asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of expenditure on municipalisation, including the cost of improvements, in 1974–75; and what is the expected level of expenditure in 1975–76.

The total cost of municipalisation by local authorities in 1974–75 was about £200 million, including expenditure on initial repairs. The public expenditure provision for 1975–76 is approximately the same.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly why the Government are still continuing to waste taxpayers' money in this direction when it does little to provide additional home accommodation? Does he accept that it seriously affects any future house building programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Greater London Council is wasting ratepayers' money and is doing nothing to add to the new houses being built in Greater London?

The next Question on the Order Paper concerns the amount of additional new housing that we are providing. As to why we go on spending substantial sums in this direction, I can give three brief answers. We do so, first because it brings empty properties into use. Secondly, it enables the most substandard property to be improved. Thirdly, it retains badly needed property in the rented sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the house building programme.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures available for housing starts in both the public and private sectors.

This is also the answer to part of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). Comparing the three months June-August of this year with the same three months last year, on a seasonally adjusted basis, public sector starts were up by 14 per cent., private sector starts by 61 per cent., and total starts by 32 per cent. Public sector completions were up by 24 per cent., private sector completions by 28 per cent., and total completions by 26 per cent. We have thus made an encouraging recovery from the disastrous situation which we inherited when we took office. But I still want to see the figures substantially higher.

Will my right hon. Friend now support the call made by the TUC last month for a massive housing programme, which would help to kill two birds with one stone—unemployment and homelessness? Secondly, will he resist any further cuts in housing expenditure and, indeed, the drastic cuts in other public expenditure with which we are now threatened?

As to the latter part of the question, I think my hon. Friend is well aware of my views on public expenditure. I favour the highest possible level of public expenditure. It is a view that I have held for very many years. As regards the first part of the question, there is nothing that I would like better than more money for housing. But this is not a question of housing policy; this is a question of general reflationary policy. The Government's policy, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Labour Party conference, was endorsed by an enormous majority.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the figures which he has mentioned would have been even better were it not for the fact that many local authorities—they are mainly Tory-controlled but not always; in Liverpool they are Liberal-controlled—are claiming that the Government cuts are preventing them from building the houses that they would like to build? This is complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain the matter more fully, but will he take it from me that there are many people in the Labour Party—not necessarily inside the Tribune Group—who feel that every possible resistance must be offered to any cutback in public expenditure, with particular reference to housing. We need to ensure that when we have to go to the country again at least we can say that—

Order. We are not yet at that stage of speech-making.

Tribune Group or no Tribune Group, I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. I have said many times that I think the sensible course for a Government, given the present economic climate, is to take out a limited number of priorities. In my view housing should be one of those priorities. That should be done so that when we go to the country again we can say that even though we could not do everything we would have liked to do, at least in some limited areas, such as housing, we made a success.

Is it not the fact that in the quarter May-July this year there was a 12 per cent. fall in the orders for new council houses? Does this not show what many people suspect, namely, that the council housing increase has its peak because many councils are finding it too expensive to build houses?

No, Sir. I have given the figures for the past three months both for starts and completions. If I were to have given the figures for the first eight months of this year they would have shown an equally favourable picture. Of course, from month to month, starts, completions and orders invariably fluctuate. That is why one can never take a single month but must always take—as I have this afternoon—a three-months' period.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although industrialised building techniques have always been viewed with suspicion by the British construction industry they have made a notable contribution in other countries, such as Norway, which has been rather more successful than we have in dealing with housing problems? What consideration is being given to the direct encouragement of industrialised building, in view of the fact that in this area of the construction industry there is a growing level of unemployment?

My hon. Friend has been good enough to write to me on this subject and, as he knows, I have said that I should be very pleased to talk to him about it. Incidentally, different views are held amongst experts about the precise rôle that industrialised buildings should have in the house-building programme. However, in our circular "Housing Needs and Action" we stress the part which industrialised building could play and, even more strongly, the part which the standardisation of components could play, because that may prove to be the most fruitful and productive line of advance.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in absolute terms the number of homes he is producing at present is an absolute disaster in human terms? Is he aware that in respect of improvement grants, which are equally a part of the house-building programme, the figure of 37,700 for the latest quarter is about 10,000 down on the previous comparable quarter? What action is he taking to ensure that the improvement grant programme is moving ahead?

