asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay a visit to Garston for the purpose of investigating the problems of inner city areas.

I have no plans to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inner area studies have indicated that curative action is necessary in many of the inner areas, and may I urge him to look at the need for preventive action in areas such as Garston? Is he aware that there is a high degree of obsolescence there and great housing stress and that we look for his assistance, in co-operation with Liverpool, in dealing with the problem? In those circumstances, may I ask—

Order. Questions are getting longer and longer. The hon. Gentleman has asked two. I shall let him complete his third because he is first on the Order Paper, but I do not want him to be too much of an example.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange with his Department to visit the area and look at the points I have raised?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the problems of Garston are not unknown to my Department or to me. On the two main points that have been raised, of course I agree that the inner Liverpool study has revealed the seriousness of the situation and the need for early and effective action. I also wholly agree that it is important for local authorities, and, indeed, the Government, to be aware of the areas where problems are not as advanced and serious as they are in some of our inner cities but where they could become so if proper preventive action is not taken.

Will the Minister pay particular attention to some of the suggestions that have been made for creating new small industries on the edge of inner city areas, because they could bring relief and could also take up some of the Government advance factory building if it was apportioned off?

Yes. I agree that the rôle of small firms, particularly in inner cities, is important. Local authorities, which have in the past in general been somewhat insensitive about the needs of small firms, are now becoming much more aware of the important part that they can play.

Does the Minister realise that, apart from the cities that took part in the inner area studies, there are a great number of smaller cities such as Hull which have all these problems? Is it not important that when my right hon. Friend publishes his White Paper he should pay attention to such areas, which have all the problems of obsolescence and lack of housing that exist in city centres?

I am aware of the problem. We must face the fact that there are throughout the country, in all cities and large towns, areas of decay and problems that certainly need tackling. If we are to do anything effective, and if we are to deal with the really major problems affecting our inner cities, we must be extremely selective in what we do.

As the Minister has published a summary of inner city studies—which, I am sure he will agree, contains many constructive suggestions and useful analyses—and as he is considering a statement of policy on this matter, would it not be a good idea if the House were able to debate the report on inner city studies before he comes to a final conclusion?

That is entirely a matter for the Leader of the House. I should be only too willing to have a debate on this matter, but I hope that the time between now and my initial statement on inner cities will not be long.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in inner areas in some regions, particularly in my constituency, unemployment has reached 40 per cent. and that the construction industry in Merseyside has the highest level of unemployment of any region in Great Britain? What plans does my right hon. Friend have to help alleviate unemployment in inner areas and to reduce unemployment in the construction industry?

I am very much aware of the intense problems facing Liverpool, which has difficulties as great as any city in the country. I am also aware of the great importance of helping to deal with unemployment in that area. I hope my hon. Friend will agree on a point that is also relevant elsewhere—that Liverpool and Merseyside are part of a special development area, yet there is within that area an unacceptable differential of high unemployment in the inner part of Liverpool which my hon. Friend knows about. I have a feeling that we must look not only to regional policies but to intraregional policies to tackle these problems effectively.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he is considering his review of these problems the situation on Merseyside is rapidly getting a great deal worse as a result of many policies of his Government? Is he aware that bankruptcies among small firms on Merseyside are at a record level, that the Merseyside housing programme is rapidly declining and that unemployment in the area is rising? What are the Government going to do about these urgent problems?

The hon. Gentleman can ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the general economic recovery. He will be saying something about the state of the economy very soon. I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about housing and the development of housing programmes. We made Liverpool a housing stress area for council house building and it is coming forward with a substantial programme of new building.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was lent out by local authorities for mortgages in 1974–75; and how much has been allocated for 1977–78 at 1976 survey prices.

