asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to have early discussions with the Building Societies Association.

My Department is in regular contact with the Building Societies Association, and I am myself always ready to meet it whenever the need arises.

Does the Secretary of State agree that 1977 will be a very difficult year for anyone seeking a mortgage? Does he further agree that that is largely because of the Government's general policy on interest rates and the fact that they have been leaning on the building societies to keep their borrowing rates below those of other competitive forms of saving? Can he give any hope of a change in policy? Indeed, can he give any hope to young people seeking to buy a house for the first time in 1977?

I am sure that 1977 will be a difficult year in terms of mortgage money. What we are all concerned and uncertain about is how difficult it will be. When Questions were addressed to me a month ago about building society interest rates and interest rates generally, the feeling was more pessimistic than it is today. Without further evidence, I should not wish to draw any conclusions about the course of interest rates in the months ahead. I must emphasise that it is for the building societies to judge their requirements against the many different purposes that they seek to serve.

Did the Secretary of State check the figure mentioned last month—that only 6 per cent. of mortgages were going towards the purchase of houses costing less than £6,000? As the poorer half of the community cannot obtain mortgages, what proposals will he make to the building societies? Why not get them to lend 10 per cent. of their funds at their normal rates of lending to local authorities so that they in turn can make loans available, particularly as in the last two years councils have had three cuts in the amounts that they can lend?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. We have had a number of exchanges on it. I am in close touch with the building societies on the general question of replacement lending for the cuts in local authority mortgage lending that we have had to impose. Within that general effort, we shall be directing particular attention to the problems that my hon. Friend has often raised of red-lining and blue-zoning.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government are giving any support to the proposals for the nationalisation or State control of the building societies?

I have not yet had to consider proposals for such changes. If and when such proposals come before me, I shall give them the proper attention and study that they deserve.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in recent months the flow of funds into the building societies has increased considerably? In fact, the Chairman of the Nationwide Building Society commented on that matter within recent hours. In those circumstances, would it not be appropriate for the building societies to be pressed to make greater funds available through local authorities for the purchase of low-cost property, which is at present deteriorating and which will no longer be available on the market unless funds are made available?

I am not sure that I can confirm my hon. Friend's comment about the general state of the building societies' reserves. Taking the building societies as a whole, my impression was that liquidity had been under some pressure, reflecting the falling inflow of the last two months. There may be special reasons involved in that.

When the Secretary of State next meets the Building Societies Association, will he express the concern felt in many rural areas that building societies are prepared to accept investment from but not necessarily to give assistance to borrowers in those areas? Will he suggest that it would be in the interests of the prestige of the building societies to make abundantly clear to potential investors the areas where they are not prepared to give assistance?

I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I have not had that point drawn to my attention before, but I am grateful to him for it. I shall see that the matter is pursued further with the building societies.

rose—

Order. Before we continue, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to do me the great favour of trying to make both supplementary questions and answers shorter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the sale of bottles which are returnable, rather than disposable bottles, particularly in areas such as national parks.

The Waste Management Advisory Council is still studying the case for extending the use of returnable bottles.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many supermarkets are putting a great deal of pressure on manufacturers to go for non-returnable bottles? Is he further aware that the summits of many of Britain's most attractive mountains are disfigured by the number of bottles and tin cans that litter them?

Yes. Yesterday I met the staff of the Countryside Commission. They pointed out that much of the litter is on the higher ranges in the national parks, not in the valleys, and suggested that climbers particularly ought to carry down as well as take up their litter. We want to reduce litter, particularly in areas such as national parks, but people seem to throw away just as many returnable as non-returnable bottles.

Does the Minister not agree that one of the problems is to maintain products offered in shops at low prices and that the consumer advantage of not having to pay a deposit must weigh heavily with the Waste Management Advisory Council in its consideration of the matter?

There is an argument that there is a material saving in using the glass returnable bottles but I appreciate that supermarkets with low overheads may feel that using returnable bottles will increase their overheads.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest discussion with the Dorset County Council and Christchurch Council on the future of Highcliffe Castle.