If the hon. Gentleman considers that the present house-building figures are an absolute disaster, being about one-third above what they were under the Conservatives, I should be interested to know what word he would apply to the house-building record of his own party when it was in power.

I compliment my right hon. Friend on the increase in the figures that he has announced today. However, what action does he propose to take to stop the eroding of the benefits of these increased figures in cases where council houses are being sold by Conservative-controlled authorities in stress areas at a far higher rate than that at which the waiting lists are growing, thus exacerbating what is already a very serious problem in stress areas?

I am aware of the problem and I have it closely under review. To put the picture into perspective, the sale of council houses at present compared with what it was five years ago is a mere trickle.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) he was clearly trying to duck the issue, no doubt as part of his campaign to please the Tribune Group? Why else did the right hon. Gentleman answer a question about public expenditure in terms which clearly carried no conviction? Will he acknowledge that the prospects for council housing are extremely uncertain, because of the high cost of interest rates to which my hon. Friend referred? Is he aware that in the private sector the future is much less sure and confident than he has implied? The fact is that all this depends on a worsening economic situation.

As to my desire to please the Tribune Group, I am sure that its ex-chairman will bear me out when I say that of the present members of the Front Bench I am the main target of hostile criticism by the Tribune Group.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will recommend local authorities to increase the proportion of competitive tenders for major works in direct labour departments, in the light of the report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy.

The efficiency of direct labour departments should be tested in competition with private contractors. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced yesterday that we are establishing a departmental working group on the organisation and operation of local authority direct labour departments. It will consider the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Does the Minister accept that it is the ratepayers or taxpayers who pay if the use of direct labour departments results in increased costs? Does he not, therefore, agree that there is no need to delay the implementation of the proposals in the report by appointing an inter-departmental working party?

My Department has always ensured that there has been competition. Direct labour departments have operated in the competitive sector and, indeed, saved ratepayers a great deal of money.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool, at present, there is a vast amount of overspending on a number of sites which have been in the control of private enterprises and not of direct works departments? Is he also aware that the direct works department in Liverpool has accomplished much for the building programme of Liverpool, to the satisfaction of the authorities?

Yes, I accept what my hon. Friend said. We are anxious to see the maximum possible expansion of efficient direct labour departments.

Will the Minister say which of the main recommendations in the report he does not wholeheartedly endorse?

As the working group was set up only yesterday, the hon. Gentleman is expecting a lot when he asks me to comment.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has not replied to my question.

Order. That is not a point of order.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the present high level of spare capacity in the building industry in the north-east of England. Therefore, will he use his maximum persuasion on local authorities in that region to put out major contracts for competitive tender?

I am aware of the situation. I visited both Newcastle and Sunderland during the recess. We are doing what we can to encourage an expansion of work, and it is being done in accordance with the guidelines, which insist on direct labour organisations competing with the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now give a specific figure for the estimated percentage decline in new construction output in (a) 1975 com pared with 1974, and (b) 1976 compared with 1975.

Specific percentage estimates of construction output are not published by the Government. However, I expect the significant decline forecast for 1975 compared with 1974 to be followed by some recovery in 1976.

In view of the disastrous decline in both improvement work and private industrial construction, does the Minister accept that the industry is now in its worst recession since the 1930s? If so, why does he go on spending money on municipalisation and land nationalisation which could be more productively employed?

The allocation of resources between the varying needs in the housing area is a matter for discussion. We have made decisions—which I certainly should defend in the House—concerning the priorities between municipalisation, new building, and so on. In view of our disastrous inheritance in the housing field—I am certainly not complacent, I recognise what has to be done—substantial improvements have taken place during the past 18 months.

Is my hon. Friend aware of recent reports of major brick shortages? Is it not time seriously to consider some form of stabilisation programme to ensure a steady supply of building materials to the construction industry?

