asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has announced another review of housing, this time on private rented accommodation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the working of the Rent Acts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to draw the Consultation Paper "Review of the Rent Acts" to the attention of home owners in the Armed Services.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific steps he is taking to obtain the views of students, nurses, teachers and other single and newly-married young people currently suffering from the effects of the shortage of rented accommodation in central London and other cities, on the contents of his consultation paper "Review of the Rent Acts."

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from landlords of privately rented property in the current year in connection with the operation of the Rent Act 1974.

The intention to review the Rent Acts was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 20th November 1975, following an undertaking that I gave to do so in July 1974 when we were debating the Rent Act 1974. We have always made it clear, as we have in the consultation paper, that the Rent Act review would be related to, but separate from, the main housing policy review. In the review I am ready to examine suggestions for changes in the Rent Acts and associated legislation, subject to the major proviso that the general principle of security of tenure for the tenant in his home is to be maintained. The consultation paper has been circulated to individuals and organisations within and outside Government and I shall gladly send copies on request to those who wish to contribute and who have not already received the paper.

Does the Minister now accept that in London thousands of empty houses and flats are being kept off the market by his Rent Act? Can the House have an undertaking that the legislation mentioned in the consultation document will be presented to the House in good time for it to become law within this Session?

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Rent Act, but there are several Rent Acts, to which both parties have been committed at one stage or another. As to thousands of properties being empty, the only figures that we have, upon which to base a broad assessment, are those provided by the 1971 Census, which preceded the 1974 Act. In London it was estimated that about 90,000 dwellings—that is, less than 4 per cent. of the total housing stock—were empty on the night of the Census, and that is probably roughly the figure to date.

Does the Minister realise the effect that the 1974 Act has had on accommodation for single persons in growing towns, such as Reading, where such accommodation is essential to the university? Is he aware that 18 students who started at the university last year were sleeping on camp beds because they could not find suitable accommodation?

For many years past there have been students in such situations in universities all over the country at the start of term. As to the effect of the Rent Act 1974 on housing for single people in Reading, I should be glad to receive more than generalisations and to have information sent to me by the hon. Gentleman. I should welcome that.

Does the Minister realise that the young people to whom I refer in my Question have strong views on the Rent Acts because those Acts have virtually dried up the supply of rented accommodation upon which they previously depended? Although the Government are now showing stirrings of concern, does the Minister recall how, monthly, he stood at the Dispatch Box and airily dismissed warnings from the Opposition Benches as party propaganda? Does he not feel shame and guilt at his past inaction and complacency?

Taking one Act at a time, the 1968 Act—which dealt with unfurnished accommodation, and which was a revision and consolidation of the 1965 Act—was not only maintained under the previous Administration; at the appropriate election times, public declarations were made by the Conservative Party that it did not intend to revoke that Act. So all sides must be responsible for the Rent Acts.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decline in the number of properties to let in the private sector has nothing to do with the security of tenure provided by the 1974 Act? Is it not true that the removal of similar protection in the 1957 Act did nothing to increase the number of properties available for letting at that time, and has not the decline continued for the greater part of this century?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I urge hon. Members to remember that in examining these matters we require a good deal more than generalisations and slogans. We need to analyse what is happening in the housing market. There is no doubt, for example, that a major contributory factor has been the welcome growth in owner-occupation. In some years, 40 per cent. of the movement into owner-occupation has come from people who were previously in rented properties. This is not a consistent figure, but it is a factor that must be taken seriously into account.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although there is no direct statistical evidence, there has been a worsening of the situation since July 1974, and that there is evidence of a withdrawal of letting accommodation, or a shift by landlords to holiday lettings, bed and breakfast, or lettings simply to foreigners and not British people, because of the effect of the 1974 Act? Will he therefore consider some of the propositions put forward by the Opposition to encourage landlords to let empty property, including fixed-term lettings or short holdings, because the need is to provide homes for people and to encourage rather than discourage letting?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will prepare a full statement on behalf of his party or himself and other interested people in regard to proposals for changes in the Rent Act. They will be seriously considered. On the first part of his question, I repeat that generalisations are not good enough. I always recognised, even before we introduced the 1974 Act, that there would be some disincentive to some landlords when conditions were imposed on lettings. This is a natural part of life. However, I said then, and I maintain, that the 1974 Act together with the Acts of 1965 and 1968 have saved far more dwellings from going out of the rented market than they have lost to that sector. The Acts have stopped a lot of compulsory movement out of rented accommodation which would then have been lost to the rented market.