I have had no discussions with the local authorities since the compulsory purchase order was confirmed last year.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are grateful to him and his predecessors for the help that enabled the local authority to acquire this property? Is he aware of the concern lest the local authority itself takes any action that hinders the wishes of the residents for the preservation of the property? Will he consider sending someone from his Department to Highcliffe to arrange a meeting with local people to see whether a plan can be drawn up that marries the wishes of all?

The borough council is now the owner of the site and we should wait until we receive its proposals for protecting and perhaps improving the castle before we take any action. I shall consider the possibility of arranging a meeting of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to announce any conclusions from the process of consultation on the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance.

We are pressing ahead with our studies of Layfield and considering carefully the views put to us by local government and other interested organisations. Decisions will be announced as soon as practicable.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this week the Essex County Council proposed a rate increase of nearly 20 per cent. together with substantial reductions in services and a reduction of 2,000 or more in staff? Does he agree that, apart from the hardship, this will cause a significant further erosion in confidence in the rating system? Does he not agree, therefore, that his thoughts on the Layfield Report are urgently required?

It is not for me to comment upon the individual circumstances of councils. They are responsible to their own electorates for what they do. I am, of course, aware that there are a number of problems that have been discussed in the House in the context of this year's rate support grant. Solutions could be found in the follow-up to the Layfield Report, which we are still studying.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the whole issue of the implementation of the recommendations of Layfield can be seen and discussed adequately only in relation to regional policy? When can we have a debate on that subject?

There could be some relevance between these two matters. The possibility of a debate on the Green Paper is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

As the Layfield Report called for local responsibility, will the Secretary of State explain what is holding up his publishing the names of those local authorities that have overspent in the current year?

To the best of my knowledge I am not holding up any such publication. This is something which is done by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy based on CIPFA—Department of the Environment returns. I shall look into the matter to see whether we can help.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the years there have been constant arguments about the percentage level of rates as a proportion of average wages and that over the past 20 years there has been little variation? Does he not agree that the Labour movement—and my right hon. Friend is in the Cabinet—believes in the thesis that rates provide services for the working class? Does he not agree that if rates were not paid these services would not be available to those sections of the community?

I have no doubt that provision through the rate support grant and rates is an important part of the local government financial system. I have no doubt that our system is of benefit to all our communities and particularly, because of the needs element in the rate support grant, to the communities which are most vulnerable and in greatest need. This is a system that we should not lightly discard, which the Opposition have apparently agreed to do by threatening to abandon the whole domestic rating system.

Does not the Secretary of State understand that his party has been in power for three years and is responsible for yet another massive increase in rates next year? It is unsatisfactory for him to say that he is not prepared to give a date for the formulation of his conclusions on Layfield.

That is not a very good point. As the hon. Gentleman should know and as his predecessor would certainly have known, we asked for comments on Layfield to come in by the end of November. In the last six weeks we have seen a considerable volume of evidence from people who have been consulted. I cannot have it said that we are being sluggardly or dilatory in our consideration of Layfield. We shall put forward our proposals when we have considered what the many interested and expert people have had to say.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to check the continuing decline in the population and the consequent loss in job opportunities in inner London.

The Government are keenly concerned at the loss of jobs in inner London. I am considering the problem further as part of the Government's review of inner city areas.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the population of London is declining by 100,000 a year and that job opportunities in London are being reduced by 60,000 a year? Is he aware that in manufacturing the job loss in London is seven times the national average and in office work nine times the national average? In order to arrest that decline, will he abolish the need for industrial development certificates and office development permits?

I am aware of the figures. We are considering them in our general concern about the trends that have established themselves strongly in the last few years in East London. We are considering what policies might be used to arrest this trend and to reverse it in the inner Cities Study. I made a statement on dockland before the Summer Recess and I announced then that in terms of IDCs the dockland area would in future be treated on the level with new and expanding towns in the South-East.

