asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains satisfied with the operation of the Community Land Act.

The scheme has made a satisfactory beginning. I look forward to its steady growth in bringing forward land where it is most needed.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to regenerate the older conurbations it is essential that industry, particularly small industry, should be encouraged to move into such areas? Will my hon. Friend therefore ensure that the procedures of the Act are simplified to enable local authorities to dispose of land to industry more quickly than they can now?

I am not aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. I accept completely what he has said about the need to regenerate the inner areas, and my Department is looking at the provisions of the Act to see how relevant they are to the problem.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, due to the Community Land Act, there is a desperate shortage of housing land for builders to purchase, and that, as a result, there will be increases in the price of houses that will cause suffering to the young first-time house buyers that he is trying to help and protect?

I am aware of no such situation.

I welcome the use that has already been made of the Act, but will the Minister consider giving special permission for development areas such as Tyneside to make fuller use of it for industrial and well as housing development?

Right from the start, we have been anxious not to use the Act as an instrument of regional policy. On the other hand, we are anxious to see the Act used within the regions, as far as it can be, for the benefit of better planning and in the service of better social objectives.

Is the Minister aware that in the spring of this year the Community Land Act nearly deprived my constituency of a desperately-needed industrial development with 80 jobs attached to it? Private industry is reluctant to build factories on leasehold land—even with a long lease—because it is not only more difficult but vastly more expensive. Will the Government there for consider amending the Act in that respect?

In the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, the Act did not deprive her constituents of jobs. We try to operate the Act in an intelligent and sensitive manner, and that was precisely what we did on that occasion.

May I assure the Minister that this is a growing problem, because it is Government policy to insist that local authorities dispose of industrial land only on 99-year leases? It is impossible for many industrialists to obtain finance for new factories on that basis. Will the Government look at this again?

That tax is a matter for the Chancellor. I am not aware of the position that the hon. Gentleman has described. No doubt he is aware that the Act makes it possible for local authorities to make land available for house building for owner-occupation. On the hon. Member's first point, I am not aware of such a growing problem, and, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), we try to operate the Act in an intelligent fashion. If a good case is made out, we are prepared to consider allowing longer leases, for example, when there are funding problems of the sort that the hon. Gentleman described.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for introducing new rules to deal with the tendering and accounts of local authority direct labour departments.

I shall introduce new rules on accounting, charging and tendering when we have the opportunity for comprehensive legislation on local authority direct labour organisations.

This does not need legislation. The right hon. Gentleman could bring these rules in without comprehensive legislation. Is it not the case that the disastrous loss of ratepayers' money by many direct labour organisations is due in part to the fact that there is no cost control in their accountancy systems or assessment of progress, and that they know how much they have lost only when it is too late to regain it?

There are far too many generalisations and mini-truths mixed up in that supplementary question. In the first place, the matter does require comprehensive legislation. That has been clearly established in the course of debates in the House in recent months. Secondly, I do not accept the generalised remarks that the right hon. Gentleman made about direct labour organisations. There are direct labour organisations which are inefficient and there are private firms which are inefficient. There are, equally, DLOs which have sometimes added burdens to the ratepayers and many private firms which have likewise imposed burdens on them. It is about time that we stopped this ideological conflict.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that where direct labour organisations are well run, such as in the cities of Sheffield and Manchester, they make a valuable contribution to the local authority building programme and in helping the ratepayers, often providing a service where the private sector has fallen down badly, such as in the employment of disabled people and a proportion of apprentices?

My hon. Friend is right. There are many instances of excellent practices by DLOs which have saved the ratepayers many millions of pounds over the years.

Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the events in South Tyneside District Council where, apart from amassing an enormous loss, the DLO has had to declare over half of its work force redundant? Is he further aware that some councillors there are calling for a proper inquiry into what has been going on? Will he direct his attention to that?

If the local council and the district auditor, who handles such matters, wish to proceed, they will, no doubt, do so. They require no instructions from me in this connection. They have all the authority they need to handle such questions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is mainly in Tory-controlled councils that the direct labour departments are apparently, according to Opposition Members, a failure, because of the sabotaging methods used by Tory councillors? Is he further aware that the morale of the work force is being lowered as a result of practices by Tory-controlled councils? Will he take action to stop it?