Will my hon. Friend give more attention to the needs of tenants and less attention to the pressure from the landlords' lobby opposite? In particular, will he note some of the exorbitant rents now being fixed by rent assessment committees, which are raising rents almost automatically every three years? Will he continue rent control for those who live in houses without amenities and continue, as he says in his document, to provide security of tenure for tenants?

On my hon. Friend's last point, I have given that assurance at the Dispatch Box and in the consultative document. We stand by the principle of security of tenure. As for proposals for changing or maintaining the status quo of the detailed operation of the Rent Acts, we shall be considering this as part of the consultative process and the review. There is a need to simplify the Rent Acts and to do a number of other things. We have to take account of the point that my hon. Friend has raised about the criteria on which rents are being fixed by rent officers. My hon. Friend has quoted some extreme examples, and there is no doubt that they exist. On the other hand, there are some properties that are not being properly maintained, and we have to look at means of getting an adequate flow of resources to ensure that these properties are maintained and modernised.

rose—

Order. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has just come into the Chamber. As his Question is being answered with Question No. 1, I shall call him to put a supplementary question. Mr. Onslow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not being here when the Minister made his original reply, but I have only just received notice that my Question was being taken with Question No. 1. Is the Minister aware that the Rent Act is having a very damaging effect for Service men? Is he aware that those who own their own homes are being put in a position of not daring to rent them, while those who wish to buy their own homes and finance them by renting are actively discouraged from that prudent course?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. If people are in ignorance of the workings of the Rent Act, things can go wrong, but let me make it clear again that a home owner—a Service man or anyone else—who lets his home has an absolute right to repossession when he or a member of his family needs to occupy it, provided he has warned the tenant in the due form set out in the Act before the letting began. This matter was examined closely in Committee and the position was made clear then. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman advises anyone who comes to him with such a problem to act accordingly. I shall be glad to supply him with the appropriate information.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish a White Paper in response to the Flowers Report on Nuclear Power and the Environment.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution raises issues of major national importance affecting a number of Government Departments. The Government will publish their response as quickly as possible.

Will such a White Paper cover some of the environmental issues likely to be raised at the public inquiry into BNFL's plan for a mixed oxide reprocessing plant at Windscale? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no decision will be taken on the commercial fast-breeder reactor unless or until the Government have acted upon some of the recommendations in the Flowers Report, particularly on the important questions relating to nuclear waste?

I hesitate to say more about Windscale, because I made a statement on 22nd December and the Royal Commission Report went very much wider than the question of the particular oxide processing plant. On the wider environmental issues that the Flowers Report identified, we shall be giving a careful response and addressing ourselves to the whole complicated question of waste management and disposal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anger felt in areas that have been selected for research into the disposal of nuclear waste into geological formations? Is he aware that many people believe that once test borings are made we shall be on the slippery slope to becoming a nuclear dump, and that we shall be left with no protection from bureaucratic decisions? Will these matters be covered in the White Paper'?

I am certain that no specific decisions will be made in a White Paper which will be a general response to matters raised by the Flowers Committee. I deplore the language that the hon. Gentleman used, but I can assure him that clearly there must be a programme of research into suitable places within the United Kingdom where, on the best possible information, it is safe to dispose of nuclear waste. It is the duty of the Government and responsible agencies to examine the whole country to discover the most suitable areas. No decision has been made, and there is no question of the Government's simply announcing a decision if and when we reach the time when we wish to do so.

Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Japanese want to export their nuclear waste thousands of miles away?

I think that the Japanese have two reasons. They have made no secret of them. The first is that they are prone to repeated volcanic influences, and it is difficult for their Government to envisage anywhere in their territory that would provide safe geological formations in which they could store waste.

Will the Secretary of State explain the logic of one Government Department asking the House for another £1,000 million to extend the nuclear power industry before his Department has given us guidance on his reaction to the Flowers Report?

The matters covered by the nuclear legislative proposals that we put before the House a week or so ago of course go much further than the question of building a particular oxidisation plant. They include many other things, such as the provision of new and improved facilities for dealing with Magnox fuels at Windscale. It is appropriate for the Ministry to go ahead as it plans to do. That will not pre-empt or prejudge the results of the inquiry that I am about to set up.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on 19th January 1977.

