asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the road works programme in the City of Birmingham will be cut as a result of the proposed reductions in Government expenditure.

The Government's road programme is planning to rise by about 8½ per cent. at constant prices to 1974–75. Principal road schemes in Birmingham or elsewhere depend on the rate at which local authorities throughout the country prepare individual schemes to grant-application stage.

Will the Under-Secretary give the House an assurance that any road scheme in the City of Birmingham which does not qualify for a Government grant will not have its loan sanction turned down by the Department? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the conservative council in the City of Birmingham has, in each year that it has been in office, reduced the amount spent on roads in the city?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that these are matters for the Birmingham City Council. We are discussing principal road schemes, and the initiative must lie with the city.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on his intention to improve the compensation rights of individuals affected by public developments.

I shall make a statement when we have completed our comprehensive review of the compensation code.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that there is strong feeling about the inadequacy of the present law to ensure justice for individuals, and that when the Government are ready to make their proposals there will be loud cheers at the keeping of yet another Conservative election pledge?

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that when roads are constructed through large towns like Gateshead, for example, owner-occupiers are injuriously affected not so much by the roads running through their properties but by the value of their properties declining because of the close proximity of those roads?

Yes, I very much appreciate these problems. The City of Worcester, which I represent, has similar problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities applied for extra home loans finance for purchase of private houses and how many were refused them during the current financial year; and if he will name those authorities in both categories.

Three hundred and nineteen authorities in England have applied for an additional allocation. It has been necessary to refuse 123. Sixty-five which asked for a second allocation have also had to be refused. I will, with permission, list the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Is it not a fact that some of these local authorities with the worst problems find their quotas exhausted very early in the year? Will the Minister help them, particularly as they provide houses for people when the building societies will, unfortunately, often not entertain them?

Yes. I entirely agree with everything said by the hon. Gentleman. It is the greatest pity that his own Government reduced the amount so that only about a quarter—[Interruption.] It happens to be true. Hon. Gentlemen do not like it. It is the greatest pity that the Labour Government reduced the amount so that only about a quarter of the number of people who in 1964 got houses through local authority mortgage loans were able to do so in 1969.

Why does the hon. Gentleman's Department turn down the repeated application from South Shields where his party continuously complained of the late Government's cutting-down? Why does not his Department allow the application?

Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, we are operating this year under the allocation set down by his Government. When we have a chance the hon. Gentleman will find the situation will be very different.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the number of houses started in the public and private sectors, respectively.

As I indicated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 25th November, measures already taken to help the building industry and our proposals for the reform of housing finance should benefit both the public and the private sectors.—[Vol. 809, c. 407.]

The right hon. Gentleman will notice that the building trade employers are not very optimistic. Is it not obvious that if the Minister makes this really swingeing cut in subsidies there is bound to be a further reduction in council house building? Is that really what the Minister intends?

No, Sir. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are starting from a pretty difficult foundation. House building output fell by 11 per cent. at constant prices in the last year of the previous Government. The decline in completions in 1969 was the worst since the war. There were 82,000 fewer houses started in 1969 than in 1964. So we are starting from a fairly difficult launching pad.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that on difficulty has been the squirrel-like attitude of some local councils in hoarding land and not releasing it for development?

I agree that this is one problem. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary is in touch with a number of local authorities at the present time to try to ease this problem. We are optimistic about the outcome of these talks.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when many Tory councils reduced their council building programme last year they were carrying out the advice given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Is he not further aware that we can make no sensible Projection about what is likely to happer to the housing programme until we have a statement amplifying his right hon. Friend's statement of 3rd November? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when we are likely to get further details?

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I beg him to believe me when I say that he has totally misunderstood what my right hon. Friend said earlier. He should make a study of my right hon. Friend's words. I hope to begin conversations with local authority associations next week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had with local authorities and other building agencies about future building programmes.

My Department keeps in close touch with housing authorities about their housebuilding programmes.

But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, in keeping in close touch with housing authorities or housing agencies, that there is at this moment substantial unemployment in the construction industry. Since his Government profess; to show some concern about this, would it not be more sensible to employ these construction workers on building houses?

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the very difficult inheritance which we have received, and which the construction industry has received, from the previous Administration. I see signs of some pick-up in both civil engineering and private sector housing, and I am hoping that we shall presently see this reflected in the public sector as well.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that selective employment tax adds about £135 to the cost of an average house?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, he is not."] As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to reduce it, so we shall reduce the cost of building and increase the demand for it.