I am aware that there are arguments at local level—they are not confined to one side of the political spectrum, if one takes a period of years—that are not directed to the most efficient use of direct works organisations. I am aware also that there are local councils of all political persuasions which have used direct works organisations very effectively. I only wish that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches would act a little more rationally and in a little less doctrinaire fashion in this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some local authorities which ought to be putting their house in order in this matter and setting a good example even to private industry? Is it possible for him to issue a circular setting out model clauses incorporating accounting procedures that local authorities should adopt? If not, he should legislate.

I have that in mind, and I have stated as much clearly in the House. I take this opportunity to remind the House that it was the Government's wish to introduce legislation to deal with this question but that Opposition Members opposed us on the matter, as they have done on previous occasions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better for some Opposition Members to find out what they are talking about in relation to Tyneside authorities before making sweeping allegations?

My hon. Friend confirms that much is said in heat and ignorance and that it is about time the subject was studied more quietly and rationally by Opposition Members.

Order. Before we go on, may I make an appeal for shorter questions and answers? Five Questions are being answered together on the next Question, all from one party. I shall call other Members afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that voluntary works organisations receive a substantial proportion of the funds available under the recently announced urban aid programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local authorities to circulate details of each phase of the urban aid programme not only to established voluntary organisations but to neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies as well.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that 50 per cent. of each phase of the urban aid programme goes to voluntary organisations, neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that half the grant aid available under the urban aid programme is earmarked for voluntary organisations, neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local authorities to circulate details of each phase of the urban aid programme not only to established voluntary organisations but to self-help bodies, community groups and neighbourhood councils as well.

I am sure that local authorities will want to keep in close touch with voluntary organisations, which can make a most valuable contribution to solving urban problems. The proportion of funds allocated to them will depend very much on local circumstances and on the local authorities' view of the best way of tackling their problems. I would not wish to limit the flexibility of the urban programme, or the discretion of the local authorities, by laying down centrally fixed proportions to be allocated to a particular type of body.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is necessary to involve people living in the inner city areas in any work that is being done, and that there is unfortunately often some antipathy between voluntary organisations and local authorities, which is why I asked that there should be some direction of the funds being made available?

I think that we would all agree that it is very important to involve the people in our cities—certainly in our cities with the worst problems—in the programmes of revitalisation which all of them wish to undertake. I believe that most local authorities have a whole network of connections with voluntary bodies in their areas. They are aware of the contribution that voluntary bodies can make, and I believe that that contribution will be a growing one in the period ahead.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that local authorities do not merely take all the money made available under the urban aid programme as a means of getting extra rate support through the back door? Does he agree that the best way to get people involved is to say that all those who have made applications under the urban aid programme should be involved in the distribution process of determining which schemes should go forward to the Home Office, rather than let local authorities determine the matter on their own?

The Act puts the responsibility on the local authorities to make application. They are closer to the ground in their own areas than we can hope to be centrally. I believe it right that they should have the responsibility of acting as a sieve for various proposals put forward. I do not believe that local authorities have shown themselves insensitive to the rôle that voluntary bodies can play. Indeed, voluntary bodies have received a high proportion of the money made available in recent years.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why certain applications were not successful? Is not some form of positive discrimination needed to make sure that a higher proportion of these community initiatives is satisfied and funded by an increased urban aid programme?

We certainly have to look at the programme in the future, but in the recent past the proportion going to voluntary bodies has increased. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are always far more applications for urban aid than it is possible for the Government to meet.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that voluntary organisations, local residents and local bodies normally know best how their local environment can be improved? If he does, will he take a stage further his original answer and ensure that the Department monitors carefully each local authority's contacts with local voluntary organisations?