I have had discussions with the brick industry. We are well aware of the difficulties, and any Government help that can be given will be given.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a central register of the number of people on the housing waiting lists of each local authority in England and Wales.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that such a central register would be helpful in formulating the Government's housing policy by illustrating particular areas of considerable stress at this time of high unemployment, when mobility of labour is essential?

The evidence is that waiting lists are not an accurate indicator of real housing needs. The practices of different authorities vary greatly. This matter has been given serious consideration. If we believed that a central list of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is proposing would make a real contribution, we should certainly undertake it. We have considered the matter carefully and, quite frankly, it is not an accurate indicator.

Is my hon. Friend aware that conscientious local authorities concentrate very much on their waiting lists? What they cannot understand are the policies of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, which would deny them the land, not allow them to have any money, do away with their direct labour forces, and then complain that they are not building houses.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The great contribution that we can make is the contribution that we are making, to devote extra resources to housing so that people can be well housed.

Will the hon. Gentleman go further than his original reply and say that council house waiting lists are practically useless as a measure of housing need, because large numbers of people not in need of rehousing are on the lists and at the same time substantial numbers of people in need of rehousing do not qualify to get on the lists?

I would not go as far as that. I have great confidence in local authorities, but practices vary throughout the country. Therefore, I see no great merit in the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will commission an independent assessment of the current motorway building programme.

No, Sir. Every motorway scheme receives an exhaustive assessment before it is built.

Does the Minister agree that there has been serious criticism of the assumptions of fact on which these schemes are based, in particular on the assumptions of industrial growth, population growth and fuel costs contained in the laboratory report produced by his Department last year? At this time of great stringency would it not be sensible for someone with a fresh eye and unbiased approach to take a new look at this expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds each year?

The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Department is continually under pressure from hon. Members and other bodies. We are continually reassessing and re-examining the road programme. At present we are assessing the effect on the levels of traffic of the new fuel prices, the different rates of economic growth which are now forecast, and the latest population forecasts. The present indications are that the new forecasts will not differ significantly from the existing ones.

When are we to have a definitive view from the Department on the consultative document on heavy lorry routes, as in the Midlands, at least—and probably in many other areas—we are having a duplication between proposed heavy lorry routes and proposed motorways? We do not mind a duplication of paper, but we do mind a duplication of concrete.

I do not like the duplication of paper, either. My hon. Friend should realise that the full programme of lorry routes—this is perhaps a reflection of the pressure to which we are subject—is unlikely to be completed as was originally envisaged when the Private Member's Bill went through in 1972.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us cannot accept what he said? His Department's figures, issued recently, show a decline in traffic in 1974 compared with 1973, which is the first time that has happened in nearly 20 years. In view of that fact, will he assure us that he will look at the projected traffic figures on which new roads are based?

The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should know that we look at projected traffic figures. Some time ago it was intimated to my right hon. Friend that the standard of roads would be adjusted because of this trend. In many cases we are now building dual two-lane instead of dual three-lane roads. Nevertheless, the figures seem to bear out firmly that the traffic on the roads is related more to economic growth than things like the cost of fuel.

Will my hon. Friend consider making a statement on the legal powers of the so-called road construction units, as there is a feeling in many areas that these are in danger of becoming local dictators, with no clear responsibility to anybody?

If my right hon. Friend has any specific information that he can give me on this matter I shall be only too pleased to examine it and put it to my right hon. Friend for further consideration on the lines which have been stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of people lacking adequate housing accommodation.

The best information available, derived from the 1971 national house condition survey, is that there were then 2·9 million out of 17·1 million dwellings in England and Wales lacking one or more basic amenities. Further more detailed information will come forward as a result of the current review of housing finance and the 1976 house condition survey.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this problem is to be tackled with urgency in the present economic situation, greater emphasis and resources must be placed on the rehabilitation of derelict property? Does he further agree that amongst the homeless the development of squatting, which we may regret, is none the less related to the amount of empty, unrehabilitated and, in some cases, sound property in the hands of local authorities, Government Departments and nationalised industries?