Will my right hon. Friend seek to persuade his colleagues to re-examine some of the proposals for the dispersal of jobs from London, in particular the relocation of the Government Chemist's office in Cumbria? Does he not agree that that cannot be justified on operational grounds and simply worsens the unemployment problem in London?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestions, but it would be wrong to anticipate any general considerations and conclusions that we may reach in the context of the Inner London Study.

The Secretary of State is now considering Layfield, housing and inner London. Does he have any views about anything?

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but there it is. Layfield was set up with the general acclaim of the House about two years ago. There are 5 million words of evidence, apart from the report itself, which is enormous. Other major studies have been put in hand. I have been associated with the one on inner city areas. I am sure that that will be brought to a rapid conclusion and that we shall see some action on it. We shall proceed as quickly as we can on the others.

Does the Minister accept that another way of stopping the decline in the population of inner London would be to stop pulling down houses still fit for habitation? Will he intercede with the Lambeth Borough Council, which this morning had started to pull down houses in St. Agnes Place, Lambeth, and has been stopped only by an injunction? That is a respect in which the Secretary of State can take immediate action. Will he do so in this immediate situation?

I should certainly need to check whether I have powers in that matter such as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The policy that we are pursuing is definitely in favour of rehabilitation rather than the older style of large-scale urban redevelopment schemes. That is now very firmly established in the minds of authorities generally. However, in any particular situation—I emphasise the particular local situation—obviously we must look at all the factors involved. Therefore, it would be wrong to move, as it were, from a general statement of policy to application in a particular circumstance of a particular authority.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much views that we want but action? Is he aware that South-East London used to be a major manufacturing centre and that it is now in a worse position than many of the assisted areas in other parts of the country? As merely one suggestion for saving a bit of public money, may I suggest that he abolishes the Location of Offices Bureau?

The rôle of the Location of Offices Bureau is certainly something that I shall be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Looking at"?] In any serious policy to help to reverse the trend in London, very many different strands have to come together, and they have to be looked at together, I shall have something to say about that, too, at the appropriate time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making in promoting energy conservation by improved standards of thermal insulation for buildings in the private and public sectors.

We have published informal proposals for standards in most buildings not already covered. The question of further regulations is being considered in the light of the comments we have received from the many interests concerned.

These improved regulations have been considered for months. When shall we get them? Is not the failure to introduce improved thermal insulation standards, as well as the Governmnt's failure to provide incentives for thermal insulation, causing unnecessary hardship to many thousands of low income families, particularly elderly people, who are having to pay unnecessarily high electricity heating bills? Would it not be a saving of public funds to provide grants and incentives for insulation rather than to use the social security system for paying their heating bills?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has the basis of his supplementary question a little inaccurate.

No.

The informal proposals that have been the subject of consultation in recent months have not related to dwellings, which have already been the subject of building regulations as recently as 1975. They relate to most other kinds of buildings, so the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise on this Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we were to charge an economic price for fuel, most people's fuel bills would be astronomical unless we overhauled our housing standards urgently to prevent heat loss? Will he ensure that the housing regulations do not prevent local authorities from introducing really efficient forms of insulation, including double glazing, double doors and all the other necessary appurtenances?

The thermal standards laid down in the building regulations as from 1975 do not relate to double glazing. It is a matter for local authority decision in most instances whether to introduce these improvements as part of the general management of properties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment under what authority the Property Services Agency informed the National Federation of Building Trades Employers that it will only consider tenders from those contractors who hold a valid tax certificate at the time of tender; and why he is discriminating against sub-contractors who do not hold the certificate in this way.

The Property Services Agency has made clear that it is prepared to employ a contractor or subcontractor who does not hold a tax certificate but only if it is a genuine firm with a good reason for not holding a certificate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not good enough? First, it has not been true until this moment, when he said what he said. Secondly, what does he mean by "genuine" firms which have a good reason for not holding a certificate? The Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), told me only this morning that there would be no discrimination against contractors who did not hold certificates. Will the Minister make it clear throughout the whole public sector and the Government that this is to be so?