I believe that local people know best, and I include in them the elected local councillors who represent their areas. That point really must be understood. The hon. Gentleman asked about monitoring. I am particularly taking up with the new partnership authorities under the inner city programme the whole question of how they can bring into the picture in perhaps a more regular way the local bodies in their areas in order to help them play their part in the programme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present it is the local authorities that are under the most pressure, as they have great difficulty in finding the 25 per cent. contribution? As a result, neighbourhood, community and self-help groups suffer most, yet they have a valuable contribution to make. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the difficulty created by the rejection of applications of this sort. When he says that he will look again at urban aid, will he consider the 25 per cent. requirement? To demand that contribution of a local authority may operate as a considerable stumbling block when it cannot meet the demand. It may be possible to amend that requirement.

I am not aware that the urban grant arrangement—namely, the 75 per cent. that central Government pay —has caused difficulties. Local authorities have come forward in almost all cases with substantial programmes which they are willing to finance with their 25 per cent. We have not always been able to match all that they want with the 75 per cent. central Government contribution. In the inner city programmes we are widening the urban aid concept so that we are concerned not exclusively with social problems but with environmental problems and the need to stimulate industry and employment in those areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by the county councils in their survey of suitable sites for waste disposal.

Section 2 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is not yet in operation, but of the 46 county waste disposal authorities in England I understand that 15 have completed or nearly completed their surveys, 22 have begun working on them and nine have not yet started.

In view of public concern about the disposal of waste, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that fast enough progress is being made? If not, what does he intend to do about it?

The information that I have just given the House shows that much progress has been made on a voluntary basis by local authorities that are anxious to proceed. As for the implementation of Section 2, which I want to introduce as fast as I can, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in touch with the local authority associations on that very point. As soon as they think that it is appropriate for us to implement Section 2, I shall be happy to do so on behalf of the Government.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of his Department carrying out a national survey to locate those areas able to receive waste material and those areas that need to get rid of it? In that way, would it not be possible to remove much of the dereliction at a relatively low national cost, bearing in mind the large pockets of unemployment and spare railway capacity in derelict areas?

I understand the philosophy behind my hon. Friend's question and I entitrely agree with it. I believe that the Control of Pollution Act will bring about some result, but by a rather different method, namely, by making it the responsibility of the local authorities exporting waste to co-ordinate arrangements in conjunction with the receiving areas. By these processes I think that we shall achieve what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the waste disposal authorities and water authorities have an adequate basis of information upon which to determine the most suitable sites for waste disposal? In the absence of a hydro-geological survey and criteria being issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, is there not a risk that much wasted work will take place?

I do not think that that is quite true, but what is true is that the reason for our not being able to implement Section 2 initially was mainly the scarce resources of skilled manpower capable of carrying out these services. That is what was holding us up initially. I have given figures that show that local authorities are getting over the problem of the lack of skilled manpower. That is what is shown by the surveys that are now being undertaken. I have every confidence that we can very soon meet the objectives of the Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in for his decision proposals for any new development taking place on Hurst Spit.

No, Sir. Any application for planning permission for such proposals would be for the local planning authority to consider in the first place, but I understand that there are at present no outstanding applications in relation to this site.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prominent part of the Spit has been advertised for sale—namely, the part adjacent to the castle, including the coastguard cottages? Is he aware that the advertisement includes the phrase "of interest to builders"? Does he appreciate that this is totally unacceptable to local opinion, which is scandalised that any development on this unique piece of land can even be considered? As the Department owns the castle, does the hon. Gentleman not consider it important that the total environment should be preserved? If he cannot call in the application, will he at least encourage the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Trust or the county council to do what it can to acquire the land when the sale takes place?

Obviously I cannot accept responsibility for advertisements that appear for the sale of land. I repeat what I said in my original answer, that no planning application has yet appeared. I am satisfied that normal planning powers are sufficient, but in the first instance any application must be considered by the local authority, which is aware that this is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a site of special scientific interest.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of subsidies for council house rents during the current financial year and during the year ending 5th April 1979.

I estimate that in 1977–78 central Government and rate fund contributions to housing revenue accounts in England will total about £1,220 million, plus about £320 million for rent rebates. The corresponding figures for 1978-79 are £1,230 million and £370 million.

Do not these escalating figures contrast with the Government's new commitment to bring about a substantial and continuing reduction in the share of resources required for the public sector? What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to bring about a more realistic and more fair policy of allocating housing subsidies?