I think that the better use of the existing housing stock—after all, whatever the level of new house building, it can add only a small amount each year to the total housing stock—should have a higher priority than it has been given by successive Governments. As far as I am concerned, this is easily now the top priority for housing policy.

We all want to build more houses, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern in some rural areas about the density of buildings in the proposals which are being put forward? Will he examine again the yardstick which the Department requires of local authorities in this matter?

I shall certainly examine the yardstick, although it is now true that, generally, it is not a constraint on local authority house building. On the first point, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will write to me, I shall certainly send him an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any indication of the date when the report of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into local government finance will be presented to him.

No, but I understand that the committee is working to the original target date of the end of this year.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the general public is looking to the Layfield Committee to advocate a thorough radical reform of local government finance and that if the Committee merely recommends complicated tinkering with the present system it will be up to the Government to put forward proposals at an early date for an entirely new system?

I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the committee, but it would be foolish to set up a completely independent body to look at the rating system and then tell it how to do it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if cash limits were discussed at the last meeting of the consultative council on Local Government Finance.

No, Sir, but I shall have such discussions before any cash limits come into operation.

I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not had this discussion. Does he agree that the only real way to deal with the whole question of local government expenditure is to put a moratorium on capital expenditure. Some authorities are still going ahead with expensive capital schemes, and these should be stopped.

The Government's views about the future of local government expenditure have been made repeatedly and exceedingly clearly. The question of cash limits, as normally discussed, would tend to cover current rather than capital expenditure, but I hope that it will be only a comparatively short time before I am in a position to make a very detailed statement about our view of cash limits.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the discrimination which exists in local government finance against the Greater London area—discrimination which is causing great difficulties? Since there has been a promise that an attempt will be made to remove this unfair and unjust discrimination, may we be told when that is likely to happen?

I cannot give details until we come to the actual rate support grant settlement, but I can repeat what I have said many times in public—that, on the whole, London had rather a rough deal in last year's settlement.

In his discussions with the consultative council has the right hon. Gentleman considered what he will do about local authorities which defy Government policy on expenditure, for example, the South Yorkshire Council, which is apparently to defy his policy on bus fares?

We shall have to wait and see what the South Yorkshire total comes to. I have merely seen a report in the Press about one segment of that total expenditure. However, at the end of the day the Government is not in a position to impose legal sanctions on local authorities. Unless the hon. Member is suggesting that we should move over to the French type of prefectorial system, the Government must depend—and I depend willingly—on the sense of statesmanship and discretion in the local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of people liable to be killed or severely disabled each year if the wearing of seat belts in cars is not made compulsory.

I estimate that the belts worn by drivers and front-seat passengers in cars and light vans in 1974 prevented about 400 deaths and nearly 4,600 serious injuries. If all fitted belts had been worn, another 14,000 serious or fatal casualties would have been avoided.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the death and disablement of so many thousands of people is far too high a price to pay for the dubious luxury of allowing people to travel in cars without safety belts and that although the compulsory wearing of safety belts will not be a popular measure it is necessary? Is it not time that the Government stopped dodging this issue and took action to make the wearing of safety belts compulsory?

My hon. Friend will know that a Bill was introduced earlier in the Session but that because of the pressure of business we have not been able to complete it. We hope that it will be reintroduced in the next Session. We are anxious that there should be a free vote. Therefore, we want a full debate before that vote is taken.

If the Government really believe what they are saying, why do they not reintroduce or find time for the Bill which they say will save lives, instead of wasting the time of the House to save the faces of Labour councillors all over the country who broke the law as laid down in the Housing Finance Act?

There was a general desire in the House that the Bill should be given proper time for debate but, unfortunately, on the night that it came up for consideration, because of the state of business we could debate it for only a short period. The Government intend to introduce the Bill in the coming Session, provide the House with a full opportunity to debate it, and then have a free vote.

In view of the alarming increase in the number of coach accidents recently, will the hon. Gentleman also consider the provision of seat belts in motor coaches?

