asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the work of the Alkali Inspectorate; and what steps he is taking to improve it.

The answer to the first part is Yes, Sir, and to the second that my right hon. Friend will take whatever steps are required as, when and if they are needed.

Does the Minister agree that with only a dozen prosecutions in the last 50 years, with fines averaging only £60, the bite of the Alkali Inspectorate is derisory and is derided by industry? Therefore, will the Minister repeal the ten-year grace law, publicise the standards required of local manufacturers, and substantially increase the numbers of the Inspectorate? If that fails, will he ensure that industrial pollution is put under the control of local authorities?

I do not accept most of the propositions made by the hon. Member. The ten-year grace law exists only in the imagination of the article in the Observer. The Inspectorate has been increased by 40 per cent. My right hon. Friend is having discussions with industry with a view to giving the matter greater publicity.

Recollecting the great assistance recently given by my hon. Friend's ministerial colleague in the matter of Rock Metal Works, Jackfield, in my constituency, and recognising the great frustrations we both experienced, is not the time ripe for a complete recasting of the legislation about alkalis, at present based on an Act of Parliament which is 66 years old?

We have to bear in mind the substantial achievements which have been produced by the Alkali Inspectorate. Obviously we are looking at these matters the whole time. Looking at what has been achieved, which is outlined in the annual reports which I hope hon. Members will read fully as and when they come out, it will be seen as a success story.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the public interest in the restoration of the Kennet and Avon Canal, why he will not now make a grant to the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust directly or through the British Waterways Board, to enable the canal to be restored throughout its length.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for 17th May.—[Vol. 837, c. 101.]

Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory answer? Is he aware that pious hopes will not restore the canal? Is he further aware that many people in my constituency, particularly young people, are working very hard in trying to restore this canal by voluntary means? It needs £500,000 spent on it to bring it up to a good amenity for this part of England. Will he at least match the £50,000 which has been offered by a private individual to restore this canal?

First, I applaud the voluntary work that is being done.

Would not the restoration of this lovely canal lead to an improvement of the environment, which is what my right hon. Friend's Department is all about? Will he tell us what practical steps he will take to bring this about.

We all wish to see improvements in the environment, but not necessarily at the Government's expense. I should remind my hon. Friend that the new water policies announced by the Government should and will have the effect of more money being allocated to the canals.

Is the Minister aware that this most imaginative scheme to extend both the amenity and recreation of this canal should receive national recognition by way of financial support? The Sports Council is spending a lot on other schemes. It may be a case for the local authorities or the Government. Will the Minister undertake to see whether some financial encouragement can be given to this scheme?

It would be wrong for me to hold out any hopes this afternoon. The Government's good will towards the waterways has been made perfectly clear. As I said, the adoption of the Government's new policies will mean more money being available.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in relation to his powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts concerning the proposed closure of Southampton ice rink; and what replies he has sent.

Several letters and telegrams have been received against the closure, and objecting to the current application to build houses and flats on the site. The only powers my right hon. Friend has under the Town and Country Planning Act relate to the planning application, not directly to the closure. He does not consider that the issues raised justify his taking the decision on the planning application out of the hands of the local planning authority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many top class young skaters have been trained at Southampton ice rink and that if it closes the nearest alternatives will be Streatham or Richmond? Does he agree that it is important that cities such as Southampton should retain as many of their leisure facilities as possible?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points, but the planning application does not seem to raise other than local issues of a kind which would not justify my right hon. Friend interfering with the local authority's decision.

As the Southampton ice rink is in my constituency, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the local Southern Evening Echo published a statement by the Rank Organisation in which it said that it had no immediate plans for closing this ice rink and that it is a well-used local amenity?

I take note of what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has studied the proposal submitted to him by the local government associations and the Greater London Council for the imposition of an additional local petrol tax; and whether he will make a statement on his attitude to this proposal.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 24th May, 1972, to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell).—[Vol. 837, c. 395.]

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that half reply, may I ask him to take into account that a tax of this nature at this time and at the level suggested, 5p per gallon, would be wildly inflationary?

This is being taken into account in the proposals which we are considering for a review of local government finance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis land will be priced if released for house building purposes under his recent proposals; and if he will consider its being purchased at its previous use value, for example, as agricultural land, in order to keep down house prices.