In the first instance I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Green Paper that was published recently, which sets out proposals for new subsidy arrangements and policy changes. That will be followed by a great deal of consultation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the myth that has been propagated for many years that council tenants benefit at the expense of private owner-occupiers should now be laid to rest? Is it not a fact that major concessions are made to private householders and that it is the council tenants who suffer?

Speaking in global terms, the assistance being provided to local authority tenants and, to some extent, to private tenants by way of supplementary benefit and rent allowances is in line with the global provision by way of tax relief to home owners. In those global terms they are equally treated, although one can argue about the detailed application within each sector and the way in which the money is provided by way of general assistance.

Why are the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave the House about £300 million less than the figures given in the 1972 public expenditure survey that was carried out by the Government? What is the average amount by which council rents would have to be raised to meet the policy set out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasurey last November, namely, that the proportion of costs met by rebated rents should be increased from 43 per cent. to 50 per cent.? By what figure will total subsidies be reduced when that policy is implemented?

The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions that are partly erroneously phrased. His reference to the Chief Secretary's statement of last November was inaccurate. The figures to which reference was made were forecast figures at that time. Trends in interest rates and other factors are volatile. In fact, interest rates have come down. A 1 per cent. change in the interest rate can make a difference of about £140 million on the bill. We need only to have changes up and down sharply during the year to get significant changes in the total figures. That is the general answer to the first part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been acquired by local authorities to date under the Community Land Act.

It is too early to add to the provisional figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) on 12th May.

As the Minister, from an earlier answer, seems unaware of the evidence of a forthcoming land shortage for housing, will he look at the recent House-Builders Federation report "Land for Housing", which clearly shows that a land famine is taking place in some parts of the country? Now that his right hon. Friend has adopted a welcome and more practical approach to extending home ownership in his Green Paper, will he complete the process by putting the Community Land Act on ice and making representations about reducing development land tax to ensure that land is forthcoming?

Under the Community Land Act 1,500 acres have been acquired from willing sellers in the first year, which was a short year because it began as late as August. There does not appear to be any difficulty in the current year in obtaining land for building purposes. Obviously my right hon. Friend and I will examine the situation in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said.

So far from freezing the Community Land Act, will my hon. Friend unfreeze it to enable local authorities that are eager to make fuller use of it to do precisely that?

Yes. We want to encourage local authorities to buy land, particularly for industrial and housing purposes, so long as the likelihood is that it will be taken up within a reasonable time. We are afraid that land that has been purchased will lie vacant and unused for some years. We hope to operate the Act in the light of demands for land.

Will the Minister now give the House the figure that he did not give in his first answer—namely, that while local authorities bought 1,571 acres of land last year, they resold only 29 acres? Does he agree that builders looking for land from that source will be disappointed?

When we consider that the purchases of land were from August onwards, the fact that only 29 acres for house building purposes have so far been disposed of should not be surprising. The hon. Gentleman, with his professional background, should not find it at all surprising.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his White Paper on the water industry, Command Paper No. 6876.

The Government's main decisions on the review of the water industry, and the reasons for them, were set out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 13th July.

Is the Minister aware that there will be a warm welcome on both sides of the House, I suspect, for the reprieve of the private water companies, including the Essex Water Company, which does a fine job for its consumers, including myself? Would it not be more sensible if he now lifted the threat of nationalisation, which is not wanted either by the employees of these companies or by their consumers? Will he now give them the opportunity to get on confidently with their job without this threat hanging over them?

Our view is that it is totally inconsistent to have a divided water industry. Experience in recent years has shown that our great national water resource ought to be contained within one industry. We have said, I think with unbecoming frankness, that at the moment we have not got a majority in this Parliament to carry our view into fruition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is strong feeling in the country that the continuance of private water companies is an anomaly and that we need a stronger national water organisation, as proposed in the White Paper? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on proposals for a national navigation authority? Will it be for canals only, or will it extend to changing the status of the existing small navigation authorities which are to be found in different parts of the United Kingdom?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole purport of our proposal is to show that we cannot possibly, in logic, have 10 separate nationalised industries operating within one area. There must be a strong central strategy, planning and resource facility, which we propose for the National Water Authority.