This matter is being examined. The whole question of coach safety and better safety in coaches is being considered. There has been a spate of accidents and, naturally, they are spectacular and extremely regrettable, but it appears that the lap belt that might be fitted would not be an economically viable proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress with the planning of the M16.

The order to establish the line of the A13-A12 section of M16 is to be made shortly, and a letter announcing this will be sent to objectors within the next few days. A public inquiry into the proposals for the A10-M11 and M11-A12 sections was held between December 1974 and July 1975, and the inspector's report is awaited.

Is the Minister aware that the Greater London Council is considering the designation of a heavy lorry route through suburban Chingford, through residential and shopping areas, and that the reason for this is the lack of the M16? Does he agree that there is no need to worry about traffic forecasts in respect of this motorway? It is an historical fact that for many years the lives of thousands of people have been made miserable by heavy lorries using unsuitable roads.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have on several occasions looked at the road that he mentioned. I think he will realise that the Department and all the Ministers who have been dealing with this matter are very much aware of the urgent necessity for this road but, as I said in my original reply, the public inquiry took a long time—exceptionally long—and we cannot expect the inspector's report this side of Christmas.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is still the intention to proceed with that part of the M16 from the A13 to the A12 during the financial year beginning next April? The present congestion on the A128 trunk road is causing considering concern to my constituents.

I should not like to give a definite date for the start of this work, but it is interesting to note that those who live in areas of heavy road traffic know that they need such a road, and those who consider such roads academically decide that they do not need them. In this case we shall be pressing ahead as fast as we can but I should not like to commit myself to a date now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of unoccupied council houses at the latest available date.

The Department's last survey showed that at 31st December 1973 the percentage of council dwellings in England and Wales which were vacant and available for letting remained—as in previous years—under 1 per cent.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whether it is 1 per cent. or not, it means that there are thousands of empty council houses? Does he agree that the Department's time would be better spent urging local authorities to fill these empty council houses, rather than continue the massive programme of municipalisation?

It is true that even if the figure is below 1 per cent. it still represents a large number of houses. We do not want to see any left empty for longer than is necessary. Local authorities all over the country are discussing the matter with us and are doing all that they can to see that houses are occupied as quickly as possible.

When my hon. Friend is considering this matter will he also consider the problem of the number of properties owned by private enterprise that are lying empty and ensure that local authorities take the necessary power to acquire these properties in order to deal with the urgent housing shortage in many areas?

Yes, Sir. Any house that is empty causes us concern, and this matter is under consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why some council houses are unoccupied is that the environment is so seriously blighted that there are no community facilities—especially on new housing estates—and people do not want to live there? Will he ensure that in future when local authorities build new council estates they are given adequate funds by the Government to ensure that community facilities are provided at the outset, and not five years later?

That is a problem that has taxed successive Governments through the years. We try to ensure that amenities and facilities are available on these estates. I understand the urgency of the situation. If the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind he ought to make the strongest possible representation to the council concerned.

When dealing with the private sector, the greatest thing that the hon. Gentleman can do to relieve housing need is to allow the owners of empty properties to let them today or tomorrow, before he brings in any scheme for requisition. That is the first thing that he ought to be ready to do.

That is one suggestion that we are considering urgently.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department is making about the contribution that the tram can make towards the solution of urban transport problems.

The character sties of tramways are well known and the prospects of introducing them have been studied in a number of cases

I understand the difficulty of merely returning to the old system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that because of the fuel crisis and fears about urban pollution, major cities such as Amsterdam, Zurich and Melbourne may have something to teach us about the way in which we disposed of our trams and trolley buses so quickly. Does he also agree that the advent of bus lanes in so many British cities is a tacit acknowledgement that reserving traffic accommodation for public service vehicles is something that should be given further study by the Government?

I think the hon. Gentleman should know that the last matter to which he referred is continually being studied and that as new transportation studies come forward from local authorities the provision of segregated public transport lanes, particularly in the crucial areas, is given a great deal of priority. It is for local authorities to decide which transport system best meets their needs, but, as a general point, it is one thing to retain and improve an existing tram system in some cities and quite another to reintroduce it on existing streets. A segregated system is being built on Tyne-side and Clydeside. The Tyneside metro is to use an extension of the British Rail tracks, and this could be done in many cities in Britain.

