asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when ratepayers not receiving sewerage services may expect relief from the present charges.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment from what date those not on main drainage will be exempted from the main drainage element in sewerage charges.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for sport and recreation hopes to make an announcement very soon.

We expected a more positive answer than that. When shall we get some information?

Very soon, as I said.

As the Minister has apparently conceded that it is not right that properties not connected to mains drainage should bear the mains drainage element in the sewerage charge, will he convey to his hon. Friend the firm expectation of people thereby affected that the exemption should apply as from the next financial year, 1975–76?

The report from the water authority has been received, but I will convey the hon. Member's view to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with current levels of house building.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest housing figures both public and private; and if he will make a statement.

Up to the end of September 1974 the number of houses completed in the public sector in Great Britain was up by 13 per cent., houses started by 28 per cent. and houses put into contract by 35 per cent. compared with the same period of 1973. Comparable figures for the private sector show falls of 26 per cent. in completions and 52 per cent. in starts. I am deeply dissatisfied with these figures. Despite the rise in council house building and the much healthier flow of mortgages, the position is still highly unsatisfactory. I am urgently considering what further initiatives we might take.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. When I last put this matter to the Government before the Summer Recess, 30,000 people in Birmingham were on the waiting list. That figure, together with homelessness, overcrowding and broken families has now increased. Is there nothing that my right hon. Friend can offer in the short term to cities like Birmingham which are probably facing their worst housing crisis since the immediate post-war period?

I accept everything that my hon. Friend said. His description could of course be applied to many other towns and cities. We took urgent action in two directions, by the £350 million made available to local authorities under Circular 70/74 and also by the loan to the building societies. I am certain that further action is needed and I would greatly welcome any suggestions from any hon. Member on this score.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that perhaps the worst area of need in housing is of persons who have been isolated by redevelopment programmes and have been left quite alone or with only a few neighbours in an area which has been demolished? These people are plagued not only with vandals but with rats and other nuisances. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that persons in this unhappy situation are put at the top of the priority list for rehousing?

I think that the category described by the hon. Member is certainly one of the worst. Whether it is the worst is a matter we could discuss. My view, which I have constantly expressed, is that part of the problem arises because over the last 20 years there has been too much clearance and too much demolition. However, we face an overall housing problem of the greatest severity and we cannot look at only one aspect of it.

One of the least noticed but very bad features of the Housing Finance Act was the way in which it starved local authorities of finance for council house building. In rural areas particularly it is imperative that we move very quickly on this.

I am aware of that effect of the Act but I do not want to single out rural areas. The entire housing programme, rural and urban, is in need of greater resources than it has now, despite the substantial enlargement this year of the financial resources available to it.

As well as house building, the revitalisation of old houses is important. Will my right hon. Friend say what progress his hon. Friend the Minister has made in the discussions he has had with Newcastle City Council about its proposals and the application of those proposals to the national problem?

I understand that my hon. Friend has been to Newcastle and is now awaiting further reports from the council. Of course I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on his general point. Another disturbing element in the total housing picture which we are watching carefully is the sharp decline—sharper even than had been expected—in the number of improvement grants.

Hon. Members who asked the Department for further information after hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech calling for quicker and easier new means of housebuilding were sent an advertising circular from Blue bird Homes. Does this imply a commitment by the Department to a programme of using these prefabricated units?

No, Sir. I have no idea what the communication was, so I shall be happy to look at the matter. There is no commitment to use any particular type of system or any other kind of building. The object of my speech was to raise for urgent and open public debate the question of whether we should be prepared to use unorthodox methods to build more houses more quickly and more cheaply.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been informed that the Question which I tabled, Question No. 9, has been coupled with Question No. 2 [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] I was not late for Question No. 9. I came into the Chamber in the belief that Question No. 9 would be taken in its usual order and I assumed that I would be called to put a supplementary question.

I have no intention of ever calling an hon. Member to put a supplementary question to a Minister's answer that the hon. Member has not heard.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage private house building starts in Great Britain declined in the period June to August 1974 compared with (a) the previous three months and (b) the equivalent period in 1973.