No, Sir. The price paid for land acquired by local authorities is based on market value. They have a duty to obtain the best price when they dispose of it unless particular circumstances justify disposal for less.

That is the reply I expected. Does the Minister believe it is just for landowners to make fortunes simply because local authorities have provided the roads, the sewers, the lighting, the water and, above all, the permission to build houses on the land?

If the land were purchased at less than market value no owner would sell without compulsion, and there would be one price for land privately acquired and another for public transactions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to stabilise or bring down the price of land is by making enough land available for development purposes? The Government's purpose should be to see how this can be done without going against the planning policies of successive Governments. The only way to do this is by having an acre-by-acre survey of land use throughout the kingdom.

I do not think we need go to that extent, but what my hon. Friend said is in fact the Government's policy.

First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming a Member of the Privy Council and, secondly, commiserate with him on having to answer this question. Is the Minister aware that whereas under the Labour Government the price of land fell by 4 per cent., under this Government in two years it has risen by 53 per cent.? Does he therefore agree that a far more radical solution to the problem is necessary than that which he envisages?

No. In the last year of the Labour Government land prices rose by 24 per cent. compared with 23 per cent. in 1971. My right hon. Friend put before the House a number of proposals which will set in motion a process for reducing the price of land by bringing forward a greater supply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have lost their lives since the end of the 1939–45 war or vesting day in the Liverpool and Leeds Canal on the stretches between Liverpool, Lockfields, and Bootle, including Aintree, Netherton, Crosby and Sefton; how many of these were infants and schoolchildren; and, in view of the demand by the parents of children in these areas for the immediate closing of this waterway, what action he proposes to take.

Twenty-nine children lost their lives in these stretches of canal between 1955 and 1968. There has since been no loss until last April when a boy was drowned. The future of this "remainder" length of canal is a matter for the British Waterways Board. A Study Group it has set up with the local authorities concerned is expected to report shortly.

Is it not a disastrous figure, in any terms, that 30 children should lose their lives in the stretch of one canal? Is the Minister aware that thousands of my constituents have signed a petition because they are sick of the repeated deaths in this canal and fed up with the prevarication of local authorities which do not seem to be aware of the stinking, horrible, foul-smelling canal in the midst of my constituency? Will he take action over this matter and tell British Waterways to take its finger out?

I like to be a little careful about the instructions I give to nationalised undertakings. I well recognise the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper concern in this matter, and I have no doubt that his forthright comments will be noted by both the local authorities concerned and the British Waterways Board.

Is there the same loss of life in European cities which have as many canals as they have roads? Is it not possible to safeguard life and yet make the canals objects of beauty?

I should like to make all canals objects of beauty. I think the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is sharply aware that it might be difficult in this case. I cannot hazard any opinions on the subject of European canals at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average quarterly increase in the price of houses built by local authorities in 1970, 1971 and 1972.

The quarterly rate of increase in tender prices for the construction of two-storey five-bed-space houses in England and Wales was about 2·6 per cent, in 1970 and, provision ally, 2·7 per cent, in the first three quarters of 1971; information for the final quarter of 1971 is not yet available. The average lag from tender approval to completion of a council house is about seven quarters.

I hope the Minister has told the CBI, which has been interested in land use prices recently. Do not these figures show that it is economic madness to sell off the community's stock of council housing because, as each day goes by, it becomes dearer to replace those houses which are sold? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have a vested interest in council houses being sold from the economic point of view, because half the money that accrues from their sale will go to the Exchequer when the housing revenue account gets into surplus, as it will under the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill?

In the Government's view, it is the duty of local authorities to try to meet the desire of council tenants who may wish to buy their own homes. We are not motivated by any consideration of any part of the surplus. It would be a small proportion which might accrue to the Exchequer. We are concerned with the provision of home ownership, for which there seems to be a strong desire.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to halt the disastrous rise in house prices would be to increase the supply of houses? Will he therefore make every effort to make a great deal more building land available so that builders can get on with the job?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the only way to overcome the present steep rise in prices is to make more houses available. The provision of land is one way, more building by the building industry is another, and more building of council houses by local authorities is yet another. The sale of council houses to sitting tenants is also not negligible, particularly as it is now much easier than it was previously for local authorities to build new council houses under the present system.

