asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement on the methods by which he proposes to safeguard the private house building programme from the effects of the devaluation of the £ sterling.

The best safeguard for the private house building programme is a strong economy. This is what we are seeking to achieve. Option mortgages, and the 100 per cent. guarantee scheme will help private house builders by supporting the demand for home ownership.

Does the Minister agree that the response to the option mortgage scheme has been slow, and that therefore the scheme is unlikely to have much effect in counteracting the result of devalua- tion? Will he estimate by how much private house building this year will fall below the numbers achieved in 1964?

I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his supplementary question. Among existing borrowers, the figure opting is 5 per cent., and for new borrowers it is 11 per cent., which is just about what we expected. In reply to the second part of his supplementary question, I remind him that starts in the private sector went up by 40,000 last year, and last year and the signs are very promising for this year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in the light of the Government's economy measures, he will now withdraw his department's Circular 50/65 and recommend to local authorities the need for tighter financial control over their direct labour building departments.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he will be taking to safeguard ratepayers against overspending by direct labour departments of the kind that has recently come to light.

I do not intend to withdraw Circular No. 50/65. I am pursuing the question of financial control and management with the local authority associations. In considering applications for subsidy and loan sanction for direct labour schemes, the Department takes account of the past performance of the direct labour organisation concerned. Direct labour schemes are subject to the same cost yardsticks as schemes undertaken by contractors.

Does the Minister appreciate that the output per man year from direct labour, as shown by his own statistics, is the equivalent of £2,674 a year, whereas that from contractors is £3,300 a year? Is not that a major deficiency? How does he propose to tie in his expanding economy with efficiency if he does not allow efficiency to take its natural course?

I believe that direct labour organisations in most cases are extremely efficient, but local authorities should appreciate the need for very strict and firm financial control of them. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen the report of the District Auditors' Society, which is in the Library. I am in discussion with the local authority associations with a view to issuing a manual for local authorities on direct labour organisations.

Has the Minister not gathered from case after case concerning direct labour schemes—Camden, Southwark, Liverpool and so on—that the lesson to be learned is that a local authority cannot control a commercial enterprise of this kind in the same way as private industry can, and that the result has been a loss to the ratepayer in each lamentable case after the other?

The hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. The number of local authorities with the kind of experience to which he refers is a very small percentage of the whole. Improvements can be made, and I am determined that they shall be drawn to the attention of the local authorities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the massive housing problems which we have had for decades are the result of the ineptness and failure of private enterprise, and that in the main the improvements are the result of local authorities' efforts via their direct labour building forces?

Both the local authorities and private enterprise have been doing very well under a Labour Government.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will send a circular recommending to local housing authorities a maximum percentage increase in any one year in the rents of individual council houses.

I have advised local authorities to moderate any necessary rent increases so far as practicable, to phase any unavoidable substantial increases over a reasonable period, and to limit the increase due at any one time. Any further advice must await the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on this subject.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a previous Circular from his Department mentioned a figure of 15 per cent.? Is not even this high compared with the 3½ per cent. norm for wages and other matters?

The 15 per cent. figure was in a different context. The difficulty about my hon. Friend's suggestion is that, if we were to have a percentage increase, the largest rents would qualify for the largest increases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the South Suburban Co-operative Society is demanding increases amounting to 100 per cent. in rents from certain constituents of mine? If I let him have details, will he see that this matter is also considered by the Prices and Incomes Board?

I do not think that can arise out of a Question about council rents.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that rent increases affect the cost of living?

Indeed they do. That is why we referred the whole subject to the Prices and Incomes Board.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the progress of the proposed council rent increases which were referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I have no statement to make on this subject pending the Board's report.

Can my right hon. Friend say what action he proposes to take if these outrageous Tory-controlled G.L.C. increases are allowed by the National Board for Prices and Incomes? Many council tenants are very concerned.

There is not very much point in referring a matter to an inquiry and then anticipating the decision that it reaches. Perhaps my hon. Friend had better put down that Question after the Board has reported.

If sensible rents are not agreed, is it not true to say that substantial increases in rates must take place?

If the hon. Gentleman is simply asking me to agree that there are three sources of income to the housing revenue account—Exchequer subsidy, rents and rates—the answer is yes.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many dwellings will now be erected on the council's site at Castlecroft, Wolverhampton, under the scheme approved by his Department; how many were to have been provided under the original scheme which he approved and which was discarded by the local authority; and what will be the total additional cost to the ratepayers of Wolverhampton.