Total private housing starts in Great Britain in the period June to August 1974 were lower than starts in the periods March to May 1974 and June to August 1973 by 12 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively, allowing for seasonal adjustments.

In view of those disastrous figures, which have become worse since August, why did the Minister say publicly in both August and October that the recession in private house building had at last been ended?

I cannot be responsible for what appears in the headlines of newspaper reports. What I said then, and repeat now, is that after the most disastrous collapse in private house building and in the public sector that this country has seen for many years, which we inherited on coming to power, there are clear signs of a levelling out. But we have a long way to go to get back even to the unsatisfactory levels of one or two years ago in the total house building effort, private and public.

Does my hon. Friend realise that if he wants to build more houses it is not sufficient to be constantly talking about it at conferences and so on but that we need to divert resources? Does he recall that in 1966–67 the reason why we had the biggest housing boom in this country was not that we were saying so but that we diverted resources from office block building? Will my hon. Friend now adopt the same posture and stop the building of the Channel Tunnel, saving cement and other resources in the process? Will he stop the building of marinas on the South-East coast? Will he divert resources—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked about three questions. He must not be so selfish. He must realise that he is taking up the time of other hon. Members. He is being very selfish.

Certain of the points my hon. Friend raised are the subject of later Questions. On my hon. Friend's central point, however, I agree that there is a need to divert resources into more socially necessary expenditure, particularly on housing. We have embarked on that course in the past year by totals of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of resources, and we intend to continue along that road.

First, I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who I think has written to the Secretary of State about his absence. The disastrous decline in house building reported to the House this afternoon is compounded by a further decline in the amount of improvement grants. What do the Government intend to do to reverse that trend?

The biggest single cutback in improvements follows in the wake of the cut-off in June this year under the Housing Act 1971, which was the responsibility of the last Government but one, the Government formed by the hon. Gentleman's party. There are other reasons. The introduction of the Housing Act 1974 has resulted in a holding back of applications. We are in touch with local authorities and others involved to try to encourage the placing of applications even before the Act is implemented, so that there may be a steady build-up of applications being dealt with in the months and years ahead.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present position in respect of his negotiations on the rate support grant for 1975–76.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for increasing Her Majesty's Government's financial support to local authorities for the financial year 1975–76; and if he will make a statement.

I am still in negotiation with the local authority associations. But there will, of course, be a full debate on the Rate Support Grant Order when it is laid.

Will my right hon.. Friend make sure that all local authorities know how much grant they will each receive for next year before they have to take decisions determining their general rate levels? Will the domestic element of the grant be at a uniform level throughout England and Wales?

I am afraid my hon. Friend will have to wait a little longer for the answer to his second question, but I can say "Yes" in answer to his first point. We are well up to the timetable in the statutory negotiations that are now going on. This is in sharp contrast to our predecessors who were still negotiating at the end of January.

Is the right hon. Gentleman negotiating on the traditional basis of a 60 per cent. rate support grant? Does he realise that for next year there should be a rates moratorium and a 100 per cent. grant and no rates charged?

Rubbish.

The House admires enormously the intellectual audacity of the right hon. Gentleman now that he has moved into opposition, compared with his incredible and total caution when he was a Minister.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that whereas none of us on this side of the House would wish to join in the absurd clamours from the Opposition on this matter, there are many counties, such as Staffordshire, that are anxious to increase their services but at the present level of finance and expectations are doubtful whether they can even maintain their services?

I agree with my hon. Friend that all local authorities would greatly like to improve all their services. However, I must point out that local authority spending in the past three years has increased by about 8 per cent. a year in real terms and it is highly unlikely that in the coming year local authorities will be able to have anything like that rate of increase in their expenditure.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the clamours which are coming from local government are coming from local authorities of all political persuasions and that they are becoming a little tired of being asked by this House to take on additional services only to find that, under whatever Government, this House denies them the necessary resources?

I am not sure whether this is the hon. Gentleman's first appearance following his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench, but in case it was I welcome him. I am well aware that those demands are coming from local authorities, of all political persuasions, I am also well aware that local government has a legitimate complaint against the central Government, of both 'political parties, because of the tendency to issue circulars urging constant increases in expenditure while making bland declarations asking for a reduction in total expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for rent increases have been received from rent officers since 1st October in each area from landlords of controlled houses and flats and also from landlords of regulated accommodation; and when he will introduce legislation to continue the freeze of rents before 31st December in the former case and a restriction of rent increases in the latter as undertaken in the Labour election manifesto.

The Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill, introduced on 6th November will halt the decontrol programme of the Housing Finance Act 1972 and restrict rent increases in regulated tenancies. The current rent freeze will be extended to 31st March 1975, pending enactment of the Bill. Between 1st and 25th October rent officers received 28,902 applications for controlled or formerly controlled tenancies and 10,682 for already regulated tenancies. I will, with permission, circulate the breakdown by rent assessment panel areas in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I welcome the continued freeze on controlled tenants who lack the basic amenities? However, does not the Bill that is to come before the House on Monday fail to keep the pledge to the others, the great majority of private landlord tenants, some of whom are now facing rent increases of more than £400 a year, which is both unfair and inflationary?

The Bill does not in any way run in conflict with the pledges made by the Government in the recent General Election. It will implement those pledges. With regard to the type of cases my hon. Friend mentioned, we are still considering whether some form of restraint on individual cases might be practicable. Certainly I would welcome any detailed information on particular cases so that this could be taken into account.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the good private landlord has a right to exist?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average increase in domestic rates next year; and what proposals he has to protect ratepayers.

No estimate has been made. But in the consultations which I am having with the local authority associations on rate support grant, I of course have very much in mind the implications for domestic rate rises in 1975–76.

As the Secretary of State appears to have no intention of spreading the burden of huge rate increases more fairly, may I ask whether he will prepare legislation to let off retrospectively those ratepayers who rebel?

I have every intention of spreading the rate burden next year as fairly as can be done. I note always the solicitude which the hon. Gentleman shares for ratepayers in the neighbouring constituency to his.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility for the tremendous rate increases this year and the increases forecast for next year lies pri

Yes, until such time as, in one form or another, rented property is brought into social ownership.

I go a long way with my hon. Friend. I think that the Conservative local government reorganisation was wasteful and extravagant, precisely as we prophesied it would be. I disagree with my hon. Friend only in that I think the guilt that he is trying to attribute should be shared more evenly. Half the guilt should go to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) for telling local authorities in January this year to calculate their rates on the assumption of only a 9 per cent. rate of inflation.

Will the Secretary of State either confirm or state to be inaccurate the reports that seem to be coming in that rates may be increased by as much as 60, 80 or even 100 per cent. in some parts of the country in the coming year? If this is the alarming truth of the situation, will he take measures to ensure that the increases are kept within tolerable limits by making the appropriate central Government subsidy to local authorities?

There is a lot of jumping about on the Opposition benches, which I find puzzling. The last time I saw the hon. Gentleman he was on the Opposition Front Bench. I sympathise with him for his demotion in the course of the turmoil currently upsetting the party to which he belongs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for providing relief for ratepayers from April 1975: and whether these plans will include the transfer of the official quota of local education authority teachers' salaries to the Exchequer.

My right hon. Friend has told the House that he is at the moment discussing the whole Question of the rate support grant for 1975–76 with the local authority associations. I have no plans to transfer teachers' salaries to the Exchequer. Such suggestions form part of the Layfield Committee's considerations. It would be premature to act before it reports.

As teacher's salaries are in a sense negotiated nationally, is not the simplest and fairest way to provide relief for ratepayers from next April to transfer these salaries to the Exchequer? That would be a simple and fair thing to do.

It would appear to be simple and fair but in fact it would distort the rate support grant and local government finance. I think it far better that the Layfield Committee should look into the full implications of how that suggestion would affect local authorities.

Assuming that such a transfer took place, what would it mean in terms of an increase in income tax?

I cannot answer that question directly but I can tell the House that the total bill for teachers' salaries for 1974–75 is £1,438 million, which is about 25 per cent. of local authority expenditure on rate fund services.

Is the Minister aware of the great difficulties facing small shopkeepers and owners of commercial premises who have had no rate relief from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last financial year? Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend to see whether any further rate relief, which we hope will be offered for the next financial year, can be extended to small shopkeepers and owners of commercial premises?