Referring to that part of the Question which deals with local authorities' housing programmes, is the Minister aware that the major cut-back in housing construction by local authorities has taken place since the advent of the Conservative Party to town halls up and down the country, which took advice from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? What action does he propose to take with his own friends in the town halls this side of the elections next May to get them to reverse their policies and enlarge the programmes again?

If the hon. Gentleman will adopt perhaps a less partisan and more responsible attitude towards the problem, I think he will realise that he failed to secure co-operation with the local authorities. I believe that I shall succeed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the course of his review of housing finance, he will have regard to the fact that the incidence of the present housing subsidy structure for local authority schemes favours redevelopment rather than conversion and renovation of existing properties; and if he will take steps to review this arrangement.

Yes, Sir.

May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that in the review of housing he will have regard to the social advantages there clearly are of conversion and improvement schemes?

We regard improvement and conversion as central to our whole policy. There are four million houses which can be made comfortable homes but which, without this grant, could become slums.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no retrospective cutting down of subsidies already in payment on existing houses?

I shall be making a fuller statement in due course after my dis- cussions with the local authorities on the course of our reform of housing finance, but it must be clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are going over from financing bricks and mortar to financing families who need the help.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give an assurance that the full expense and damage of future pop festivals in the Royal Parks will be met by the organisers and not become a charge to public funds.

Musical entertainments of all kinds in the Royal Parks are provided at public expense. There has been little damage, and my hon. Friend will know that the cost of clearing up after the recent pop festival was small.

Is not this an activity which should be financed by those responsible? Should not the public pay for their enjoyment? Will my hon. Friend consider the proposition that the organisers of such events should make a deposit in case of damage which may become a charge to public funds?

I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but the cost of clearing up was very small. In the case of military and brass band concerts in the Royal Parks, the approximate cost of fees to performers was £11,000. I shall bear in mind any views that my hon. Friend or anyone else puts to me.

We on this side oppose these charges. Will the hon. Gentleman say how he conceives it possible to charge for admission to museums while taking a contrary view on this question?

I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can oppose these charges. It was his Government which imposed them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his future policy will be about enabling the British Waterways Board to retain more of its earnings in order to develop its capital resources and to acquire adjacent properties that will enable the board to operate on a more profitable basis.

The board Sir, has no surplus earnings. I am very willing to consider any proposition that would reduce the burden on the taxpayer or the extent of Government involvement.

Is it not true that the board may not have surplus earnings but it makes a profit in certain sectors and this has to be repaid to the Treasury, whereas a certain element of limited ploughback could enable it to acquire more properties and thereby make greater use of its assets and thus speed up the implementation of Conservative policy for the Waterways Board?

My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of this matter, knows that this proposal has been put forward by others, but I must tell him that while there were net profits on freight services of £46,000 in 1969, the net loss on running commercial waterways was £330,000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a general direction to the British Waterways Board to show in its accounts in future the profits or losses on its pleasure-boat operation, and to publish a supplement to its accounts revealing these figures.

No, Sir. The British Waterways Board already publishes this information in its accounts.

While I am well aware of the figures which appear in Table D2 of the accounts last year, the word "net" creeps in in this category, and what the word "net" means is highly suspect. Will my hon. Friend look at this again with a view to having a proper break-down published, showing the depreciation of the boats, the repairs, the insurance and the administration that can rightly be ascribed to boats, as opposed to general administration?

I understand that the figures in the accounts are net of all properly attributable expenses and overheads and that they represent the true outcome of the board's pleasure boat operations. On my hon. Friend's suggestion, certainly I will look at this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a circular to local authorities recommending them to extend work-studied bonus schemes for greater numbers of their employees, as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Report No. 29.

Yes, Sir. This is an appropriate time to do so since, with my right hon. Friend's encouragement, the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee—L.A.M.S.A.C.—has taken steps to increase the extended advisory service it offers to local authorities setting up such schemes.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that this is a far better way of maintaining the hard-won peace in the local authority area than uttering hysterical cries about someone like Sir Jack Scamp when he undertakes a difficult job at short notice in the public interest?

This encouragement to local authorities was under consideration long before the Scamp Report, and my right hon. Friend visited local authorities with this purpose in mind very shortly after coming into office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken, having regard to the provision of Section 135(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to ensure that, in considering an application for a road service licence, the Traffic Commissioners will take full account of the failure of existing licence holders for similar services to provide the services required by the public; and if he will review the law relating to road service licences to give greater emphasis to the needs of the user rather than established operators.

