Mr. Graham Page.

Is the Minister aware that in the Conservative-controlled—

Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to wait for the answer before asking his supplementary question?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent advice he has given to local authorities on staffing.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on opening Question Time on such an agreeable note.

Since I was fairly sure what the answer would be, Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware that the Conservative-controlled Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, in whose area my constituency lies, has managed, since reorganisation, to employ less staff than were employed before reorganisation by the former boroughs which comprise the new borough?

I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity about charges that reorganisation might have led to growth in the number of local authority employees. After all, he played a very prominent part in setting up the present structure of local government. I do not think that anyone other than the authors of reorganisation would absolve the reorganised local authorities from the charge that, whatever else their virtues may be, there has been a very great increase in staff employed. Sefton is probably an exception to the rule, if what the right hon. Gentleman said is true, as I am sure it is. It is not the general experience.

Is not the reluctance of the Opposition to listen to advice on this matter a clear indication that the reorganisation of local government led to an inevitable increase in staff? Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the growth since reorganisation in the number of those who administer the services as opposed to those who deliver them?

There is no sense in the length of some of the supplementary questions. I appeal to hon. Members who are now shouting to be brief with their own supplementary questions—if they are lucky enough to be called.

It is undoubtedly true that there has been a considerable growth—of the order of 4 per cent. per annum—in local government manpower since reorganisation. In the last year, however, it has been slowed down. Indeed, the last figures we have for local government employment show that the growth was under 1 per cent. in the year up to June 1976. I would expect that there will be a standstill situation by the end of this year.

The Secretary of State accepts, I think, that Government policy will entail some redundancies in local government next year. Is he able to give us any idea how many redundancies there are likely to be as a result of Government action? Will he also give us an assurance that where local authorities are forced to implement redundancies they will have his backing?

It would, of course, be wrong for me to say that no redundancies will arise. I do not think that any Secretary of State could have given such an assurance at any time in relation to local authorities. I do say, however, that redundancies should be exceptional and local, as the savings required overall—that is, nationally—should be capable of being contained within the margins of natural wastage of staff.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the building standards applied in local authority house building.

Yes, Sir.

I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. Will he comment on the assertion made by some people that about £50 million a year could be saved if the standards used for building council houses were those of the NHBC instead of Parker Morris, or the alternative assertion that we could build 25,000 more houses a year for the same money?

I do not know where those assertions are made, and I should be interested to receive more detailed submissions. I would study them with great interest. I know that schemes have been introduced by local authorities for building for sale, with our support, at different standards than Parker Morris which have resulted in savings. But they have been savings well below what has been broadly claimed for these schemes where they have been changed from Parker Morris to somewhat different standards operated in the private sector.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the principle of not lowering standards on public sector building, it would produce a strange anomaly in that we could have a situation where prospective Liberal candidates were running around these second-class housing estates playing at community politics in order to get on local councils?

I cannot speak for the Liberal Party. On a suitable occasion I have no doubt that Liberal Party Members will speak for themselves. There is no intention on our part to reduce standards. However, there is scope for looking at greater flexibility in the use of basic standards in the public sector. That we are prepared to do and are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between his Department and local authorities on housing matters.

We continue to have close contact with local housing authorities. But, as I have indicated before, I am seeking a new relationship with housing authorities which, within firm capital budgets, would allow them greater freedom to tailor their housing investment programmes to local needs.

Do the present closer contacts make the Secretary of State realise that many rural local authorities do not think that they will be able to meet the obligation to be placed upon them under the tied cottage legislation without some relaxation of the restrictions on the treatment of stress areas? Why is his Department being so obstructive with those local authorities, like Alnwick district, for example, which want to buy just a few privately-built unoccupied houses to meet urgent housing needs?

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about Alnwick District Council off the cuff. However, on the broader question of the tied cottage legislation, this matter was thoroughly debated in the House, and if there is an opportunity it can be debated further. Our general view—it was not simply a Department of the Environment view but arose out of consultation with local authorities—was that the new obligation could be met by local authorities out of their existing programmes.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination between the different parts of his Department when dealing with the same authority—for instance, when one part of his Department tells a local authority that it can demolish a housing area and when another part of it refuses to give permission to rebuild?

If my hon. Friend will give me details of his illustration, as he sees it, of contrary policies emanating from the same Department, I shall be pleased to look into them and see whether I can reconcile them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities requesting them not to issue tender documents for contracts which seek to exclude the employment of labour-only sub-contractors by the main contractor.

No, Sir.

Why not? When will this Government realise that the efficiency of the building industry should come before encouragement giving the Trotskyites and Communists the power to cheat decent working people of their livings?