Small shopkeepers and owners of commercial premises are well in our mind while we are at present discussing this matter with local authorities. We are aware of their problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether in the interests of road safety, he will introduce legislation to allow motorists to purchase for their own use the breathalyser kits now issued to the police.

Legislation is not needed. Motorists can already purchase the breath-testing device used by the police.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that motorists can purchase the kits only by driving up to Blyth in Northumberland and obtaining them from the factory? In the interests of safety, is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to launch a campaign and ask the Automobile Association to stock breathalysers at its shops or to ask garages to stock them, so that motorists may have a breathometer as well as a speedometer?

My hon. Friend's intentions are good but his advice would be disastrous. We cannot and do not advise motorists to test themselves, because the test is only a screening device and can give a misleading result. It is well established that for some time after a person has taken a drink alcohol continues to be absorbed into the blood. Thus, a driver testing himself may find that his blood alcohol concentration is below the limit when he sets out on a journey but it may later be found to have increased well above the limit.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to help first-time buyers of homes both with regard to deposit and interest rates on mortgages.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for helping young married couples to buy first houses.

I am considering the question of mortgage facilities for house buyers as a critical part of the wider examination of housing finance.

To assist young potential house purchasers, and at the same time to give a stimulus to the building industry, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the proposal made by the Conservative Party during the General Election to the effect that assistance should be given to the individual who cannot raise the complete deposit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that no matter how able building societies are to dispense funds for mortgages, unless and until a young couple buying a house for the first time can put down an adequate deposit all his efforts so far will be in vain?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is inviting me suddenly to pledge a 9½ per cent. mortgage rate.

Good idea.

That was the most outrageously dishonest election promise of the past 20 years, and a disgrace to the Conservative Party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most important groups of people in the category we are considering is that of young teachers, particularly in urban areas? Will he consult the local authority associations to see whether they can take over empty new houses and allocate a proportion of them to young teachers who cannot obtain accommodation, especially in the big cities?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem is acute in the big cities, although it is not confined to teachers, particularly in London. However, teachers form an important part of the problem. We have given local authorities wider powers to purchase empty houses and more money to do so. My hon. Friend's suggestion is worth pursuing.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in some areas, particularly in my constituency, the purchase of large numbers of private houses, many empty at present but many as yet unbuilt, will ensure that there are no private houses available for first-time buyers if the process continues at the present rate under the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Circular 74/70? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter seriously because of the implications for house buyers of the future?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. We are watching the situation very closely. The spectacle of some 40,000 completed houses lying empty month after month was intolerable at a time of acute housing shortage.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many first-time buyers depend on a loan from their local authority to complete the purchase, and that the current rate of interest charged to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board is 14⅞ per cent? Does my right hon. Friend consider it just that those with the lowest incomes, buying the cheapest type of house, often have to pay the highest rate of interest because of that?

I am well aware of what is an extremely intractable problem—the fact that a minority of local authorities. but an important minority, are charging on mortgages an interest rate higher than the building societies' 11 per cent., sometimes substantially higher. I am urgently considering the matter with my colleagues. I should like to find a solution. The difficulty is to find one that does not involve yet another Government subsidy. I should be reluctant to take on board such a subsidy, but if it is possible to find a non-subsidy solution I should like to do so.

On Monday the right hon. Gentleman is introducing a Bill which will considerably increase the subsidies that will go to municipal housing. Does he accept, as my right hon. and hon. Friends believe, that if there are extra resources to be found for housing they would be much better spent on increasing owner-occupation and enabling people to buy houses for the first time in particular?

I welcome the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) to the Opposition Front Bench, although it is disappointing that he should make such conventional and ideological noises. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, having served on the Committee considering the Finance Bill, that I would like to increase both council house building and building for owner-occupation. In terms of tax relief for owner-occupation the subsidy bill, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests, has been increasing at an extremely rapid rate in recent years and is still doing so. I strongly object to picking up one or other of these forms of tenure as being in some sense preferable. The need is to build enough houses of all types so as to give people a proper choice.

