almost certainly be under 300,000? In which previous year were house building completions under 300,000? Second, in view of all his claims about what the Government have done—no Government cut in the house building programme was necessary, since it is falling anyway—will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in almost every part of the country now, in contrast to two years ago, homelessness and waiting lists are increasing and that in housing the whole of the Government's policy is in total ruins?

The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with him on that last point. Nor do I think I am evading the questions that hon. Members are asking. I do not choose to speculate about what figures will be released for the whole year, because I do not know what the completions will be. The whole House will be able to form its judgment on 31st January when the figures are published. [HON. MEMBERS: "Evading."] I cannot evade about figures that are not available yet. In normal times, no hon. Member would ask me to comment on figures which had not yet been provided. How can I possibly do so?

Let me rephrase my question. The Minister knows what the completions were for the first 11 months of last year. Can he tell us in what previous year the figure of completions for the first 11 months was lower than the figure for last year?

If one takes the figure of the first 11 months for completions and improvement grants approved one sees that the figures for the completions in the first 11 months of 1973 were 270,000. The figures for improvement grants approved were 342,000. The House will be interested——

Twister.

Those are decent houses being provided by the provision of improvement grants. When the Labour Party introduced the 1969 Act, it seemed to be in favour of improvement grants ; now, Labour Members jeer at the achievement in that field. The figures mean that, in the first 11 months of last year, over 600,000 people had better housing conditions as a result of either new house building or the approval of improvement grants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards road building and public transport in the light of the latest developments in the energy shortage.

Not yet, Sir.

In view of the on-going and long-term energy crisis, which is likely to be with us for all time, would not the Minister agree that the time has come to call a halt to superfluous road building and to use the public funds thus saved to finance effective and efficient public transport and other essential social services covering the needs of the elderly, the sick and children enjoying education?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about a continuing energy problem, but the Government are already supporting public transport to a marked extent. Also, roads will be needed for some time ahead. The hon. Gentleman should not be led into too great exaggerations.

In the context of the present energy shortage, what instructions has my right hon. Friend given concerning lighting on motorways? Is he aware that it is extremely irritating for householders who have been stringently following the rules to find that on the motorways the scene looks like the Blackpool illuminations?

Yes, I agree that it is irritating for those who are trying to economise in their own homes to see massive illuminations on motorways. I have cut them down considerably, and I did so again last week. At the same time, I am sure my hon. Friend will bear in mind the need for lighting at dangerous junctions to avert accidents.

When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement about the future of British Railways, I understood that he proposed early this year to produce a White Paper dealing with wider transport questions. Should I infer from his answer today that the White Paper will be further delayed, or does he intend to issue the White Paper during this month, as I understood to be the intention?

Any White Paper has to take full account of the great change in the energy situation, so there will inevitably be a delay. I prefer to wait until there has been clarification of the energy problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons were killed and seriously injured on the roads in the first month after the introduction of a maximum speed limit of 50 mph ; and how these figures compare with the same period in the previous year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on how road accident figures have been affected by the imposition of the 50 mph speed limit.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish facts and figures showing the effect on the incidence of road accidents of the fuel shortage and the 50 miles per hour speed limit.

There are indications that there have been fewer accidents since the 50 mph limit was introduced but the amount of traffic has also fallen. When the first accident statistics are available in March I will make a statement.

Recognising that there are other considerations, such as any decrease there may be in the volume of traffic, and weather conditions, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that it is obvious that the 50 mph limit has saved lives as well as petrol consumption? Does he not think it reasonable that the 50 mph limit should be more rigorously enforced and permanently kept?

Enforcement is a matter not for me but for the police or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. While undoubtedly, as I said in my answer, there are indications that numbers of accidents and casualties have fallen during this period, that can be because there has been less traffic. I remind my hon. Friend that the 50 mph limit was imposed for fuel reasons. When regulations of this sort are made, it is important that the reasons for making them should be honoured and that there should be no confusion. People have co-operated very well with the 50 mph limit and I should not like to think that advantage would be taken of them to make it permanent.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been made aware of the serious bunching on motorways because of the 50 mph speed limit? Will he take note that my opinion is that the sooner we return to the 70 mph limit the better?

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said. The 50 mph speed limit is undoubtedly responsible for an increase in bunching, which is in itself undesirable.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the factors in the reduction in the number of accidents is that when a speed limit is imposed and enforced people make much greater use of their rear view mirrors in case there is a police car behind? Is not the use of rear view mirrors a major factor in reducing the number of overtaking accidents?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. I can only commend, as he would wish, the more widespread use of this very effective device.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now have discussions with representatives of the motor cycle trade regarding road accidents affecting motor cyclists and moped riders.