When the Secretary of State does announce the Committee's findings, will he beware of creating intense disillusionment and disappointment by offering no new initiatives or resources to these areas?

I shall be careful not to arouse false expectations. Whenever I have addressed myself to this problem in public, I have always emphasised the great restraint on total public expenditure in which we are bound to be operating for the next year or two at least. But I have also made it plain that it is not impossible, if we are prepared to redistribute resources, to find within existing totals of public expenditure some useful resources to help certain areas. But those areas will be highly selective and will be those that are in real need.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it was grossly unfair of the Prime Minister to blame Labour councils at a recent local government conference for the decline in the inner city areas when most of those areas have been represented by Labour members from time immemorial?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not blamed Labour councils for this. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertee (Mr. Steen) has made a rather foolish remark. For example, I am not aware that the cities of Liverpool and Birmingham have remained under Labour control and direction for many years. The parties have shared control over those areas. It would be foolish of us to blame each other in a party political way for the real problems that exist in the inner cities—problems that exist in other countries as well as in the United Kingdom.

When speaking at conferences will the Secretary of State recall that under this Government the house improvement campaign, which is of vital importance to inner areas, has been cut to one-third of its 1974 level? Will he also state—since he acknowledges that small businesses have an enormous contribution to make to employment—when the Government will stop hammering small businesses, and how their problems are to be eased?

I would like to believe that a substantial proportion of home improvement grants found their way into the inner cities when they were available on a lavish scale in years gone by, but I do not think that that was true.

Is the Secretary of State not particularly appalled by the escalation in juvenile crime in areas of urban decline? Does he consider that the action of his right hon. Friend, who has just left the Chamber, in demoralising the police force at the present time is one of the best ways of solving the problem of juvenile crime?

That is not a helpful or serious question. The problem of juvenile crime is a serious and growing one. The whole House understands that. But this is not the proper place or occasion to debate that aspect of the matter.

In the current debate about the allocation of resources to new towns and city centres, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the majority of people do not live in either? Will he accept from me that in the northern half of England, where many people live in industrial towns of medium size, there is a strong feeling that we have already failed to receive our fair share of national resources because of the competition from new towns? Will he ensure that his current preoccupation with city centres does not further deprive us?

I accept that the majority of people do not live in inner city areas or new towns, but the majority of people not living in those areas get the largest proportion of resources, in the form of rate support grant, allocation for housing, and so on. New towns must have the resources that are necessary for their existence and growth, and in the inner cities there is a large problem that must be solved.

I welcome the change of direction by the Government to the inner areas, but does the Minister agree that greater assistance should be given to self-help groups, such as housing associations? Will he give them every encouragement?

I shall do my best to give them all possible encouragement, but we must go beyond that and try to enter into some kind of closer partnership with the principal local authorities concerned to do the things that are needed.

Money is what is needed—and lots of it.

I had better not say any more.

I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend is taking in the inner city areas. Will he make it clear that this is not an alternative to new town development? Will he make it perfectly clear that it would be totally wrong for hon. Members to regard new town development, inner city redevelopment or the development of the smaller city areas as being mutually exclusive policies? Those who are concerned about housing should support them all.

I agree that they are not mutually exclusive policies. Anyone looking at the first 20 to 25 years of the post-war period will acknowledge the enormous part that new towns have played in relieving the intolerable pressures in the inner cities of our major conurbations. But in the somewhat changed circumstances we must now look at all policies that are relevant to the dispersal of population from our cities. Within that context I am reappraising the rôle of the new towns.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the real problem with which he is faced at the Dispatch Box today and every day will continue until he refuses to accept the views of the Opposition to cut public expenditure? Until he halts the cuts in expenditure and assists in building more houses and helps those who are providing the goods and services for the public utilities and for manufacturing, he will never solve the problem of the inner cities, the outer cities, the rural areas, the small and large towns and all the rest. That is the problem.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. There is a remarkable thing—I do not agree with him on this occasion! Even in times when national economic stringency has not been pulling so tightly its cords around us as it is now—during periods of relative national affluenc—the problems of the inner cities have been growing and have not been dealt with. One of the things that we must do, regardless of the total resources available, is to use what we have more sensibly, in a more purposive and helpful way, to tackle what are revealed to be the very serious problems of our society.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in talking about deploying more public resources to the inner city centres he is perhaps missing the point? Does he understand that cities grew because there was a powerful economic reason for their doing so, and that the more that the State has encroached, the more that the planner has been regulated, and the more that controls have proliferated, so the attractiveness, economically and socially, of the inner city areas has declined? Until he recognises that because there are new severe constraints on public sector funds it is the private sector that will have to be given the incentives to return to the inner city areas, he will never realise the massive change in public attitudes necessary to restore the strength of our inner cities.

