asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the partnership agreements in relation to the inner city areas of Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

Substantial progress has been made in establishing partnership machinery and in starting work on an inner area programme. Work is already in hand on an £11 million package of construction works for completion by April 1979, and I have recently announced an allocation of £30 million under the urban programme to Birmingham for the period 1979–80 to 1981–82. At least £1 million of urban programme support will be available next year. I shall chair the first meeting of the Birmingham Partnership on 13th December.

I am sure that the Minister welcomes the energetic co-operation of the Birmingham Council in these matters. Is he aware that the Government's statements about partnership agreements are misleading when they refer to the sums of money that have been made available? I say that because the money is provided mainly by means of loan sanctions which authorise local authorities to borrow extra sums at a time when the Government are operating cash limits themselves throughout all Government expenditure. Does the Minister realise that consequently extra costs fall upon taxpayers who live in the middle and outer areas of Birmingham and other cities?

There is nothing misleading at all. The situation is the same as it has always been. When a Government announce or authorise capital works programmes, that implies loan raising. There is nothing secret about that. In this context we are arranging considerable grant aid so that a good deal of the burden will be obviated by central Government assistance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems of the older industrial towns in the Black Country, whose needs are not dissimilar to those of our major cities but whose claims he has not been able to meet under the increased urban aid programme? Will he give priority and practical help to the metropolitan borough of Sandwell by providing assistance from the £400 million that has been allocated to the construction programme?

The £400 million construction industry package is already the subject of distribution or allocation. There is then the question whether there is any scope to assist local authorities outside the partnership agreements to embark upon inner city or inner city-type programmes. We see the partnership agreements and the programme authority initiatives as the first important steps towards developing policy in this area. We shall bear in mind other areas with similar problems.

Will my right hon. Friend use the partnership agreement with Birmingham to try to persuade the city council to levy rates on empty office blocks instead of giving £1 million a year from the rates to property developers? Will he also liberalise the bureaucratic rules that govern council tenants to enable some of them to paint their front doors a different colour?

The powers for local authorities to rate empty properties already exist. They may use the powers according to local judgment. We are sympathetic towards the problems caused by tenancy agreements. We have been doing a great deal of work in the Department with the management advisory group and we have issued guidance to local authorities on tenant participation and on the relaxation of the bureaucratic rules that exist in a number of areas.

Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of enabling tenants to participate is to give them the right to buy their own homes?

They already have that right.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is indicating from a seated position, the authority is already there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will direct his attention to the needs of tenants in tenanted estates. I hope that he will not push too far the policy that he is rather indiscriminately pursuing, which would reduce the supply of rented property.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the partnership agreement in relation to the inner area of London; and if he will make a statement.

Considerable progress has been made. The partnerships in Docklands and Lambeth, which I announced in April, have been allocated £17 million and £5 million respectively for this year and next. The first formal partnership meetings will be held within the next three weeks. Further provisional allocations have been made of £45 million for Docklands and £15 million for Lambeth under the urban programme for the period 1979–82.

Will the Secretary of State come clean with the House and admit that all this inner city electoral activity means either that areas meriting special attention, such as Hammersmith, must increase their borrowing, which must be paid for at some time, or that there is an added burden upon the ratepayers and taxpayers of other areas, such as Harrow or Brent?

I find the hon. Gentleman's comments extraordinary, because I believe that there is considerable agreement in the House on the recognition of the needs of many of our inner urban areas. I think that the general feeling in the House is that it is time something was done about it. It is no good the hon. Gentleman's dismissing the programme as being electorally attractive. I have no idea whether it is. If it is, it is electorally attractive in areas in which the hon. Gentleman's party has just as much interest as ours does. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the programme increases the borrowing, but, as has already been explained, it is grant-aided roughly to the extent of 75 per cent. if it comes under the urban aid programme or, if it is extra housing, to the extent of 66 per cent. That is widely welcomed by the authorities concerned.

It is all very well to talk about what the Secretary of State has done for Lambeth—I agree that it is not inconsiderable—but will he explain why he has prevented the London borough of Lambeth from using land in Tolworth, near Kingston, on which 1,000 people could be rehoused? The Secretary of State turned down an application that Lambeth made to use its own land in that area.

I am afraid that I cannot be led astray in replying to that question, because a formal decision has been made and the reasons were set out in the decision letter.