Is the Minister aware that the sale of council houses does not add one house to the total stock of housing available? If he is concerned to increase home ownership, why is he not readily approving the plans of Birmingham and 20 other local authorities to build houses for sale to young married people? Would he announce the complete removal of any such ban on these authorities?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the sale of a council house does not add one house to the total. Nor does it take one away. There is nothing to stop—indeed with the rising cost subsidy and the slum clearance subsidy proposals in the Housing Finance Bill, much to encourage—local authorities from building new council houses.

Speech.

But nothing like the speech that the House had yesterday. I have equally made it clear that, with specialised types of building, such as old people's homes, or where the private industry is not prepared to come in, I have by no means set my face against building for sale.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware of the danger to persons and vehicles of the juxtaposition at the end of the M3, Winchester section, of a blind hump in the road, a cafe, a filling station and a gap for crossing the central reservation between the two-carriage ways; when he is going to take steps to alter this state of affairs; and when he is going to erect adequate warning signs.

Yes. Work on an improvement scheme is expected to start in the autumn. In the meantime warning signs and a white hazard warning line on the carriageway are to be provided.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but I am afraid that it is not good enough. The problem is that there is a crossing on the central reservation which is totally blind for approach- ing vehicles, which come down at 70 miles an hour—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for information or giving it?

My question is this: will my hon. Friend proceed to do something much more quickly than the autumn to move the crossing on the central reservation further south?

We are giving consideration to measures to reduce the dangers from turning traffic, which I think would meet my hon. Friend's point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consultation he has now had with transport ministers of the Common Market regarding the proposed maximum permitted load per axle on lorries using British roads.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to accept the decision of the European Economic Community Ministers of Transport on the axle weight and maximum overall weight of lorries as affecting the United Kingdom.

Consultations on the EEC proposals specified in my Answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on 24th May have now been formally requested, but have not yet taken place.—[Vol. 837, c. 390.]

When these negotiations take place, will the right hon. Gentleman press strongly against the introduction of these juggernaut lorries on British roads? Already, in Holland, they can be up to 50 tons and in Italy 44 tons. In a small, thickly populated country like the United Kingdom, they would make life unbearable—as they do in Holland. In consequence, will the Minister undertake not to permit these lorries to operate on our roads?

I am obliged to consult the Community at this stage. The proposal which they have put forward—it is only a proposal at the moment—is for 40 tons overall weight. I would personally rather see that slightly lower, but the hon. Gentleman must have in his mind the fact that the dimensions will not be greatly increased. The vital issue from our point of view, however, is that the axle loadings should not be unconscionably raised, because that would involve considerable expenditure on strengthening roads and bridges and would carry with it the risk of damage to buildings. With the growing volume of heavy traffic, which plays a large part in our transport economy, it is essential that we move as quickly as we can, with order, towards a policy of restricted routes.

But are not these proposals totally unsuitable for British conditions and damaging to British interests? Why can the Minister not say plainly that he will in no circumstances accept them?

I do not like to be all that dogmatic at this stage. I have tried, in a calm and patient way, to make the views of the British Government well known on this subject. I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman my undertaking that I shall continue to do that.

Will my right hon. Friend take some heart from the fact that next time he argues this matter with Ministers of the Common Market and with the Commission, he can tell them that not only Ministers but the British Parliament feel strongly about this? Will he please tell them in no uncertain terms what he has told the House today?

I have a confession to make. I went so far as to call in aid the views of the British Parliament on the earlier occasion. I ventured to suggest that I was under heavy pressure in Parliament and that I was not a robust enough person to stand up to it.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that not only Parliament but wide sections of opinion outside view this matter with great concern, particularly, as he said, the problems of the axle weight and the fact that our road system is not as well developed as those of many other member countries of the Community. Although we obviously will not press him now for an assurance, will he make the proposals available so that we can study them? Will he also make it clear that this is a matter to which the House and the country attach great importance?

I will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's point about making the proposals clear, in so far as they are not already clear. I am very conscious of the strength of views held in this House and by the public. Of course, the new proposals will not come into force until 1980 in any event, by which time our roads system—particularly the coupling up of the ports and the motorways—will be more advanced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is proposing to take to improve the rationalisation of port operations.