That is altogether too partial a view of what has happened in our inner cities. I believe that local authorities in inner city areas—I accept this point—have given, perhaps perfectly naturally, for the greater part of the postwar period absolute priority to housing needs, and have tended not to consider, to the extent that we would wish, the needs of employment and particularly of small firms in their areas. However, the hon. Gentleman must also realise that the inner cities have until very recently not had that extra increase in resources for dealing with their problems which I believe they have now been given, certainly since we started changes in the needs assessment of rate support grant which began in 1974. Secondly, local authorities have been tremendously impeded throughout most of the post-war period by the appalling vagaries of land values and the high prices of land in their areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review his policy on future council house building.

We aim to make the provision of housing more responsive to detailed local needs. That includes maintaining a high priority for council house building programmes and concentrating activity where housing needs are greatest.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw to his attention the fact that unless building land is available now for councils to acquire, there will be a shortage of houses to rent in the future, when this land will not be available?

I certainly accept that there must be more advanced programming of land assembly for this purpose. My understanding of the position, which was examined very carefully most recently in the latter part of last year, but not for the first time, is that this was not a problem that was facing local authorities. If there are particular problems in my hon. Friend's locality of which he is aware, I shall be glad to receive details.

Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his influence to ensure that the report of the Building Economic Development Council, which the Secretary of State has in his possession, is published in full and without delay, as it apparently contains important evidence on the question of the subsidy cost of new council house building? Does he not accept that any suggestion of suppression or censorship of this report will be bitterly resented not only by this House but by those who are concerned with the truth underlying the real problems relating to housing in this country?

No doubt my right hon. Friend has heard the rather odd way in which that question has been put to him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of unoccupied houses in England and Wales.

The most recent comprehensive estimate of the number of empty dwellings is provided by the 1971 census, which recorded 675,880 dwellings in England and Wales—about 3·9 per cent. of the total housing stock-as "vacant on census night ".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a large number, which causes considerable hardship in view of the long waiting lists, and is a waste of national wealth from the point of view not only of the deterioration of property and all that surrounds it but also of unused national assets, a waste that we can ill afford as a nation?

If properties of any kind in whatever ownership are left empty for any length of time, what my hon., Friend has said is correct. However, he will appreciate that the kind of figure that I have quoted or, indeed, the kind of figure that could emerge from a census taken at any point in time is, as it were, a photographic figure of the position at that time. It does not necessarily follow that the 675,880 dwellings empty on census night in 1971 were empty for the long time that would give rise to the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred. Many would be changing hands on the market. This is a very small percentage in national terms. However, I take the central point that my hon. Friend is making, irrespective of the particular figure. I am concerned about that, and we are seeking to do everything we can to encourage local authorities to undertake more than simply purchases of properties lying empty on the market and more speedy means of reletting and modernisation or repair of properties, and to undertake leasing arrangements. [interruption.] This is not a question of relets. It is a question of the handling of properties that stand empty in local authority ownership and in the ownership of private owners. We are seeking to press and encourage them to undertake leasing arrangements, which they are doing in increasing numbers.

Will the Minister understand that he is widely regarded as the most complacent Minister for Housing since the war? The fact that he can say to the House that the present situation, in which nearly 700,000 homes that would have been available for letting are now unoccupied, is something that he can take with equanimity is intolerable. His Government's policy is worsening the position in regard to houses available for letting, and his position at the Dispatch Box—" looking al this" and "talking about that"—is worsening the problem, about which he should be proposing action and not merely words.

A little more homework would not go amiss, I think, nor would a little less rhetoric in the form of questions. As a matter of fact, I have made no statement such as the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me. Let me make the point, for what it is worth, that the census figures that I have quoted were made available in 1971, and I do not recall that a Labour Government were in office then or during the two years that followed.

rose—

I must be fair to others with Questions on the Order Paper. Mr. MacGregor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the allocation for land acquisitions under the Community Land Scheme in 1977–78 and the two subsequent years has been reduced from the levels previously proposed in Command Paper No. 6393.