At 1976 survey prices, reported lending in 1974–75 totalled £686 million; the allocation for 1977–78 is £100 million. At out-turn prices, the 1974–75 lending amounted to £536 million; in 1977–78, with the building society support arrangements which my right hon. Friend recently announced, the figure will be £273 million. In additon, building societies are lending about £1,000 million a year generally on older properties and to poorer families.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a drop of about 84 per cent. in the funds available to local authorities to lend for house purchase and improvement? Does he realise that this particularly affects young married couples, especially those looking for older properties? Would not the Government be wiser to shift resources away from so much council building towards more grants and mortgages for young people?

The hon. Gentleman is comparing like with unlike. Council house building is the construction of housing. Mortgage facilities, with which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned—and so am I—are related to existing properties, which are not necessarily the same thing in terms of resources, except that they may percolate through the market so that we get new building at the other end of the scale. Local authority mortgage lending has been cut back in order to protect new house building, and investment and other resources are being put into rehabilitation. It is not correct to suggest that the percentage cut-back in mortgage lending is also affecting our controls over Section 105 spending on improvements and rehabilitation.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the recommendations from the Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council on this matter in which the council expresses concern at the cut-backs and asks that he gives special consideration to areas which have a large proportion of older terrace-type houses which young people frequently wish to buy but mortgages for which are difficult to obtain from building societies? Will he pay regard to this suggestion in his allocation of money?

Certainly, and not only in respect of allocation for local authority mortgages but also in our talks with the building society movement. In seeking to establish and carry forward the support arrangements which my right hon. Friend announced recently, we have paid particular attention to areas with the worst problems and older properties. In the past few years—and this is a continuing process—there has been a considerable increase in building society lending down market, which has reached something like 23 per cent. of total lending going on pre-1919 dwellings, and nearly 20 per cent. of lending being to families with below-average incomes.

Does the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given about the cut-back from £700 million to £100 million over a period of three years, for the reasons that he has given, mean that the Labour Party has abandoned its pledge in the October 1974 General Election to increase—not to reduce—local authority mortgage lending?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the policy initiative that is still in the pipeline.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that public funds committed to helping house purchasers are distributed evenly as between prospective or recent purchasers and elderly people without mortgages on the one hand and people who have bought their homes some years ago on the other.

Matters such as these are being considered as part of the housing policy review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the latest family expenditure survey, 40 per cent. of owner-occupiers do not have a mortgage and that they mostly have smaller incomes than those with mortgages? About one-third have incomes of less than £35 a week and receive no public help, while 40 per cent. of those with mortgages have incomes of more than £100 a week. Is there not a strong case for redistribution, if only within the owner-occupied sector?

I accept what my hon. Friend has said in principle, and I believe that this area of owner-occupation has been overlooked far too much by both sides of the House. There is a considerable element of poverty and difficulty among poorer owner-occupiers, especially the elderly. I think and hope that we shall be able to do something to assist them in future policy developments.

Would not the greatest assistance to every owner-occupier come from stability in borrowing rates? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore consider, rather than pressing building societies to reduce interest rates now only to have to put them up again later, keeping the rates where they are, on the undertaking that they will not go up unless, for example, the minimum lending rate were to reach 15 per cent.?

I think that I would be wise merely to take note of that unusual suggestion. It is not true to say that any particular policy in this area would assist all owner-occupiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) indicated that 40 per cent. of owner-occupiers have no mortgage. It was to that area that he directed his question and I directed my reply.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not considering a reduction in the rates of tax relief on mortgage interest?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a very satisfactory reply to that question yesterday. I endorse it and have nothing to add to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to see that when local authorities are able to dispose of office accommodation they are free to dispose of it at the best possible price and on a freehold basis if they wish to do so.

Local authorities are already free to dispose of surplus office accommodation on the best terms available for leases of up to 99 years. If there is a special case for disposal on a freehold basis or a longer leasehold agreement, I am prepared to consider it.

In my county, which the hon. Gentleman knows about because he recently met a delegation from it, we have a large number of properties to dispose of because of officers moving into new properties. Can he arrange a quick decision and confirm that, if it is in the interests of the county's ratepayers to dispose of these properties on a freehold basis, quick agreement will be forthcoming from the Government?