The answer to the first part of the question is that the traffic commissioners do take account of any failure on the part of existing licence holders. On the second part, we are already reviewing the licensing system generally.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the failure of an operator to give an adequate service under licence not only effectively and permanently kills demand but is more than likely to result in the loss of a substantial number of passengers to the industry?

I am aware that the bus industry has problems. My right hon. Friend's review will take these matters into account, because we are anxious to ensure that this system is suitable for present-day needs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that his powers to take action to eliminate the nuisance caused by offensive odours are sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

Under the Public Health Acts it is the responsibility of the local authority to require, and of the courts to enforce, the abatement of offensive odours which are a nuisance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the London Borough of Bexley to those provisions? Is he aware that in my area there is a major sewerage works which gives off a most distressing and nauseating stench? While it may not be harmful to health, it is certainly most inconvenient to my constituents.

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is quite a widespread problem, and that in the Shrivenham Road area in my constituency people are plagued by smells from burning animal carcases? It really is a most horrible smell. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he should strengthen the powers and ensure that local authorities use those which they already have?

They have considerable powers and, likewise, the courts have powers to enforce them. I am sure that the people in the area referred to by the hon. Gentleman should contact the local authority about this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has sent to the letter from the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise dated 18th November about the grant of planning approval at Luton Airport.

I have had a copy from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of my reply.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when planning permission was granted to Luton our right hon. Friend expressed confidence that Luton would not cause increased disturbance by aircraft noise, but that Luton now proposes to increase night jet flight take-offs by 42 per cent. in the season?

Reading!

Will my hon. Friend please take enforcement action against this breach, in the interests of the environment?

This is a difficult point, because my right hon. Friend has no power to control either the number of flights or the number of passengers using the airport. He has made it clear to Luton Borough Council that we recognise that there is widespread concern about the effects of aircraft noise in the area, particularly to the east of the airport, as a result of the intensification of activities there. We have asked the council to have due regard to these effects and to the adequacy of airport facilities before entering into future commitments with airline operators.

Will the hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that he is not aiding and abetting a low-down plan to limit the activities of Luton Airport?

So far as my right hon. Friend wants to know and to have some influence on the increase of activities there, we are limiting the increase of activities, but the real point is the long-term future of this airport, which must await the report from Roskill.

Would my hon. Friend agree that aircraft noise is becoming an intolerable nuisance? Many of my constituents are suffering from the effects of over-flying not only from Luton but from London Airport. Is it not time that there was a national inquiry into the development and siting of present and future airports, and an inquiry into the effects of increasing noise on the wellbeing and welfare of people?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Noise is now a very serious matter. My Department deals with it as best it can under planning laws and planning applications. We would like to consider whether there is any need for further control.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware of the widespread concern over the delay in announcing a date for the start of the work on the Malton bypass scheme on the A64; and whether he has yet received the amended firm programme report.

I understand that the amended firm programme report will be submitted by the North Riding County Council by the end of the year. Once received, it will be considered urgently, and I hope that an announcement about a place in the programme will follow early in 1971.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for 32 years there has been pressure for this bypass, which would remove the congestion on this road? This proposal has been in the preparation pool for three years. Why is it dragging on like this, when everybody in the West and North Riding is anxious for it to be started as soon as possible?

I much appreciate the work that my right hon. Friend has put into this scheme. I hope that a possible announcement early in 1971 will help, but there have been redesign problems recently. We have to avail the solution of these, and ensure that the scheme stands up to the tests that we have to apply.

asked the Secretary of State f pr the Environment what will be the effect of the proposed cuts in public expenditure on the plans of the Clyde Port Authority to build ocean terminals on the Clyde Estuary.

I understand the authority's plans remain unchanged.

May I take it from that reply that the Government will provide the necessary finance to enable the Clyde Port Authority to start immediately on the iron ore terminal which the Secretary of State for Scotland has now approved? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless the Scottish steel industry gets this terminal within the next 20 years it will fade away?

The hon. Gentleman is much better than I at looking 20 years ahead. We must await the port authority's proposals, which we shall look at sympathetically.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to stop the practice of charging premiums upon unfurnished rented accommodation which is charged in addition to a weekly rent.

I would draw the hon. Member's attention to Part VII of the Rent Act, 1968, which makes it an offence to charge a premium for the grant, renewal or continuance of a protected tenancy.