Yes, Sir.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that effective reply.

I am only to anxious to return the hon. Gentleman's thanks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy regarding granting permission for the location of warehouses in the Greater London area.

The primary responsibility for dealing with planning applications for warehouses rests with the local planning authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend decides only those cases which come to him on appeal or which he calls in because they raise issues of more than local importance. Each case is decided on its merits having regard to the initial development plan for Greater London and other material considerations.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent London constituencies have been much concerned over the past few years at the exodus of industry from Greater London? Is he further aware that the practice is creeping in of the pulling down of industrial buildings which once employed thousands of people and for men and women to be thrown out of work? Warehouses, which employ very few people, are erected in place of the industrial buildings and this causes congestion of roads. If this practice is not arrested, the problem will become serious. Can examination be made of an alternative policy?

The control of industrial development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I remind the House that the Greater London Development Plan which is before my right hon. and learned Friend includes a statement of policy on industrial and commercial employment. Complex considerations are involved. The draft modifications which the Government are minded to make to the plan following consideration of the report of the panel of inquiry are still being compiled.

Will my hon. Friend discover from the Greater London Council whether its chief complaint is that there are too many jobs in London with a consequent difficulty in filling them, or too few jobs? If it is the former, we need not be worried about the loss of jobs and the substitution of an activity that requires fewer hands to do the work. The GLC seems to want to have it both ways all the time in whatever manner will cause needless embarrassment to the Government.

I cannot answer for the GLC, but in recent days we have been considering the housing measures we can bring forward to assist the people who are working in the London area.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the proposed Maplin airport to be operational.

I have informed the House that the earliest practicable opening date is 1982 and this is still the basis of planning.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in view of the changed energy and economic circumstances, it is widely expected that the Government will cancel the Maplin project completely, using the forthcoming review as a pretext for doing so? Would it not be better for the Government to demonstrate that they, too, are willing to sacrifice some of their pet public spending projects and to end the uncertainty by cancelling the Maplin project now?

No, I do not think that follows. Certainly recent events will be taken into account in the report which will in due course be brought before the House.

If the Government have resources available for the development of airports, will they look more favourably at the development of provincial airports, particularly in Scotland, and do away with the ridiculous anomaly whereby travellers from all parts of this small island have to make their intercontinental flights through London?

Certainly. These are not conflicting claims.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the basis for the Maplin decision was the protection of the environment? I trust that is still his intention.

The House agreed when we were discussing Cublington that Maplin was the environmental solution.

In supporting the representations made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), may I ask the Minister to bear in mind the recent remarks made by the Governor of the Bank of England to the effect that we shall be in a period of austerity until 1984? Should not this project go by the board at least until 1984?

It will be all the more necessary for us to make our living in the world.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend instead cancel the Channel Tunnel project and use the funds thus saved for bringing forward the planning for Maplin by several years?

That is a suitable matter for discussion when the report is published, but there is no reason why both projects should not go forward.

May I reassure the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) that it will be only a matter of weeks before the next Labour Government cancel Maplin?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now list those parties with which he has had consultations on the Maplin review being undertaken by his Department.

The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority are assisting in the study at working level and the British Airways Board has been asked for information. Other bodies will be brought into consultation as the study proceeds.

In view of the ornithological implications of the project, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend is able to differentiate between a lame duck and a dead duck?

My hon. Friend will be able to make whatever observations he wishes when the report is brought before the House.

Does the list include those local authorities which are at present seriously affected by the existing airports in the South-East?

The consultations will be wide and will include the local authorities. As I indicated to the House on 23rd October, it is intended that there should be a wide-ranging and comprehensive study in which everybody's views will be taken into account.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss fully with the Department of Trade and Industry the implications from the balance of payments point of view, because it seems that few airlines that presently bring foreign exchange to this country will wish to use Maplin? Furthermore, will he do everything he can to encourage the development of quiet airliners as these will be valuable in the export sphere, whereas the same cannot be said of Maplin?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of houses built in 1972 was factory-built ; and if he will take steps to encourage the construction industries to make better use of the technique.

Twenty-seven per cent. of houses completed in the public sector in 1972 were factory built. I hope that both local authorities and private house builders will consider very carefully how far industrialised building will help to answer their problems. It is, of course, for sponsors to develop and sell their systems.

