asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent of recent failures by certain local authorities to start new house building and improvement and on the reasons for this failure.

The latest housing investment programmes show that local authorities generally propose to shift their emphasis from new building to improvement. I am, however, concerned that new building programmes have been reduced below the level for which we have allocated resources, but a compensating expansion of improvement programmes has not yet taken place, and that in some areas the cut-back in new house building seems to be attributable to political dogma rather than assessment of need for rented accommodation.

Will the Secretary of State accept that some local authorities, now Conservative controlled, are deliberately axing their house building and improvement programmes, despite desperate need by thousands of families, because of hostility towards council housing and council tenants? Apart from reallocating their grants to other councils, will the Secretary of State consider taking additional steps to end this evil?

I accept that some local authorities—I am afraid that they are Conservative local authorities—display hostility to building for rent where there is undoubtedly a need. I deplore that, as do all my right hon. and hon. Friends.

As for taking remedial action if one can, there are limits, as my hon. Friend understands. The ultimate deterrent and corrective lie in the hands of the local electorate. I hope, therefore, that when the next local elections take place there will be a number of changes. But in so far as I can help with, for example, the Housing Corporation and its use of its funds, of course I am prepared to do so.

Will the Secretary of State stop bleating about local authorities, which are much better able to assess the need on the ground than he is, and for once come to this House with some concrete proposals and some real money to put some muscle into the improvement programme?

The hon. Gentleman has not studied the matter in the way that I would have expected him to do. However, under the new block system of allocation of money to local authorities there is now a great opportunity, which they have never had before, for them to put more resources into local authority housing improvements. It is a far greater opportunity than they have previously enjoyed.

Leaving party dogma aside, is my right hon. Friend aware that the housing situation in the inner cities will be solved only when the building of each house will not add to the rates? If my right hon. Friend is concerned, as I believe he is, to solve the problems of the inner city areas, does he appreciate that generous though the grants have been, rates are a political issue when it comes to an election, and that parties will not build houses if to do so will increase rates prior to an election?

We do our best, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, to make reasonably generous financial provisions to assist local authorties to build new houses in the areas of need. In the legislative proposals which I hope to introduce this Session I shall be making certain changes in the subsidy system, which will probably have the effect of helping to concentrate resources even more on the areas where major house building is still needed. There is a residual cost, of course, to the rates.

My hon. Friend comes from an area where, for reasons of local judgment, a very small—indeed, I think, a nil—contribution is being made from the rates. That is quite exceptional, in my experience, in the inner cities as a whole, where local authorties make a contribution and are pleased to do so.

Does the Secretary of State realise that trying to pretend that this is a party political matter does the housing case a considerable disservice? Will he recognise that the facts clearly reveal that the Labour-controlled council in Sheffield has cut the figure from 2,000 to 800, that the Labour-controlled authority in Manchester is planning a reduction from 1,900 to 1,200, that in Nottingham, where under Conservative control there have been reductions in council house building, there has been a tripling of the sale of houses on land made available by the local authority, and that this is a better deal for all the people involved, ratepayers and home owners included?

Whatever else has happened between the last Session and this, there has been no diminution of the hon. Gentleman's sheer gall. No Conservative Member has played a more conspicuous part in urging Conservative-controlled local authorities that they should not build local authority houses. He has made this a personal crusade. He is almost making new house building an anti-Conservative or un-Conservative activity. I hope that he will not succeed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the threat to archaeological excavations at Waltham Abbey from the proposed siting of a Lea Valley regional park building; and whether he will state his policy for the protection of archaeology in places of development.

The only representation I have received is from the curator of the Passmore Edwards museum, Stratford, whose staff are excavating at Waltham Abbey at my request. He has complained that the developers wanted his excavation finished by 23rd October. The developers have, however, agreed to an extension of the period to the end of the year.

Sites of major archaeological importance should preferably remain undisturbed, but where development is necessary opportunities should be available for prior archaeological investigation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that his Department recognised the great archaeological importance of Abbey Mead in 1972? Should not excavations be allowed to proceed, particularly as the vicar, the church council, the local tourist board and many of my constituents think that it is not the correct site for the exhibition centre?