I am always willing to consider cases. If the authorities concerned submit cases, I shall look at them.

Might I probe this matter a little further? Is it not time to clip or liberate the fussy planning powers of local authorities? Was it not better in the old days when we had shops, offices and workshops which added colour and variety to the residential areas in which they were situated? I remember that when I was a lad there was a felt-monger's round the corner between two private houses and no one minded.

Order. We believe that the hon. Gentleman was a lad once, but we do not need to hear about it.

I agree with my hon. Friend if he is arguing against too rigid zoning in planning laws. I suggest that that does not relate directly to the original Question, since the Community Land Act will give local authorities greater planning flexibility.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now seek to amend the law in regard to housing to permit owners of vacant property to enter into leases for fixed periods, with appropriate safeguards for the tenants.

No, Sir. We have invited comments on our Rent Act review consultation paper. We are not at present proposing any changes in the law.

Is the Minister aware that there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of empty properties which owners would be willing to let if they could be sure of gaining vacant possession after a reasonable length of time? Is it not a fact that many people do not need life-long security of tenure and would be content with a form of lease that gave them security for a year or two?

Any empty property is of great concern to us at this time of desperate housing need. I must reassert to the House the fact that, following our Rent Act consultation paper, we believe that security of tenure for the tenant in his home must be maintained.

When will the Minister learn that the fact that houses are kept empty causes considerable distress? Will he visit the area which I have the honour to represent, because I can show him many houses there which landlords want to rent to tenants but cannot do so because of the stupid doctrines of the Rent Act?

I am sorry to see the hon. Gentleman so depressed. Our experience, however, is that when rent restrictions or security of tenure are relaxed there are still empty properties and there is still a decline in the private sector market.

I share my hon. Friend's concern about empty properties, but will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the 13 per cent. of Ministry of Defence houses which are now empty, particularly in the area of Marchington in Staffordshire, where many such properties have been empty for four years? Will he ensure that the sound advice on housing management that is available in the Department of the Environment is conveyed to the Secretary of State for Defence?

Yes, I shall see that that information is conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Does not the Minister recognise that if the Labour Party continues with the threat of interfering with this sector it will discourage people from letting? There is historical evidence that when there was a relaxation accommodation disappeared from the market because the Labour Party pledged itself to bring back controls the moment it was able to do so. Is that not the genesis of our troubles?

Tell him about Rachman!

If the hon. Gentleman is as concerned with the desperate need for housing as he appears to suggest, he should not make party political points but should help to bring about more progress in this area. All our experience was that the private sector continued to decline even when the so-called expert remedies advocated by the hon. Gentleman were in force.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has that building societies are withholding mortgages from properties in the inner areas of towns and cities.

Cases have been referred to the Department in respect of a small number of towns. These have been resolved or are still being examined in the context of replacement lending. I hope to see a steady improvement through developing local liaison between building societies and local authorities in the context of renewal strategies.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the system of drawing a line round inner town or inner city zones and the refusal to provide mortgage facilities amount to an appalling state of affairs? Not only does this deprive those at the lower end of the income scale of the opportunity to purchase older-type property, but it frustrates the general desire for urban renewal.

I accept what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, I would go further. I shall not go into the matter in detail, but I believe that the way out of this situation lies in much closer liaison— this is already being developed in some areas—between local authorities and local levels in the building society movement, so that much greater information is available from the local authorities to the building societies about their intentions in terms of prospective housing action areas, general improvement areas and the like. Much of this problem has shown itself to be evident in terms of the red-lining.

Will the Minister confirm that the principal objective of building societies is to safeguard the investments of those who deposit money with them and not to go in for social engineering?

I do not for a moment suggest that building societies should go in for social engineering, but I am glad to say that in the recent past—and I hope that this will happen in the future—more and more members of the building society movement have become involved in the social consequences of their housing policies. The figures I gave earlier suggest that the movement is becoming effective in the areas to which they are prepared to lend money.