This is a matter primarily for port authorities. The National Ports Council is initiating discussions on possible improvements.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, in the context of our entry into the EEC, modern methods of cargo handling can be reconciled with the human problems involved?

I do not know that our entry into the EEC is particularly relevant to the problem, but undoubtedly modern methods of cargo handling have caused a considerable loss of job opportunities in the ports, which raises, I agree, a serious human problem.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he cannot rely on the National Industrial Relations Court to solve the real human problems involved in the technical changes in the docks? In view of the size of the problem, will the Government not recognise that the policy being pursued is allowing many small ports to take a great deal of work at the expense of highly concentrated docks industries such as my constituency area?

I wonder whether that sort of contribution is constructive to relieving the undoubted pressures that exist. The hon. Member has to bear in mind that one of the difficulties of our ports today is their very high costs. That drives traffic away into the smaller undertakings of which he complains.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage British Rail to redevelop their surplus land; and if he will make a statement.

The Board's policy is to develop its land in its own interest and in the interest of the economy in general. It is also well aware of the urgent need for more land for housing.

I am grateful for that reply, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Government stopped pretending that they were not responsible for the actions of nationalised concerns? Would he agree that if all nationalised concerns were urged to release as much land as they could, it would have the effect of stabilising the price of building land?

It would make a contribution. But it is the job of the British Railways Board to use its assets to the best advantage of the business it conducts. On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of the British Railways Board to the need to get rid of surplus land in the same way as other surplus assets, but particularly land, in view of the need for houses. The Board has been very co-operative about this.

Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to encourage British Railways to participate in the special environmental assistance schemes which are doing so much to transform our cities? In particular, would he draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the terrible state of British Railways' facilities at the entrance to Stoke-on-Trent station?

I have no doubt that the Chairman of the British Railways Board will be the first to read the hon. Gentleman's observations in the morning.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure the harmonisation of road safety standards with those of the European Economic Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

There is increasing contact with the Commission on proposals affecting road safety.

Are not the United States regulations on vehicle standards imposing intolerable conditions on American manufacturers? Will my right hon. Friend indicate the outcome of the international discussions at Transpo 72 in Washington and will he take steps to ensure, as far as possible, that neither British nor European manufacturers are asked to do the impossible in this part of the world?

I have never asked anyone to do the impossible. I am merely invited to do it myself. Regarding the recent Transpo Exhibition in Washington, my hon. Friend has the advantage of me. He was there and I was not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he intends to continue to limit the loads and lengths of heavy and large vehicles in Great Britain; and if he intends to confine them to certain routes and ban them from certain streets and roads in towns and cities.

Future weight and length limits will depend on the outcome of the consultations between the EEC and the acceding countries. The powers which local authorities have for route restriction will remain.

Should not the criteria governing the length and the loads of lorries be based upon the design of roads? Whilst some roads, perhaps motorways and large trunk roads, may be capable of bearing these loads, many roads, particularly in our towns and cities, should have a much stricter limitation put on them.

Yes, I agree. I have referred already this afternoon, and again in my Answer, to the powers which local authorities have to make restricted routes, and I am certain that we must move more and more into this area in order to keep heavy vehicles out of narrow streets and country lanes, which cannot even begin to accommodate them.

Would not the Minister do far better to recognise that there is no observable difference between vehicles of 32 tons and 40 tons gross weight?

Eight tons exactly.

From where does the Minister get the figure of £200 million worth of additional damage to the roads from the increase in axle weight? In view of the recent Weights and Measures report about vehicle overloading, would not he do far better to recognise that we already have on our roads vehicles exceeding 40 tons gross weight?

Get them off.

I have already referred today to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The discernible outward difference between an overall weight of 32 tons and one of 40 tons is very small. I am well aware of that, and I am glad to find that the hon. Gentleman has got things straight. Would he remind me of his other points?

From where does the right hon. Gentleman get the figure of £200 million worth of additional damage through increases in axle weights, and in view of the recent Weights and Measures report on overloading, would not he do far better to recognise that we already have vehicles on our roads exceeding 40 tons gross weight?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Overloading is a perennial problem. I am not suggesting that it has been satisfactorily solved. I am now looking into the problem. Others of my right hon. Friends have a responsibility here as well. I should very much like to see a great improvement in the question of enforcement, but I cannot hold out any immediate hopes.