Is it the Government's intention to try to increase that percentage in future? Is that part of Government policy? Does the Minister recognise that, particularly for small housing authorities, a wide range of choice in the design of factory-built houses would be welcomed?

That depends on the local authority and on the circumstances of each particular case. I hope that anyone planning a housing development will consider industrialised building, as he would any other possible way of achieving better value for money and getting houses built more quickly. However, it is a more complicated position than that and situations vary very much.

Will my hon. Friend consider the sponsorship of schemes for industrialised building? Is he aware that the lack of this bedevilled arrangements previously when 200 to 300 firms in the United Kingdom, at tremendous cost to themselves, had developed industrialised schemes which did not get off the ground as well as they would have done if the Government—this applies to the previous administration too—had sponsored low-rise industrial development?

I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says. I hope the House realises that a great deal of the economies resulting from industrialised building often arise from the substitution of labour by cheap fuel, and in the present situation it is not absolutely apparent that this would necessarily be right.

How many houses does the 27 per cent. represent?

The hon. Gentleman must await the figures on 31st January.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Manchester Piccadilly-Victoria railway scheme.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the answer which he gave to the House shortly before we rose for the Christmas Recess he said that, provided the total policy of the Manchester Pice-Vic scheme came within acceptable estimates, the Government would endorse it? Is he further aware that since then the strategic plan for the North-West has become more widely available and in it this project is considered urgent and immediate? While regretting the delay and the fact that it is not now to be in the programme until 1975–76, may I ask the Minister to confirm that grant aid for design throughout 1974–75 will still be available?

Grant aid on design has been available. Before committing myself further I would prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman. Beyond that, I have nothing to add to my statement.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would agree that the completion of the scheme will bring great facilities and amenities to the area although in its opening years it may not be too profitable?

I have been liberally informed of the enthusiastic support for this project in Manchester, particularly by my hon. Friend. I have no doubt about its importance. I assure my hon. Friend that the scheme has not been judged on strict economics or anything of that kind. I hope that in future it will make a useful contribution to Manchester's problems. In the end the decision will be for Manchester.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread disappointment that his reversal of track seems to have created? Does he appreciate that these local authorities have not gone in for expensive urban road plans and that it has been noted that when they come along with a public transport solution they encounter great difficulties? Will he be more positive in encouraging public transport projects of this kind?

The right hon. Gentleman is very unhappy sometimes, and I am awfully sorry for him, because he draws terribly wrong conclusions. This is one of them.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that many people on both sides of the House and in all parties in the North-West are extremely grateful to him for the way in which he has finally responded to the representations made to get permission for this scheme to go ahead within the limitations he has announced?

My hon. Friend's words are gratefully received.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Housing Finance Act so as to relieve council tenants of paying all rent throughout any period when their homes are being improved under the provisions of the Housing Acts.

No, Sir. Local authorities already have adequate powers to meet this situation.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, because of the sheer incompetence of the private enterprise company concerned, constituents are having to live in barn-like, freezing conditions because improvements are taking two and three times as long as they should? Is he further aware that, although Manchester Corporation has relieved these people of the obligation to pay rent for the period during which it seemed likely that the repairs would take place, it is unable to do so for the extra period? Will he now give Manchester Corporation specific authority to permit tenants to live rent-free during any period when improvements are taking place? Will he underwrite that guarantee with a formal undertaking?

I appreciate that there can be serious practical difficulties for tenants in certain circumstances. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties about the local authority. Before a fair rent has been made a council can reimburse any costs actually incurred by tenants or grant them a special rebate. After a fair rent determination the council may determine a lower fair rent for such time as the condition is affected by the carrying out of improvement works. It follows that the local authority has power to safeguard the interests of the tenant.

Is the Minister aware that I have been informed by the Greater London Council that it is impeded by the Housing Finance Act from making a reduction in rent when, for example, the heating in a house breaks down and a heating element is included in the rent? Is he aware that the GLC says that the same thing applies when there is severe damp in the house or when such facilities as the water supply break down? Will he confirm that in such circumstances the legislation passed by a Conservative Government prevents a local authority from reducing the rent to take account of the period when such facilities are denied?

I will certainly look into this. This is the first I have heard of the problem. I think there must be some misunderstanding. If a fair rent has not been determined, and that may be the procedural stage in the case of the houses the hon. Member has mentioned, a special rebate can be made by the local authority.