The revised scheme has not yet been sent to the Department for formal approval. I understand it will provide for some 156 dwellings. The earlier scheme was for 288. My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any detailed cost comparisons.

Does not my hon. Friend think that it is a very serious matter for a town with a land shortage and a long waiting list for houses to lose 130 housing units on one site alone? Is he aware that the discarded plan cost the ratepayers £40,000 and that this had to be met by increasing council house rents? Will he look at the matter again and urge the local authority to reconsider the original scheme?

I do not think that the old scheme went to final tender on cost, and the new scheme has not yet reached us. I cannot, therefore, compare costs. But I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the necessity to improve the balance of trade, he will circularise all architects and engineers drawing up plans for building local authorities' houses, urging that wherever possible indigenous materials are used for the construction of such buildings and the use of imported materials reduced to a minimum; and whether there are existing instructions to architects and engineers in this connection, and of what nature.

Subject to building regulations, the choice of materials is within the discretion of local authorities and there is no standing advice on this matter from the Department. My right hon. Friend will however consider any suggestions designed to reduce the use of imported materials.

Will the hon. Gentleman send a Circular to local authorities urging them to cut out things like continental doors, fancy fittings, Italian terrazzos, foreign glass and the rest which can be used in these houses? In view of the importance of the balance of payments, will he do something about it?

Local authorities and builders have a great incentive to be cost-conscious now. My right hon. Friend is considering what advice to give local authorities and will bear in mind the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses planned for civilian occupation have now been or are planned to be acquired for occupation under the emergency housing scheme by Servicemen returning from overseas as the result of the Government's defence cuts; what effect this will have on local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

The total target under the emergency housing scheme is about 8,100 houses of which 2,750 have been completed and a further 5,000 are in process of acquisition. In most cases, these houses were already under construction or planned to be built by private builders, and local authorities will have taken that development into account in considering the demand on local services.

Will this not reduce the supply of houses to civilians and, therefore, increase somewhat the pressure on local authorities? Can the hon. Gentleman show these figures separately in the housing statistics? What is the cost of these houses?

The cost is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I think that private developers, if they want some further stimulus to build, will find this of help to their plans.

Does my hon. Friend realise that, even with the provision made under the emergency housing scheme. the. extent to which local authorities make provision for Servicemen on their discharge from the Forces is still miserably inadequate?

I think that local authorities hope to keep this matter very much to the forefront of their policy.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses he estimates are likely to be completed in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now announce a revised national housing target for 1970 and for the intervening years; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what revisions he has now made to the 1970 housing target.

I expect the number of houses built in the United Kingdom in each of the years to 1971 to be well over 400,000. I am not, however, prepared to make precise estimates for particular years, since it is difficult to forecast with precision the performance of the private sector. The measures we have taken to stimulate the demand for home ownership should however help towards a good result. My aim is to see that every year the largest practicable number of houses are completed.

Would the Minister agree that, even if the priority area programme is to be maintained, as I hope it is, houses should not be built elsewhere unless they are really needed? Would he therefore strive to get somewhere near the 500,000 level rather than the 400,000?

I have said that my aim is to see that every year the largest practicable number of houses is completed, and I shall certainly do everything that I can to achieve that aim.

The right hon. Gentleman has admitted his dependence upon the private sector. May I ask him how he expects the private sector to play its part when it is held back by Government Measures on the economic front? Is this the way that the Ministry intends to build a new Britain?

I have not admitted anything. The Government have always said that their object is to have building divided as to 50 per cent. private sector and 50 per cent. local authority. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have provided the option mortgage scheme and the 100 per cent. guarantee scheme, which is something that hon. Gentlemen opposite never thought about.

The House will hear with deep regret the abandonment of the very sacred pledge to meet the 500,000 target. Even if the Minister is to abandon his target for public enterprise, could he not try again as regards private enterprise? If he could see that sites are available, so that private enterprise could build, then he might have a chance of getting nearer to his original target.

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman is sad, because his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in October, was complaining that we were building too many houses. It is very comforting to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance. We shall certainly do everything possible to allow local authorities to go ahead. This is not a cut in the number to be completed this year, it is a cut in a programme that we had anticipated would be possible in the years after 1968.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the economic prospects indicate that the private sector will not come up to its expected target? Would he therefore make every effort to increase the target for the public sector?

I have not set a target for the private sector, where, my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is not possible for the Government to set a target. There is every reason to believe that this year the private and public sector will build more houses than in 1967.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in areas of high under-occupancy and severe shortage of building land, he will make special grants to encourage local authorities to redevelop council houses as single-person dwellings.