It is not, I think, an exhibition centre; it is an information centre. We investigated a number of sites and had the advice of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments. The site finally chosen was the one that we were advised had the least archaeological importance, although it has some importance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Community Land Act to date.

Local authorities have responded well to the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on 19th June, and the level of activity under the community land scheme now appears to be roughly double what it was a year ago.

As the scheme has so far cost the taxpayer £26 million, is it not fast going the same way as the Land Commission Act 1967, which the late Mr. Richard Crossman described as a total failure that had made the situation worse?

No, Sir.

First, is my hon. Friend taking adequate note of the success of the land scheme in Wales? Secondly, is there any evidence that the instructions from Conservative Central Office to Tory-controlled local authorities have had a damaging effect on the use of the new regulations under the Community Land Act?

I notice a difference of emphasis in the Conservative Party's attitude. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) wrote an article which clearly shows his admiration of the work of the Land Authority for Wales, which is quite out of line with the view of the Opposition Front Bench. I am well aware of the success of the scheme in the North of England. I am also aware that three Conservative-controlled county councils have asked for and are receiving block loan sanction under the scheme. Therefore, whatever emanates from the Conservative Central Office, the fact is that many Conservative authorities are operating the scheme successfully.

Does the Minister agree that the Act has failed in one of its primary objectives, that of making land available for housing development? Only 46 acres were made available for this purpose in the first year, and the whole of the house building industry is complaining bitterly that it faces a land famine within the next two or three years unless the Act is repealed.

First and foremost, the hon. Gentleman asked about land famine. We investigate and monitor this matter regularly, and there is no shortage generally. On the other hand, there are, unquestionably, examples of local shortages of land. That is why we made it abundantly clear in the circular we issued recently that it was the responsibility of local authorities to work closely with local builders so that they could bring land forward under the scheme for the very purposes about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken. Therefore, I hope that we shall have his encouragement to local authorities, of whatever political persuasion, to do what I suggested, which is to operate the scheme in the way that was intended.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present availability of building society mortgages.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects next to meet the chairman of the Building Societies Association.

Although mortgage lending has been restrained to dampen pressure on prices, in the nine months to end-September building societies committed 602,000 mortgages—a monthly average of 67,000. This is a record figure—above the previous record achieved in 1977. My Department and I maintain regular contact with the Building Societies Association, and I shall be seeing its chairman, Mr. Stow, later this month.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is still a desperate shortage of mortgages and that, although the figures might be the best ever, that is because of inflation? That is one reason why prices have gone up so much, and another is the Community Land Act and development land tax. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to make mortgages more easily available to people waiting to buy but unable to do so at present?

I think that the hon. Gentleman did not listen carefully enough to my answer. I was referring not to amounts of money but to the number of mortgages that have been made available Although there undoubtedly is a demand for mortgages which is higher than the existing ability of the societies to supply, this is not a new phenomenon; indeed, it is an established one. However, despite that, more mortgages are being provided this year than in any previous year for which we have records.

Has the Secretary of State studied his own press notice No. 582 and the Abbey National's report "Homes, People, Prices and Places"? Both those show clearly that house prices have risen this year by well over 20 per cent. Does this not demonstrate to the Secretary of State the futility of restricting mortgage lending, because the only sufferers are the young people waiting for mortgages?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Undoubtedly, prices have risen this year, and it was precisely because of my anticipation of prices continuing to rise during the spring and summer that I took the action that I did with the Building Societies Association to dampen down the rate of lending. I genuinely believe that if we had not done that—here I come to an entirely different conclusion from the hon. Gentleman—prices would have gone up far more sharply and quickly than they have.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the real achievement which his answer illustrates. Has he noted that Opposition Members seem rabidly eager to see a trebling of house prices again, such as we experienced between 1970 and 1974?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I should have thought that there was one lesson that we all should have learnt from the period 1970 to 1973. I remind the House that in that period, when there was total indiscipline in money supply not only in national terms but in terms of building society lending, secondary bank lending, and so on, house prices rose by 100 per cent. in three years. I shall not allow that to happen if I can possibly help it.

Has the Secretary of State seen the article in The Times today which reaches the conclusion that, while he was right to be concerned about the tendency for house prices to rise, he was wrong to interfere with the building societies because it has not led to the reduction in prices that he hoped for but has in fact led to an extension of the mortgage queue? The article states also that this policy is likely to be jettisoned quite soon. Can the Secretary of State confirm that?