Is the Secretary of State aware that private organisations in London, such as the Clerkenwell Workshops and the Rotherhithe Workshops, are producing more jobs more quickly than are local authorities in London? As these planning agreements have been going ahead for six months now, can he tell us when we shall see the first factory or workship open, operating and producing jobs?

That depends on how quickly the local authorities get on with the job. I have noticed in all my dealings with the partnership authorities that there is a real desire and sense of urgency to get on with the job as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities concerning the creation of a satisfactory housing policy for mentally handicapped people; and if he will make a statement.

The Consultative Document on Housing Policy which we issued in June indicates a number of ways in which local housing authorities, housing associations and new towns working with social services departments can help many mentally handicapped people to live reasonably independent lives in the community. I take suitable opportunities to encourage them to help in this way, and will keep under review the need to issue more detailed advice.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a substantial number of mentally handicapped youngsters are in hospitals when they ought not to be there? Does he accept that they are technically homeless, and will he look at the Swedish group house experiment for these people?

I shall certainly examine the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will send me preliminary information I shall examine it. Generally, I accept the principle that he has put forward, namely, that we need to provide more housing of this kind and pay particular attention—I do not think sufficient attention has been paid in the past—to the needs of the chronically sick, within whom I include this particular group of persons. That would enable youngsters and, indeed, other people who would otherwise have to stay in hospital for long stretches at a time to come into their own homes while still under the guidance and care of the hospital services.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider giving firm instructions to housing associations, which are playing an increasingly important part in the development of housing, that they should include units for the disabled and the mentally handicapped in most of their schemes? Perhaps the Minister would be willing to issue firm instructions to the Housing Corporation.

I do not think that it is a question of having to issue firm instructions. Many housing associations have taken initiatives over recent years and, indeed, earlier in this area. They have been notable initiatives, and I have seen some of them for myself.

The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the needs of the chronically sick. Do those needs receive specific consideration in the needs formula or the needs element of the rate support grant?

That is an entirely different question, which does not arise under housing expenditure. It is treated only in a very residual respect quite separately for subsidy and grant-aided purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is considering cash limits on local government capital expenditure.

The bulk of local authority capital expenditure is already embraced by the cash limit system in one form or another and there is very little scope for extending its coverage.

While I welcome that reassurance about the lack of scope for extending it, may I point out that there is a worry among some local authorities that the involvement of national Government in capital expenditure projects may become the case more and more, just as it has become the case in housing, where the most detailed plans have to be approved by the Department? Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that such detailed involvement in the approval of capital expenditure projects will not now become the norm?

A distinction has to be drawn between cash limits and the way in which we issue loan sanctions for capital projects. The hon. Gentleman may recall that in the Green Paper produced after Layfield we proposed certain changes in the system of controlling local authority capital expenditure which would in one sense at any rate have the effect of liberalising the present practices.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria will be used in apportioning the extra financial resources that will be made available for next year, to local authority house building and improvement programmes, in accordance with the Chancellor's statement of Wednesday 26th October.

The extra resources, amounting to £150 million, will be added to the public expenditure provision for housing investment in 1978–79. We are currently considering the criteria on which allocations will be made and are consulting the Housing Consultative Council. I expect allocations to have regard both to an assessment of need as well as to authorities' own proposals for expenditure.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that if the criteria used this year and last year are continued, those authorities that have done well under that system will continue to do so while authorities like Leeds, which is the one that I represent, which did rather badly under the criteria, will still be victimised?

My hon. Friend certainly has a point. When we introduced controls over new house building last year, we produced in a rather rough and ready way stress areas and non-stress areas. My hon. Friend, of course, represents a constituency in a city which we deemed to be a stress area. But inevitably in allocating these sums we had to take account of what those authorities had been spending in the last two years. Under the new consultations that we are having, we hope to take account not only of past expenditure but of a more factual basis of actual need.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in large parts of the Midlands the greatest need is not new house building but a combination of improvement grants and local authority mortgages for terraced properties? Can he give an assurance that local authorities will have greater discretion to move budgets around if they so desire? Will he also say that he will not prevent the allocation of local authority mortgages for this purpose?

Obviously the hon. Gentleman is entirely happy with the development of the Government's housing policy, because we have established precisely three blocks of local authority housing expenditure and we are allowing, as it were, total freedom of manoeuvre within each of those large blocks and some movement from one block to another.

Do not the extra resources amount to only half the cuts made in the past year? Do we not need a far greater increase? Would not a visitor from Mars arriving here think that we were crazy on seeing the desperate housing need, on the one hand, and 250,000 unemployed building workers, on the other?