In suitable cases grants are paid for the conversion of council houses into flats but I would not favour the demolition of fit houses.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most of the council estates built in the 1920s were solely three-bedroomed family houses, and that the old people who now almost exclusively live in them are most reluctant to live a long way away, so that conversion is not enough and demolition will very soon be the answer?

A great deal can be done by conversion, and by prudent management in moving people nearer their families, so that one can reduce the amount of under-occupation in particular areas.

Could the Minister tell us what investigation the Ministry is undertaking into under-occupation in the public and private sectors, or whether they feel that they already have that information?

From time to time we have sample surveys into the state of houses, but the responsibility for management is essentially that of the local housing authority, not of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many permanent dwellings were com- pleted by private builders in Great Britain in 1967; and what estimate he has made of the probable number of such completions in 1968.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to reverse the decline in the number of houses completed in the private sector since October, 1964.

In 1967 private builders in Great Britain completed 200,438 dwellings. It is too soon to estimate how many they will complete in 1968. Demand will be stimulated by both the mortgage option and mortgage guarantee schemes and the prospects for a rise in completions in 1968 are reasonably good.

Does the Minister not recollect that, in 1967, 18,000 fewer houses were built by private enterprise than in 1964 as a result of the Government's austerity measures? How far will the Minister allow this to proceed before some of these appalling restrictions are taken off the private building industry?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to an answer which I gave him earlier. The really relevant figures at the moment are that starts in the private sector last year were up by 40,000, and the figure for the last quarter of 1967 was 58,000, which was about 6,000 up on the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Starts were up substantially and, presumably, in consequence, completions will follow suit.

Does the Minister not realise that those who have to live in houses are concerned with completions and not with starts? Is it not a fact that in 1967 there were some 5,000 fewer completions than in 1966, some 13,000 fewer in 1966 than in 1965, and some 14,000 fewer in 1965 than in 1964?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why there was difficulty in completions of private houses in the early part of last year. Towards the end of the year, completions were rising very sharply and, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite spread too much despondency in the country, the houses started by private enterprise will be completed.

Will not the Minister concede to the Opposition that we should have fewer starts and more completions?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what e feet the proposed curtailment of house-building by local authorities in 1969–70 will have on the programmes of authorities in the Northern Region and of the programme of Newcastle City Council.

The programmes of Newcastle City Council and other priority areas in the Northern Region will be safeguarded as we have already made clear. I cannot estimate what the precise allocation for particular regions will be until we have completed our discussions with the priority authorities about their requirements.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many Tory controlled local authorities are quite prepared to see the measures as an excuse seriously to curtail house building? Is he further aware that the Newcastle City Council, with a waiting list of 6,000, is contemplating selling land within the city boundary to a "spec" builder?

I should be sorry to see a fall in the great housing record of Newcastle, but the council must make its own decisions.

Is the House to understand from the hon. Gentleman's Answer that there is no allocation of these cuts throughout the country from area to area? Is this another example of the failure to prepare the cuts after devaluation?

No. It is an example again of our extraordinary success in getting a record housing programme through and completed with the full cooperation and confidence of local authorities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to have included in all local authority housing contracts a clause making it legally binding upon the contractor to keep all roads and footpaths clear of mud up to the date of completion of the whole contract.

No, Sir. It is already an offence under the Highways Act, 1959, to deposit anything on the road which is a danger or nuisance to road users, and I do not think a contractual clause on the lines suggested would add much further protection.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents residing on the new Kenton Bar estate have suffered considerable inconvenence and distress as a direct result of the contractor failing to cope with this problem? Will he inform Newcastle Corporation that it has the power to deal with this problem?

I have no information about this. If my hon. Friend would care to write to me about it I should be happy to do what I could to help him.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to bring to the attention of more tenants in areas where rented accommodation is in short supply their rights under the Rent Act, 1965.

My right hon. Friend proposes to launch within the next few months a publicity campaign involving the use of posters on commercial sites and leaflets and he is considering the use of other publicity media.

I welcome any steps which my hon. Friend is able to take in this direction. Is he aware that the failure in some cases of local authorities and the police to take prompt action, where there is harassment after a successful application to the rent officer, is still proving a serious disincentive to some of the people who most need the protection of the Act?

I am always glad to look into complaints about failure to take proceedings in cases of harassment. I do not know of any bad cases, but I agree about the importance of making clear to tenants and landlords their rights to go to the rent fixing machinery.