Is not the catastrophic reduction in the number of mortgages hitting the poorer families? Is it not a fact that many local authorities have little confidence in the new scheme put forward by the building societies because the authorities regard the old one as a complete flop? I can name local authorities where only one-quarter of the mortgages promised have been granted to the people who need them. In the circumstances, therefore, is not a requirement from the Government to the building societies desirable?

In certain detailed respects my hon. Friend is correct, but I reject his general denunciation of the arrangements. The figure of lending under the old scheme—the £100 million scheme as it came to be known—climbed to £132 million. It was not a failure. The money was lent at an increased rate in the latter months of the scheme. The new arrangements will involve an allocation—not a general undertaking—of specific funds at local level to particular local authorities amounting to £176 million. It is no use ignoring these facts, because this is what we want to see happening in the older areas. There is an increased rate of lending which must be encouraged still further by the building societies down-market. We wish to see that happening, and we intend to encourage it in co-operation with the Building Societies Association.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to charge for the use of water in domestic households by the introduction of meters.

None.

Does the Minister recognise that the introduction of water meters into the average household would lead to an enormous increase in administrative costs?

The capital cost of fitting water meters in all domestic households would amount to between £650 million and £950 million. It would cost something between £6.50 and £9.50 to service and read such meters. I cannot believe that such an imposition is possibly justified.

Will the Minister confirm that companies now have the right to meter supplies? Will this matter be dealt with in the Government's forthcoming White Paper?

I have just said that we have no intention of encouraging the provision of meters in domestic households. Under the legislation passed by the previous Administration, authorities have the right to go in for metering, but I am glad to say that the Secretary of State has the right to prevent them from so doing if he wishes to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for increasing the rateable value means test limit of £175 per annum, both for improvement grants and for grants to improve the homes of disabled persons.

I have no proposals for immediate increases. But if a suitable legislative opportunity occurred I should be prepared to consider sympathetically the case for giving housing authorities wider powers to pay grants to the disabled in hardship cases.

I am grateful for that answer. I shall try to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill straight away. Does not the Minister agree that, if we must have a means test, rateable value is not a good form of means test because it is no way of measuring the ability of the disabled and others to pay for improvements to houses? I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering the facilities for legislation, and I shall seek an early opportunity to bring in a Bill.

We have had some correspondence on this subject dealing with the situation in various parts of the country. Our judgment is that the rateable value and the limits we have placed have enabled limited resources to be applied where they are most needed. We see no case for a general increase.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities are reluctant to give grants for improving the homes of disabled people on the deplorable principle that the weakest cannot shout the loudest? Would he care to reexamine the record of these local authorities to ascertain what he can do to change both their minds and their attitudes?

We are sympathetic to the needs of the disabled, and we are considering ways of meeting the great need in that area.

Does the Minister agree that a two-thirds slump in the number of building improvement grants is not very welcome? Is he aware that it is having an effect on employment in the construction industry and that the possibility of maintaining our existing housing stock in a satisfactory condition calls for something further than having no further intention at the present time of doing something about it?

Yes, it is true that there has been a reduction, but originally a great amount of the money was going to those who were well able to pay for their own improvements. When cash is limited it is necessary for us to get our priorities in order, and the rateable value limit does just that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he will give to increasing the allocation of funds for house purchase and improvement loans to Leeds City Council for the year 1977–78.

I can offer no immediate prospect of an increase in the mortgage lending quota for Leeds City Council.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Leeds is the second largest city in the country outside London with 30,000 low-value back-to-back houses in the inner city and that £59 per head is measly when the average location throughout the country is £200? Surely this is a situation that warrants a reconsideration of the position in Leeds.

Yes, I am well aware of the figures that my hon. Friend has put before the House. As he knows, we have been in correspondence with the Leeds City Council. Population was not the only basis on which we made the allocation. We are concerned that when money is lent by the local authority it should go to the priority categories—for example, those who are at the lower end of the market and those who want to buy older property. These are the people who are least able to get loans from building societies.