There are now 40,000 houses lying vacant. Will my right hon. Friend begin discussions with the builders and the private persons who may own them with a view to seeing whether he can sell them on the same basis as Conservative hon. Members would have sold council houses had they been returned to power last month?

That is a most interesting suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to local authorities on the pre paration of their budgets for 1975–76 pending the conclusion of his negotiations with local authority organisations on the level of rate support grant for that year.

In my speech last July to the Association of County Councils I warned local authorities that they should do any preliminary budgeting on the basis that there could be little, if any, real growth in their expenditure for 1975–76.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because of the amount of growth built in to existing programmes the only way that most local authorities can comply with the Government's policies on public expenditure is to make extensive cuts, including cuts in education? Would it not be more honourable for the Government to set out the position plainly, to accept their responsibility and not to muff the point and to hedge, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did yesterday, on the practical effects of the Government's policies?

I read an excellent book by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) when I was on holiday in August. It is sad that the standard of his interventions in the House is so far below the standard of his writing. The trouble is that his writings are a bit longer. I do not know what he means by talking about hedging. I issued an extremely severe warning to the Association of County Councils and I have quoted a brief passage from it. When we conclude the rate support grant settlement with the association I shall make plain to the local government world what is involved in their expenditure next year. There will be no hedging of any kind.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is extremely difficult for local authorities to go from one phase in which over a long period, rightly or wrongly, they have been spending at a rate of increase of 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. to a phase in which they are subjected to the traumatic experience of having their current expenditure hoisted by threshold payments and a number of other considerations, only to be told by my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that local government expenditure is in for a no-growth period? I hope that the Government, even the Government of my party, will be a little more realistic in their consideration of the grave problems that confront those responsible for local government finance.

I accept that all those difficulties exist. In the rate support grant negotiations I think and hope that we, the Government representatives, are acutely conscious of them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter not only of percentage reductions but of curtailment of services? I think that the right hon. Gentleman is avoiding the point if he is thinking only in percentage terms.

No. I hope that the settlement will not be such as to involve a curtailment of services. However, I am afraid that it will be such as to prevent growth obtaining next year at anything like the rate of growth in recent years.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents, although grateful for the relief they were given in the mini-Budget, cannot endure the kind of increases that are being expected of them, and that local authorities cannot for ever continue to have an expanding programme in the present economic climate entirely cushioned by the central Government?

I entirely agree.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to ensure that gipsies and other caravan dwellers are not evicted from areas in which local authorities refuse to make any provision for this category of citizens.

No, Sir. But I cannot emphasise too strongly that authorities which evict gipses without finding other sites for them are simply aggravating the problems created by unauthorised encampments for the community as a whole, besides causing unnecessary hardship to the gipsies themselves.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is totally inhuman to evict people when they have nowhere to go? Does he accept that such action creates problems of overcrowding in areas in which authorities take a more enlightened line and understandably objections from residents? Will my hon. Friend take it from me that procrastination is no substitute for action on this issue? We have a duty to see that these people who have long been denied their rights of citizenship are no longer discriminated against.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend's local authority is a good example of a good authority providing sites. I remind him that there is a duty to provide accommodation for gipsies. That is already mandatory. Outside London that duty falls on the county councils. I hope that the authorities will carry out their stautory duties under the Act.

Is the Minister aware that the Caravan Sites Act has completely failed to solve the problem of unlawful gipsy camping and that a more efficacious and humane solution lies in the direction of registration of gipsy caravans plus licensing to use municipal sites?

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting suggestion. We now have a gipsy advisory officer and I will draw the hon. Gentleman's points to his attention.

Does my hon. Friend propose legislating to provide more security for mobile home residents and to release so many of them from the tyranny that they now suffer from many landlords?

I understand that my hon. Friend the Miniser for Housing and Construction is investigating the matter. That is a different issue from that arising from gipsies.

Does the Minister recognise that whatever may transpire from his gipsy officer it is essential that the Government recognise that the law now depends upon the Caravan Sites Act? There are county councils which are defaulting. As a result they place an intolerable and unfair burden on adjacent authorities. It is the Minister's job to act and to lean on the county councils which are defaulting. Will he do so?