:I have made it clear to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers that the contractors are not refused, and, in fact, the form that they are sent if they wish to submit tenders includes provision for stating the fact that they may not, for a number of reasons, have tax certificates. However, we shall not employ firms which are on the "lump", or fly-by-night firms, or anything of that category.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on the Labour Benches and certainly among building trade unions his statement will be very widely welcomed? Is he aware that the problem in the construction industry in the past has been that we have had these fly-by-night subcontractors and that all sorts of terrible problems have arisen from using "lump" contractors? The Government should be congratulated on the stand that they have taken on this matter.

I think that my hon. Friend has given the reasons why this was laid down in the Finance Act 1975. Although the Property Services Agency is a Department of the Crown and is exempted from the Act, we try to carry out the spirit of the Act.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of housing starts in the public sector for 1977.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains ratified with the outlook for private sector house building during 1977.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding housing construction.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his forecast of public and private housing starts in January to March 1977.

There were 164,200 housing starts and 149,600 completions in the public sector in Great Britain for the first 11 months of 1976, and 147,300 starts and 138,500 completions in the private sector. Those figures show increases over the levels of house building achieved in the same 11 months of 1975. In 1977 the public sector programme will be running somewhat below the 1976 level. There has been some improvement in the past few weeks in the general economic prospects for 1977, and I hope that this will continue and strengthen. This will of course help private house building as well as other sectors of the economy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, even though he has not given us the figures for 1977 public sector starts. Will he indicate what proportion of the public sector starts for 1977 will be in so-called stress areas, and how many will be left over for the less favoured areas? Is he aware that in many so-called non-stress areas there are very long housing waiting lists, which include hundreds of families in desperate housing need? What hope do they have of decent housing under his present policy?

It is a little difficult to forecast for 1977 what the breakdown will be between housing starts in the priority areas which have been listed and in the other, non-priority, areas, and I should have to check what we have estimated the position provisionally to be. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall write to him on that point.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the sunshine talk about the general improvement in the economy is not much good when set against the backcloth of restrictions and moratoria arising from the mini-Budget of 22nd December? As my right hon. Friend knows, pipe workers and manufacturing workers of all kinds who produce essential goods for building houses are being thrown out of work as a result of public expenditure cuts in housing and other forms of moratoria. Will my right hon. Friend not merely talk about the improvement in the economy but give housing priority over and above some other less essential services to ensure that manufacturing jobs are not placed at risk as they are at present?

Generally speaking, I take the description that my hon. Friend has given of the consequences of cuts in public expenditure in various capital investment projects that involve building workers. It still remains the position that, within the general constraints and cutbacks in public expenditure, housing has maintained a priority. Whatever else has been said about the consequences of the moratorium to which my hon. Friend referred and which arose from the December announcement, housing was not included although other building works were.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the problems of the construction industry and the large number of bankruptcies now taking place? Is he further aware that he should consider persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to shift the emphasis of the cuts to current expenditure and not so much in respect of capital expenditure, which he has already mentioned?

That is a view that has been put forward from a number of quarters. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to announce today any changes in the decisions that we made and that were announced on behalf of the Government by the Chancellor in December. Those decisions stand.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in both the public and private sectors the level of interest rates generally is of pivotal importance? Does he accept that interest rates are unnecessarily high and that he should use all his abilities to persuade the Chancellor, for the sake of housing at least, to bring down their level?

I certainly agree that this is a matter of central importance. I do not think that it would be a question of seeking to review and reduce interest rates merely for the benefit of housing construction. Whatever my particular interest may be ministerially, it is an important matter for the general economic activity of the country. As for the burden of my hon. Friend's question, I must say that it should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than to me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, despite the figures he has given us so optimistically, the latest figures published by his Department show an alarming decline in the past three months? For example, in the public sector there was a 26 per cent. decline in the number of starts compared with the equivalent period last year and a 14 per cent. decline in the number of starts in the private sector. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the housing construction industry does not share his complacency?