Instead of adding to the already incomprehensible hotch-potch of housing subsidies, would it not be better to increase personal allowances to wage-earners who are also householders, thereby taking the sensible step of subsidising families and not houses?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt that he will take into consideration what has been said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) will not be very well received in Leeds by younger people who are attempting to buy older houses and set up home for the first time, or by those who are awaiting improvement grants? Is he aware that by any known criteria—for example, size of city, size of population and size of housing problem related to population—Leeds appears to have been discriminated against? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the situation will be reviewed as quickly as possible?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been no discrimination against Leeds. I shall present the figures to him to prove that that is not so. When we are allocating resources of this sort, we want them to go where they are most needed. I assure my hon. Friend that Leeds has had a fair allocation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent to which the 1972 reorganisation of local government has achieved its objectives up to the present.

I cannot answer for the objectives of the Tory reorganisation, but the present structure of local government is widely criticised. We must seek ways of improving it.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that even at this stage we can try to rescue something from the shambles of the 1972 reorganisation by establishing a proper inquiry into the reorganisation to determine, first, how much the reorganisation has cost so far; secondly, what were the major mistakes that were made; and, thirdly, who was responsible for them? Does he agree that it is almost impossible these days to discover anyone who is prepared to defend the reorganisation? Does he accept that those who were responsible—

Order. It is not fair to the rest of the House when a supplementary question goes on so long.

rose—

Sit down.

I was not asking the hon. Gentleman to sit down. I was asking him to come to a conclusion.

My conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is to ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that those responsible for the reorganisation have a great deal to answer for to the ratepayers.

I think that the length of my hon. Friend's supplementary question merely reflects a widespread feeling about the unsatisfactory state of affairs following the 1972 Act. I do not think we need any post-mortem to determine who was responsible. We shall study carefully the performance of local government since reorganisation and try to draw the proper conclusions from that.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to have too much regard for further commissions and inquiries? Will he allow local authorities which wish to reorganise themselves to get on with the job and put their proposals to him, and will he receive them favourably? My own constituency would dearly love to be an all-purpose authority. If we put the proposals to the Minister, will he consider them gratuitously and let us get on with the job?

I do not want to overexcite expectations. I made a number of comments in a speech at Harrogate about a month ago, and they reflect the general drift of my thinking and the lines on which we are at present examining the problem.

As some of the criticism of reorganisation is from those who believe that some of the units created were too large, may we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that in no circumstances will he have English regional government, which would create even larger units?

I see, in terms of most services, why the hon. Gentleman would express that view. I share it. I should not wish to see many of the personal services and other services that are handled by local government going to larger and more remote local government units. However, there are certain powers of government and local government, and certain agencies such as those concerned with health and water, that have no democratic control. It may well be that they would be appropriate to a form of regional government.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that valour is sometimes preferable to discretion and that there are many who believe that a single tier of local government, a regional tier that is democratic, controlling functions already exercised undemocratically at regional level, might be the best form of local government we can obtain, whatever the long-term implications within the EEC?

I believe that I have already conceded that point. If I did not make it clear in a previous reply, I confirm that this is an area in which the possibility of change in the direction of a new pattern of local government may be sensibly explored.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, of all the Ministers in this Government, he is the least likely to over-excite expectations? Does he understand that the single greit,2st cause for complaint about the rising cost of local government has been the fact that prices have increased by 69·5 per cent. since 1974 when his Government were elected? The other increasing burden on local authorities is that the House continually imposes additional financial responsibilities on local authorities without producing the financial resources to carry them out.

I think that the House will judge that as a pretty tame intervention and excuse by a spokesman of a party that is responsible for the present unsatisfactory form of local government. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what his predecessor as spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), had to say when speaking on local government matters. Only a fortnight ago the hon. Gentleman said:

"It must be admitted that the 1970–74 Tory Government did not get either local government or health reorganisation right. Certainly, during the time I was Shadow spokesman on the Environment I found it increasingly difficult to defend local government reorganisation."