The hon. Gentleman's main point is simply to repeat the earlier point to which I replied. Of course, prices have gone up this year, and, to be fair, this follows three years during which prices rose very modestly indeed. But I believe that if we had not taken joint action with the building societies prices really would have taken off in a way which would not have helped young people and first-time home purchasers at all. We all know what happened in 1974. The market collapsed and people were unable to get the mortgages they needed. Therefore, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

As for the future, the building societies, myself and the Department will continue to review the situation, and so we should, using the machinery set up by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). The joint advisory committee of the Government and the building societies was set up by the Conservative Government after the disasters of 1970 to 1973 to monitor the amount of money available for lending, with the purpose of achieving greater stability. We are using that machinery not after the horse has left the stable, but before.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more mortgages could be made available if some building societies were more co-operative, and that the Government have nothing to do with this situation? Does he realise, for example, that in my area the most indefensible excuses about ground foundations are made to withhold mortgages from anxious young couples keen to have their own homes? It is not time that we took some action against the recalcitrant building societies which are causing the famine in house ownership?

I am always prepared to listen to any case that my hon. Friend puts to me, but I must say that, particularly in the sort of area which has concerned so many people on our side of the House over the past two years—the areas of red lining, the inner city areas—we have had a substantial degree of cooperation from the building societies, and I should be very happy to take up any particular case with them.

Is it not a fact that the people with the money now are the institutions and pension funds? Why is it not possible to use some of that money for house mortgage purposes?

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the problem at the present time is not the supply of money but the interaction of too large a supply of money and a limited stock of houses for sale. Looking further ahead, I point out that the question of how all the financial institutions may best contribute to the general objective of house building and house ownership is something on which the Wilson committee or other bodies may be able to throw light.

As the number of new houses being completed is historically very low, and as the number of mortgages being granted is at a recohrd level, does that not prove that the standard of living of the British people as regards housing has dropped significantly under this Government?

That is a very difficult one. The hon. Gentleman really has caught me on it. All I say to him about the standard of living is that if we have built, as we shall by the end of this year, an additional 1½million new homes in Britain, against a background of the most severe recession and disturbance, I do not think that people can say that the standard of housing, at any rate in so far as it is a component of the standard of living of this country, has fallen. They would say, on the contrary, that it is rising.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to assist tenants of local authorities who wish to buy their own houses but who are prevented from so doing by the policy of the local authority by which their houses are currently owned.

None, Sir. This is primarily a matter for decision by local authorities. Provided those decisions are taken responsibly in the light of local housing conditions and needs, I see no reason to intervene.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that opposition to the sale to sitting tenants of the homes in which they live comes, on the one hand, from Socialists who are opposed to the principle of extending home ownership and on the other from Blimps who have never lived in a council house or do not understand the aspirations of those who do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, indeed. Many of them are Tory councillors, people who do not understand the aspirations of those who live in council houses. If the Secretary of State believes in trying to help people attain their aspirations, will he do something to help them escape from the feudal grip of local authorities in this regard?

The hon. Gentleman's reference to the Conservative council in the New Forest being managed by Blimps is something which I should not wish to endorse at all. They seem to me to be a responsible group of men who have refused to follow the advice of the Opposition Front Bench to set out on the path of disposing of their council houses. They take the view that they have a certain obligation to examine the need for rented housing in their area, and in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and in spite of what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said at his party's annual conference, they have, I am glad to say, ignored that advice.

May I appeal to the House. We are going very slowly today. Shorter supplementary questions and answers would be a great help.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the misery caused to families with children who are unable to move out of flats because of the Tory-controlled GLC's policy of indiscriminately selling off council houses and keeping many houses empty for that purpose? What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to discourage that?

I am disturbed by the reports that I have received on one or two areas including, in particular, the London area. The first action that I had to take regarding the GLC was to stamp on a most extraordinary scheme which would have given any tenant a 10-year option to buy in exchange for £10. That proposal was designed not merely to assist local authorities but to bind the succeeding GLC when it came under Labour control. I had to put a stop to that.