I am not sure whether I should rise to that bait or even answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. But it is far from the truth to suggest that the great growth in "lump" labour which occurred a few years ago contributed to greater efficiency in the building industry.

But it did.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the worst examples of jerry-building to be found in the country are in the private building sector?

John Poulson did a few.

Certainly over decades past we have had experience of jerry-building which we should seek to do our best to avoid. It is not for me to say that it is operating on the same scale as was the case in past decades. I do not think that it is. But there is a need to tighten up efficiency and the quality of work in the building industry. To advocate a return to massive "lump" labour employment in the industry, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) does, would act against such a policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will call in the planning application submitted by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for the expansion of its nuclear reprocessing facilities at Windscale.

I understand that the planning committee of the Cumbria County Council decided yesterday that it was minded to approve, subject to agreement of appropriate conditions, the planning application, but that the application should first be referred to me as a departure from the development plan. I will decide what action to take when I have studied its representations.

Whatever action the Secretary of State decides to take, will he undertake now to make a detailed statement to the House about this matter within the next 21 days and give special consideration to the idea of calling in that part of the application relating to oxide fuel reprocessing, which is the most sensitive aspect of the expansion plans of BNFL and which has caused most concern not only in the Royal Commission reports on environmental pollution but also among local residents?

I think that I should wait until I receive the observations in the letter from the Cumbria County Council which, I understand, is on its way to me now, and, of course, I shall consider reporting to the House on any decision that I make.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he did not call in this application in the first place since the implications of the decision go far beyond the interests of Cumbria alone? Will he give a more firm undertaking to report to the House on the matter and not merely consider reporting?

I am quite willing to give that assurance. I will report to the House. I had to consider this, and I did. I considered it under two separate responsibilities—that is to say, as the Minister concerned with planning and planning applications, and also in my other role as guardian of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, in which I have a quite separate responsibility to satisfy myself about the safety of the disposal of nuclear wastes. I can assure the House that I shall exercise that responsibility to the full.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement by the Chairman of Cumbria County Council yesterday that a local planning authority is not competent to judge the safety standards of pollution or the security of fissile material? In view of this, and since the matters raise concern well beyond Cumbria, will he accept the view of the Town and Country Planning Association that the planning of these matters should be undertaken at a national rather than at a local level?

The safety considerations are those which most concern people who have urged me and the county council either to refuse or to call in the application. But I must point out that not only have I myself the responsibilities which I mentioned under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 but that there is a further separate responsibility for nuclear installations of all kinds which falls upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. These responsibilities are exercised with very great care over every stage of the construction of nuclear power stations and nuclear-associated facilities.

When he is taking his decision, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the rising tide of public opinion in the Solway area against the concentration in the area of so many of the country's dangerous nuclear industries?

Obviously a number of people have written to me, and there was a public meeting in Cumbria itself during which these matters were thrashed out and discussed by all the local interests involved. But it is only fair and proper to say that the overwhelming opinion at the public meeting, which was well advertised before being held, was in favour of going ahead with the project and expressed considerable confidence in the safety procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed his negotiations for the rate support grant settlement for next year; and if he will make a statement.

No. I will make a statement as soon as the negotiations are completed.

Can the Secretary of State bring the House up to date on the figures for local authority overspending this year? What does he intend to do about this in the grant next year? Does he realise that any reduction in the rate support grant next year in real terms will mean redundancies in local authority staffs? Will he, in fairness to the staffs, ensure that there is no further switch, as has been the practice over the last two years, from the fast-growing country areas to the depopulated inner urban areas?

I cannot give any assurance one way or the other on the particular formula which I will adopt for distribution of the grant. I have made it my business to listen very carefully to spokesmen from different local authority associations about their different interests.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when he makes the statement it will not be as outrageously and disgracefully inaccurate as the last rate support grant statement made by the Conservatives on 22nd January 1974? Will he remind the House of the outrageous inaccuracies stated on that occasion?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not delved into the history of the ill-doings of my predecessors but, now that my hon. Friend has invited me to do so, I will.

I completely deny what the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has said. Has the Secretary of State considered new procedures in settling the rate support grant so that in future it can be settled long before the last week in November? Great inconvenience has been caused to local authorities through this procedure which has been adopted by Governments over many years. So that local authorities will know what they can get much earlier in the year, will he consider a change?

I think that for a number of years November has been accepted as the month in which the settlement should be made. However, I am willing to hear representations on matters of this kind to see whether things can be made easier for local authorities, which have to budget ahead and obviously would welcome as much time as possible.

As the Secretary of State has had meetings with the TUC on this matter, will he also meet Members of this House, members of the CBI and representatives of ratepayers' action groups?