What about the £200 million?

This is a figure which has been examined very carefully.

It was quoted on the air.

If he is unable to find a figure for himself, the hon. Gentleman always quickly comes to the conclusion that whoever else hit upon it must be crazy. That is not true. It has been the subject of very careful study by experts in this country, in order to ascertain the consequences of having axle loads of 11 tons or 11½ tons. That is why I am so desperately anxious to avoid them.

They are on the roads already.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new national motorway signalling system will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

The system is already in use on 173 miles; a further 311 miles should be completed by the end of this year. Work is being pressed forward as quickly as possible on other sections but it is too soon to say when it will be completed.

Will the Minister confirm that this system, when it is completed, will cover the entire motorway network?

Yes, I can give that confirmation.

Has there been any development of the idea of increasing police patrols on motorways to try to avoid some of the ghastly pile-ups we have been experiencing in recent months?

Essentially this is a matter for the local police authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if a date has yet been fixed for the cleaning of the outside of the Palace of Westminster.

No, Sir. I am at present considering the results of experiments designed to determine the best method of cleaning.

Has an experiment been conducted in cleaning the Palace of Westminster by sand-blasting, and what would this mean? The House has a right to know.

Three experiments have been conducted, and hon. Members can see them in Black Rod's Garden. One involves what one might call the Nabarro method, of water spray and bristle brushing.—[Laughter.] One is by dry grit blasting, and another is by wet grit blasting. I leave hon. Members to think of suitable comparisons for those.

The whole House will be interested in the start which the Government have made to clean up the House of Lords. Will the Minister say which of the three methods has proved the most satisfactory? There seems to be a difference in the three panels that have been cleaned.

There are problems for the exterior by the method of cleaning and by the penetration of water or other substances into the building. I hope to report to the authorities of the two Houses by the end of the month or soon afterwards, though some further experimentation may be necessary.

What about the inside? Is the wet grit method good enough for penetrating the dust that accumulates around Lord Falkland and Sir William Harcourt, and many other luminaries?

We must consider very carefully which methods would be more efficacious for both the statues and the living.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to obtain from local authorities details of property companies, as distinct from owners of individual properties, which have been taking advantage of improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Local authorities are responsible for administering the grants scheme and I see no reason to interfere with their discretion in this matter.

In view of the unscrupulous profiteering which is taking place because of the shortage of land and property in other spheres, should not a development of this kind be resisted at all costs? Does not the Minister consider that he has any responsibility at a national level for ensuring that local authorities are particularly vigilant on this front?

There are two kinds of grant. The standard grants are auto- matically available if applications are confirmed, and I see no reason to interfere with this in any circumstances. Discretionary grants are matters for the local authority, which is in a much better position to judge whether they involve a proper expenditure of public money.

Is not the object of the exercise to improve dwelling conditions for the tenant and is not the concept of depriving a tenant of an improvement in order to exercise some curious kind of vengeance on the landlord an utterly petty concept?

I think my hon. Friend is quite right. It would be perfectly easy to restrict the flow of grants but this would simply be to condemn the lower income groups to live in a squalid ghetto.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present number of aldermen and councillors in Greater London and England and Wales, respectively; and how many it is proposed there will be for these areas under the new Local Government Bill.

Excluding the City of London there are some 1,960 councillors in Greater London and 325 aldermen. Of these, 100 are councillors and 16 are aldermen of the GLC. The Local Government Bill, as at present drafted, would not affect the existing arrangements.

I am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of those councillors who are due to be displaced have given very valuable service to the community and will the Government therefore try to provide new outlets so that this kind of voluntary service will not be lost to the community in the future?

I hope the kind of voluntary service given by the aldermen in the past will not be lost in the future. But we could not defend a reorganisation of local government which still contained unelected members of the councils.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why, in view of the fact that the stretch of the M1 between Watford and Hemel Hempstead is to be made into a dual four-lane carriageway, he does not also propose to make the stretches north of Hemel Hempstead and south of Watford also into dual four-lane carriageways so as to make the whole stretch uniform.

Decisions on the future standard of the M1 north and south of the Watford-Hemel Hempstead section must await the outcome of studies into traffic flows on Ringway 3 and between Hemel Hempstead and Luton.