I repeat that I am examining the housing investment programmes, particularly as they are coming forward this year, and if I see occasion and reason to act I am prepared to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for increasing the powers and responsibility of district councils.

I refer my hon. Friend to my statement of 3rd August and to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. Further consultations in preparation for legislation will soon commence.

I welcome the provision in the Gracious Speech, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to increase the powers of not only the former county boroughs but of other district councils, such as Cannock Chase? Does he accept that these housing authorities should at least have responsibility for some areas of social services, where housing the elderly and adaption of homes for disabled people are really housing functions?

Yes, Sir. I see a strong connection between housing and social services, as have so many reports which have examined the organisation of local government services. We have not yet, of course, finally indicated what size of authorities should be eligible. But we have indicated that district councils of 100,000 people or more are those that we have most in mind. We shall be transferring certain planning functions to district councils from the counties.

Why does the Secretary of State think that in counties such as Nottinghamshire it would result in improved social services and, perhaps, education to remove the cities from the surrounding areas?

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it was an improved service to take them away from the cities in 1974 and put them in the counties? That is the essence of the argument. I do not say that in every case one solution is better than another. The essence of the proposals that I and my colleagues have put forward is that there should be, first, an option and, secondly, that it should be a restricted option, taking into account the circumstances of the counties and districts concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of his precise timetable? We had considered that in places such as Hull and other cities the argument was over and that it was now just a question of legislation being produced. We want that done quickly and stupid thinks like increased representation for Northern Ireland dropped so that we can proceed with matters of real concern to our constituents.

I understand my hon. Friend's impatience. I cannot as yet give him a clear timetable, but I hope before long to issue the basic consultative document on which not only he but local authorities and others interested will be able to comment. We can then move to our conclusions and get on with the proposals that we want to put to the House.

Can the Secretary of State come a bit more clean on the point raised by his friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)? Is it his hope and expectation to legislate in this Session? Secondly, can he assure us that so far as any definitive change in social service dispositions is concerned he will commit himself to awaiting the conclusions of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service?

We shall have time, I think, to take account of the views of the Royal Commission. However, that would lead me on to explain—which I do not wish to do at the moment—the nature of the measure that we are preparing. Yes, we hope and expect to get a measure before the House during this Session. However I cannot say, nor can the hon. Gentleman, exactly how long the Session will last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that a maximum level of 0·40 grammes of lead in a litre of petrol will result in the removal of all risks to health from vehicle exhaust emissions; and, if not, what action he is taking in this matter.

The reduction of the maximum permitted amount of lead in petrol to 0·40 grammes per litre in 1981 will ensure that total lead emission from vehicle exhausts will remain stable at the 1971 level. The Government are considering what longer-term measures are desirable.

The Question that I asked was whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that such a level would remove all risks to health. Could he, please, answer that?

I do not think that anyone in the country can answer that. That is why we are continuing, with urgency and thoroughness, our research into these matters. The most important point to bear in mind is that lead is taken into the body through food and drink as well as by breathing. Indeed, food and drink produce greater quantities of lead in the body; it is that accumulation which is important. The Government's record over the whole range of research into lead levels in food, drink and petrol is commendable, but we are certainly not complacent about it. We are continuing our research and hope to reduce the level of lead in petrol as and when we can.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from the problem of vehicle exhaust emission, many of my constituents are concerned about the emission of dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere from chemical plants? Is he satisfied that the environmental health departments of local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive have sufficient power and authority to deal with that?

I think so, and there is a separate Question down on that matter in response to which I hope to explain to my hon. Friend how additional steps are being taken in his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in rates in the Staffordshire Moorlands district in each of the past three years; and how this compares with the national average increase in rates.

In the last three years domestic rates in Staffordshire Moorlands have increased by 15·1 per cent., 31·7 per cent. and 20·5 per cent., compared with the national average increases of 9·3 per cent., 14·6 per cent. and 9·6 per cent. respectively.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that my constituents are angry at the increase in rates, which are substantially above the average, in the Staffordshire Moorlands district? Will he take steps to change the basis of calculating the rate support grant to ensure that they get a fairer deal in the future? Furthermore, does he realise that if that does not happen they will face a further substantial increase next year?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, I cannot make any promises about the treatment of individual authorities in advance of the rate support grant settlement. However, I have noted what he has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the Copec Housing Association and the Birmingham city council carry out their responsibilities towards the residents of Dawn House, Moseley, in Birmingham, consequent on the purchase of Dawn House with funds provided by his Department.