Reductions of £35 million in each of the years 1977–78 and 1978–79 were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 15th December. A provisional figure for 1979–80 will be contained in part II of the White paper on expenditure published later this month.

Do not these cuts, which are the result of very limited resources and which are likely to continue for years to come, mean that the Community Land Act simply will not have achieved the objectives that the Government set for it? if the Minister will not abandon the scheme altogether, as he should, will he at least consider raising and widening the limits for excepted development and urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the rate of development land tax so that private developers can undertake the rôle that the public sector cannot undertake?

My belief is that these cuts have not had any serious effect on the beginning of the scheme, which is building up steadily but building up well. The local authorities are, at the present stage, building up their staffs and beginning to operate the scheme. I do not think that the fact that the cuts have taken place at this stage is at all damaging to the scheme. It will provide a very good basis for the expansion of the scheme when market conditions are right.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while we welcome the scheme we want to see more use made of it, above all in the North-East in the special development areas where we have been denied the use of it for industrial schemes in a rather worrying way?

I should like to have details from my hon. Friend of schemes where sanction has been denied. Local authorities are encouraged to submit proposals where they find them helpful in their own areas. One of the reasons why the scheme is not building up as fast as one might have expected is the present state of the land market.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that neither house builders nor local authorities share his sanguine view about the scheme?

My sanguine view of the scheme is based on what we believe is likely to arise as soon as economic activity begins to get going.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will order a review of the procedures for rating holiday caravans under a single hereditament per site in the Caravan Sites (Rating) Act.

No, Sir. As far as I am aware, the procedures laid down in the Act are proving satisfactory in operation and are working better than the previous arrangements under which holiday caravans were rateable individually.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me that that is not true and that a great deal of chaos is being caused as a result of the revaluation? Will he accept that the legislation we passed last year is being used as a front by many owners for unfortunate and regrettable behaviour in respect of the renewal of leases and collection charges? Will my hon. Friend agree to meet a deputation of Members from both sides of the House to discuss the matter, which is becoming a scandal?

I shall be glad to discuss with my hon. Friend the issues that he has raised in his supplementary question. I shall be glad to go into them with him. However, in general our evidence is that the Act is working reasonably well.

Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the Act is not operating very well? I make the same offer to the hon. Gentleman as I made to his predecessor, namely, the chance to come to the East Coast with Members from both sides of the House to see for himself what is happening in the area. Is he aware that people are being charged a fee for the collection of rates, and that some are being asked to pay rates for 1977–78 before the local authorities have even fixed them?

I have heard reports of fees that I believe to be totally unjustified. I have already written to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection on this issue.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me, along with other hon. Members who have asked supplementary questions, that all is not well in this sector and that for a variety of reasons the caravan owner still lacks many of the basic freedoms that others enjoy? He is imposed upon under this heading and many others. It is time that we did something to give caravan owners the normal rights that are enjoyed by others.

I suspect that my hon. Friend is going a little wider than the Questions I think that he is raising issues such as security of tenure, which he may know is being studied as part of the mobile homes review. I take on board some of the points that he makes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport.

The consultations on airport strategy for Great Britain, including the possibility of increased use of Stansted, will be completed shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will make a statement after there has been full consideration of the views expressed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Essex Members are grateful to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade for giving them an opportunity of discussing this matter with him? Is he further aware that those throughout Essex and on both sides of the Chamber who won a battle in defence of the beauties and amenities of Stansted are resolved not to lose the war?

I am looking forward to meeting the Stansted Airport Action Group this week to discuss matters as it sees them from its angle. I cannot prejudge the statement that my right hon. Friend will ultimately make, but at present we are considering the views that have been expressed on both sides of the argument.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that opposition to the expansion of Stansted is based not solely on noise considerations but on wider planning considerations? Is he aware that there would be considerable problems about housing the workers if there were a large-scale expansion, especially if Harlow were to fall foul of any decision relating to new town development in future? Although we are not opposed to a limited expansion, will my hon. Friend remember that there will be strong across-the-board opposition to a massive expansion on a site that we have discussed at great length in the past?

The views that my hon. Friend has expressed have been put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and myself in the consultations that we are undertaking. If my hon. Friend wishes to expand on those views by correspondence, we shall be glad to receive any information or views that he cares to give us.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his right hon. Friend's approval of Skytrain earlier this week means that there will be an automatic increase in the use of Stansted in the immediate future? Is he aware that there are many who would be prepared to consider a moderate increase in the use of Stansted but would be totally opposed to converting Stansted into a third London airport, either directly or, as some may fear, by stealth?