I have never cut myself off from hon. Members who wish to see me. As we approach the rate support grant determination, however, the physical ability of Ministers to see the very many different groups who have a legitimate interest is limited.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the number of passes issued for parking on the Horse Guards Parade has increased or decreased since October 1974.

The number of passes issued has increased by approximately 6 per cent.

Does the Minister feel that he is fulfilling his duties in protecting the environment by allowing such an annual increase in the number of these passes issued to privileged people parking in what is, after all, a public place? What categories of people are entitled to park free of charge on Horse Guards Parade?

The 6 per cent. to which I referred was in the year for which the hon. Gentleman asked; it is not an annual increase. Some of the passes have gone to departmental staff who are increasingly required to work outside the hours when public transport is available. Also, some of the increase is due to the fact that we have had to accommodate the temporary closure of the old Admiralty car park while an emergency power station is being erected in the Vicinity. That will be completed in August 1978, and a substantial number of the passes for Horse Guards Parade will then cease.

Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that these people with parking passes are working such anti-social hours that it is impossible for them to use public transport? Is it still Government policy to dissuade people from bringing private cars into central London?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". These are the people who work for Ministers of the Government, and it is because they are required to work the anti-social hours which we in this House inflict on them and ourselves that this situation has arisen.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his Department's housing finance review.

I hope that the review will be completed by the end of the year.

Pending the much-delayed publication of the review, will the Secretary of State tell the House that the call at the Labour Party Conference for a total freeze on council house rents is totally unrealistic, given the economic crisis and the need to reduce indiscriminate subsidies?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman follows my party conference as closely as I do. But I was there, and I do not recall any resolution calling for a total freeze on council house rents in the coming year. If there had been such a call, I would have said that it was not one which this Government could accept.

Will the Secretary of State undertake to seek comments from local authorities which have had successful experience in building houses for sale to people who might otherwise have sought council tenancies, with considerable financial benefits to capital and revenue accounts resulting from this policy?

I have no objection at all to councils building houses for sale, but we have found that there are not very many councils which have so far operated this policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to vary the General Development Order in such a manner as to remove from local authorities the need for them to notify his Department of any planned changes to the existing state of listed buildings, other than grade I or grade II.

Yes, Sir. I intend to make an amendment to the General Development Order when a suitable opportunity arises.

Is the Minister aware that that will be bad news to many people who regard these listed buildings as a vital part of the historic fabric of our towns, cities and countryside? Will he consider, in the light of what he has said, making notifiable to amenity societies any proposed planning changes which are not to be notified to his Department? That would avoid the unacceptable planning by-products that will result from what he has just announced, such as the unacceptable disfigurements from supermarket developments which we have had over the years.

This change does not in any way diminish the degree of listed building control. The change has already occurred in one place, in a direction which has only recently required planning authorities to notify the Secretary of State of all grade II buildings. The reason for the change was that there was a considerable waste of staff time in the Department of the Environment, as was evidenced by the fact that 11,000 of these applications came before the Department in two years but only seven were called in. I would welcome the need for amenity societies to be made aware by the local planning authority. The best chance we have of preserving these buildings is to encourage active public participation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that not all local authorities are equally concerned about the preservation of historic and architectural merit? Therefore, it is vital that the Government, at central level, should continue to take a firm stand in defence of listed buildings.

This must be a locally determined matter. It is impossible for the Government to have a close interest in every listed building in the country. When it is obvious that the planning committee of a particular local authority does not take enough interest in listed buildings, the local amenity societies do, and they maintain a check on this.

When a grade II building is burned to the ground, does the local authority have the power to say that it need not be rebuilt, particularly in present economic circumstances?

I cannot answer that without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of public sector housing starts for 1976; and what is his policy towards the level in future years.

Starts and completions in the public sector are likely to be higher this year than last, when they were 174,000 and 162,000 respectively. In 1977, starts will be lower but completions are again expected to exceed the 1975 figure.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the likely level of future starts by English local authorities will be around 100,000 a year in future years? Is he aware that that figure is only three-quarters of the level achieved by the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970? Is he aware that in many quarters of the Labour Party there is concern that the Government are abandoning their commitment to maintaining a house-building programme which was an essential feature of their first two years of office?

I accept that the starts will be lower next year than they have been in 1975–76. There is no point in disguising that, and I would not dream of doing so. But there is a contrast between the Labour Governments of 1964 to 1970 and this one. Under the earlier Governments there was a massive emphasis on new building. The emphasis now is on rehabilitation and improvement as well as on new building.