My Department's responsibility is to ensure that Copec's purchase of this hostel meets a housing need and represents value for money. I am satisfied that acquisition is justified on both these counts and is in the best interests of the residents.

I recognise that and I accept my right hon. Friend's argument. However, is he aware that part of the condition of the sale of Dawn House to the Copec Housing Association was that the residents, who are mentally handicapped, should be retained in Dawn House for a period of up to a year, during which time the association, in conjunction with the Birmingham social service department, would find alternative and comparable, or better, accommodation? In fact, more than half of the residents were summarily removed from Dawn House by its private owner—presumably for his own advantage—without consultation either with Copec or with the municipal authorities. As a result, those mentally handicapped people were treated like rubbish. Is it not a defect of the system that there was no consultation between my right hon. Friend's Department and the DHSS about the matter?

I am aware of the general background, including the information that my hon. Friend has given me in his supplementary question. I understand that he is due to meet a Minister at the DHSS later this afternoon. I shall await any results of that meeting and consider the matter further then.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to speed up the procedure for the approval of structure plans.

Yes. There must be a cohesive system of up-to-date plans, and the essential step now is to speed up their preparation and approval.

I understand that fewer than half of the 45 plans have yet been approval, and that in April and May this year about 10 were approved but that that had taken more than four years from the date of their submission. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is an over-elaborate inspection of plans in his Department? Does he not agree that the whole procedure needs speeding up because circumstances can change so much by the time approval comes?

I accept the general point that the hon. Gentleman is putting. There has been a slow take-off since the legislation was passed which produced the present system. However, the question that has often been put to me, and which may underlie the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question and his original Question, is whether one should change the system now. I have come to the firm judgment that it would be counter-productive to alter the system as a result of any major review that would hold things up for a long time to come. I am, therefore, concentrating my attention on trying to improve procedures now and to improve the follow-up on the preparation and approval of local plans. Work is in hand on that.

The Minister referred to speed. Is he aware of the allegation in The Times of 31st October that there is in the Department of Transport a deliberate attempt to rig public inquiry procedures? Will he institute an investigation to find out the truth or falsehood of that allegation?

I shall have to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the allegations quoted by the hon. Lady.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make more private accommodation available to let.

The Government are stimulating a number of initiatives to increase variety of tenure and the number of dwellings for rent; but the availability of rented accommodation outside the public sector depends also on many factors unaffected by legislation and other Government measures.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman been in his Department long enough for someone to have told him that the only commodity constantly in short supply—housing to rent—is the only commodity that has been controlled for a number of years? Does he take account of the fact that, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) points out, there are large sums of money in pension funds, and would not pension funds be much better put into building houses to rent than into buying antiques?

I think that the hon. Gentleman may well have a point about tapping alternative sources of finance to get such resources directed more effectively into housing provision. Any suggestion that that would best be done—as I think may be the hon. Gentleman's implication, if I may accuse him of making it—by dismantling the basic principles of the Rent Act, I would not accept.

Is it not astonishing to hear from an Opposition Member a plea for the Government to intervene in the private rented sector? Is it not the failure of that sector for generations that has made Government supporters urge the provision of more public rented accommodation, which is consistently opposed by the Opposition?

I accept my hon. Friend's general point. Indeed, it has been under this Government and previous Labour Governments that two things have happened. First, there has been the maintenance of the actual number of rented dwellings, contrary to many generalised remarks that are made. There are about 8 million rented dwellings in this country today; there were 8 million rented dwellings in this country 30-odd years ago. The other thing, which we have begun to do in recent times, is gradually to bring private finance into the provision of publicly rented housing. This has been done essentially so far through the Housing Corporation, but there are further prospects for the future also.

Will the Minister's proposals to give security of tenure to public sector tenants affect the working of the North Wiltshire scheme? Is he yet in a position to give a firm date for the publication of the Rent Acts review?