My hon. Friend knows that I always welcome his encouragement. I am very much in favour of increasing the totality of the housing programmes. Of course, I am sure that the decision announced a short time ago about the increase of £150 million in money available for capital investment in housing gives my hon. Friend considerable satisfaction, as well as it does me. It would give him even more satisfaction, which I would share, if we were able to improve on that in the future. Perhaps we shall be.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that when deciding on needs as he sees them he has no intention of limiting the discretion of local authorities to choose within which of the three blocks of apportionment they allocate their revenues and expenditure?

There has to be some general discussion and agreement on the blocks across the country—as a whole, as it were—otherwise there would be no point in having any blocks at all. One would simply make a total allocation. We have gone a considerable way in liberalising the systems introduced in the past and I believe that is widely welcomed by local authorities.

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

In September there were 28,400 starts in Great Britain, of which 13,500 were in the public sector and 14,900 were in the private sector. There were 28,100 completions, 15,600 in the public sector, 12,600 in the private sector.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these appalling figures have arisen because he and his colleagues, especially those in the Cabinet and the Treasury, paid heed to the hysteria from the Tories about cuts in public expenditure as a result of which we today have a lobbying of the House by many thousands of people protesting at the situation? Will he explain more precisely what he intends to do to increase the amount of money available for housing in 1978–79 when this exercise is balanced against the fact that, according to the IMF decision in December last, there is to be a further £300 million cut in housing? Therefore, is there not likely to be a further reduction in expenditure on housing?

Whatever may be the arguments over the action on public expenditure agreed in the IMF settlement, it would be a mistake to comment that the rate of house building by local authorities throughout the country in the months that have ensued has been affected by that. The position now—as I indicated some months ago was likely to be the case—is that, although the Government have provided resources for about 150,000 housing starts in the public sector in 1977, there is clear evidence that a number of local authorities are not taking up the resources already available.

Will the £300 million cut imposed by the IMF for this year be restored next year? Should not half of the profits from North Sea oil be devoted to housing and other social expenditure? I should particularly like the Minister to reply to my first question.

I have my own views on the broad strategic questions relating to the future use of profits from North Sea oil and I shall participate in presenting them in Government, but that question would be best directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the Minister aware that there will he a further reduction in the number of houses built in the private sector next year because of the decreasing supply of land that has resulted from the disastrous Community Land Act? Does he realise that those who will suffer most will be the first-time buyers whom the Minister professes to want to help, because costs will go up as a result of supply and demand?

The hon. Gentleman is a little mixed up. Whatever views there may be on the future of land supply—some house builders are concerned about the prospects in three years' time—there is no reason to believe that that will affect house building in 1978. There has recently been a marginal uplift in the number of housing starts in the private sector, and I hope—and I wish to help it—that that will be sustained in 1978.

Is it correct that the underspending of public expenditure allocated for housing in 1976–77 was about £400 million and is likely to be even higher this year? While I appreciate the Minister's proposals to reallocate money between local authorities, from those which are not pressing forward with schemes towards those which are, could there not be an additional allocation to take account of what was not spent before?

That is a broad issue. In fixing the allocation for the new housing investment programmes for 1978–79, we shall certainly take into account the experiences that we have had with certain local authorities in recent months. However, we cannot consider the underspending of 1976, 1975 or even earlier being made available for allocation during 1978—if that is the point that my hon. Friend was seeking to make.

Does the Minister recognise that the only good figures that have come out of his Department have been ones that show that local authority and housing association renovations of older homes have increased by 9 per cent.? Does that not show a welcome diversion of resources—mostly by Tory-controlled authorities—towards improving existing houses and away from expensive new building? Does the Minister realise that, although he may tell the House that there has been a slight improvement in the number of housing starts, the House will remember that his Department recently announced that housing starts were 17 per cent. down over the previous 12 months? Does that not amount to a total failure of the Minister's housing policies?

The hon. Gentleman is trawling back over points that I have already dealt with. I said that there had been a decline, but I should point out that a large part of that has been due not to a failure to provide resources on the part of the Government but to a failure by a number of local authorities to take up resources available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Community Land Act to make a profit.

We shall probably not get an overall surplus until authorities are disposing of as much land as they are acquiring.