In view of the broad hints given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Labour Party economic committee yesterday, may I ask whether the Secretary of State expects to get beyond Christmas without having to announce further cuts in the public housing programme?

The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. I found myself rather heavily engaged on other matters this morning and, therefore, I have not read what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool the local Labour-controlled authority is faced with the Liberals and Conservatives combining to stop the development of local authority housing because of an argument about the sale in the past of council housing? Will he look into this and ensure that the local authority is given support?

I included Liverpool in the stress areas. By definition, therefore, it is an area in which we judge new house building to be clearly required. I do not know of the obstacles that my hon. Friend has mentioned in terms of the disagreements within the council, but if it is appropriate for me to intervene in a helpful way I shall consider doing so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) that the figure of 100,000, which he quoted for starts in England next year, is too high? Will he confirm that the Government's own figure is about 85,000?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is nearly right on starts. We have said that on average we expect to achieve 100,000 per year over the two years. This year the figure looks as thought it will exceed 100,000—it could run to 110,000. This would mean, therefore, that there would be proportionately fewer starts next year. The figure could be 90,000, but it would depend upon the balance between the two years.

Will the Secretary of State take on board the earlier questions about co-operation between local authorities and private house builders? Is he aware that this is one way of surmounting the inevitable shortfall which lies ahead? Is it not important for local authorities and private builders to get together to build houses in the lower price range, and should not greater encouragement be given to housing societies which can renovate older types of properties more cheaply?

If it would help to sustain the house-building programme within the inevitable constraint on public expenditure, we should be anxious to look at any suggestions, including those of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the future rôle of rent officers.

The method of fixing fair rents, for which rent officers are responsible, is one of the matters to be examined in the review of the Rent Acts now being undertaken.

In view of the valuable work that rent officers have done and the expertise they have accumulated, will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending their activities to advising local authorities, since there are considerable fluctuations in rent levels for the same accommodation between different authorities?

There is no reason why local authorities should not consult whomever they wish on a normal type of informal basis to help them come to a view about the deployment of rents in their areas. I shall consider whether there is a need to examine this matter in the context of the Rent Acts review, but I should not have thought that there was.

Are not unfurnished houses valued on a net rateable value basis by the district valuation officer? What is the point of having two separate officials valuing the same house? What additional function do rent officers perform, if rents are to be controlled, which could not be better carried out on the basis of the NRV?

I recall extensive arguments on that and related points when the 1965 Rent Act was passing through the House. Arguments were presented and conclusions reached against that approach. At this stage I can say only that all such views and representations will be considered as part of the Rent Acts review. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a submission, we will consider it appropriately.

Is not the difference between a valuation officer and a rent officer that, among other things, a rent officer goes to the place and sees the premises whereas a valuation officer goes nowhere near them?

I am not sure that I should risk being drawn too far down that road. In general, however, I believe that my hon. Friend is right. It would be physically impossible for the valuation officer to visit every house, but that is inevitably a part of the rent officer's duties when he is dealing with individual applications for changes in rent.

Has the Minister given further thought to the anomaly that exists which depends on whether the landlord is resident? In one case the tenant goes to the rent officer and in the other he goes to a rent tribunal. Similarly, in one case he gets awarded a fair rent and in the other he gets a reasonable rent. This is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Does it imply the eventual phasing out of rent officers or rent tribunals?

I do not know what the word "this" refers to. We have undertaken a review of the Rent Acts. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises was raised during the deliberations of the Francis Committee when the merging of the two services was considered. It is not impossible to consider this matter as part of the review, but it is not for me to say today what conclusions might be reached in the review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the social consequences of the current council house-building programme.

During 1974–76 a total of 416,000 dwellings were or will have been started by local authorities, new towns and housing associations, so that by the end of 1977 approximately 430,000 dwellings will have been completed. Thus about 1·3 million people have been or will be housed in good-quality publicly-owned dwellings in the period 1975 to 1977.

Does not the Minister consider it socially desirable to bring up the younger generations to be owner-occupiers? Is not one of the ways of doing that for councils to be encouraged to build new dwellings for sale and to maintain most of their existing stock for letting?

I find this concerted campaign of questions from the Liberals on this matter most interesting. However, they come about 18 months—or perhaps even more—too late. I refer them not only to the various speeches and statements by myself and my hon. Friends in the Department but to the policy circular "Housing Needs and Action" which we issued and which covered precisely the sort of points which are being made by the Liberals today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious social consequences which could develop from the future decline in the council house-building programme? What answer does he intend to give to Shelter, which has criticised the singling out of so-called stress areas on the ground that there is an acute shortage of rented accommodation in all areas of the country?