On the last point, no; but I hope that it will not be too long. On the first question, the hon. Gentleman is no doubt referring to the concept of leasing by local authorities of privately owned dwellings. It is declared policy to encourage this concept. My ideas on this matter, as I have made public, go much further than the rather limited concept of the so-called North Wiltshire scheme. I believe that there is great potential in long-term leasing of private accommodation in appropriate circumstances by local authorities and, in due course I hope, by housing associations to improve conditions and to give better rental provision for the tenants concerned.

As to the effect of our proposals in the proposed Housing Bill, I see no prospect of what we have in mind there affecting the possibility of developing the concept of leasing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency sharp absentee landlords are operating quite unscrupulous rental purchase schemes? Is he further aware that the unfortunate, and often inarticulate people caught by these schemes have no lawful protection of tenure and can be dispossessed at will? Has he had similar complaints from other parts of the country, and will he undertake an investigation into the whole rental purchase procedure?

Rental purchase in particular circumstances, and operated in an appropriate fashion, can be an acceptable form of hire purchase of one's own home. However, "phoney" schemes such as that referred to by my hon. Friend have been introduced by some unscrupulous people as a means of dodging the Rent Acts, thereby creating difficulties for the tenants concerned. A number of individual cases have been reported to us and we are looking at them in the context of the Rent Acts review. If my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Member, cares to give me details of schemes which are operating in this way in his and other areas, I shall certainly consider the mater further in the context of the review.

Apart from other rental legislation, does the Minister accept that when security of tenure was given to tenants of furnished accommodation large numbers of units of accommodation were withdrawn from the market? Has he any estimate of the number of persons who have been rendered homeless on that account?

No. I think that, if anything, the opposite effect has been produced. I can give a broad indication about what we think happened in the immediate wake of the Rent Act 1974. There was a drop in the number of lettings available at that time. The best available estimates—they are only sample estimates—suggest that in particular areas of London initially there was a 20 per cent. drop, but there was a considerable recovery later as people learnt the true facts about the operation of the Act. What is equally important, if not more so, is that reports from a number of agencies which have been helping people suffering from or threatened with eviction have shown reductions of 40 per cent., 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. in the case load of people previously threatened with eviction prior to the security provisions being made available under the Rent Act 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.

The Act is generally working well. The statistics so far available have shown an increase in the number of homeless people being helped by housing authorities. We shall shortly review the operation of the Act with the local authority associations.

Is it not a fact that many local authorities are discharging their responsibility under the Act by providing bed and breakfast accommodation because of the sheer shortage of permanent accommodation within their areas? Does the Minister agree that this might be said to be a case of Parliament having willed the end without having willed the means? Does he contemplate the introduction of further legislation or, more particularly, additional funds to assist the local authorities?

I am concerned about the growth once more of the practice referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I do not say that in criticism of the local authorities. I am concerned about the fact that in the handling of their responsibilities there has been a resurgence of the use of bed and breakfast, which had previously been declining in favour of more permanent solutions to the problems of the people concerned. But we think it may be a temporary factor. It is something that we shall have to watch closely in consultation with the local authorities when we review the operation of the Act.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point on the question of resources. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend stated earlier, our fear is that the resources that we have been making available to local authorities not only for new buildings but for the acquisition and modernisation of old houses, the provision of hostel accommodation and so on—all provided for under the capital allocations—will not fully be taken up. We urge local authorities which are under pressures such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers to make the best use of the allocations at their disposal to make sure that more accommodation under their ownership is available to help such people.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that most of these people are coming into areas which are already stress areas? It is now becoming not impossible but certainly very difficult for some local authorities to carry out their duties even if they wanted to. When he examines this matter will my right hon. Friend have words with some of the boroughs, particularly in the East End of London and, I dare say, in areas such as Brent? He must know that they, too, have worries about the situation.

Certainly any implications for administrative work that have come in the wake of the Act will have to be taken on board in our discussions with local authorities, and I do not doubt that if there are such problems the individual local authorities will inform their associations or us direct.

Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country local authorities are having great difficulty in properly and fairly managing their housing accommodation lists because of the priority requirements imposed by this Act? Is he further aware that this is desperately unfair to families which may have been on a council's housing list for many years? Will he please look into this matter and do something about it?