May I urge the Minister, nevertheless, to consider favourably the reintroduction of an improved tram system, bearing in mind the fact that trams were replaced by buses when petrol was cheap and when pollution was ignored, and also the fact that studies on the introduction of electric traction in urban areas by means of battery cars show that they are much more expensive and less efficient technically than overhead wires would be?

On the question of the buses being introduced because of cheaper petrol, one of the other reasons was that in the expanding towns buses provided greater flexibility than tramcars. The points raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are being studied not just in Britain but throughout the world, because we all realise that the question of urban transport will need to be considered in great depth and all new systems will require thorough examination. We are trying to do that as fast as resources and ability allow.

I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), but does the hon. Gentleman agree that a far greater contribution could be made to solving our urban transport problem by two other means—first, a good look at the way in which schoolchildren are transported to school and the more effective use of such transport, and, secondly, a look at the whole question of licensing public service vehicles? It is obvious that in many parts of the country the National Bus Company is failing to meet public need.

The hon. Member is now moving on to rural rather than urban transport. There are historic reasons as between the National Bus Company and local authorities concerning the provision of the services. It is a question that we are always considering.

As it is now three or four years since the Select Committee on Expenditure published its report on urban transport planning, with strong recommendations about the use of special traffic lanes for public transport, will the Under-Secretary say why it has taken so long to implement those excellent recommendations?

A great deal of this is ultimately the responsibility of the local authorities, and whenever possible the Department encourages them. We have made a number of studies—for example, in South Hampshire, Sheffield and Rotherham—on the question of segregated services, trams, and so on. It is an easier problem to state than to solve. It is not easy to go into an existing urban area and say that a particular area shall be totally segregated for public transport. It can be done only on a local basis, with as much encouragement from Central Government as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when a decision is likely to be made about the route of the proposed M67.

The M67 motorway as at present planned consists of two schemes, the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass. The routes for both schemes were fixed in 1972.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these are just preliminaries to a much less desirable scheme for driving a motorway through the Peak District National Park? Is he further aware that he could make a handsome contribution to the saving of public expenditure by scrapping this scheme altogether, and is he prepared to talk about the eventual route from the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass, if this is ever completed?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interests in this matter. There have been a number of Adjournment debates on it. I assure him that the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass do not by any means commit us to the Manchester-Sheffield road, and I assure him that before any final decisions are made on the question whether there should be a road through the Longendale corridor, there will be very wide-ranging discussions within the House and very far outside it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total cost of land acquisition in the first five years of the Community Land Account; and how soon he expects the fund to show a profit.

The memorandum to the Community Land Bill sets out fully the costs and receipts that will save about £700 million a year when the scheme is in full operation. The costs at the end of five years in individual land accounts will vary widely between areas with some in profit and some on the way there, according to the demands of their programmes to cater for local needs.

The hon. Gentleman must be kidding himself if he thinks he will save £700 million. Bearing in mind that the Financial Memorandum gives certain figures, has he reconsidered those figures at all, such as the £400 million a year which is to be spent foolishly on this stupid enterprise?

We have spent many hours on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that you do not want any further time to be spent on it. The figures are accurate, and we are not reconsidering them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government intend to review the conditions of tenancy of council house tenants.

Conditions of tenancy are a matter for the local authority concerned, but the need for further guidance is being considered.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are wide discrepancies in conditions of tenancy from authority to authority, and that there is growing resentment at the one-sided nature of the obligations? When will the Government give further consideration to security of tenure for council house tenants?

I am aware of the wide variety. We are anxious to get rid of any fussy and restrictive regulations affecting tenants.

Is the Minister aware that hundreds of thousands of tenants living on council estates, particularly in large towns and cities, are very critical of the bureaucratic way in which their lives are dominated by council officialdom? Is he further aware that those tenants need and would welcome a tenants' charter which set out their rights on basic matters—the Minister mentioned crucial matters, but did not specify them—such as transfers, decorations, and so on, and give them a greater say in how their lives are run?