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he proposes to make to the submission by Sheffield and five other major provincial cities on the inner cities problem.

I hope to discuss the submission with a deputation from the authorities concerned as soon as this can be arranged.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever machinery or resources are provided to deal with this problem, it is important that the great cities should be firmly in control of the administration of those resources and that they should not be handed to some external non-elected body?

Yes. I am not in favour of handing over even important redevelopment projects to external agencies, with the caveat, which I think my hon. Friend will accept, that if a local authority wishes to bring in some form of additional assistance—I hesitate to say what it might be—it is up to it to do so and we shall not stand in its way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety which is being expressed by many authorities outside this group of cities lest we define the problem of urban areas too narrowly?

Do not forget Bolsover.

I have already made plain to the House that there are quite serious urban problems in nearly all our cities. I remind my hon. Friend that, given the available resources, if we are to make any serious impact we must concentrate on particular areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment from what areas he is proposing to divert resources to help urban areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources he is planning to spend on improving inner city areas.

These are amongst the questions we are considering in the present review of inner city policy.

I did not quite hear what the Secretary of State said.

These are amongst the questions we are considering in the present review of inner city policy.

It perhaps was not worth hearing. However, will the Secretary of State—[An HON. MEMBER: "Tuck your shirt in."] It is a blue flag. After that rather bright beginning I will start again. Does that mean that the Secretary of State is waiting for the Budget on 29th March before making any announcement? Does he agree that, unless he produces some reasonable figures to back up what the Government have said about helping the urban areas in inner cities, it will have been a cruel deception?

I am not intending to make a statement before the Budget, but I am intending to make one fairly quickly afterwards. Of course, resources will have to be found if we are to help the inner cities. However, I am not in a position to anticipate any precise statement at present as to where exactly those resources are coming from.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since 1972 inner city study groups have produced over 40 different reports on inner city problems? When can we hope to have some action as opposed to constant reports and rising expectations which are never fulfilled?

I entirely agree that there has been a totally inadequate action programme to help the inner cities for many years past. I am at present inheriting studies that were set up in 1972 by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who was then Secretary of State for the Environment. They are useful to have, but, my goodness, they have taken a long time. Since I have been Secretary of State for the Environment I have laid deliberate emphasis and stress on tackling inner city problems. I hope shortly to be able to tell the House my conclusions on the studies.

When my right hon. Friend gives his report to the House on the question of the inner cities, will he indicate whether part of that report will be on what the Government intend to do about derelict docklands in cities such as Liverpool, London and elsewhere? Secondly, what help will be given to assist the development of small businesses in inner cities where such businesses have been destroyed because of redevelopment?

My hon. Friend will understand that at this stage I cannot easily anticipate what will be in my statement. In my speech at Bristol, however, I indicated some of the lines of approach that we were pursuing. I shall send my hon. Friend a copy if he has not already received it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to publish any interim report on inner area problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to publish any interim report on inner area problems.

No, Sir. I expect to announce the outcome of the review as a whole next month.

The Secretary of State referred earlier to the fact that these vast reports were initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Government have been in office for three years and that they are supposed to do something about this? Secondly, is he aware that the House wants an opportunity to debate these important matters, which concern hon. Members on both sides? Instead of giving the time-honoured answer that this is a matter for his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, will the Secretary of State say that he will press the Leader of the House to provide time to debate these matters?

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, these reports take time. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) established the studies in 1972 but the reports became available only in December last year. Summaries have only recently been circulated, and we have yet to publish the full reports. We hope to do so shorly. I do not wish to make a conventional response with regard to the hon. Gentleman's other point. I would willingly have a debate, and I shall take up this matter with my right hon. Friend. I cannot do more than that because my right hon. Friend also has other claimants upon the time of the House.