Will the Minister look into the serious situation which arises, not just in Manchester but throughout all local authorities, when building firms have taken on big improvement contracts for council houses and the tenants are finding it an absolute disaster? Is he aware that such firms are taking months to do the job and often there are serious defects for which the firms should be prosecuted? Will he look into this because it is causing tremendous misery?

I will certainly look into it. I repeat that it seems to be the position that local authorities have practical means of helping tenants who are in difficulties because of such circumstances.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, on the latest evidence available to him, he is satisfied with the operation of the rent rebates system.

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham the total cash received from rents has fallen by £277,000 as a result of the Housing Finance Act and that the total of rent rebates has increased from £700,000 to £2,250,000? Does he agree that the Housing Finance Act has certainly not added to the cost of living in Birmingham?

I am not at all surprised to hear those figures. They show, as the Government have always maintained in this House, with my hon. Friend's support, that the Housing Finance Act has done a great deal to help those on low incomes.

Is the Minister aware that the figures given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) are "phoney" and include the rebates given to supplementary benefit cases, which do not amount to a genuine reduction in rents? Is he further aware that the total amount of increase in rents is considerable, several times as much as the amount granted in rebates?

The figures in my possession show that the number of council house tenants receiving rent rebates last year was six times greater than before the passing of the Act. There were fewer than 300.000 people receiving rebates in March 1972. In May 1973 there were 1¾ million, and they were receiving rebates at an average of £1·85. I think that that proves what I am saying.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) are not "phoney" but are taken from the Labour council's own statistics? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that rent rebates are brought to the attention of people now on a three-day week who will find the Government's services extremely useful at the present time?

Yes. I am told that more than 20,000 new applications for rent rebates in Birmingham have been granted since the Act became law, as well as 2,000 new applications for rent allowances. I am sure that this scale of increase is being experienced in many other parts of the country.

The Minister will recall that following my letter he has reorganised the system of paying rebates in cases where both rent rebate and supplementary benefit are available. Is he satisfied that everyone will get the highest payment to which he is entitled? That has not been the position hitherto.

I cannot pretend that everyone will do so. Certainly it is my hope that everyone will get the rent rebate or allowance to which he is entitled. In terms of rent rebates the figures are satisfactory, but, as the House knows, I am still not satisfied about the take-up of rent allowances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of subsidy paid on local authority housing in each of the last five years ; and how much is expected to be paid in 1973–74.

The total amounts of Exchequer subsidy paid on local authority housing in England in each of the last five years, and the estimated outturn for 1973–74 are as follows: in 1968–69, £101 million ; 1969–70, £117 million ; 1970–71, £148 million ; 1971–72, £172 million: 1972–73, £240 million ; and in 1973–74, £290 million.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it strange that the subsidy should be going up as the house building programme is the lowest on record in the last 20 years? Does he recall that when the present Government were first elected the first White Paper they produced on new patterns of public expenditure had the deliberate intention of saving £200 million on housing subsidies? Does he not think it obscene that, at a time when public house building is at its lowest for 20 years, there should be at least three senior Government Ministers speculating in land and making colossal profits out of improvement grants resulting from legislation produced by their own Government? Is not that obscene and indefensible?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's imputations, which are all too typical of his conduct in the House. What may have disconcerted the hon. Gentleman and led to his outburst is the fact that the subsidies have very nearly trebled between 1968 and 1973–74.

Can my hon. Friend say whether his recent relaxation of the rigid rules on fixed-price contracts for public authority building apply to local authority housing, since this has been one of the principal constraints on local authority building in recent years?

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I hope that the changes in the contractual procedures which I announced just before Christmas will have this effect. It is something which both local authorities and builders have been asking for some time. Now that the change has been made, I hope they will find it of benefit to them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the land made available for local authority housing by outer London to inner London boroughs from 1971 to 1973.

I regret that the detailed information requested is not available. However, the help which outer London provides to inner London should not be evaluated simply in terms of the amount of land made available. Such help often takes the form of increased programmes by outer London boroughs or making available more lettings in their own properties for the benefit of inner London.