The problem of management of housing is a topical issue, and we want to involve tenants to a much greater extent. That is why we are now advertising for a new housing management adviser who will give advice so that we can involve tenants far more in the running of their houses and the environment around them.

Will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities when granting new tenancies, to grant them in the name of both husband and wife? In cases where existing tenancies are issued simply in the name of the husband, will he encourage local authorities to translate these, similarly, where both husband and wife have an equal right to the tenancy?

My hon. Friend has mentioned the kind of detail that we are considering. We issue guidelines and are in consultation with local authorities, but we have to preserve a balance. We believe that members of local housing authorities are the people who really understand the needs of their tenants, and therefore much more of the initiative will come from them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities on enabling council tenants to transfer from one town to another.

General guidance on the removal of obstacles to mobility was given in a report of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which was commended to local authorities in 1969.

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. Will he develop it one stage further and accept the complaint which many of us receive from our constituents about the stupid bureaucracy in which local authorities, irrespective of their political control, seem to indulge when tenants wish to transfer within the authorities' areas? Will the hon. Gentleman consider meeting some of us to discuss this point?

I should be prepared to do that. There is a demand which is not being met. We are considering all aspects, because we want to offer proper facilities so that proper exchanges may take place.

In considering the guidance that the Minister might give to local authorities will he consider also the related problem of applicants for council housing being forced to move into a neighbouring area in order to find temporary accommodation, and because of that being taken off the first local authority list and having to start at the bottom of the list operated by their new local authority? Surely this is undesirable, and surely there should be much greater interchange between neighbouring authorities.

Local authorities have been advised many times to remove the residential qualifications, but this is a matter for each local authority, and practice varies throughout the country.

Is the Minister aware of a problem which exists in Devon, where people deliberately move into holiday accommodation with the intention of having to be evicted, thereby jumping the queue for local authority accommodation in the area? This is a very real problem in certain areas, and the practice is grossly unfair to many families who have been on the waiting list for local authority housing for many years.

I am aware of that point. That is why we are conducting such a thorough review. In removing one anomaly it is possible to create three others.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he had any discussions with the Building Societies Association during the parliamentary recess.

My Department has continued the regular contacts maintained with the Building Societies Association over a wide range of subjects.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it has become clear that the building societies, with their more stringent lending requirements, are proving incapable of taking over from the local authorities in the way that the Government required? Has the Secretary of State any advice to give to people who wish to buy older property, or whose income is below the requirement of the building societies, for clearly the Secretary of State has led such people to believe that with the ending of local authority lending, the building societies would be able to replace them?

The hon. Gentleman has referred to what appears to be a perpetual misapprehension. There is no question of ending local authority mortgage lending. It has been reduced, but will continue, and at a rate which, by historic standards, is not unsubstantial.

Although I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him to explain why he thinks that the offer of funds made by certain building societies to major local authorities to assist in further local authority loans should not be accepted, as some of the local authorities wish?

I should like to have details of that question, but I must emphasise that it looks as though the entire £100 million which we wanted building societies to take over from local authority lending will, in practice, be taken over by the building societies.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the building societies have now paid back the loan that the Government gave them last year? Will he also say what plans and what developments are taking place concerning the setting-up of their own stabilisation fund?

I am glad to say that the whole of the £500 million loan has now been repaid to the Government by the societies. Concerning the stabilisation fund, we have achieved a stabilisation policy, because the amount of mortgage lending is now determined not solely by the building societies but by the societies and the Government in co-operation and consultation.

Although he says that the policy does not mean a cessation of local authority lending, is the Secretary of State aware that in practice it has meant that in many areas no local authority lending has been possible for a considerable time? Is he prepared to risk the displeasure of the Tribunites, to whom he recently referred, by having a rational look at the means of making better use of existing accommodation, and considering whether local authority lending is more effective than municipalisation?