If the rent officers are to be reduced by 60 during 1968, what is the point of this campaign?

The point of this campaign is to direct it to places where there is the most risk of exploitation by landlords.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to amend the Rent Act, 1955, to make it a criminal offence for landlords to charge new tenants more than the previous controlled rent.

My right hon. Friend has no proposals for altering the provisions of the Act, which enables either party in a regulated tenancy to apply for the registration of a fair rent, which will be the maximum legally recoverable.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that new tenants are usually unaware of the previous controlled rents paid and have great difficulty in ascertaining what they were?

If there has been a previous regulated rent it is an offence to give false information about it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the total estimated cost in 1966–67 of approved schemes for the disposal of effluent by industry and local authorities, respectively, necessitated by the new standards of pollution established by the river boards; and what Government grants have been made.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of the cost of capital expenditure over the next 10 years on sewage disposal and treatment equipment and buildings by local authorities necessary to give effect to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts, 1951, and 1961 and the Public Health Act, 1961.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will set up an inquiry into the rapidly growing problem of the disposal of industrial effluent; and if he will make a statement;

This subject was examined by a sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee before the relevant legislation was passed in 1961. My right hon. Friend has since had correspondence about it with the Confederation of British Industry and also met it, and he has studied individual cases where appeals have been made to him. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that Parliament did right to pass this legislation, and that inadequate control of discharges into rivers is not only insanitary but uneconomic. The practical application of the Acts can only be studied usefully in relation to particular cases. For this reason he has not placed on local authorities and industry the burden of compiling returns to enable him to arrive at a total of how much less they might spend if their effluents were dirtier, and this element is not treated separately for the purpose of grants.

Order. Answers are getting rather long.

Why has disposal of trade effluent not been costed by the Government? River boards are demanding higher standards but no one knows the cost to industry or local authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman assist the local authorities in this matter?

We are studying the problem and assembling some facts but that does not in any way derogate from my Answer.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, even if some of the more modest estimates by sections of industry and others of the likely cost of cleaning our rivers are correct, some estimate ought to be made by the Government?

I thought that I had already indicated that, as we build up information, we shall know more about this matter. Local conditions vary enormously.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the squeezing together of all these Questions, although they are distantly related, is typical of the dilettante attitude of the Government towards this very important problem? Does not he think it odd that, faced with this great and growing problem which presents increasing claims upon our national resources, the Government are not even able to give any estimate of costs?

Mr. Moyle—Question No. 6.

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

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied that the present powers under tree preservation orders are adequate far as town and country amenity is concerned; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The Civic Amenities Act, 1967, strengthened and added to existing powers, increasing the maximum penalty for unauthorised felling, requiring the replacement of trees which die or are cut down, and the preservation or replanting of trees affected by new development.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the enthusiasm of the public for this part of the Civic Amenities Act will increase to the extent to which they can see action taken in their own areas? Will he undertake to ensure that these powers are used as vigorously as possible?

I am happy to give that assurance. We sent an explanatory communication to the local authorities urging them to use these new powers.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what amount of land has been acquired by the. Land Commission; and how much of the land has been disposed for development.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many pieces of land have to date been purchased by the Land Commission.

The Commission is negotiating for the acquisition of some 800 acres in Great Britain for disposal mainly to house-builders and also to local authorities. None has yet reached the stage of completion. Many other cases are being investigated.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Land Commission should now be getting under way? Can he assure me that it will not be subject to Treasury brakes?

I do not think that there is any question of Treasury restraint in developing the programme. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a time for us to look forward to the Commission's acquisition programme getting under way. It would not have been right for it to have attempted to plunge at once into its acquisition programme without making a proper examination of land supply and demand. That is what the Commission has been doing in the short time in which it has been in existence.

Is not my hon. and learned Friend's Answer an astonishing admission of failure? If, as we are told, the Commission has a staff of 1,300, can he estimate what footage each civil servant will require in the first 12 months?

I do not agree that this indicates failure. The majority of the staff are concerned with the collection of levy and not with the land acquisition programme. As I have said, it would not have been right to plunge at once into the acquisition programme. Careful preparation and consultation are required before the Commission begins the process of acquisition, which itself is a lengthy process.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that 800 acres is about three days' supply of land? Is not this deplorable? Does not he realise that builders are hopelessly short of land? What is he going to do about it?

I agree that 800 acres is a small amount but, as I have said, many other cases are being investigated and these cover many thousands of acres.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much the Land Commission will cost during its first 12 months; and what is its estimated income during the same period.