We are doing that. Although it was treated with some mirth, one of the principal tasks of the advisory officer will be to give advice to county councils and to point out to them the need in their areas and the help that they can give to other county councils that are providing sites and whose sites are overcrowded.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has estimated the effects of the housing of homeless families in London upon the prospects of families listed on London borough council waiting lists.

The effects are difficult to assess quantitatively.

Is the Minister aware that the number of homeless families rehoused in London has increased sharply since last year? Is he further aware that some people contrive to make themselves homeless so as to jump the normal housing queue? That has been attempted in my constituency and other places. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is unfair and detrimtal to families which have been on the waiting lists for a long time? What will he do to ensure that all local authorities in London prevent this from happening?

To put it mildly, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are unfortunate. In Richmond, which is in his constituency, 50 homeless families were housed last year. In London as a whole there were approximately 14,500 applications to local authorities by homeless families. I would also suggest that the hon. Member's own borough should have his attention. Its housing programme could be rapidly increased on land which we know to be available. Well over 1,000 dwellings could be started on land known to be available.

It is the worst borough in the country.

Since, as my hon. Friend said, local authorities in the London area have largely failed to deal adequately with London's housing problem, has not the time come for housing powers to be taken away from all the 32 London boroughs and the Greater London Council and vested in one authority that would tackle London's housing problem adequately and in a unified way?

I have heard that suggestion from time to time, although I have not seen it worked out positively and intentionally. More particularly, this whole question of London's housing strategy and the executive machinery with which we tackle housing problems in London is receiving careful and urgent study at my request in the Department. I hope to have consultations on the basis of some proposals that we will work out in the near future.

The Minister is right to suggest that the remark of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is unfortunate, but is he aware that it is true? It is very sad, but I have a letter in my bag at the moment in which the writer says how pleased he is that he is being evicted, since that is the only chance he has of being rehoused. The Minister knows that this is the problem now in London. People have purposely to get themselves evicted because that is the only way in which they can be rehoused. Will he please do something about it in the stress areas, one of which he himself represents?

As I said, it is unfortunate to say the least to suggest that 14,500 families—in fact the figure is much higher that is the official recorded figure and there are many more homeless families who do not apply—apply to local authorities on grounds of homelessness, or that even a majority of them are doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] It is unfortunate to suggest that even a majority or a large number of them are deliberately queue-jumping. The matter is too serious to be treated in that fashion.

The matter is too serious to be treated in that cavalier fashion by the Minister. Perhaps he will turn his attention to the development of dockland, where in the last two weeks there has been yet another example to prove that the internecine war between his party on the boroughs and on the GLC is holding up development.

I am not aware of any internecine war. I am aware that the present machinery for looking at the future of dockland was sponsored by the hon. Member's right hon. and learned Friend the previous Secretary of State for the Environment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to improve the school crossing patrol system.

The responsibility for providing these patrols rests with county councils, and improvements are a matter to be arranged locally.

Is the Minister aware that there is evidence that the grave shortage of crossing attendants is due not only to the deplorable levels of remuneration but also to the reluctance of many old people to be seen carrying the "lollipop" stick, and that the rules which make it imperative for them to carry that stick are very much his responsibility?

I am of course willing to look into any suggestions which might help local authorities in their difficult task in this matter. There has been a joint Department of the Environment and Home Office working party which is shortly to consult local authorities. This point will obviously be considered along with it.

In the interests of the safety of schoolchildren, will the Minister also speed up his experiments in the banning of car parking outside schools, as this could well lead to much greater safety for schoolchildren?

I think the House will agree that it is properly a matter for the local authorities concerned to decide which parts of which streets are banned to parking.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this problem confronts many education authorities in many constituencies, including mine, that sometimes they cannot get the "lollipop" man or woman to stand at the crossing and that the difficulty then is that responsibility devolves on the parents, who are often at work? Will he try to evolve a system whereby the parents can breathe more freely and the children can be made safer?

We are ready to help in any way we can, but I must stress that this is a local county council responsibility and that we are seeking, in con sultation with the associations, to issue general guidance. I will of course bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that rent allowances are payable to those tenants of properties under the control of the Charity Commissioners who make a contribution towards the upkeep of the homes rather than paying rent.