Does the Minister agree that the term "private water companies" is incorrect? Is it not more correct to describe them as statutory water undertakings? Will he accept from me, having some knowledge of water companies, in which I declare an interest, that the staffs of the water companies have overwhelmingly decided that they would prefer to stay out of a nationalised concern?

To deal with the last point first, that is not so. There is a divided view. The unions, whether manual or non-manual, are entirely at one in saying that they would like their members to be within the publicly-owned sector.

They are unrepresentative.

No, they are not unrepresentative. As a matter of fact, branches of NALGO from very large authorities, such as the Bristol Waterworks Company, have written to me emphatically along lines totally contradicting the view that has been put forward.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that a little time ago he gave his blessing to the improvement of the South Yorkshire canal waterway so that the boats could travel between Hull and Rotherham? Therefore, will he now say that the improvement of this waterway will start in the near future?

My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that I gave my blessing to the philosophy and principle of the South Yorkshire waterway. Unfortunately, no private enterprise or public authority has yet guaranteed us sufficient traffic, if we spend the capital on it, to justify taking that decision.

Is the Minister aware that in terms of efficiency and consumer relations the private water companies compare very well with the regional water authorities? Is he further aware that only a small minority of employees and the Labour Party are in favour of nationalisation, and that no one else in the country is?

The answer on efficiency is "Yes and No". Some are better and more efficient than others.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I—

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put his point of order after Question Time?

I should like to put it now, Mr. Speaker.

No.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights, but he is not being fair to the rest of the House.

In view of my right hon. Friend's unsatisfactory answer to a supplementary question, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will pay an official visit to East London to consider policy on rehabilitation of existing homes.

My right hon. Friend and I are in close touch with East London local authorities on all housing matters including rehabilitation.

Has the Minister yet asked Yorkshire Television for the papers relating to dealings between the Greater London Council and Novo and Second Genesis? What proposals does he have to prevent taxpayers' and ratepayers' money being made over to unregistered housing associations?

In the first place, it was not a matter of taxpayers' money being made over. Secondly, it is a matter for the GLC. Thirdly, it is not relevant to any official visit that my right hon. Friend or I might make or talks that we might have with East London housing authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his proposal for a charter for local authority tenants.

I expect to receive representations in response to the consultation paper, amplifying the proposals con- tained in the Green Paper, which I shall be issuing shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities with responsibility for housing are neglecting essential repairs and maintenance of council house property? Does not he think that this is outrageous, particularly in view of the fact that public expenditure cuts are being used as an excuse? Will he take steps to meet this situation by introducing a tenants' charter as a matter of urgency?

I deplore any attempt by local authorities to cut down on the standard of maintenance and repairs. There can be no justification for it in terms of public expenditure constraints, because the controls that we have been imposing in recent times have related to capital expenditure and not to revenue programmes, to which my hon. Friend refers. On the question of the tenants' charter, it is certainly the case that those local authorities that are encouraging tenants' management schemes and tenant participation in various aspects of management are able to maintain higher standards and encourage higher standards. This will be an important aspect of the tenants' charter that we shall be seeking to implement. There is no reason at all why a number of the proposals discussed in the Green Paper cannot and should not be implemented now by local authorities. I have been spending a great deal of time in the last three years as Minister encouraging local authorities and housing associations to do just that.

Does the Minister agree that the first essential of a council tenants' charter—in the view of council tenants, not politicians—is the chance for tenants to buy their own houses or flats?

No, that is not the first point put to me as a local Member of Parliament, as an ex-member of local government, or as a Minister. If one were to give a choice—this is difficult because it varies from one area to another—far more emphasis is placed on the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) than on the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg).

Will the charter apply to tenants of commissions for new towns and development corporations? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, in the charter, encouragement can be given to local authorities to make it easier for tenants of public property to transfer or exchange?

On the first point, it will be our general intention to apply the ideas set out in the proposed tenants' charter to the tenants of all public sector property. A number of aspects of the tenants' charter will be equally applicable to tenants of private landlords, to whom we shall come in due time. The point that my hon. Friend is making will be taken on board as we proceed with the transfer of new town estates to local authority ownership in the coming years.