Is it not now clear that there will never be sufficient money to make this legislation work, whatever its merits or demerits? Would it not now be best to attempt to help the hard-pressed construction industry, and especially its 250,000 unemployed workers, by reducing the rate of development land tax so as to encourage private land owners to make voluntary sales of development land?

As I have said on previous occasions, we have little evidence to suggest that there is a shortage of land for development. What we do believe is that the community land scheme must be built upon a secure financial basis, and that is precisely what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the first disposals that have taken place have shown a profit.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Act will at least prevent land speculators from making huge profits at the expense of the community, as has already happened? Has my hon. Friend seen the recent report that Mr. Horace Cutler, the GLC Tory leader, made £1 million by buying land and selling it to a local authority?

One of the purposes of the Act is to prevent the appalling speculations in land that have taken place in the past, but I remind my hon. Friend that its major purpose is to enable local planning authorities to plan their land for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will take note of the recent Civic Trust report that showed that no less an 250,000 acres of urban land are in the ownership of local authorities and other bodies? Does he agree that if that land were released on to the market now it would do a great deal to help the building of new houses? Will he do something to persuade local authorities to get on and do it?

I welcome the report, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the attention of the House. We shall study it carefully. I share the hon. Gentleman's obvious concern for good land management by local authorities.

Why will not the Minister take up the invitation that we made to him more than a year ago to ask nationalised industries and local authorities to state what unused land they have in public ownership, and if they have no use for it to put it on the market and let somebody else get on with its proper development and use?

Yet again, the hon. Gentleman asks me to find ways of encouraging local authorities to spend money during a time of financial constraint. We believe that it would be wrong to do that at present. That is not to say that I do not share the concern of Opposition Members about the need for good land management by local authorities. Our evidence is that the Act is encouraging just that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time currently needed between the date of a public inquiry into urban relief road proposals and the publication of his decision on them.

The time varies according to the complexity of the issues and the weight of objection.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that non-reply. Does he not think that the fact that it is now 11 months since there was a public inquiry into the Wells inner relief road is disgraceful? An appalling sense of injustice is felt by those whose homes are blighted, who are having to wait so long and cannot make any plans about their future, about their homes or about their finances. There is a feeling that the officials in the hon. Gentleman's Department just do not care. Would he care to comment on that?

I shall certainly comment. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the inquiry took place at the beginning of this year. We have received the report, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I are considering carefully and urgently. I sympathise with the people who may be affected by the plans, but I must underline the importance of seeing that decisions are right and that all the factors are properly taken into account. The hon. Gentleman's is a case where there has been inevitable delay, but I assure him, as I have already done in correspondence, that we are getting on with the matter as urgently as possible.

Is the Minister aware that exactly the same considerations apply to the M23 north of Hooley, which affects my constituency? There has now been a delay of about 10 years in that regard. Will the hon. Gentleman tell his colleagues in the Department of Transport to get on and take a decision which removes property blight from my constituents once and for all?

I shall bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend agree that inquiries could be speeded up if information required by protesters were available at the beginning of the inquiries?

I shall consider that.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to encourage the adequate supply of private accommodation for students at universities and polytechnics.

Apart from the provision of on-campus accommodation, a great deal is being done in the public sector to meet the needs of single persons, including students. The housing Green Paper suggested a number of measures to help those who wish to buy homes; and we shall, in the current review of the Rent Acts, take full account of the rôle of rented housing in meeting students' and other single persons' needs.

That was a very disappointing and inadequate reply. When will the Minister take positive steps to encourage a substantial increase in student housing associations, and when will he set up a register of students' accommodation which would be exempt from security of tenure?

The hon. Gentleman's last suggestion has been considered and rejected by the Government after a great deal of discussion. The housing association movement to which the hon. Gentleman referred has trebled the amount of housing it is providing annually during the past three years. A great deal of that housing—not enough yet—is being provided for single people, including young single people, such as students.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a group of students can pay a great deal more for given accommodation than any family seeking that accommodation would be able to pay, and that removal of security of tenure would simply result in the students paying substantially higher rents and their becoming even more attractive to the landlord compared with an ordinary family, thus aggravating the problems for other people in university towns?

My hon Friend has summarised very well the reasons that led us to reject the proposal that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) put to me.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the autumn of 1974 the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), then his Under-Secretary of State, wrote, as Minister, to me giving an undertaking that the Government would introduce legislation to remove student accommodation in the hands of private landlords from the effects of the Rent Acts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the breaking of that undertaking countless students have suffered considerable hardship every September, even including this Septem ber? In view of that, does he not regard his answer as both a breach of faith and terribly complacent?