Is the Minister aware that t sere is a considerable racket in London at the moment whereby, in addition to the rent that a tenant wishing to take an unfurnished flat is asked to pay, he has to pay anything from £200 to £1,000 for what are called "fixtures and fittings", and, when he looks at the place, he often finds that the fixtures and fittings can be thrown out because they are absolute rubbish? In other words, is the Minister aware that landlords are placing conditions on tenancies, and will he do something about it?

I have already said that it is an offence to charge a premium. If the hon. Gentleman knows of cases where this happens, I hope he will let me have details, although it is primarily a matter for local authorities to prosecute. My right hon. Friend is considering, following consultation with the Francis Committee, making it compulsory for tenants' rights to be put in their rent books as a matter of statute.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now completed his review of the management and operation of the ports; whether he has completed his plans for strengthening the Ports Council; and if he will now make a statement.

My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

Is it not vital that the individual ports should be run as viable commercial enterprises to a much greater extent? Has not the Ports Council a great rôle to play, as was envisaged in the 1964 Act?

Yes, but it is not for the National Ports Council to run the ports. Obviously the council can and does help with advice, but matters of management are for the ports themselves.

Before making his statement, will the Minister look at the tremendous expansion which has taken place on Teesside, which in terms of dry cargo handled is now the third largest port in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that this success has been largely due to excellent labour relations in this publicly-owned port?

My right hon. Friend will look at the situation in all ports, whether privately-owned or publicly-owned, before making his statement.

Does not the Minister agree that this matter has more urgency than the Government seem to attach to it? Surely before putting a proposal for a strengthened central body in the Conservative election manifesto, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite gave some thought to what they meant. Surely those in the ports industry, after more than six months, are entitled to know what the Government have in mind for the industry. May we be told when we shall get this important statement?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend is studying the matter carefully. He is not making precipitate decisions. He will make a statement as soon as he is able.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1962, so that a person is not liable to automatic disqualification unless he has committed not less than three of the specified offences on three occasions within a period of three years.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the existing legislation has been interpreted a little harshly? There has been correspondence giving examples. Will he look at it again?

It is true that courts have discretion to mitigate the penalty of automatic disqualification if there are grounds for doing so having regard to all the circumstances. My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable in this matter, will understand that the courts in the end must determine the application of this rule.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional aid will be given to the London Borough of Lambeth for housing purposes in the next financial year.

I expect the borough to continue to receive special additional help under Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967.

That is a vague answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with 7,600 people officially homeless in the Inner London area, three times the number 10 years ago, London's housing problem has now reached catastrophic dimensions? It is no use playing with the problem, as the Government seem to be doing. When shall we have less talk and more do?

Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House are deeply concerned about London's housing problem. But I cannot possibly take from the hon. Gentleman the suggestion that this is vague. This is a provision in the Act passed by his right hon. Friends. If he thought it vague, why did he not say so at the time?

Are not right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House deeply concerned about conditions in London, including the Opposition Chief Whip, and cannot the Government give some hope that there will be considerable improvements over the appalling performance of the previous Government?

I very much hope that that will be the case.

It will not.

The hon. Gentleman is a pessimist. My right hon. Friend has already taken action to try to solve this problem. As my right hon. Friend said on 3rd November, the present reforms of housing finance will mean that those areas where the housing problems are worst will get extra benefit.

That will not operate until after 1972. The situation is getting worse. Lambeth is a notable exception. Is the Minister aware that most authorities in London in the last two or three years have been cutting back to a drastic degree on their housing programmes? Specifically, will he take action with the Sutton Borough Council to ensure—not request—that land is made available in Sutton to assist Lambeth Borough Council, and that similar action is taken—not requested—with other authorities round London?

I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman was doing when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were in office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to imagine that, after six years of neglect of London's housing problem, by a magic wand we should cure it in six months.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions you have ruled that it is unsuitable for a Minister to reply to a Question by asking a question in turn. The last reply of the Minister was in the form of a rhetorical question. Is that acceptable?

It was a rhetorical question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make an official visit to mid-Anglia early in 1971.

I have no plans for an official visit to mid-Anglia early in 1971.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that the future well-being of the Cambridge area depends upon the solution of difficult problems over roads, local government reform and general planning policy, and that if he or a colleague can find time to visit Cambridge and get a feeling of the situation for himself, he will be very welcome?