Does the Minister remember that when a council tenants' Bill, introduced by Conservatives, was voted down by the Government, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing then gave an assurance that the Government would introduce a Bill on similar lines? Will the Minister undertake that such a Bill will be included in the next Session of Parliament?

I can no more give that undertaking than, if the House had voted in favour of his Bill, the hon. Gentleman could have given an undertaking that a place would be found for that Bill in the queue of Private Members' Bills.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had subsequent to the Government's reply to the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

We have received a favourable response on the White Paper from the Royal Commission. As regards implementation, the detailed arrangements for the Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Committee are in hand, and a review of the research programme has begun.

In the right hon. Gentleman's conversations in the light of the Government's White Paper, has the Secretary of State been prompted to reconsider his rather negative attitude to the proposal for a nuclear waste disposal corporation as recommended in the Flowers Report? What steps have been taken to establish the high-level independent body to look at the interaction between energy policy and environmental policy, and when will we get a debate in Parliament on this very important issue?

I recognise and welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this most important matter. I would like to be more forthcoming but I cannot say when we are having a debate. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to press for a debate. He will have every support that I can give him. I have not rejected the idea of a nuclear waste disposal corporation. I have said that I would seek the advice of the waste disposal advisory committee on the question whether such a corporation would be a useful further development of our disposal policy. I shall put that question to that body when we have formed it. As for the high-level body to advise the Secretary of State for Energy and myself, I hope that we shall be able to make progress on that after my right hon. Friend announces the completion of the formation of the Energy Commission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please bear in mind that many of us would welcome a statutorily formed nuclear waste advisory committee and would welcome that body being given some executive functions? What steps have been taken to form it?

We are obviously consulting widely, but I hope before long to be able to announce the composition of the advisory committee as well as its terms of reference. As for its having executive powers, the hon. Member will recognise from my statement that I am not as yet persuaded that it is right. The advisory committee will give us valuable advice on how we should exercise our responsibilities in this field, including the field of research.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the three key factors in the whole nuclear energy programme? Does he agree that there is no case for proceeding with the nuclear power programme until this problem is solved?

As my hon. Friend rightly says, the satisfactory disposal of nuclear waste is the key to the future large-scale development of nuclear power. That is precisely why, in response to the Royal Commission, we have taken a number of new initiatives and set up a number of new organisations to help solve this most difficult of problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is currently the total number of full-time and part-time staff employed by the regional water authorities in England and Wales; and what is the percentage change since April 1974.

I understand from the National Water Council that the latest available figure for full-time and part-time equivalent staff employed by the regional water authorities in England and Wales is 60,473 at 31st March 1976. There is no directly comparable figure for April 1974.

Does the Minister agree that his new Water Charges Equalisation Bill will do nothing to streamline or reduce staff because it will pay those authorities which now have to pay over to the receiving authorities to take on more staff so that they avoid paying over large sums to the receiving authorities?

I agree that the Bill will do nothing on staffing, simply because it is not designed to do so. It is designed to bring a sense of equality and fairness to Wales, East Anglia and northern areas which pay a disproportionately high charge for their domestic water supplies.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and his Conservative colleagues that the Conservative Party was completely responsible for setting up the regional water authorities? Many of us sat up night after night in the House opposing that measure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Parkinson's law has operated here, as I suspect it has, it is entirely the responsibility of the Conservative Party?

My hon. Friend is quite right. I was on the Opposition Front Bench at the time and led our opposition to this increase in bureaucracy. I must point out that whereas every ratepayer had one local authority doing these jobs, as a result of the Bill introduced by the Conservatives ratepayers now find district councils, county councils, water authorities and health authorities involved. That is four bureaucracies for the price of one that we face as a result.

Is there any monitoring of performance between the various regional authorities? Does the Minister agree that it is a generally-held view that the provisions of the Water Charges Equalisation Bill are diametrically opposed to the management techniques which we desperately wish to see in the water industry?

I am not sure that that is right. No doubt the complicated reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put forward explain why he abstained from voting on my proposal. I must correct what I said a moment ago when I said that we now have four bureaucracies for the price of one. In fact we have four bureaucracies for more than four times the price of one.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that existing planning legislation is adequate to deal with the noise and nuisance created by the establishment of temporary fairgrounds in residential areas.