Eligibility for rent allowances is broadly confined to tenancies subject to the Rent Acts. But I am asking the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances and the Charity Commission to consider this question. Meanwhile the Supplementary Benefits Commission may receive applications for help in a number of cases. I wish to express my thanks to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Is he aware that the Charity Commissioners have recently authorised increases of £2.40 a week on pensioners' flatlets under their control in Southampton? Is he further aware that, because these are not official rents but are called by another name, they are not subject to the rent freeze and the tenants, of course, are not eligible for rent allowances? Is this not a fiddle to get round the law?

I would not describe it as a fiddle. I presume that the organisation concerned is acting properly within the law and that it has its own rules of management. What I am concerned to do here is investigate ways in which we might—I stress "might"—be able to assist by a change in the law relating to the Rent Acts and the rent allowance system.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, although these payments do not count for rent allowances, they count as rent for supplementary benefit purposes and that this is therefore an anomaly, which means that the massive increases which have been referred to bear particularly heavily on pensioners whose income only just exceeds supplementary benefit level?

I certainly agree that it is an anomaly. That is why, as a result of the correspondence that I have had with my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and lichen (Mr. Mitchell), I am looking into the matter to see whether any changes could be introduced.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not only the Charity Commissioners to whom this problem relates? There are many houses owned by his own Department, particularly in my constituency, where the tenants, who are paying a rent, not a contribution, are not eligible for a rent allowance. They are paying the full amount of the rent. The correspondence with his Department about this, dating back a considerable number of months, has not yet produced any arrangements for reducing the rent to the level that it would be if the rent allowance were payable.

I will certainly look into that point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he proposes to do about the rating system.

I am awaiting the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance.

As the Budget season is now upon us, will the Secretary of State recommend to the Chancellor that rates or a part of the rates be allocated as a deduction against income tax? Will he consider in his negotiations that the realistic rate of inflation is not 8·4 per cent. but 20 per cent.? Will he give a realistic rate in settling the terms which will shortly have to be negotiated?

Conservative Members have certainly been showing the most fertile imagination on the subject of rates since they assumed the rôle of opposition. There was no hint of this in their documents when in government. I will happily pass on the hon. Member's suggestion, perhaps not to the Chancellor but to Mr. Layfield, the chairman of the inquiry.

In showing fertile imagination, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his frivolous remark about there not being more than a 100 per cent. increase this year was intended as a definite joke? It will not be seen as a joke by many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members who after last year's increases are acutely worried about what they may face this year? That sort of remark will be taken out of context and misunderstood around the country and will give enormous concern.

I am sorry if a remark like that is to be so misunderstood and quoted, out of context. I find it hard to believe. If it is really the case, I am extremely sorry about it. I assume that the hon. Gentleman attended the two full, indeed fierce, debates on rates earlier this year. He kindly came to see me on a deputation on the subject. He must know that I am as acutely concerned as he is about the rating situation, and if an element of unwise humour is likely to be misunderstood I apologise for it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to provide a statutory form of contract between site operators and mobile home residents.

We still hope that the caravan dwellers and site operators' representatives will agree on a model form of contract.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is hoping in vain? That legislation has been introduced in the United States. Whereas there are good operators, there are some had ones who impose conditions on site residents which vary from unsatisfactory to intolerable. Do not the Government have a moral obligation at least to give site residents some security of tenure?

I certainly take the matter seriously, although it has not suddenly emerged in the last few months as a moral affront to the housing situation. We are looking carefully into the whole question, as my hon. Friend indicated in reply to an earlier Question. In the meantime I hope that it will be possible for the site operators and the occupants' organisations to get together on a model agreement. If not, we shall have to look at other ways of handling the situation. I agree that it is a very serious one.

Will my hon. Friend look particularly at the question of additional charges levied by site operators in many parts of the country, such as the £560 development charge imposed by one site operator in Peterborough on a young married woman occupying a caravan on the site?

I shall be glad to receive information on any of these activities throughout the country, so that when we come to make decisions in due time on legislative and possibly other action we can do so on the basis of the fullest possible information about abuses of the questionable system under which site operators and others are acting.