In reviewing the inner city problem, did my right hon. Friend see the report of the debate on docklands on Monday during which I asked for £100 million investment by the Government in docklands to be diverted from existing new town development? If this were possible and were done, would it not mean that there would be no reduction in what already exists in those towns, and no overall increase in Government expenditure, but development where everyone wants it?

I not only read the debate on docklands but I was able to listen to the last half of it. I noted the point made by my hon. Friend, who has a close connection with dockland. At this stage I would not make a close link between the needs expenditure of the inner cities and particular sources where those funds can be found. We have to operate within the PESC limits, but clearly, if we are to help the inner cities, resources will have to come from other programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it remains the overall policy of his Department to eliminate the private landlord.

Private rented housing has been in decline for many years and for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the attractiveness of the other main forms of tenure. As the consultation paper on the review of the Rent Acts explains, we are concerned to safeguard the interests of existing private tenants, to arrest the physical decay of the stock, to encourage letting to meet particular social needs and to encourage new forms of social ownership and management from within the private sector.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. Is he aware that his Government's housing policies have resulted in an increase in homelessness, masses of unoccupied accommodation throughout the country and a proliferation of squatting, to name but three side effects? Will he now realise the outcome of the Government's legislation by envy and spite? Does he admit that it may be better to have one rogue than 100,000 homeless?

The hon. Gentleman takes me to task for not having answered his Question. But his supplementary question does not arise either from the original Question or from the answer that I gave to it. I should make the point, which is not new, that squatting, homelessness and empty properties did not suddenly come into existence after the passage of the Rent Act 1974. [HON. MEMBERS: "It made them worse."] There is no evidence to suggest that the Act made the situation worse. Perhaps I may make the point again, not for the first time, that the biggest annual decrease in rented housing during this century occurred when there was decontrol of properties in 1957. The figures rose to over 200,000 a year compared with the current average of 100,000.

The Minister recognises the grave problem of homelessness, particularly in city areas. Can he give a single reason why a landlord who wishes to let for a limited time and a tenant who wishes to rent for a limited time should not be allowed to do so?

There is nothing in law—I do not understand why this matter is constantly raised—to prevent a tenant who wishes to stay for a short space of time moving on elsewhere if he wishes. That happens now. But one thing is certain. I should make it clear that we do not intend to return to a situation of compulsory mobility—compelling people to leave their homes because of lack of security—such as was experienced at certain times in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing starts took place in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector in Exeter in each of the years 1968 to 1976; and how many are proposed for 1977.

The figures for 1976 were 314 and 514 respectively. Those for earlier years appear in "Local Housing Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. It has been agreed with Exeter City Council that it may start on 115 units during 1977.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's housing policies are a total disaster in Devon and Cornwall, where unemployment in the construction industry has risen above 20 per cent.? Does he recall that in 1969, under the previous Labour Administration, only one major housing firm was left in existence in Exeter? Does he agree that the present policy of switching resources from what is already a stress area in the West Country to the so-called urban stress areas will mean that he finishes up with the same situation again?

The situation in the South-West is indeed serious. I have recently agreed to meet a deputation from the construction industry in Bristol. Exeter put in a bid for 115 houses. We have met that bid. We shall go on discussing with Exeter City Council its further needs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in rate support grant payable to Cambridgeshire over the past three years.

Cambridgeshire's entitlement to needs element in the main Rate Support Grant Orders for 1975–76 and 1976–77 showed increases of 38 per cent. and 23 per cent. respectively over the corresponding payments for the preceding year. The initial entitlement for 1977–78 shows a reduction of 12 per cent. from the 1976–77 total.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the drastic cut in the rate support grant for 1977–78 is a matter of deep concern to my constituents and is regarded as grossly excessive and politically motivated? Does he not recognise that Cambridgeshire is the fastest-growing county in the country and is, indeed, a special case?