Noise and nuisance, whether at temporary fairgrounds or elsewhere, are subject to control by other legislation rather than by planning law.

Is the Minister aware that a funfair recently descended upon a field in West Wickham in my constituency? In the event, the disturbance to local residents was rather less than had originally been anticipated. However, does this not indicate the need for much stricter planning control over intrusions of this kind into predominantly residential areas?

Although I spent my earliest years in West Wickham, I am not aware of the fair that has settled in a residential area. I maintain, however, that it would be inappropriate to extend planning law to deal with the matter. Instead, local authorities should serve an order under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to deal with noise and should use the Public Health Acts 1961 and 1936 to deal with the litter and health hazards. I believe that those powers are adequate.

Does the Minister realise that the public need protection against the local authorities? In my constituency a fair has descended on us. It has been impossible to hold church services because of the noise from generators, and there is serious concern about the complete lack of toilet facilities.

Clearly, residents who feel that they are affected in this way should first make representations to their local authorities to use the powers that I have described. Failing that, they have the right to go to local magistrates if they cannot agree with the local authority about existence of a statutory nuisance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made in concluding partnerships with local authorities with inner city problems other than those named in the announcement of 6th April.

Over 20 local authorities have approached me about partnership arrangements. My colleagues and I are considering their submissions and have seen representatives of many of the areas concerned. I hope to reach decisions in the next few weeks. As I have explained, the scope for further partnerships will be strictly limited.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and the speed with which he has processed this matter, bearing in mind that the original statement was made only in April. May I urge him to treat this as a matter of utmost urgency, so that cities such as Leeds, if they are lucky in their applications, can get on with the work as quickly as possible?

I am conscious of the need for speed. We have received slightly more applications than I had expected, and this has meant a little delay. However, I intend to complete the processes of selection within the next few weeks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these will be genuine partnerships and that the authorities will not be subject to dictation from central Government on matters that are of purely local concern?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We do not intend to dictate. We intend to have genuine partnerships. Unless there is a real willingness to enter a partnership, the right psychological and planning support that is necessary to make the scheme a success will not be forthcoming.

I welcome the progress that is being made in dealing with the grave problems of the inner city areas. However, will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that similar problems that exist on a smaller scale in smaller towns of the older industrial areas of England are not ignored, to the grave disadvantage of the people who do not live in the cities?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I do not intend to ignore the many small urban authorities which have these problems but which are not within the special category of partnership authorities. We shall do our best to assist them, too.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the recent debate he stated that his inner city partners would have to reallocate their resources? What exactly does he mean by reallocation? Will he say as clearly as possible what local authority services he expects will be reduced as a result of the reallocation of inner city programmes?

That is obviously a detailed matter for the local authorities themselves. We are saying to the local authorities, however, that, apart from the urban aid programme grants that we are giving, the Government are prepared to look at their main programmes of expenditure and to seek to give greater priority to those areas with the greatest needs and problems. We would expect local authorities to look at their total expenditure and at the possibility of giving extra assistance to those parts of their areas where the needs are greatest.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what general policy guidelines are given to planning appeal inspectors in connection with the need to give adequate regard to the effect that the granting of planning permission for residential development may have on local schools; and if he will make a statement.

The only guidance given to inspectors on this matter draws their attention to the guidelines annexed to Circular 122/73, "Land Availability for Housing". The guidelines advised local authorities that when a decision on an application for planning permission for residential development turned on the availability of infrastructure, including schools, authorities should, in preference to a refusal on the ground that infrastructure was lacking, consider how and when the infrastructure might be provided.

Is the Minister aware that in counties such as Bedfordshire, where there has been continuous expensive London overspill for 20 years, the facilities for the population that was there before the overspill began have not kept pace? Since we are told that overspill is to end, a great catching-up operation is needed in those counties where most of the resources have gone on dealing with overspill. Will he bear this in mind in thinking about the rate support grant order for November, since the counties surrounding London have had this expensive overspill operation to contend with? Is he aware that, if planning inspectors are careless about the effect upon schools of allowing residential development, it could mean that the counties risk not satisfying the Department of Education and Science on the provision of adequate schooling?