Nor do I share any complacency in this matter. It is correct that the figures we published ourselves showed declines in starts in recent months both in the public and private sectors. In the public sector that may be due largely to the feed-through of the temporary halt when the July cuts were announced and while we were preparing to introduce a control system, which had to be introduced in the early part of September. There will be a feed-through of figures as a result of the cut-back. Nevertheless, it remains true, whatever may be the decline in recent months, that the total figures for 1976 will be an increase over 1975, as will be shown when the final figures for the year are published.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the outcome of his Department's review of housing finance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to publish the conclusions of his Housing Policy Review.

No, Sir, but we will publish proposals as soon as we have completed our study of the complex and detailed issues involved.

Is that not just another example of the right hon. Gentleman's sluggardly—to use his word—consideration of these matters? Will he kindly get a move on? When he does come to formulate his policy proposals, will he bear in mind that average council rents now account for only 7 per cent. of the average manual wage? Will he be prepared to adjust them upwards slowly, and perhaps in conjunction with the Chancellor's next round of direct taxation cuts?

Of all the issues that face us—there are many and they are complex—perhaps housing policy is the one that repays some serious prior thought. If I wanted to look for a monument to mark impetuous and unwise legislation in this area, I should point to the Housing Finance Act 1972, the last major piece of Conservative legislation in this sector.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the proposals are considered he will consider them in the context of investment patterns? Is he aware that house prices have risen eight times since the war whereas share prices have risen only three times since 1935? Will he consider whether that is a consequence of the highly preferential subsidy terms for owner-occupiers, which have diverted investment to provide housing from the direction of industry generally?

As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a connection between what I think is generally accepted as a deliberately favourable tax régime and house prices. That is a matter on which evidence has been taken and on which we want to form a view. In the context of housing policy we must consider not only current housing expenditure, which is certainly very high, but investment and the mix of investment as a whole.

On the contrary, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the increase in interest rates has meant that very many owner-occupiers are now facing enormous difficulties, to the extent that many mortgagors would have been entitled to rent rebate if they had been in the rented sector, while at the same time many local authorities believe that it would be more cost-effective for them to concentrate a good deal more of their local authority money on mortgage lending? In his review will the right hon. Gentleman concentrate on giving priority to the owner-occupied sector?

I want to give proper consideration to the owner-occupied sector. I believe that the long-term trend is towards a considerable and, in my view, beneficial growth of owner-occupation in the country as a whole. As for interest rates generally, I am aware that owner-occupiers have had to face the relatively recent increase in building society rates. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interest rates were 11 per cent. when the Government came to power in March 1974. In spite of all the storms, which have been pretty fierce over the past two and a half years, we have managed even at the worst to keep to a 12¼ per cent, interest rate. As the House knows, that rate was reached some months ago.

Will my right hon. Friend not accept the advice from the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) but confirm that the average subsidy for council tenants is £174 and the average subsidy for owner-occupiers is £170, the former including extra expenditure on items such as advice centres, planning and related matters? Secondly, will he continue to support Labour Party policy to maintain subsidy for both sectors except for the very wealthiest of house buyers?

I certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that I think he wants from me—namely, that I have the interests of both sectors very much in mind. I am aware, as the whole House should be, that both owner-occupiers and council tenants are in receipt of different forms of tax support, tax subsidy or tax concession. In my view, we should be unwise if in our considerations we excluded one half of the problem from the other. We must constantly keep them in mind together.

To bring the right hon. Gentleman back to reality, does he not now appreciate that as a result of these policies we now have more empty houses than for over a decade? The only urgent priority that he should observe relates to his own position.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman, who appears to be a little short on memory, that when Labour came to power we inherited a total collapse in the public and private sectors, a mortgage famine, and an interest rate of 11 per cent. Whatever else we have done, we have considerably improved the situation that we found, despite the far greater difficulties that we have faced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he is having with local authorities about the future redistribution of the rate support grant.