When will the Government stop prevaricating on this issue? Is not the Minister aware that Tory councils like Bromley and Richmond have deliberately frustrated the essential needs of inner London stress areas like Hackney and Brent? Does he not know that this is the only way of dealing with the housing problem in these stress areas? When will he do something to get these outer London Tory councils to act?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Action Group on London Housing, which, as he knows, includes experienced local government representatives from both major parties in London, undertook last year a series of visits to a cross-section of London authorities in both inner and outer London to discuss the assistance required and what could be made available. The group recorded in its interim report that there was an increasing awareness among outer London boroughs of the necessity to provide further assistance to inner London and a greater willingness to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Socialist-controlled Harrow Council is equally against doing anything along these lines because of the limited amount of building land available and because it believes that the real emphasis should be that people like the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) should be more concerned with the redevelopment of dockland than with dealing with the limited land available in the outer boroughs?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point in emphasising the contribution that the use of land in dockland could make to the solution of London's housing problems.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one outer London borough which has made a major offer of housing land to the GLC is the London borough of Havering, a Labour-controlled authority? Will he try to ensure that Tory outer London boroughs which have more land available than Havering make a comparable contribution?

According to the action group's survey, enough land is available to sustain the likely level of new house building in London until the end of the decade, but positive action is needed to bring that land into use.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to those disgraceful and inadequate replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what approach has been made to him by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea concerning the proposed disposal to private developers of housing land that had been compulsorily acquired ; and what action he proposes.

The hon. Member is presumably referring to the site which was the subject of his recent letter to my hon. Friend. No formal approach has been made to the Department about this, but I understand that disposal to private developers is not contemplated.

If disposal to private developers is not contemplated, that will be extremely welcome news. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal concerned land in an area of desperate housing need from which low income families had been cleared? If the matter comes before him, will he ensure that he does not give any such approval?

Consent is not necessary in this case, but in areas like Kensington there are people—for example, school teachers and local government employees—who are squeezed between rich property and council and housing association rented development, and it seems sensible that the council should in these circumstances provide houses for purchase by those people and so promote a healthy social mix.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now allow improvements to thermal insulation and double glazing on existing property to qualify for grants, in the interests of long-term savings of national energy resources.

As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) on 25th October—[Vol. 861, c. 651]—improvement grant for thermal insulation may be given, at the discretion of the local authority, as part of a full scheme of improvement to bring older dwellings up to modern standards.

Is the Government aware that this is becoming a matter of priority in view of the fact that thermal insulation standards in this country are about the worst in Europe, since only about one-quarter of the heat put into houses is used to heat them, the remainder being wasted? In view of the need to conserve energy and to save hundreds of millions of pounds on the balance of payments, should we not give this matter top priority?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's views. Provisions are being made in the Health and Safety at Work Bill to amend the building regulations, and it is intended to make new standards of thermal insulation compulsory for the future.

As there is widespread feeling about this, can the Minister assure us that it will be possible to include it within standard grant or other comparable procedures without delay?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await publication of the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is now the average level of council rents compared with June 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average increases in the price of building land and of houses, in the rents of both council houses and of privately rented houses and in the cost of mortgage repayments since June 1970.

Rebated rents of council housing in England and Wales rose by £l·04p weekly over the 3½-year period between April 1970 and October 1973. Comparison of the average for 1972 shows that private unfurnished rents were 37p per week higher and gross monthly mortgage payments £2·40p higher. For private housing land transactions reported in the first half of 1973 there was an increase of 185 per cent. and for private houses bought in the third quarter 108 per cent.

I thank the Minister for that information, which I am sure will appear in many of our election addresses. Is he aware that many tenants are looking forward to the repeal of the Housing Finance Act so that the continuing increases being imposed upon them might come to a rapid end?

If the hon. Gentleman is proposing to write an election address in the near future, I hope he will also include reference to the fact that, unless it is intended to take special measures to prevent it, the repeal of the Housing Finance Act would also mean the ending of the special rent rebate help which has assisted so many people on low incomes.

How do those figures compare with the 70 per cent. average increase in rents under the previous administration? Is it not a fact, hotly disputed at Question Time last month, that house and land prices are now falling?

On the best figures available to me—I have no official figures available at the moment—it is certainly a fact that in recent weeks house and land prices have been falling. I am surprised that Labour Members should laugh at that. They complained bitterly enough when prices went up. I should have thought they would cheer when they came down. I hope that when the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) is writing his election address, if that is what he has in mind, he will point out that under the Labour administration rents increased by 68 per cent.

The Minister delivers his answers either very quietly or very quickly. I did not catch the percentage increase in the cost of mortgage repayments. That is a serious matter. Does he feel that due note should be taken of all this dreadful and inflationary information when the election takes place? Since large profits have been made, will he tell us whether the Conservative Party has accepted or will accept donations from grateful property developers and speculators in 1974?

What will be very welcome to the Government is the fact that the hon. Gentleman has announced his determination to support us in trying to defeat inflation. He asked me to repeat the figures for mortgage repayments. Figures derived from the Family Expenditure Survey show that the average monthly repayment in 1970 was £14·50 compared with £16·90 in 1972.