The principal grounds upon which a planning inspector needs to give a decision concern future land use. It may be right for the inspector in Bedfordshire or anywhere else to allow development to proceed and to expect improved or enlarged facilities, such as schools, to be provided for new residents. I well understand the sort of problems that arise in areas such as that of the hon. Gentleman, but inspectors must be left to consider the facts of individual cases against the background of policy contained in development plans and circulars and in the light of all material considerations.

Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider providing guidelines for planning appeal inspectors so that they may have regard to the efforts and endeavours of local authorities that are trying to attract industry to their areas to alleviate growing unemployment? Is he aware that these efforts are being frustrated by some planning inspectors who are returning incredible decisions and who are allowing warehouses to be built on sites that should be reserved for industry? Is he aware that this blights the prospects for job creation schemes and is contrary to the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment? Will my hon. Friend look at this problem, which is particularly serious in West London?

I recognise the importance of this point. My hon. Friend may not be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently issued a circular—I believe it is Circular 71/77—which draws attention precisely to this point. Since it is a departmental circular, inspectors will consider it in making their decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to meet representatives of the construction industry and allied professions, following their meeting with the Prime Minister and himself on 16th June at which it was agreed that further discussions should take place with himself; and what specific action has ensued since that meeting.

I met representatives of the construction industry on 22nd July. Further measures to assist the industry were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th July, and we shall continue to do all we can to help the industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the findings of the builders' federation this week that 74 per cent. of construction firms are working at three-quarters capacity or less, that the position is likely to continue for the rest of this year, and that the level of construction unemployment is quite outrageous?

I accept that the levels of unemployment are intolerably high. As for the other matters in the survey, I should obviously want to look at it in detail. However, the problems of the industry are very great. In the course of this year we have done our best to mitigate those problems. We have increased construction expenditure by about £230 million since the beginning of the year. I believe that while difficulties in this area are very grave there is some better prospect for next year.

Are not the restorations to which my right hon. Friend has just referred very small in comparison with the cuts? Does he agree that they go nowhere near restoring the situation? Will he therefore support the TUC, the Labour Party and one or two representatives of the construction industry and reverse the cuts, in view of the 1.6 million unemployed and the colossal tragedy of housing shortages?

My hon. Friend knows that all on the Government side of the House are in favour of restoring public expenditure levels as they affect the construction industry as soon as the financial and economic situation allows.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that the level of unemployment is intolerable, may we take it that he means that if it does not rapidly go down he will leave his office to show that he cannot tolerate it? Alternatively, will he tolerate it and stay in office?

The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) used the word "outrageous" and I agreed that the situation was intolerable. Unlike the Opposition, who are in favour of increasing public expenditure cuts, we are doing our utmost to help the construction industry in every way we can.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of these forward-looking reviews and in-depth studies will solve the problem? The Secretary of State cannot, like some of his colleagues on the Front Bench, blame the weather and the Continentals. Does he agree that there is a simple equation? There are 800 million bricks, 250,000 construction workers on the dole, and thousands of homeless needing roofs. Any economist should be able to solve that equation.

I am always happy to have my own resolve fortified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). What he leaves out of the equation, as he puts it, is the whole problem of public expenditure, with which we also have to deal.

The IMF. The Common Market.

I do not wish to interrupt the private conversation between the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could help overcome unemployment in the building industry if he were not so complacent about the supply of land? Does he agree that that would be the quickest way of helping unemployment and that it would not require any extra expenditure by the Government?

We have answered that question. We have examined the evidence and we are not aware that this is a serious problem at present. However, we shall continue to monitor the situation. Of course, we shall take what action we can should that apprehension show any signs of turning into reality.

Yesterday the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised the question of the provision of non-parliamentary papers from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have asked the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Civil Service to look into this as a matter of urgency. I shall communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that some of us are interested in this matter and intend to put in application forms for that document? May we have a further statement in the House before Friday asking the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Civil Service to report to you in time for you to convey that information to the House?

I shall see whether it is possible. I do not want to build the hon. Member's hopes too high.