That was one of the matters which was the subject of serious consideration and discussion for a long time, well before the Bill was introduced and became law. It has always been a problem of deciding the balance of priorities at local authority level. I well recall that this was a sensitive matter when I was a member of my local authority in a stress area. It is not a situation that has been created by the Act; what was a common problem before has been reinforced in law, so to speak. But, where it can be shown that the operation of the Act is damaging the general application of the responsibilities of a local authority, I shall be glad to receive specific information when we review the operation of the Act.

Bearing in mind the information that I have previously sent my right hon. Friend in relation to the non-operation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act by the Slough Conservative council, may I ask whether he agrees that its activities would fail to increase the number of people being housed under the Act? When he reviews the operation of the Act, will he pay particular attention to Slough corporation, which has already been censured by the Local Government Ombudsman for its behaviour in this respect?

It will be difficult to concentrate too heavily on a range of several hundred individual local authorities, but where causes célèbres arise in the operation of the Act or there is failure to operate the Act in particular areas I shall have to take the experience aboard when we review the operation of the Act.

When the Minister carries out his review of the Act, will he bear in mind an article which appeared in the Calgary Herald of 2nd September 1978 giving advice to young Canadians on how to obtain a free holiday in the United Kingdom? The advice given is that one should buy a single ticket to Heathrow, preferably with a child in tow. One then hires a taxi for five dollars and asks to go to the local housing authority, where the housing manager will be obliged to house one under the Homeless Persons Act.

The article also alleges that about 350 Americans took advantage of the scheme this summer.

I do not know the truth of that report, but we saw an example only yesterday in the case of a Nairobi family who came here for a holiday, already having a home in Nairobi. Does the Minister agree that if that kind of attitude is gaining currency abroad it will make the implementation of the Act by our local authorities impossible when they are dealing with genuine cases of homelessness amongst our own people?

I could give a very short reply to that contemptible intervention. The hon. Gentleman does not do himself, his party or housing policy any good by that kind of smear politics. I put the question that he has put to me in the same category as I put the personal conduct of at least one notable person who hit the headlines yesterday. I make no judgments about the individual handling of cases by officials in their housing departments—I refer, among other things, to the case that was publicised yesterday—but I have the utmost contempt and deepest repugnance for the way a particular Conservative councillor acted in the same spirit as the hon. Gentleman has just spoken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the rate support grant for 1979–80; and if he will take into account the need to ensure that those metropolitan districts in England which were losers this year do not suffer repeated disadvantage in the awaited order.

I shall announce the terms of the 1979–80 settlement on 24th November. In reaching my final decisions, I shall take account of the many representations made to me.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent approval of our South Yorkshire waterway. May I ask him to ensure that authorities such as my own, which are especially keen to meet local needs, do not suffer discouragement from doing so next year?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. I understand the difficulties but, as he knows, in the allocation of rate support grant the needs element is based upon a general formula, general assessment of need, and it is not really a question of making individual allocations to local authorities. Nevertheless, I believe that the machinery for assessing need, while far from perfect, is the best available and that it is also the right principle that we should allocate resources according to assessed needs.

In fixing the rate support grant for the next year, will the Secretary of State ensure that average rate increases do not exceed the Government's target of 5 per cent.?

I shall be making my statutory statement on 24th November, and no doubt I shall give some indication then of what I expect the major figures to be, in terms both of rate of inflation and of actual rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends taking to give greater protection to bird sanctuaries and estuarial basins threatened by reclamation for agricultural cultivation.

The Nature Conservancy Council is already preparing advice on the adequacy of existing powers and resources. My right hon. Friends and I shall consider what action may be necessary in the light of its report and of consultations with all affected interests.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his quick response to the appeals in the House to deal with the situation on the Ribble estuary? Would not making the use of land for agricultural reclamation subject to planning permission cover the situation? Can we not do that quickly?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. Discussions about the Ribble estuary are proceeding with the speed and degree of concern that the whole House would wish. We are looking at the planning aspect, although not necessarily as the exclusive way of dealing with the problems.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the price to be paid by the Nature Conservancy Council to acquire the land on the Ribble estuary will he fixed by the district valuer and will not be £4 million as rumoured around my constituency?