It was certainly not complacent. We had exchanges on several occasions two or three years ago about the proposal put by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) and we rejected it for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann).

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the provision of employment opportunities in the Central Lancashire New Town is commensurate with the proposed programme of residential development.

The revised target figure for the Central Lancashire New Town which my right hon. Friend announced in July took account of the need to achieve a balance between homes and jobs in the new town. I am satisfied that sufficient employment opportunities will be available in the new town to provide for the increased population.

I thank the Minister very much for that reply and explanation. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet in Clayton-le-Woods that accommodation for 4,000 people should be built in this area? Is he satisfied that the new town has the capacity to generate sufficient employment opportunities to meet the situation, and does he intend to hold a public inquiry into these proposals?

I am aware of these proposals and I am informed that the development corporation is consulting people in the area about them. This will go before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a Section 6(1) application and at that stage he will decide whether there should be a public inquiry. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall examine the proposals very closely to see whether the provision of houses is justified in the context of the revised population targets, and will take fully into account the views of the local authorities, public bodies and the general public.

What immediate plans does the Minister have to strengthen community representation on the Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation, which has made a great impact upon the sort of housing plans it has at the moment?

We are reviewing the board of the Central Lancashire New Town and will be making an announcement in the near future. We are keen to see on the boards members of the local authorities who directly represent the people in these areas, and we think that this should be a requirement in respect of the boards of all third-generation new towns as well as others.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for establishing a tenants' charter.

The proposal for a tenants' charter for public sector tenants was set out in the housing policy Green Paper earlier this year. The details of the separate elements in the charter and the arrangements for giving effect to them are the subject of a consultation paper which has recently been issued to the local authority associations and all other interested parties.

Can the Minister say whether a tenants' charter will be included in the proposed housing Bill, and, if not, why not?

No, it will not be included. Apart from anything else, the consultation process will stilt be taking place when we introduce such a Bill. The Bill proposed, as stated in the Queen's Speech, relates to particular assistance for first-time buyers and not to tenants' charter matters.

Is the Minister aware that I welcome very much his intention to bring forward some sort of tenants' charter? Will he give us an assurance that he will ensure that tenants are free from some of the bullying bureaucracies with which they have had to contend in the past? Will he also ensure that the discrepancies between the exchange' arrangements of one town and another are rectified, because some are completely absurd at present?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent translation, and welcome his maiden question, for some time anyway. I do not think that we have to await legislation, as indicated in the original Question, before embarking on improvements to tenants' relationships with local authorities and housing associations. We issued guidance and consultation material to local authorities on this matter, following a review by my advisory group in the Department, which I hope will produce results in the intervening period. I do not think that I can tell the House more at this stage about the second point that my hon. Friend raised. However, we are concerned about improving the national transfer and' exchange arrangements operating between local authorities.

Is the Minister considering a tenants' charter which will include the right of the tenant to buy his own council house?

We have made it perfectly clear that we do not favour the indiscriminate sale of council houses. I refer the hon. Member to the policy statement that we made on this matter in the Green Paper.

Is the Minister aware that the tenants' association in London is deeply concerned about the workings of the housing transfer system which works against certain categories of tenant? Does his Department give any guidelines to local authorities in this respect?

We do not give guidelines singularly in this respect, but this is one issue which is the subject of examination by my advisory group. It is a matter with which I am deeply concerned, along with other aspects of allocation policy. I believe that greater flexibility is needed, and a growing number of local authorities are embarking on initiatives in this field to make the arrangements much more flexible than they were in the past. I am glad of the support of hon. Members in pushing down this road.

Will the Minister say why it is necessary at this stage to consult local authorities on the tenants' charter when this matter has been debated for so long and there is general agreement on both sides of the House about the need for such a charter to protect tenants from the paternalism of local authorities? Will he assure us that he will consult tenants' associations and give a firm undertaking that the charter will include security of tenure for council tenants?

There is tenants' representation on the advisory group to which I have referred. In the last two or three years there have been more moves than ever before in the local authority and housing association fields, as well as in the burgeoning co-operative housing field, to involve tenants in the management and running of their estates and properties. We are consulting because that is the democratic thing to do, and we are concerned that the elected local authorities owning considerable estates are consulted in these matters because they are entitled to such consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the rate support grant for Essex in 1978–79; and what replies he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rate support grant for 1978–79.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current methods of calculation that are used in deciding the rate support grant for counties with rapidly expanding populations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what formula he proposes to adopt for the distribution of the rate support grant for the coming financial year as between shire and metropolitan counties.