In view of the long delay in getting the agreement signed, which smacks of foot-dragging by the site owners, will the Minister publish a draft model agreement so that on individual sites the tenants can take up the question of the site owner signing the agreement as part of a local bargain in advance of a national one?

That is one possibility that I have had in mind for some time while awaiting the results of the consultations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet able to announce the alignment of the M20 motorway following the report of the public inquiry.

I hope to announce a decision on the alignment of the M20 between Maidstone and Folkestone early next year.

The inquiry took place a year ago last September. Multiple routes were put forward, with the result that a large number of houses have been blighted. If the Minister cannot make up his mind fully, will he make an interim statement indicating that certain routes will not be considered? That would enable some houses to be sold. It is ridiculous that the Minister should not have done anything about it after all this time.

I am concerned about the blight aspect, but the hon. Gentleman underestimates the complexities involved. There were 400 objections and 24 alternative routes were put forward for consideration. To those alternative routes we received 1,400 counter-objections. Those objections obviously require a little time for study and for the necessary consultations. I attach great importance both to the M20 and to getting a decision as early as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what degree of flexibility exists in the planned A1—M1 link road; and in particular if he will consider veering further north to relieve Leicestershire roads from east-west traffic.

Four possible routes have been proposed by the Department. I am prepared to consider any other suggestions put to me before I come to a decision.

In the event of anyone being able to afford to run a car after yesterday's Budget, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the possibility of veering the road further north so as to relieve southern Leicestershire roads from the present intolerable traffic conditions? If he is not prepared to do so, will he bypass Market Harborough and take the route further south?

I cannot give an answer off the cuff when a public participation exercise is going on. If I were to answer either of those questions it would make nonsense of the exercise. Certainly we shall look at any proposals that the hon. Gentleman puts forward. For example, consideration was given to improving the A427 in the north but that has both environmental and cost difficulties. The question of a bypass concerns not only Market Harborough. Other towns in the area will fall to be considered when a final decision is taken on the route.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the logic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday is that we should stop wasteful expenditure on motorway programmes? If my right hon. Friend wants to find resources to help the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), a large number of my constituents will be happy for him to have the resources allocated to the M42 motorway, which nobody wants.

It is simple to say that, but the best way to save fuel is by reducing traffic congestion. The main purpose of the road is to relieve a large number of towns and villages from the nuisance of heavy lorries, and that is not affected by yesterday's statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to announce a contract for construction of the noise barrier of the elevated section of M6 motorway at Great Barr, Birmingham.

I am about to invite tenders and hope to award the contract early in the new year.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am disappointed with that answer, because in September my constituents were categorically assured that the barrier would be in position by Easter next year? If one part of the Department of the Environment can act on the Channel Tunnel, cannot another part of the Department do something to enable my constituents to get a night's sleep?

I do not know what decision will ultimately be taken about the Channel Tunnel, but the matter about which my hon. Friend is concerned will be attended to long before then. I pay tribute to the way in which he has pursued this issue on behalf of his constituents. He was informed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in September that we were having difficulty in finding people to undertake the work. That is the cause of the delay. We shall pursue the matter as fast as we can, having regard to the difficulty of getting people to submit tenders.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his review of the cost yardstick procedure.

I cannot say when this review will be complete as there are many criticisms and points of view to take into account. Meanwhile the increase in the basic yardstick announced in September should assist cost planning and reduce the amount of work for local authorities and the Department in dealing with schemes.

Since the review is taking an inordinate time, will the Minister consider simply abolishing the whole system? Did he hear the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday which, among other items of policy, included promoting the house building programme and stabilising local authority staffs? Would not the removal of this pernicious cost system save time, accelerate the house building programme and get us out of a situation which depresses house building standards since inflation always takes over from a review of levels?

I do not accept all my hon. Friend says, but I take the point that a number of people have urged abolition of the system. My view is that it is right to have some kind of cost discipline system in the provision of housing. Whether it should continue to take the form that it now does is a matter for consideration which will be taken into account in the study which we are undertaking. It is not taking an inordinate length of time since it was begun only in recent months.