I am grateful for that suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for renewing the provisions of the Rents (Control of Increases) Act beyond 1971.

None, Sir, but I shall be discussing with the local authority associations the limit on council rent increases arising from our proposals for the reform of housing finance.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is a totally deplorable answer? Does he not realise that, following the vague threats arising from the Secretary of State's policy, which will inevitably mean large rises in rents, for both private and council tenants, particularly in my constituency, this latest announcement, which he has made with such complacency, means that the only safeguard for tenants in the grading of, and ceilings on, rents, which the Labour Government brought in and which, of course, his own party delightedly voted against, will now be removed?

The hon. Member is making something of a mountain out of a molehill. Our proposals specifically provide that tenants who are in need will get rebates or allowances to cover their need.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one is making a mountain out of a molehill on this, and that his right hon. Friend's statement on 3rd November was of the most profound importance, since it will affect the housing conditions of hundreds of thousands of people? He has told us that he is starting his discussions next week. Can he tell us, as this is a matter of the greatest urgency, when he will have concluded those and when he hopes to make a further statement to the House?

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of our proposals. I cannot say exactly when the conversations will end. After all, this is a two-way traffic. When we embarked upon them, we do not set a definite limit to them; we want to hear the advice which will be given to us by the borough associations, and this may last some weeks or some months. I cannot say yet, but, of course, I will report to the House as soon as I can do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that among the other results of this Act has been an enormous increase in the number of slums, simply because the landlords, the owners, cannot afford to keep their property in repair?

I think that our reforms will enable authorities which are burdened with slums or serious overcrowding to have greater resources to deal with those problems.

I must press the Minister on this. When his right hon. Friend made his statement on 3rd November, which I agree reflected Tory policy, he must have known what he was doing and have had some idea of the details in his mind. Is it really conceivable that the Minister now has no idea whether those discussions with the local authorities will take two weeks or six months? If so, he should learn something about his job.

Looking back at the housing record of the last Administration, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues learned anything in six years. They seem to have learned nothing and to have forgotten nothing. Of course it would be quite wrong to say when conversations will end. When one starts a dialogue with other people, one does not set a time limit to it: one listens to their arguments and thrashes them out.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who, unlike the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), represents many people who have—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give notice, he should do it briefly and in the conventional way.

Well, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, briefly and in the conventional way—

In the conventional way: Mr. Kaufman.

I beg to give notice that, in view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Circular 2/70, Capital Programmes, issued by his department on 12th November.

The arrangements announced in the circular to start next April give to local authorities greater freedom to make their own decisions. While the Government will continue to exercise control over the total amount local authorities may borrow, procedures will be simplified and for a large area of spending central control over detail will be relaxed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to ensure that sewage sludge is not dumped on open land a few hundred yards from residential properties on the Greater London Council's new housing development at Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. I am sure that in operating its disposal works the G.L.C. is mindful of its statutory obligation to discharge its drainage functions without creating a nuisance. Digested sludge, which is a harmless and substantially inoffensive liquid, was put on this land in an emergency, and I understand that the site would only be used for that purpose again if a similar need arose.

As that is a most unsatisfactory answer, would the hon. Gentleman do my constituents the courtesy of visiting Thamesmead and explaining to the tenants there that he will support the Greater London Council in depositing sewage sludge within 300 yards of occupied residential property? It is a disgraceful situation, and the Minister should be ashamed that he is not taking action to stop it.

The hon. Gentleman might address his remarks to the people who made it necessary for the sewage to be deposited on this particular land.

In view of the fact that the Greater London Council gave an undertaking to those of us who had discussions with it on its General Powers Bill that this could not conceivably happen, is it not a fact that it has shown us that we cannot take its word on any occasion? When its General Powers (No. 2) Bill comes up, I intend to stop it, because it has been thoroughly dishonest.

I am sure that the G.L.C. will take full account of what the hon. Member has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a date for the publication of the White Paper on local government reform.

It is intended to publish a White Paper in the New Year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he bear in mind that the five county boroughs of the West Midlands are opposed to the Maud recommendation, and that as they had a drastic reorganisation in 1966 they feel that they should be exempt from any future reorganisation?

The boroughs concerned have certainly not hesitated to send me their views on this topic.

Is it not rather curious that the Government can give us a fairly exact date for a White Paper on local government reorganisation but apparently can give us no date whatsoever for a statement on housing?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take the phrase "in the New Year" as being an exact date.