That view has been expressed to us. It is a view that we shall bear in mind in our considerations.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the prevarication that lies behind his answers this afternoon will cause the gravest concern among all the communities that thought that the issue had been finally resolved, as they will now find that it is apparent that the Government are reopening the issue?

I am absolutely astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are the first Government to have undertaken a national review of airport policy in full consultation with all interests involved. I do not think that we can be blamed in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The consultation is bound to involve delay. As a consequence, we shall come forward with a national airports policy of a sort that the hon. Gentleman would never have produced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards securing a greater availability of houses to let in the non-local authority sector.

Government policy is to encourage a greater variety of social ownership and tenure. In the past three years the provision of dwellings by registered housing associations has trebled, to a rate of 30,000–40,000 extra a year. Shared equity schemes are now being sponsored by a number of local authorities and housing associations and there is an increasing number of co-operative housing schemes being initiated. A number of other initiatives are being considered in the context of our housing policy review and the review of the Rent Acts.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which has anticipated my supplementary question. Does he see a greater rôle for the utilisation of direct works departments by municipal authorities?

That matter is rather separate from the question of tenure. I ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of our proposed Bill on direct labour organisations in the not-too-distant future, when he will have ample opportunity of studying the details of what we have in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the main reason for the non-availability of rented private houses is the continued operation of the Rent Acts since 1915? Will he also confirm that the lengthy review that he has instituted is no more than an elaborate attempt to prepare the ground so that he can persuade his party that the ridiculous prejudices that it has held so dearly over the years are wrong and are the principal cause of homelessness?

I think that I can safely leave the question of persuasion in the hon. Gentleman's hands, although I do not think that that will be very effective.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the main component of housing is housing finance? I ask my right hon. Friend to make available to Members the findings of the various bodies that were asked to submit evidence to him in the general housing finance review.

I am somewhat at a loss, because it is my recollection that in every instance the bodies concerned published the evidence that they submitted to us, but I shall check on the matter. We shall ensure that the submissions that were made to us are made available to Members.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish an annual report and accounts for the Property Services Agency.

I do not consider that the preparation of an annual report for the Property Services Agency would be justified. Each year the accounts of the Agency are laid before this House and published, together with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The Agency is subject to all the normal methods of parliamentary control.

Why should this Agency, which does essentially a commercial management job for the Government, publish less information than a private sector property company, because it uses taxpayers' money?

It has a wider scope and is involved with defence and many other matters as an agency for other Government Departments. Unlike nationalised industries, the Agency has to reply to questions in this House through a Minister. Next week, the chief executive will appear before the Public Accounts Committee, and the Public Expenditure Committee is also involved with it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an enormous property empire? Certain of its overseas activities have been the subject of criticism by a Select Committee. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the way in which this body is accountable, because many of us believe that it is not adequately accountable and that this House is not enabled to look publicly in sufficient detail and depth at its activities in the way that we think suitable?

As I have said, it is open to hon. Members to question this body and, as my hon. Friend said, members of the Select Committee have examined—which, I admit, is more than I have done—the overseas activities of the Agency. There is ample opportunity for the House to register an opinion and to question what happens in the Agency.

What proportion of the PSA's activities and assets are involved in defence work?

That is not a question that I can answer off the cuff, but if the hon. Member puts down a Question I shall answer it.

Will my hon. Friend take a particular look at the situation where the PSA buys up houses in the expectation of roads being built, and then vandalises them? Will he stop that from happening? Will he make it clear to the PSA that it should not vandalise houses, so that when decisions are taken which mean that the roads are not to be built the houses can quickly be made available for the homeless?

We are acting as the agency for other Departments and must take advice when houses are needed. Frequently, when there is a possibility of roads being built, to assist those whose houses may be blighted there is purchase in advance. Wherever possible the Department concerned or the PSA lets the houses prior to the need for them to be demolished.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in a Written Answer in reply to my Question he said that the cost of preparing a report would be £25,000? In view of the wide interest, both in the House and outside, in the activities of the PSA, and as its net expenditure is £776 million, does he agree that £25,000 would be money well spent?

Perhaps the best reply is that the former Ministry of Works, which preceded the PSA before it was created by a Conservative Government, produced an annual report but stopped doing so on the grounds of economy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the Building Societies Association.