I do not wish to get involved in a detailed discussion of the Shelter statement except to say that I accept parts of it but that it would be wrong for me to accept it in full or generally. My hon. Friend is quite right. If there is a reduction in house building in areas of shortage or where there are large numbers of properties to be cleared rather than rehabilitated, it means that people will be continuing to live in conditions in which they should not be expected to live.

Does the right hon. Gentleman see in his proposals for extending the work of direct labour departments a significant contribution to the effective use of labour resources in the industry? What criteria has he for the operation of direct labour departments?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". I wish to see an expansion of efficient direct labour organisations. The answer to the second part of the question will be put before the House when we introduce legislation on this matter not too long from now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future development of new towns, in the light of current housing needs.

No, Sir. I shall report to the House as soon as the review of future policy on dispersal is completed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who were born in inner city areas welcome the Government's intention to pay more attention to those areas in future? However, will he also reassure some of us who are concerned with new towns that there will be no diversion of resources from them as this would lead to a lengthening of housing waiting lists for second-generation and other applicants which many of us would feel bound to oppose very strongly?

I welcome what my hon. Friend, as one who was born in an inner city area, has said about the new stress we are putting on helping those areas. As to the future role of new towns, we are proceeding with the review and I hope that we shall be able to complete it and make an announcement at an early date.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling in my part of Lancashire that the Central Lancashire New Town is no longer required and that, if it is proceeded with, it will have a very adverse effect on other, older parts of the county on which any available money could be very much better spent?

I note what the hon. Lady says. She will probably know that the outline plan decision on the CLNT is before me. I hope to come to a conclusion on it as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the further integration of water resources in North-West England.

The North-West Water Authority has executive responsibility for the management of all water resources in its area and I have no plans at present to make any change in these arrangements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any attempt to nationalise the Chester Waterworks Company would not be welcomed by my constituents? In the event of his doing so, by how much does he estimate that the cost of water would increase?

When I make a statement shortly on the future of water supplies, the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question might be relevant. Most of the operations of the company to which he refers are not in the North-West Water Authority's area but in the area of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. Many of us have noted in this dry summer that the exclusion of private companies from the water industry as a whole has been regrettable.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to resources in Wales which serve North-West England. Is he aware that water from Wales for industry in the North-West is sold at about half the price at which it is available in Wales and that water taken from Wales by the North-West authorities is sold back to Wales at a much higher price? Does he not agree that it would be equitable for Wales to have more benefit from its resources?

I am well aware of the fact that in this dry summer the Welsh people have had cause to be grateful for the large-scale investment by Lancashire, Liverpool and the Midlands in establishing water industries in Wales. If we had not had those resources available to us, we might have been in an extremely difficult situation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although I realise that there is an advantage to Merseyside under the present arrangements, hon. Members from Wales have a point? Will he look at the matters which our Welsh colleagues have raised?

I am not quite sure what point my hon. Friend thinks that our Welsh colleagues have. There is a discrepancy about charges, but the Government's proposals for a degree of equalisation will considerably assist in that direction and will be forthcoming in the not too distant future.

How can the right hon. Gentleman justify the extraordinary slur on water companies contained in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison)? Has he one scrap of evidence to show that they have failed in their duties? Is he aware that I consider that the 28 water companies have done as well as, if not better than, the regional water authorities?

I made no slur on the companies. I observed that at a time of national water shortage the policy of excluding private companies from the totality of available water resources has turned out to be nonsense.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the present distribution of public expenditure on housing as between subsidies and investment or improvement is the most effective in order to relieve housing needs and sustain employment in the construction industry.

No, Sir.

I welcome that brief reply, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the last seven or eight years we have been spending two and a half or three times as much on investment in new building and improvements as we have on subsidising mortgages and council rents? Even accepting the current restraints on public expenditure, does he not consider that we could achieve better results? Does he agree that we are effectively subsidising those who have satisfactory housing at the expense of those who desperately need it and those who work in the industry which could supply it?

We have to accept that we are operating on a very tight budget for housing expenditure, and we must therefore try to get the best results within that budget. I would not say that I think that the right distribution has been achieved between subsidies and investment, new building, modernisation and other work. However, there is an additional problem. It is not just a matter of the best possible housing policy. Housing and rent policy must play a part in the broader counter-inflation policy.

In simple language, does that answer mean that council rents must inevitably rise if the right hon. Gentleman envisages transferring money from housing subsidies to further investment and improvements?

Council house rents have risen this year and will inevitably rise next year. The question to which we must address ourselves is whether, in the context of the counter-inflation policy, the rise is to be one which can be borne by council tenants or one which will be unacceptably high. We have to make a judgment on that matter.