Approximately £3·2 million. I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Financial Statement for the first year's yield of levy, but the build up of this and of the proceeds from land transactions is still in the very early stages.

Is it not apparent that the Land Commission is a very expensive luxury? Would it not be wise to scrap it and start again? Is not the answer the public ownership of all building land?

My hon. Friend's solution would be rather more expensive. As I have explained in answer to an earlier Question, inevitably the build-up of the work of the Commission has been slow to start with, and the yield of the levy during the first year will not be great, largely because of the extensive concessions made during the passing of the Act to minimise hardship in the initial period.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) should have stopped his supplementary question at the words "scrap it", and left it at that? Has not the expenditure of this £3·2 million resulted merely in making land more scarce and more expensive?

No. There is another Question later dealing with land prices. The hon. Gentleman's conclusions are quite wrong.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why it is his policy to grant assistance to local authorities when new towns are developed or where overspill is planned, but not when private development has taken place or is planned.

Financial assistance to local authorities under the New Towns and Town Development Acts must be devoted to planned development and cannot be used to promote the natural growth of towns through private development. Within new towns and town development schemes there is of course an assured place for private development.

Can help be given to local authorities, particularly where private developers are prepared to pay half the cost of such planned development, as in the case of Frinton and Walton?

The difficulty is that it would be hard to distinguish Frinton and Walton from other expanding towns which are also enlisting the aid of private developers. I do not think that there is a case for giving special treatment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek to amend the Land Commission Act so that the betterment levy is not paid by retirement pensioners.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister think it fair that an old-age pensioner, about whom I have sent details, should have to pay £70 on £350 from the sale of his back garden, when he was going to use the money for repairs to his bungalow and a holiday, which he had not had for four years? Is it not a scandalous example of the way in which the Land Commission is working?

In the example that the hon. Gentleman has given, as in others, the levy is at the rate of 40 per cent. on the increase in value due to betterment. To try to make exceptions because of hardship cases would open the door wide to all sorts of unjustified exemptions. I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The Commission has power to allow the payment by instalments. If there is any difficulty I hope that the person concerned will make an application accordingly.

With these examples of hardship due to payment of betterment levy cropping up all over the country now, will not the hon. and learned Gentleman consider initiating legislation to exempt the private dwelling house, the residence of the betterment levy payer, in the same way as it is exempted from Capital Gains Tax?

There are some hardship aspects which need to be considered, but I do not think we can go as far as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will set up an inquiry into the disparity in cost between various parts of the country for the disposal and treatment of sewage with a view to taking steps to equalise standards and costs to the ultimate benefit of domestic and industrial users.

No, Sir. Given the differences in the wastes to be disposed of and in local facilities for disposal of effluent and sludge, equalisation of either standards or costs would be impracticable.

What justification can there be for the type of disparity which is reported, which places such a burden on particular domestic and industrial users? Is there nothing that the Government are prepared to do about this that would help?

I have already dealt with this point but we should be prepared to look into individual cases. They vary very widely in view of the nature of the effluents to be disposed of.

In view of the paucity of information offered by the Government on this subject, why on earth are they resisting a request for an inquiry? Information is obviously required and they do not have it.

The legislation dealing with the subject, as the hon. Gentle- man knows, goes back over a great many years. The 1961 legislation is imposed on top of it all. We are carrying out investigations all over the country to see what are the total results, and if we find it necessary, further action will be taken.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has had the opportunity in two Questions now, of explaining the Government's policy, and there seems to be no policy at all? Would he give some assurance that new legislation is under consideration if the existing legislation is not sufficient for him to find out the cost of this scheme?

I shall be in a position to tell the House when we have had more experience of the working of the legislation passed by the Administration supported by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will amend the formula for the rate support grant so that it includes a substantial element based on the criteria laid down by the Plowden Report on Primary Schools for educational priority areas.

The arrangements for the distribution of rate support grant take some account of both the differing needs and the differing rate resources of local authorities. My right hon. Friend is of course, keeping the arrangements under review but he has no proposals at present to amend them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of this Report the Department of Education has agreed to pay substantial differential capital payments to local authorities to help them with these priority areas, but under the present arrangements for the rate support grant, there is no machinery to pay the necessary extra current expenditure to run those capital projects?

As I have explained, my right hon. Friend is keeping this matter under review and no doubt representations can be made to the Ministry of Education, if the need arises.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give details of the guidance he is giving local authorities in order to safeguard traditional amenity woodland.