Is the Minister aware that the correct figure for the increase in mortgage repayments on an average house for sale between 1970 and 1973 is 120 per cent.? Does he agree that one major way of contributing towards counter-inflation policies would be to stop the obscene speculation in land—[Interruption.]—Yes, obscene—and that a lead could be given by the Chairman of the Conservative Party, who at the moment is negotiating a payment of £10 million on the sale of 150 acres in Buckinghamshire?

The House will not expect me to comment on the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I find it astonishing that an hon. Member should advance that argument from the Opposition Front Bench. I think that standards in the House deteriorate when personal attacks of that kind are made. I should think that is a view that might be held by hon. Members on both sides of the House about insinuations of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will announce the date of starting work on the Malton bypass on the A64.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the new financial retrenchment will have on the M18 and M62 into Hull and on the Humber Bridge.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of road projects in the East Midlands and in the Kettering parliamentary constituency, respectively, which were planned for 1974 and 1975 and which will now be cancelled or deferred.

Work on existing major road contracts including that for the Humber Bridge will continue. It is too early to say what the detailed implications for future schemes will be.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will naturally be disappointment at his inability to fulfil the promise made by his hon. Friend on 14th November? In reaching his decision, will he bear in mind that the York bypass scheme is due to start this year and will accentuate the problems in Malton? Unless the two schemes are synchronised there will be a standstill not only of traffic but of development in the whole area between Malton and Scarborough.

I am aware of the need for the Malton bypass, but if a major cut in expenditure is made it is important that the necessary adjustments to the road programme should be made with the utmost care. I will bear in mind what my right hon. Friend said.

Will the Minister take into account that people from South Yorkshire find great difficulty in getting to the East Coast for their holidays, especially to places like Scarborough, due to the roads being congested and of a low standard? Will he do what he can to ensure that there is a better road to the East Coast for people in South Yorkshire so that they can get there quickly?

Considerable progress has been made in the North-East, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I acknowledge that we have not yet got a perfect road system. I hope that we shall make good progress towards one.

Does my right lion. Friend accept that not only holiday makers, which is bad enough, but developing industries in Scarborough and Whitby are suffering very much? This year the queues I have seen outside Malton extending in both directions have been absolutely intolerable.

Yes. I should not seek to deny what my hon. Friend said. I realise the need for an adequate road system.

When exactly are we to know about the details of the Government's cut-back? This information is of tremendous importance in terms of local planning in the areas concerned. It is essential that we should know the precise date when we can expect the Government to make their decision—and we hope that it will be before 7th February.

I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I want to make as much progress as I can with such a statement.

Will the deferment of the East Midlands coast route involve the cessation of the necessary planning requirements and possible land acquisitions, or will the planning work still go ahead?

There will be no interruption in the planning, as far as I know ; but I should like to write to my hon. Friend on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will authorise local authorities to receive and consider applications for upward revision of improvement grants previously approved where estimates are increased because of higher costs of materials.

This is a matter of interpretation of the Housing Act 1969 and is the responsibility of individual local authorities in relation to particular cases. My right hon. and learned Friend takes the view, on advice, that once a grant has been approved it cannot be subsequently increased to take account of rising prices. He is, however, considering the matter in connection with the forthcoming legislation arising from the Government's review of policy on older housing.

Will the hon. Gentleman understand that that will not meet the immediate problems? People have already received approvals, and because of rising costs they want upward revisions. If this decision is not changed very quickly it will mean either that the owner will have to bear an unfair proportion of the cost or that the improvement will not be carried out. Furthermore, will the hon. Gentleman consider changing the date of June of this year, when improvements have to be completed for grant purposes?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, when it comes to a matter of law one cannot make exceptions to meet hard cases, however deserving they may be. It is sad that the interpretation of the 1969 Act should have produced that result. I cannot anticipate the contents of the Bill, but it will be presented to the House as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that the Government are considering the position with regard to older houses, but I am a little puzzled by that in view of the fact that most improvement grants go to older houses. In a way we are getting what is required, but because of rising prices people who have an agreement for improvement grants should have the increased costs taken into consideration. I want a clearer statement than has been made so far.

My hon. Friend knows that there has been a great concentration of resources on improving older houses. The programme has been very successful and has produced great social advantages in towns such as that represented by my hon. Friend.

May we have a clear assurance that the Bill will be introduced before the next election?

I have said that it will be introduced into the House as soon as possible in the coming Session.