I do not think it is a question of saying that one or the other is the more effective. In the case of the £100 million switch, given that building society lending was running at a record level at the time, it appeared to me, to most of my hon. Friends—and, I should have thought, to most hon. Gentlemen opposite—to make sense to transfer a certain sum of money from local authority improvement and municipalisation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussion he has had with local authorities on the question of illegal squatting.

My Department has recently consulted the local authority associations, and is considering their replies. Authorities themselves are aware of the policies and action they can—and should—pursue in respect of squatting, and of the problems which give rise to it.

In the course of the discussion, did the Minister bear in mind that the law, to put it mildly, is a little confused? Will he give local authorities an assurance that during the next Session new legislation will be brought in to clarify the situation? Has it yet become apparent to him that a lot of this squatting is due to the stupid rent controls introduced by the Government?

If the hon. Member has any direct evidence, my Department will be very pleased to consider it seriously. A change in the law would be a matter for the Home Secretary.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities have been able to reach commonsense and acceptable arrangements with squatting groups, particularly in cases where large amounts of property, available on a short-term basis, exist? Does he agree, having considered the replies from local authorities, that clear guidance should be given to them so that the open warfare which exists in some areas can be stopped as soon as possible and we can return to commonsense co-operation between local authorities and squatters' groups?

This is an urgent and serious problem. My Department is anxious to make the best possible use of housing stock, and our talks with local authorities are designed to speed up procedures so that empty properties are properly taken over and used for people in real housing need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with procedures for controlling staff numbers in local government.

Each local authority is responsible for the numbers of staff it employs to carry out its statutory functions. But, as part of the measures needed to limit public expenditure, local government has established new machinery for collecting quarterly returns of staff numbers. These figures are being closely scrutinised by central and local government, acting jointly and against the background of national economic policies.

Is the Minister referring to the Joint Staff Watch Survey, which shows an increase of 10,785 full-time and more than 15,000 part-time employees over the revised figures for March? In the context of local government expenditure, will the Government be prepared to support local authorities who consider it necessary to secure staff reductions?

Two quarter's figures have been collected and published. The comparison shows an increase of under 1 per cent., counting full-and part-time equivalents together. However, two quarters' figures are not a sufficient guide to current trends. The association is, however, having a word with the local authorities about this.

Does my hon. Friend accept that local authority salaries now constitute a significant part of public expenditure? In most years there is no Central Government control over the number of staffs and wage levels, but that is punctuated by a year—like the present one—of ferocious restraints. Would it not be better to devise a system in which Central Government had a greater measure of influence on local authority numbers?

It may be that the Government have no formal powers over individual authorities about the employment of staff—nor should they have, in respect of individual staffs. On wage levels, local authorities are subject to the Counter-inflation policy and the £6 a week limit, with severe repercussions for authorities which go against that policy.

Much has been made of the need for local authorities to hold down staff and expenditure levels, but when will there be comparable manpower savings and programme savings by the Department?

We watch our staff in the Department equally well.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of the Rent Act 1974.

The Act was intended to provide security of tenure for furnished tenants of absentee landlords. It has been successful in this.

We recognise that part of the aim was to provide security of tenure, but will the Government now recognise that another effect has been to dry up the supply of furnished accommodation, with an estimated loss of nearly 1 million units? Will they now address themselves to this problem and devise a form of tenancy agreement which will allow landlords to let their properties?

Despite the request from this Box for hard evidence, there is no hard evidence that we have had as yet—

Yes, there is.

If the hon. Gentleman has any, he can submit it, and I assure him that it will be seriously considered. We have no hard evidence that the Act has caused a significant acceleration of the housing shortage.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have now entered the second academic year with many hundreds of students disadvantaged and without proper accommodation, because of the effects of the Rent Act? When will the Minister introduce the legislation, long since promised to me, to exempt all student accommodation from the effects of the Act?

The hon. Member will know that this matter has had serious consideration in my Department, that we have had discussions with the Department of Education and Science and with the National Union of Students, and that they were reluctant that we should proceed with legislation. Again, we have no evidence that the kind of assertion that the hon. Gentleman has made is true—

Rubbish.

The hon. Member must contain himself.