My hon. Friend is right. I was grateful for his support when I went to Ribble to investigate these matters. The price has to he fixed by the district valuer, who on 20th October received the necessary information that he had requested from the vendor in order to make that valuation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building in the private and public sectors.

The figures for September were published on 6th November. In the private sector 15,500 houses were started and 12,500 completed in September. The total from January to the end of September is 117,600 starts and 109,400 completions. In the public sector 9,000 houses were started and 10,400 completed in September. For the period from January to the end of September there were 85,400 starts and 96,900 completions.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the reasons why public sector completions will be less this year than they would otherwise have been is that local authorities such as Birmingham have disbanded their direct building departments and handed over their contracts to builders who have then gone bankrupt, so that estates of half-finished council houses are now littering my constituency, for example—which is no damn good at all for my constituents? What will my right hon. Friend do about that?

I am always anxious to help my hon. Friend in any way that I can. I believe that his point about action taken against direct building departments is one part of the explanation in his area and, indeed, in one or two other areas. But there are other rather more generalised difficulties, and the major one is that housing approvals have lagged way below what we allocated funds for last year and again this year.

Does the Secretary of State expect that among the totals which he gave there will be sufficient units for those in special need, such as the elderly and the disabled? Would it not be helpful if the Department's statistics always separately identified the number of housing units which have been designed for those people in special need, since most local authorities are not meeting the self-evident need in those areas but are concentrating on providing too many standard homes, which the private sector can perfectly well provide?

I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about publishing more detailed information on types of housing, but the general trend has been towards the provision of a greater proportion of public rented housing for old people and, increasingly now, for disabled people as well. These are trends that we all wish to encourage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will bring forward proposals to give local authorities powers to control the building of major underground pipelines by nationalised industries.

No, Sir.

Is it not wrong that a local planning authority should have no power whatever over such major developments taking place within its area? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern in Northumberland, which has a second major gas pipeline project going through the county, about the dangers posed by pipelines close to residential areas and areas where heavy agricultural equipment is used and about dangers from air crashes, one case of which we had fairly recently?

I am aware of the degree of activity going on in Northumberland, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that under the present arrangements there is the fullest consultation with all local authorities concerned. To secure permission from each local authority would, I believe, be unworkable.

Will the hon. Gentleman think again about this matter, having in mind, for example, that recently in my constituency a gas pipeline had to be moved 100 yards because of increased development, at a cost of £350,000? That pipeline had been there for only a short period of years. This really is not good enough, and the co-ordination at present is not adequate.

I am assured that full consultation does take place with local authorities. That is certainly expected of the authorities which carry out this work, and I believe that that is the right way to proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reaction there has been to circular 57/78 on gipsy caravan sites; and if he will make a statement.

The circular has been generally welcomed, and we hope to introduce the proposed legislation very shortly.

Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the general policy of non-harassment, there is still discretion for a local authority to take remedial action in cases where caravan dwellers park in circumstances which cause a serious nuisance to the occupants of residential property or cause a public health hazard?

Most certainly, yes. We have to have approaches with a two-pronged policy: first, to provide the necessary sites and supervision, and, second, to stop caravan owners from parking indiscriminately in a manner which is a threat to the interests of other people and to public health.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making mandatory the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which would mean that caravan sites have to be provided? That would get round a great deal of the present difficulty when individuals want to bring injunctions against the owners of caravans which are wrongly parked. Until that is done, the present confusion will continue.

The right hon. Gentleman has made an interesting suggestion. As I said in my original answer, we hope to produce proposals in the House very shortly, when, no doubt, we shall be able to consider his suggestion.

I have a brief statement to make. Yesterday, when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) gave way to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I indicated to the House that a Member giving way had a right to decide when he should resume his speech, and that when he rose to do so the Member intervening must discontinue his intervention. Since then, I have looked at the precedents on such matters and come to the conclusion that that is not the case. Any hon. Member who is speaking has the undoubted right to decide for himself whether he chooses to give way to an intervention. However, once he has given way the Member intervening has the Floor and the right to speak.

Of course, if interventions continue for too long the occupant of the Chair has a duty to check them. Both my predecessors and I have frequently done so, with the support of the House. But that was not the case yesterday. The hon. Member for Tiverton was, therefore, entirely justified in his point of order, and I am sorry that the misunderstanding occurred.