Official level discussions are continuing with the local authority associations on methods of needs assessment for possible application in 1978–79. The issues will be discussed at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance at an early meeting this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my local authority, the West Sussex County Council, which has always been a relatively low-spending, low-rated authority, finds that its rate support grant, which this year is 55 per cent. of current expenditure, will fall to about 45 per cent. in the year ahead? The message seems to be that the less we spend, the lower proportionately the rate support grant becomes. Will the Government give a firm assurance that those authorities which do what the Government ask by making cuts are not then hit by the Government next year?

The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the effect, as he sees it, on particular authorities which "over- spend". Rate support grant is based on resources available, plus an assessment of need as impartially as we can make it. If the combination of those two elements results in the contribution from the Government being lower this year than last, Conservative Members cannot complain on that score because they have urged me to cut the figure by a far greater amount; indeed, they have complained that the rate support grant was too generous. Therefore, Conservative Members should not complain that we are treating any authority with deliberate severity. They must look carefully at the mixture of resources and needs in their areas and compare them with those of other areas.

In these discussions has any local authority mentioned the Conservative policy of abolishing the domestic rate? Will my right hon. Friend seek details of that policy, satisfy himself that industry will not face hefty extra burdens, and ensure that there will be no extra growth in bureaucracy?

My hon. Friend opens up the possibility of a fruitful competition between the two Front Benches. I hope to beat the Opposition Front Bench in producing my proposals for changes in rate support grant before the Tories do anything to close the enormous gap in their policy, by which they hope to abolish the domestic rate system and yet turn down local income tax so that there remains nothing in the middle.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to lessen the impact of high water and sewerage rates on those with very low incomes who qualify for ordinary rate rebates.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 9th December.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is quite illogical—although I exempt my hon. Friend from any part in this—to tie water and sewerage charges to rateable value? Is my hon. Friend not aware that many elderly, single householders who live in high-rated properties will face great difficulty in meeting the new charges? Is this not a matter in which he should plan to move clear away from rates, dealing with it on a par with some other criteria?

There are a number of changes that I should like to make in water legislation, but at present I have no powers to make the rebate system apply to water charges. Some water authorities are using rates as only part of the charge.

May we take it that the Minister and his colleagues will vote against the Water Charges Equalisation Bill, which will add a burden of £4 million in the Thames Water Authority area and £1 million in the North-West without giving rebates?

Not at all. People on low incomes in other parts of the country are paying up to 80 per cent. more than is paid by the average person in the Thames area. I trust that the Water Charges Equalisation Bill will be put before the House at an early date and that we shall bring forward proposals for further legislation on water by means of a White Paper within the next month or so.

Will the Minister remind the Opposition that this is only a partial measure to make up for the loss in rate support grant following the policies of the Tory Government? Are the Opposition not aware that the system introduced by the Tory Government led to a vast increase in water charges in many parts of the country?

Yes, I shall be happy to remind hon. Gentlemen of those factors.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the water authorities, the associated industries and the trade unions, before he instructed the water authorities to stop all new work; and if he will make a statement.

For obvious reasons there was no question of advance consultation on the matters contained in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement of 15th December. But there have subsequently been detailed discussions with the water authorities, with representatives of trade associations and trade unions concerned, and with individual hon. Members. The six-month moratorium on new construction work will inevitably cause real difficulties in a number of areas, but I am exploring what scope there may be for mitigating some of the more serious effects.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many participants came away from the meeting with his Department dissatisfied with the answers they were given? In view of that dissatisfaction, will he arrange for meetings to take place with the various trade unions responsible for workers in the industry?

That is not a message I have received from either side at the time of the meeting or since. Since that meeting I have issued guidance notes on a moratorium to the regional water authorities and the National Water Council, and I have placed a copy of those notes in the Library.