Does the Minister realise that whether there is a change from a three-lane carriageway in each direction to two lanes in each direction as at present, or from a four-lane carriageway in each direction into three lanes each way, which is what the Government apparently envisage, there will be bottlenecks at each end and that these are sources of danger? Will the Undersecretary look at this whole situation again and ensure that it is uniform? It does not matter whether there are three lanes each way or four but they must be uniform throughout.

That is precisely one of the reasons why we are looking at the studies in the north. The present proposed four-lane section terminates at major junctions at each end where it is comparatively easy to change from three to four lanes.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that basically we shall have to make do with the M1 because the Government have no plans for ripping up great sections of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire in order to build another motorway?

Certainly we have no plans for ripping up the country to build another motorway. We have undertaken studies into the difficulties between Hemel Hempstead and Luton which will reveal in due course whether we need to undertake action on that particular section of the M1.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will withdraw paragraph 8 of circular 53/67, in view of the fact that, in certain circumstances, it encourages local authorities to require detailed plans and specifications of a proposed house instead of initially giving outline consent and requiring detailed plans thereafter.

No, Sir. The advice in the circular refers only to development in conservation areas and to the formal stages. It should of course sometimes be possible in informal discussions for applicants to be told whether there are likely to be objections of principle.

Is not the effect of this to add further frustration and further cost? Is it not the case that the cost may well run into four figures for the developer? Is not the effect of this in its turn to add even more to the costs of a house which are already high enough? Is it not common sense to decide first whether a house can be built and thereafter to ask for detailed plans?

The circular recognises only the special qualities of areas selected by local planning authorities as conservation areas, and in conservation areas the principle of the development of a site cannot be separated from questions of detailed design and appearance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the reasons for his direction on 10th May, 1972, to the North Riding County Council that they should refuse the out line application, dated 1st February, 1972, for the construction of a factory and offices on York Road, Thirsk, when the Thirsk by-pass is open to traffic.

If allowed, the application would have permitted construction to start before the bypass was open. The direction was issued to ensure this did not happen.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay involved in the submission of a fresh application will deny employment to many men in a town where unemployment is particularly high? Will he do everything he can, therefore, to expedite reconsideration of the proposal when it is submitted?

Yes, I can certainly give that confirmation. At this stage the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton(Sir Robin Turton) is good advice to take, but we are certainly anxious to see that there is no delay once road works are completed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the road-widening schemes in the London Borough of Brent for which he has now given his approval, together with the estimated starting and finishing dates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to designating growth areas for house building in the area to be covered by the new West Midland Metropolitan County.

The West Midlands Planning Authorities' Conference is considering comments on the Study Team's Regional Strategy and is discussing it with the Economic Planning Council and with Government Departments, with the aim of submitting their conclusions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn for his approval.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not realise that the need for land for building in Birm-

As the answer is in the form of a table, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Minister give special regard to two major schemes—the Harrow Road widening scheme and the Willesden High Road, where we have had a considerable number of problems in the last 12 years? Would he look at the whole question of Stonebridge redevelopment where we are very anxious to make definite moves in an area which previously consisted of very sub-standard housing, but where we have been delayed because of uncertainty about widening of the Harrow Road?

As the hon. Member will be aware, the London Borough of Brent is the authority for all principal roads in the area. I have no doubt it will look at the matter. If the hon. Member thinks my Department can be helpful, I will do my best to assist.

In 1971 a planning application by Birmingham was granted enabling the city to build more than 6,000 new houses at Kitwell, Walker's Heath, Frankley and Hawkesley on the borders of the city and north Worcestershire. Birmingham probably has sufficient land to build approaching 3,000 houses yearly for the next four to five years. But we have offered to consider this situation with Birmingham if the city will produce details of its requirements.

Is the Minister aware that we have reached the situation in Birmingham and the West Mid- lands area in which a farmyard barn was recently sold for £22,000 and in which single building plots are costing £10,000 each? When will the five Ministers down there get off their fat backsides and do something about it?

I understand that whereas under the previous council the 6,000 sites which were granted were to be split 50–50 between council building and private enterprise, the present council has announced that the land will be devoted wholly to council building.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy relating to applications by private consortia to build new towns.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcomes private initiative towards the development of new communities; but each case must be considered on its merits.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the initiative for the establishment of new towns should be left out of the hands of private consortia who seek generally to establish a new town in order to make a vast and undeserved profit? Has he borne in mind the case of those who live in an area where a new town is proposed? They are subject to repeated planning applications and live in a permanent state of fear and anxiety.