Amenity woodlands are the subject of a series of conferences which this Department is organising in areas known for the quality of their deciduous woods. These bring together the local authorities, statutory bodies, woodland owners and farming, forestry and amenity interests, to discuss what can be done to safeguard the woodlands. Local authorities have power to make tree preservation orders; and to buy specially important woodlands.

At the risk of drawing attention to the inconsistencies of hon. Gentlemen opposite who voted for the Civic Amenities Act under which my right hon. Friend's powers are exercised, can my hon. Friend say whether there is sufficient staff in local authorities to administer this part of the Act?

There are difficulties in some areas, but it would be fair to say that, taking the country as a whole, this is not a feature which is preventing the sort of development that we want to see.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received from local authorities and other bodies and individuals in Essex against the proposed realignment of Stansted runways; and what reply he has made.

My right hon. Friend has received representations from 15 local authorities in Essex, including six parish councils, and six local authorities in Hertfordshire, and from 15 other organisations and 14 private objectors or groups of objectors.

Will the Minister kindly circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the authorities and others who have made these representations to his Department? Does he realise that the proposed realignment would make matters even worse for my constituents and subject even more Essex schools to intolerable noise? What new inquiry is proposed?

Certainly I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about circulating the list. I think it is better that I do not comment on the representations which have been made, as they are still under consideration.

Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is any substance in the suggestion by the anti-Stansted lobby that the Council on Tribunals might be told to look into the possibility of further inquiries? Does he not think that there have been enough inquiries already, and that it is now time to get on with the work of building the airport?

I know that a suggestion has been made about the Council on Tribunals and that the Council is itself considering the matter. With regard to the question of further inquiries, this is among the matters which have been urged in the representations to which I have referred. Like all the other representations, it is being considered.

Has the Minister had any representations from the Railways Board, as I understand that British Railways have discovered that the scheme will cost another £20 million? What does he intend to do about objections from those people who, whilst not aggrieved by the previous scheme, will be aggrieved by the new scheme which is to be put forward? Surely they are entitled to make their objections at a public inquiry.

The Railways Board is not among the bodies to which I referred. The second matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is among those being considered and which were the subject of representations.

Why does the Minister not admit that the Government have been wrong about this altogether and should start again from scratch?

Because we do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. We think that the proposal made by this Government, which is, incidentally, the one made by the previous Government, is right.

Since the original proposal depended on the runway being left as it was and utilised, and that has now been discarded, is there not a case for an independent new inquiry to be held?

I can only repeat that I do not want to comment on matters on which we have received representations. This is one of them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what increase in land prices has taken place since 6th April, 1967; and what effect the starting of the betterment levy has had an those prices.

Recent prices in the land market have not shown a constant pattern and it will be some time before a firm judgment can be made on trends in 1967. The figures so far available suggest that the average increase for the year 1967 seems likely to be lower than in recent years.

From what source does the Minister of State derive his information, because the professional information appears to indicate a 20 per cent. increase in the cost of land based on pre-levy prices? This is the professional information as shown, for example, in the Financial Times which, in detailed terms, means an increase of £200 in the cost of a three-bedroomed house as a result of the levy?

The information comes from a wide variety of sources and includes the reporting of transactions to the Inland Revenue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures that he is quoting are very wide of the mark and very wide of the figures to which I have referred. It is too early for me to try to give any firm figure, but I assure the House that the indications are that there will be a substantial drop in the rate of growth.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling that the big landowners, their lawyers, surveyors and political spokesmen will succeed somehow in circumventing the intentions of the Act and that more drastic action is needed to deal with the land racket?

I hope that any hon. Members who have evidence to suggest that the levy is being passed on in increased prices will report these matters to the Land Commission.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he approves river authorities setting different standards of cleanliness of river water; when standards will be introduced for estuaries; and if he will take steps to co-ordinate the referred standards and to see that they are introduced gradually.

It is right that standards for effluents discharged to a river should vary according to conditions in the river at the point of discharge and the use made of the river downstream. There is a right of appeal to the Minister if Standards are thought too high. Standards can already be fixed for certain discharges to estuaries.

As the relevant legislation is seven years old and the Government have not even costed the price of cleaning our rivers, let alone estuaries, about which the Minister did not reply, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to co-ordinate this and bring in the increased costs gradually over a period of years?

I understand that under the Clean Rivers Act the river authorities pay special regard to the discharge of effluents into tidal waters and, indeed, have standards which are different and more advantageous to industry.

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