Why should council house rents rise and why should it be planned that housing subsidies be cut, relatively speaking, at a time when the Government found it possible to have £70 million transferred for the use of the Slater Walker debacle that took place in November 1975?

I assure my hon. Friend that, other things being equal, if I could lay my hands on that £70 million I should like to deploy it in my housing programme. We have to face the fact that the present situation partly reflects the much higher levels of interest rates that have persisted in recent years and the fact that rent income for housing revenue accounts accounts for historically a low part of the total.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for Housing and Construction has three times obstinately refused to receive a deputation from Harrow with an ingenious and imaginative idea for a home-purchase scheme that would provide additional topping-up on a mortgage or loan over and above the normal one, which would enable people to buy council houses on a total subsidy element far smaller than the existing subsidy on new buildings?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be most receptive to any proposals for topping up loans or anything else which is relevant and helpful to the housing situation. I advise the hon. Gentleman to write to my right hon. Friend on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Drought Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the advance warning system for anticipation of a water shortage.

Yes, Sir, the Drought Act was of considerable importance in enabling the water industry to meet the unprecedented drought situation. I am satisfied that in conjunction with the water industry we can build on this year's experience to ensure the earliest possible warning of any recurrent water supply problems next year. I shall be making a statement on all these matters very shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the procedure involved in making an application for powers under the Drought Act was so long that the Welsh National Water Development Authority was suffering from flooding as opposed to the drought for which it wanted powers to act?

No. I think that that supplementary question shows considerable confusion. Fortunately, some of the many hundreds of orders made under the Drought Act could be made within a matter of days. If they were of a more substantial and permanent character, obviously we could not use the Draconian powers in the Act without giving the owners of property and land a proper opportunity to make representations and the Secretary of State a reasonable time in which to determine the applications. However, I can assure the House that in all cases the process was considerably shorter than is normally the case for such applications.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that he is regarded by Labour Members, and probably throughout the country, as the most successful Minister we have ever had?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the emergency arrangements that are now in force to extract extra water from the Lake District have been agreed readily by interests in the Lake District? Is he further aware that once the reservoirs in the Lake District are full, as they are now becoming, there would be the greatest resentment if he were to use his powers to violate the solemn undertakings given by his predecessors to ensure that water is extracted from the area in a way which does not violate the amenities and beauties of the area? It is important that the Minister ensures that the area is not ruined by short-term steps.

I am extremely appreciative of the co-operation we have had from interests within the Lake District in this national emergency, and I pay tribute to it. Now that the temporary situation is over, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take all proper steps to safeguard that magnificent environment, and I certainly intend to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there will definitely be a debate on the Green Paper and the drought report this year? If not, what are the Government being so tardy about?

I am sure that if the Opposition wish to use one of their Supply Days for a debate we shall have a debate. I have promised to make a statement to the House as soon as possible in this Session, and I hope to do so next week. We shall see what the Opposition make of the statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce legislation implementing the proposals outlined in his Green Paper on the water service.

The very substantial response to the Green Paper is still being analysed. I look forward to future legislation, but no final decisions on timing have yet been taken.

In future legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the recent legislation passed by the House on charges to those who are not connected to the sewerage system? Is he aware that that legislation has resulted in a great loss of financial revenue to the water authorities and placed an extra strain on the remaining households?

The recent legislation may have imposed costs directly on the water authorities, but I do not think anyone would doubt that it conferred great benefits on water consumers throughout the country. As for the scope of the legislation which we hope eventually to bring before the House, it is too early for me to comment on the particular proposals being put forward, but we hope that the legislation will strengthen the organisation of the water industry nationally.

Although it may be unreasonable to demand that general water legislation should be introduced next Session, will my right hon. Friend at least ensure that a small and uncontentious Bill is brought before the House to deal with the severe problem, of which I know his right hon. Friend is aware, concerning those not connected to the main sewers?

I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but I think he will realise that the question of the size of the legislative programme is a very difficult one and is more for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mention has been made of the Drought Act. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the time scale in implementing that Act? Is he aware that the Thames Water Authority applied for restrictions on 18th August but that they were not signed until 13th September? The Anglia Water Authority had equal difficulty. Surely the Minister must look afresh at existing legislation if we are to avoid great difficulties if we have another drought next summer.

I should like notice of the instance that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. General experience has been that the operation of bringing drought orders into effect under entirely new legislation, and at short notice, has been very successful.

In his dealings with the water service, will my right hon. Friend seek to use his considerable influence to ensure that water authorities are given instructions to purchase British cars for their employees? I had visual evidence this morning of a Japanese Toyota car carrying the insignia of the Thames Water Authority. Bearing in mind the plight of the British motor industry, is it not disgraceful that this situation should be allowed?