I had an informal meeting with some of the leaders of the Building Societies Association on 26th January. I am ready to meet them again whenever the need arises.

I welcome the recent improvement in the inflow of funds to the building societies, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the first six weeks of 1977 are anything to go by, there will still be serious difficulties in obtaining a mortgage in 1977? Will he say what effect he thinks that is likely to have on housing policy in general and on the building industry in particular?

I endorse the hon. Gentleman's words about welcoming the inflow of funds. He asks me, on the basis of the first six weeks of this year, to take a view about the inflow of funds a little later on. It is a little early to do so, but my hope and belief are that we shall see a return, as it were, to the far more normal inflow of funds that we experienced in 1976 and earlier. If that is so, as I hope it will be, I have no doubt that it will give considerable encouragement to the private house building sector.

When my right hon. Friend sees the Building Societies Association will he tell it to stop the practice of red-lining certain districts, which is distasteful to many people in the inner cities, particularly the immigrants living there?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the undesirability of the practice of red-lining. We have made plain to the building societies our concern about this. In particular cases they have followed through our representations to them, and I believe that effective action has been taken. I am fully aware that there are still, and will continue to be, reports of such practices. I hope that they will be sent to me so that I can take them up with the building societies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on the Building Societies Association that, as soon as funds permit, one of its first priorities must be to get interest rates down, which are usurious at 12¼ and 12½ per cent. in the case of the Halifax Building Society?

It would be most welcome if we could get mortgage lending rates down. That would give great satisfaction to everyone, but I believe that the prior need is to restore the inflow of funds to societies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that planning appeals are being dealt with by his Department as expeditiously as possible.

I am satisfied that there has been a substantial improvement over the last three years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a considerable number of people are playing the system by knowingly not complying with the planning law and using the appeals system as a means of buying time so that they can continue their unlawful and often lucrative activities?

There is certainly one sphere in which the kind of complaint that my hon. Friend has made is particularly true. This is with regard to enforcement over land use. I was pleased that a Private Member's Bill introduced into the House on the subject a short time ago received a Second Reading.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increasing tendency of his Department to deal with planning appeals by written representation rather than a public inquiry deprives individuals and local organisations of the opportunity of ensuring that their views are adequately considered? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that policy?

The advantage of the written method is that it is quicker, and the original Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) is about trying to speed up the planning process—a suggestion which I strongly support, for many reasons. I think I am correct in saying that the decision whether to go for the written method or a public inquiry depends on the views of the people who are parties to the planning application, though others who have views—such as amenity societies—may be adversely affected, and I take the point.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider providing financial assistance to local organisations and citizens who band together and feel strongly about planning applications? They are at a grave disadvantage when they have to meet local authorities or my hon. Friend's Department which are represented by legal people. Ordinary people cannot afford that sort of thing. Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider whether, on certain occasions, financial help should be given for ordinary citizens to be properly and legally represented at public inquiries?

That point has been put a number of times. It is my evidence that inspectors go out of their way to ensure that groups of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend are adequately considered. I do not think that we could consider giving financial help during the present economic situation.

The Minister will be aware of the general opinion that the delay in the Department from the date of an appeal hearing to the announcement of the Minister's decision is far too prolonged. Can he give any explanation for that and say to what extent he is taking into account the unreasonableness of the delay, which is generally acknowledged?

If the hon. Gentleman has any special cases to bring to my attention, I shall be glad to consider them. I am doing everything I can to speed things up, but from time to time exceedingly difficult planning appeals come to the Department and inevitably take longer. It is in those cases that the difficulty so often arises.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with metropolitan city councils and metropolitan district councils about his and their respective responsibilities for designating the green belt round major cities; and whether he will set up an inquiry concerning the proposal to build on the High Storrs Rough in the Hallam constituency, some of which is used for allotment gardening and was assumed to be green belt.

My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions with metropolitan county councils or district councils. On the information at present available to him, he is not convinced that he should set up an inquiry into the proposal to build on this land.

Although strategic planning is the responsibility of the county council, is the Minister aware that the designation of the green belt around Sheffield has always been vague? What steps will he take to prevent further erosion of the green belt and countryside around Sheffield?

My information is that the land to which the hon. Gentleman refers is within the area of the draft green belt proposal drawn up by the old Sheffield City Council in 1937 and never submitted to the Department. In such circumstances, our general view would be that such planning decisions are more properly taken locally, where, indeed, most planning decisions of that kind are taken.