I am very much aware of what the hon. Gentleman says, because delegations from Cambridgeshire have seen both my right hon. Friend and myself. We have deliberately gone out of our way to see the counties and urban areas that have been particularly hard hit by the settlement. But the settlement as a whole is generally recognised to be a hard one in present economic circumstances. The cut-back from 65½ cent. to 61 per cent. in the Government's contribution is one example. Another aspect is that to some degree this hits certain counties like Cambridgeshire because new indicators have been brought into the assessment to try to ensure that money goes to the areas where the need is greatest. The assessment is objectively done and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not politically motivated.

My constituents will be pleased to hear the Minister's last remark. Does he not accept that for local government to function properly there needs to be forward planning? The way things have gone to date, with a sudden deterioration in the local grant, means that it is absolutely impossible to provide the services for which Cambridgeshire has quite rightly been famous.

I am well aware of Cambridgeshire's problems. I have seen delegations deliberately in order to try to see what can be done. One of the things I want to look at is the possibility of restricting loss of grant beyond a predetermined level—some kind of safety net. That is one of the ideas I am considering in view of what has been said to me about certain areas that have suffered particularly badly.

How can the Minister be satisfied that the allocation of the needs element is fair when the £3·7 billion is allocated largely on the basis of the 1971 census figures and on the expenditure of the local authorities in previous years? Surely he must accept that if local authorities are to plan their expenditure they need to have a promise of continuity from one year to another about the support they will get.

I have already dealt with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. With regard to his first point, I would be the first to accept that there is an element of rough justice about the present system of allocating needs element. Nevertheless it is objective, and, unfortunately, it has to be based upon indicators which the hon. Gentleman has said—and I agree—are out of date. But those are the inevitable circumstances in which we have to operate in order to try to produce a system which is objective and is seen to be so.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in rate support grant payable to West Sussex over the past three years.

West Sussex's entitlement to needs element under the main Rate Support Grant Orders for 1975–76 and 1976–77 showed increases of 43 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively over the corresponding payments for the preceding year. The initial entitlement for 1977–78 shows a reduction of 3 per cent. from the 1976–77 total.

While it is right and proper that the county should take its fair share of the reduction in public expenditure, may I ask how it can be right to penalise the county still further by changing the distribution formula of the rate support grant in favour of metropolitan areas? Why penalise the Sussex ratepayers?

I ought to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the redistribution is not specifically to metropolitan areas but to areas with special needs in order to spend sums of money on the services they provide. Many of them happen to be metropolitan areas, but others are not. That is the basis upon which the redistribution has gone. Only a moment ago Conservative Members were stressing the need for money to go to the inner city areas, and that point needs to be taken on board.

Is it not the case that since April 1974 the ratepayers of the metropolitan counties have fared far worse than the ratepayers of both West Sussex and Cambridgeshire? Will my hon. Friend be careful before introducing any safety net arrangements, because they could be extremely unfair to a large number of people who have borne the heaviest share of the burden in the last three years?

My hon. Friend mentioned the burden borne by ratepayers in metropolitan areas. I can tell him that the average rate payable in my borough is £140. I shall certainly take the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Is the Minister aware that the rate increase for West Sussex for the current year is only 19 per cent.? That is one of the lowest in the whole country. Will he tell the House how he justifies this system when authorities which exercise restraint with regard to their own expenditure are penalised whereas other authorities which carry out reckless expenditure are encouraged to carry out even more?

That is totally untrue. It is not true to say that authorities which have economised are penalised. That is not the case at all. That is not the basis upon which the needs element is assessed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of current council housing costs it is currently estimated will be met by rebated rents in 1976–77 and 1977–78.

The latest estimates of housing revenue account expenditure to be met by rents for dwellings—net of rebates—and other rents in England in 1976–77 and 1977–78 are about 43 per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively.

Will the Minister confirm that when the country finally returns to free collective bargaining the Government will no longer force the taxpayers to give these vast subsidies to council tenants?

I thought that it had been agreed by both sides that housing was so important that the public have a responsibility to ensure that everyone is adequately housed. We are anxious to help particularly in the housing of those who are vulnerable. That is the basis of our subsidy.