I hope that what my hon. Friend has said about the desirability of buying British cars wherever possible will be noted not only by the water authorities but by all those who can exercise decisions in this matter. My hon. Friend gives excellent advice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of expenditure of his Department over the last 12 months in respect of the fulfilment of its responsibilities in Scotland.

Approximately £75 million. Most of this related to the provision of accommodation for Government Departments in Scotland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that with the creation of the Department of Transport his Department has virtually no responsibilities left in Scotland? Would it not be more convenient for administrative and other purposes for the Government to consider transferring the remaining functions to the Scottish Office?

That is not a matter for me, but I am sure that when the devolution proposals are considered it will be a matter of great interest and concern to the House as well as to the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which authorities have undertaken building-for-sale housing programmes during the last five years; what was the cost to public funds of each programme after sales were completed; what would be the cost of providing rented accommodation on similar scales; what proportion of sales in each case was achieved by way of local authority mortgages; and what proportion of buyers had been local authority tenants immediately prior to purchase.

Table 13 of "Local Housing Statistics" No. 37 and earlier issues, copies of which are available in the Library, give a breakdown of sales of dwellings owned by each local authority in England and Wales and identify those which were built for sale. I regret that the further information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not readily available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the happy experience of the Liverpool City Council in building houses for sale? Will he undertake to examine that experience? If he is satisfied that it is a happy one—my right hon. and hon. Friends are so satisfied—will he undertake to advocate it to other local authorities for their consideration?

One of the troubles with orchestrating the kind of programme of questions that we have had today from the Liberal Bench is that one turns out to be a little precipitate in some of the observations. As I understand it, the houses in question in Liverpool have not yet been built, so one can hardly be happy about it. [Interruption.] Secondly, I would consider it far more important—[Interruption.] I would consider it far more important for the Liberal Member who is interrupting me to speak to his colleagues in Liverpool and explain to us in the Department and to other people why so few houses were built by his Liberal friends in Liverpool last year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the statement made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is utter nonsense? There are 25,000 people on the housing register in Liverpool who need houses to rent. They cannot afford to buy houses. They require those houses because they are living in very serious circumstances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Liverpool we need houses to rent rather than houses for sale, and that Liverpool City Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—prior to the accession of the Labour majority, failed to build the houses that were needed by the people?

My own view, as indicated in policy circulars that we have issued, is that public enterprise must get involved in providing a much greater variety of different kinds of tenure down market than has been the case in the past, whether they be for rent, for co-operative housing or for low-cost housing for sale. What concerns me with regard to Liverpool is my hon. Friend's reference to recent history prior to the last elections. A great deal of paper has been pouring out from the Liverpool City authority in recent years, but very few dwellings indeed, either for rent or for sale.

Is the Minister aware that his reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was inaccurate? I visited Liverpool during the recess. What the hon. Member for Rochdale says is fact, and as a Minister of the Crown the right hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts straight before he denies the contents of a question.

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been to Merseyside and Liverpool and has discovered all the happy people who are so satisfied with the building record of the friends of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I have met many people who are far from satisfied with the results of that period of office.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out

'or by the managers of a grant-aided school'.

"… I believe that on 1st January about 400 teachers in Scottish schools will be affected by the Bill in one way or another. That is the extent by which, by making room in schools, we could be making jobs available for newly qualified teachers who at present find it difficult to obtain jobs."—[Official Report, 25th October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 52.]

"Number of teachers over age 65 in service as at September 1976."

This has nothing to do with the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman raises the matter on the Question That the clause stand part of the Bill, I shall be happy to deal with it. The amendment is a narrow one.

We are dealing with the numbers of teachers in grant-aided schools. Unless the Secretary of State can give us an explanation on the amendment it will be difficult for us to proceed. It is outrageous for the Government to have misled the House and to ask us to approve the inclusion of grant-aided schools without any indication of the numbers involved. It is not for the Secretary of State to give the House instructions on order. He has a bit of a cheek if he says that there will be an explanation forthcoming later when the House has already been misled. Either Mr. Docherty was misled or we were misled.

"The estimate of 400 to which my right hon. Friend referred on 25th October—cannot be broken down into the categories requested." —[Official Report, 2nd November 1976, Vol. 918, c. 504.]

The Scottish National Party's attitude to the grant-aided schools is already clear, but the principle behind the debate is very important. Scottish teachers feel an increasing lack of confidence in the Scottish Office as it seems to be unable to produce statistics when asked for them in the House. On Second Reading several of us, from different parties, asked for the numbers affected by the Bill. It is extremely disappointing that only research by organisations outwith the House has provided the figures on which we have come to depend.