Has the hon. Member seen the published text of a speech made by the President of the House-Builders Federation earlier today, saying that the six-month moratorium could bring work on hundreds of housing sites to a complete stop?

That is the kind of difficulty caused by public expenditure cuts. As I recently pointed out to the manufacturers, there have been demands for much larger cuts in public expenditure. We are told that the cuts are too little and too late, and in some instances industry has supported those pleas. The advice we have given to water authorities means that they may pre-order pipes and other materials during the moratorium period. The moratorium relates to contract work. I hope that the notes of guidance will assist industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the water authorities.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State saw the chairmen of the regional water authorities on 20th December 1976.

Did the meeting consider the serious problems faced by those who depend on cess-pit drainage? Given the Government's concern over water equalisation charges, does my hon. Friend not agree that there is urgent need to improve that area of operations?

I appreciate the difficulties, particularly in rural areas. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend naturally warned the chairmen of the water authorities about the effects of the moratorium rather than about more detailed matters. I appreciate that the cost of cess-pool emptying is heavy, but I have no powers to make any directions to the local authorities or to the water authorities in this respect. As I said previously, we must hope for legislation to do that.

Is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that the moratorium to the water authorities will not affect more housing development or those schemes necessary for the economic revival of the country?

We shall look at particular proposals, but in general, where planning permission has been given for housing development, we would expect the water authorities to carry out their statutory requirements. We have asked them to inform us of any such situations.

Will the Minister impress on the chairmen of the water authorities the need for a prompt response to the public outcry over annoyance, odours and other matters relating to sewage works where the sewage works concerned, as happened at the Megaloughton Works at Spondon in my constituency, have been the subjects of experiments relating to sewage flow and matters of that kind? What is being done about it?

I shall certainly take up that matter. It has not been brought to my attention on previous occasions.

Did the Minister discuss the possibility of at least charging domestic users on the basis of the amount of water consumed?

At the moment we are operating the 1973 Water Act. I have no power to direct the water authorities with regard to the way that they make charges. I may make suggestions and give some guidance, but I have no power to put such proposals before the water authorities. In general the metering of domestic supplies would need a considerable amount of capital expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for relocating Government offices from London to the West Midlands in general and the Cannock Chase in particular and if he will study the communications and other advantages of the Cannock Chase area as a location for Government offices.

There are no plans at present to move Government offices from London to the West Midlands. If such a possibility should arise in the future the advantages of the Cannock Chase area, as well as of other areas in that region, would be considered.

Would my hon. Friend not accept that there is now in the West Midlands a serious unemployment problem and that female as well as male unemployment is at a high level? This is an area that is proving attractive in the sense that it has good communications with many other parts of the country. Will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider his answer?

My hon. Friend will be aware that a programme involving the dispersal of over 31,000 Civil Service posts from London is currently in progress. It is a considerable programme that creates great difficulties for many individual civil servants. It was decided in 1971 that most of these posts would go to the assisted areas. The opportunities for further moves are limited. However, for any work that cannot be sited in an assisted area the claims of the West Midlands will be considered along with those of other areas.

Would the Minister agree that the hopes of the West Midlands for the future will rest upon profitable private industry and not on moving a number of jobs and trying to swell the already over-burdened ranks of the bureaucracy?

Yes, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right to say that private industry—assisted as it is by the Government—can make its contribution to solving these problems.

Will the Minister strike a judicious balance, because the population of London has been falling steadily and, secondly, unemployment in London is as high as anywhere else in the country? These factors ought to be taken into account.

I appreciate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, that inner London has just the same problems—if not worse problems—as many inner provincial cities. What we are trying to do in particular is help inner city areas in the assisted areas. Many of the Civil Service moves will be made not from inner London but from areas more distant from London.

Is the Minister not aware that many parts of Cannock Chase are of very great beauty and much appreciated by the residents of Birmingham? The headquarters of the National Coal Board is already there. Surely we have enough Government offices sprawled about in that area.