I think the planning authorities can deal with this adequately under the normal law of planning applications and planning consents and I do not think we should reject the offer of private enterprise to increase the land available for housing and to produce a type of new town.

Has the Minister looked at the new town of Milton Keynes and studied the houses that are being constructed there? They are of concrete and are very small, and I would not encourage anyone to live in them. Is it not clear that if there are to be new towns, they must be of a high standard, with decent housing providing large accommodation.

That is a different question. I was asked about private consortia building new towns. Milton Keynes is not of that type. If the hon. Member cares to put down a detailed question on the matter, it will be answered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the sale of council houses by the Denton, Lancashire, Urban District Council with special reference to increases in valuation of over 40 per cent. during the past year.

I would certainly regard the increase in this case as exceptional but I understand that there were special factors here. I have written to the hon. Member about this.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that when a man is asked £3,900 for his house, when his neighbour bought an identical house for £2,700 a few weeks previously, the situation calls for special investigation? Is it not understandable that the council, in view of the valuations it has received, has now ceased to sell its council houses? Is it the Government's view that it is the duty of councils to sell houses under existing legislation?

Differences of prices occur because tenants apply to buy at different times. Unfortunately, the differences were dramatically illustrated in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But his complaint about the administration should be taken up locally.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking, as a result of the proposal by Dr. Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations, that an international governmental body should be established to put into effect decisions taken at the Stockholm Conference on the Environment.

The Government support the creation of an inter-governmental body to co-ordinate and direct any environmental work undertaken by the United Nations, and have offered to provide a home in London for the Secretariat.

Therefore we may take it that the support is enthusiastic and not just tepid?

Indeed. I see in a report of yesterday's proceedings that a resolution setting up a body of the sort described in the Question was passed by a special committee.

Was not the Stockholm conference, despite the constructive contribution of the British Government, a shambolic failure?

The conference has not yet finished. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at the conference now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional capital resources have been made available for housing the elderly as a result of the increased sale of council houses.

The hon. Member is confusing two separate matters. I want to see local authorities both building to meet the housing needs of the elderly and selling council houses to meet the needs and wishes of those of their tenants who want to own their homes.

It is clear that the Question has been dodged. Since the traditional policies of housing municipalisation intertwine the provision for the aged with existing council tenancies and so on, will not there be a tendency to allow old people to fend for themselves? Is it not clear that the Government's aim is not only to run down the whole of public control of housing in this respect but also public provision for the elderly?

To refer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, it is true that more resources are received by the local authority, and this is potentially one of the good results of selling. As to the need to build for the elderly, in each case it is for the local authorities to decide. Now that they have an improved framework in which to operate, there is no question of limiting the resources available to borrowing as there was under the previous Government.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it would help to house the elderly and to reduce land and house prices if planning authorities would give permission, regardless of density, for additional accommodation for the elderly to live adjacent to their children? Will he discuss that with planning authorities?

Yes, Sir, and I agree with my hon. Friend's point that density in planning permissions is relevant in this case. But the main factors my hon. Friend mentioned about the building programme are matters which can be decided by the local authority. We are encouraging them to progress along that line.

Will the hon. Gentleman have urgent consultations with the Secretary of State for Social Services in the light of major reorganisations in local government and the Health Service and, under the Seebohm Report, of welfare services? The question of housing the elderly runs across all three, and geriatric wards and Part III homes. There is an urgent need for the right hon. Gentleman's Department to co-ordinate all those efforts.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. There are special needs in this area which are receiving urgent attention and are being specially studied.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to encourage London boroughs which have declined to support the London Housing Office to reconsider their decision.