Over the weekend I was interviewed by a representative of Mr. Docherty's association, the SSTA, who told me that one of the main reasons for the Bill was to find employment for newly qualified teachers. We have heard that 400 teachers could be found employment if we passed the Bill. I have heard many figures bandied about—400, 300 and now 180. I was told at the weekend that if we took account of those who could have their services terminated by the ordinary statutory rights of local education authorities and those over age but teaching subjects for which there is a shortage of teachers—for example, engineering, science and maths—we should find that not more than 60 teachers would be affected by the Bill. A wide variety of figures are being trotted around. It would be in the interests of us all to have something more definite.

I am glad to join the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) in his tribute to the older teachers who helped out in Scottish education for such a long time when we were short of teachers. Their help was nowhere more important than in the hon. Gentleman's area, then Lanarkshire but now Strathclyde.

The House has heard from several speakers how hopelessly irrelevant the Bill is to the educational needs of Scotland. I do not wish to go over the general argument. The amendment specifically relates to grant-aided schools and I would draw attention to something of significant importance. We have heard a number of references about the hopelessness of the information made available to the House, particularly during the Second Reading debate.

"The hon. Member for Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) referred to the decision about the rector of Dundee High School."

"That situation has nothing to do with the Bill. The situation of a rector, which is a promoted post was decided in 1969 when the teaching profession, unions and local authorities were unanimous in the view that a promoted teacher had to retire at 65."—[Official Report, 25th October, 1976; Vol. 918, c. 96.]

"Except where his employer otherwise determines, every teacher … shall retire"—

"The employer in this case is the Board of Governors or Managers of the School and they determined, prior to the Retirement of Teachers (Scotland) Bill that the Rector should continue in his post until the end of the present session, i.e. the end of June 1977. Before coming to this decision reference was made to the Scottish Education Department"

"in Edinburgh, who referred us to Section 16 of the 1969 Act and confirmed that what we intended was perfectly in order."

That is monstrous.

I look forward to the Minister's reply. Last Monday he said categorically that this Bill made not the slightest difference to the position of the rector of Dundee High School. It is clear from the Bill, but we have also a statement from the SED to the high school, that prior to the publication of the Bill the rector would have been able to continue as the school hoped. As a result of the Bill, that will no longer be possible.

I wonder who is misleading whom. I respect the intellectual fidelity of hon. Members, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said that this matter concerned the future of the grant-aided schools. I thing that he had better read the record. I am a Bedouin who believes in Greek tragedy, and I see that as a classic case of misleading the House.

The amendment is a very narrow one and has nothing to do with much of the debate that we have heard so far. I hope that hon. Members will take the advice of the Secretary of State, who told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) when he went into the numbers game that if a debate on the Question That the clause stand part of the Bill were allowed, my right hon. Friend would clear up the matter of one group of figures against another.

We were not questioning figures. We asked a simple question. The Minister said on 25th that figures were not available. But Mr. Docherty got a table headed "September 1976". Therefore, either Mr. Docherty was misled or the House was misled. It must be one or the other. The Minister could at least answer that point of principle, quite apart from the detailed explanation. That is a straight question requiring a straight answer—"Yes" or "No".

Could I prevail on the hon. Member to take the advice of my right hon. Friend? My right hon. Friend will certainly convey to the House in his answer enough information to clear up the doubts in the hon. Member's mind and in the minds of any other hon. Members. I ask him to consider that proposition.

The Minister refers to the letter that he wrote to me. I never mentioned it, because it contained nothing of substance. I was referring to the Minister's statement in the House last Monday. I raised the matter with him, as he remembers. I must repeat the words that he used:

"The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) referred to the decision about the rector of Dundee High School. That situation has nothing to do with the Bill."—[Official Report, 25th October 1976: Vol. 918, c. 96.]

We do not want to split hairs or spend an inordinate time on this amendment, because in this context it is in a sense out of order. On Second Reading, we discussed the contents of the letter in which I replied to the hon. Member, referring to the rector. I was saying at that time that the situation in Dundee was such that surely a replacement could be found from among all the teachers in the Tayside region who could fill this position. I was saying that surely this man was not irreplaceable. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I made that point and said that the whole point of retiring from promoted posts at 65 was to open the possibility of promotion to those posts. That was how I described it in the context of the debate. If I misled the hon. Gentleman, I apologise, but he knows that was not my intention.

indicated assent.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, who is gracious at times, accepts that. The argument is still the same.

I accept that the Minister did not deliberately intend to mislead the House, but the fact remains that he did. I am happy that he has at last conceded that point, albeit reluctantly.