In my other responsibility for the Countryside Commission I take note of what the hon. Lady has said. Many of the buildings that are being constructed are attractive and are in excellent surroundings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from trade unions representing the construction industry concerning the distribution, as between investment and subsidies, of public funds allocated to housing.

Representations were made at the meeting of the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries in December.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that over the past few years there has been a massive shift in the proportion of public money spent on housing away from investment on new building and improvement and towards the subsidising of rents and mortgages? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that if this trend continues we shall have a construction industry capable of meeting the housing needs of the future?

Certainly that is a point that has given rise to some concern in various quarters. It falls to be considered, and is being considered, as part of the housing policy review. I do not think I am in a position to make any further comment on this matter at present.

In view of the large number of people unemployed in the construction industry and the fact that the import content in building new houses and factories is low, would my right hon. Friend not be better off giving more effort, energy and money to expanding the public as well as the private sector in industry in order to provide employment for construction industry workers?

The provision of capital resources for public or private sector industrial development does not fall within my remit. I am concerned only with the housing aspect. I operate within the budgetary limits imposed by the cuts announced in July and subsequently in December.

Does the Minister realise that by continuing the emphasis on current consumption in public expenditure he is actually destroying jobs in the construction industry because he is cutting back on capital investment? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is any prospect of there being fewer than 250,000 unemployed workers in the construction industry by the end of this year?

I can only remind the hon. Gentleman once more that, whatever the constraints in the past year, we are currently building many more houses. We have a higher rate of investment in housing construction today than when we came into office and inherited the programme of the last Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned to see a cut-back in current expenditure in these areas, I should be interested to hear his views and those of his party at some time. In the housing policy review we are looking for any proposals that can be mooted for cutting mortgage tax relief, which is part of the question put to me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the House-Builders Federation.

The House-Builders Federation has accepted my invitation to join a DOE/HBF Working Group which now meets regularly.

Has not the federation said that private starts this year could be as low as 100,000, or under half the 1973 level? Does the Minister agree with that figure and does he not feel any sense of guilt or embarrassment about the present situation?

I am a very worried man, as I hope all of us are, about this and many other problems. The figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman is correct. Such a figure has been used by the President of the House-Builders Federation. It is not a figure that I necessarily accept.

Has my right hon. Friend had discussions with the House-Builders Federation and with various other bodies in the construction industry about import substitution? Are any studies being made of this matter? What efforts are being made to use bricks on a bigger scale, as well as other indigenous building materials, to save imports, which is a matter of great importance to the industry?

I am aware that there is some importation of foreign materials and goods for construction in this country, not just for house building, but for other construction purposes. As far as I am aware—I shall check on this—no current study of import substitution is being made under our sponsorship.

Does the Minister agree that local authorities can play a part in helping to stimulate new private building for sale by providing sites of their own for private builders on a long leasehold basis and having joint schemes in that way?

Yes, that is so. In a policy circular that we issued during 1974, about a month after we came into office—and again in 1975—we indicated ways by which local authorities could make these joint efforts. Quite a number of local authorities have embarked on such efforts in co- operation with private developers and a number are still initiating such projects. I would welcome continued efforts in this direction.

Has not the number of improvement grants fallen year by year? When will the Minister bring forward his long-considered recommendations for revising improvement grants?

It is correct that the number of improvement grant applications and approvals has gone down markedly in the past two or three years. That is largely due to the general recession in the economy. We cannot expect any dramtic change in that situation, whatever alterations might be made in the improvement grant system.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little disappointed that during this rather dull Question Time the most important Question was not reached. I thought that the arrival of the Lord President signified that perhaps a special message had been sent to you from the Front Bench that Question 28, concerning Oliver Cromwell, should be raised. Could you advise me, Mr. Speaker, how you sometimes decide to call a Question that is far down the list? Is it because the Question is important, or is it because a special representation has been made from the Front Bench?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the grouping of Questions. I am deeply sorry that Oliver Cromwell must remain where he is.