Under the Housing Finance Bill the provisional assessment of fair rent is the responsibility of each housing authority.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered the right Question. What my Question has to do with the Housing Finance Bill, I am not certain. As the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my Question, perhaps he will answer my supplementary question. Will he note that it is the Conservative-controlled London boroughs which are declining to assist in dealing adequately with the terrible housing problem faced by the Inner London Council? Will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those Tory local authorities which have failed to co-operate, and will he take strenuous action to encourage them to deal with the problem rather than fiddle-faddle around with his fancy gimmicks of selling council houses?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if inadvertently I answered his Question incorrectly. The London Housin Office, which is sponsored by the London Boroughs Association, is still in a formative state, but if it develops into an organisation which can help to solve the London housing problem I have little doubt that it will be supported by all the authorities concerned. It has been set up by the Association as an independent venture. I have not been consulted and therefore it is not appropriate at this stage that I should intervene in the matter.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that most Conservatives within London have dogmatically refused to support the concept and have evinced the most considerable hostility towards it? Will not he take action to ensure that at least they respond positively for once on this very important issue?

As I have already said, I have not been officially consulted about the matter by the London Boroughs Association, and therefore the question has not yet arisen.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider taking steps to reduce the problems presented by the increasing incidence of intensive livestock farming in close proximity to residential areas.

The problems of the location of intensive livestock farming are under constant consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and myself.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a number of areas, notably in Anston in my constituency, housing estates have been developed and then in proximity to the new houses massive increases in pig-farming have taken place, with all the attendant aggravating problems of smell and sewage disposal? Does not he consider that it is unreasonable that people should have to wait until the problems are severe before any action can be taken?

I think the authorities are well aware of local opinion on the matter, but I am considering issuing further advice to them because I know the concern about it.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the specific decision in connection with Wood Lane pig farm, Stan-more, where a plan to expand a pig-farming operation is causing great consternation to many of my constituents?

I shall write to my hon. Friend about the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest outcome of his departmental studies on the problem of land shortage; and when he expects to make a policy statement on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on the measures taken by the Government about land prices.

I have nothing to add to the policy statement made by my right hon. Friend on 27th April explaining the many measures being taken to increase the supply of land.—[Vol. 835, c. 1795.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is simply not good enough? Does not he appreciate that there is a large and increasing mass of evidence that land is being held, where planning permission has already been given, for a number of years, purely for speculative profit-making purposes? Will he undertake to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find fiscal means of preventing that kind of anti-social practice?

The best way to deal with that is to convince those who are holding land speculatively in that way that they will not benefit from it. That is our object in bringing forward more land. The progress reports from the regions show that our measures are increasing the supply of land. My right hon. Friend and I had an encouraging session with the chairmen of the county councils of the South-East yesterday. The report of the working party on the partnership between the local authorities and private developers is expected in a few days, and I think it will give us further items which we can take up in this respect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there does not seem to have been a response to the initiative taken by the Secretary of State. In view of this, what further initiatives is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take?

The response has been quite encouraging. With respect to the loan sanctions, the £80 million that is to be made available for the acquisition of land, particularly in the South-East and Midlands, and the loan sanction with regard to sewerage schemes, discussions on these are all being pursued and many are in an advanced state at local planning authority level.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that we shall never know in reality whether there is a land shortage until we know exactly how much suitable building land we have? Is it not staggering that there has never been an acre-by-acre survey of land in our towns and cities?

We have now asked the local authorities to give us a report on how much land is available in their areas for development over the next five years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, speaking from experi- ence as a landlord, I can tell him how astonishingly profitable it has been to hold land and that this profitability has been increased by the prospect of joining the European Economic Community where the land will be about twice as expensive? Is he further aware that the only way to break this racket is for the Government to take over at a very low price, the land which is idle and not being used?

I think it was proved during the period of the last Government that the public ownership of land or the taking over of land by the Government had no good effect on either the price or the availability of the land.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I said earlier, that the price of land dropped by 4 per cent. under a Labour Government as a result of the Land Commission? May I also point out that his figure showing that the highest increase in the price of land took place under a Labour Government is now out of date? His Department's figures related to 1971 and not 1972. Finally, will he say how he can justify the fact that at the moment there are more than 150,000 planning permissions for houses in excess of the number of houses being built? Is this not because of land being hoarded for speculation?

May I first apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not thanking him for his kind remarks about me earlier? I am aware of the excess of planning grants over the number of houses being built. This is exactly the problem we are tackling with the discussions in the regions and with the conference which my right hon. Friend and I had with the chairmen of the county councils yesterday.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, may I give notice that I shall endeavour to pursue this matter—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is too late.