The rate support grant settlement was announced at the statutory meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance last Friday, 18th November. The main terms of the settlement were given in my answer to the parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on the same date. The full text of my statement is in the Library.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance at the end of that answer. Is he aware that there is considerable confusion about the operation of this so-called safety net, and that Essex calculates that its ratepayers have lost £3 million more than they should have done if the Minister meant what he said on Friday? Will he further acknowledge that, whatever he may say about taking account of the needs of an expanding population, the people in Essex and elsewhere will feel that the Government have wholly forgotten their needs?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the population growth is reflected in the needs formula. Furthermore, if there is any confusion in people's minds on how the safety net will operate, that will be quickly and speedily elucidated when we lay the relevant rate support grant orders. We shall be in touch with the various town halls and county halls concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this continual switching of parts of the rate support grant under the present Government from rural to inner urban areas has put county councils such as Norfolk in an extremely difficult position in the past few years, especially as they have been both trying to maintain services and seeking to protect ratepayers from excessive rate increases, bearing in mind that there are often areas with below-average incomes? Is it not clear that this difficulty will continue next year, owing to the fact that inflation has been underestimated and also the fact that there have been further concessions to London?

I believe that it is right—this is not only my belief, but it was that of the Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment in his time—that the distribution of local authority grant should be based on the best possible assessment of need. That is what we have been trying to do. It means that there will be a distribution from authorities which are assessed to have lower needs to those authorities which are assessed to have greater needs. That is bound to happen. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to exaggerate. I am glad to say that there is an increase in the amount of money being given to Norfolk. Many hon. Members have still very much in mind the great difficulty that we experienced last year, with the admittedly sharp reductions felt by most authorities.

Is the Minister aware that before the adoption of his policies of giving extra help to inner cities, counties such as Bedfordshire have over the past 20 years taken large numbers of London's overspill and have provided jobs and education in order to help solve the problems of the capital city? Therefore, is there not an unanswerable case for counties such as Bedfordshire to be given an increase, in real terms, in rate support grant to enable them to do the job which for 20 years central Government have told them to do?

The needs of counties and districts in cases of the export of population from elsewhere will be reflected in the size of the needs element granted to Bedfordshire.

Is it no tclear that for most shire counties, particularly for Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire, this will be another year of tightened belts? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman prevent his ministerial colleagues making foolish speeches and issuing circulars that lead people to expect improvements in services, for example, in the teacher-pupil ratio, while at the same time denying the resources on which such improvements must be based?

I do not accept that at all. My right hon. and hon. Friends go round the country making entirely sensible speeches, as one would expect. In the case of Oxfordshire, there was a substantial reduction last year in absolute terms in the amount of grant available. This year there will be an increase in the needs element for Oxfordshire. Therefore, that authority will not be under an intolerable strain.

Since the Secretary of State says that he is prepared to meet Essex Members, is the door still open and will he be prepared to consider further representations? If these matters are being argued on the basis of need, he will no doubt be aware that Basildon has a considerable rate of unemployment.

I am not reopening the question of this year's settlement, but I should be only too willing to meet hon. Members from Essex so that we may discuss whether there is any way in which we can assist them in their problems in the following year. There is a cycle in the rate support grant, and it becomes increasingly difficult to alter that cycle as we approach the statutory meeting, and certainly after that meeting has taken place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the settlement will cause my constituents great anguish, because even before we begin we shall have to find a 2p rate? Is he also aware that his promises for next year will also fall on deaf ears, because we were promised action last year? What hope can we hold out to constituencies such as mine, in the Isle of Wight, that authorities will be able to maintain their social services and educational services to a sufficient standard in the coming year?

That is ultimately a matter for the local authorities. I wish to make it plain that this year we envisage, across the country as a whole, a situation in which local government spending will continue to be stable. We are not envisaging cuts across the country as a whole.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that education and other services in Essex have already been severely cut back in the teeth of opposition by many Labour representatives at county level? Is he further aware that the safety net, so far as one can see, will not prevent the need for inordinate increases in the rates to maintain depleted services? Can he offer some hope of a further change, even in the present year?

It is counties such as Essex—and there are others, including some metropolitan districts—which have benefited from the safety net. But for the safety net this year, the rate settlement would have had a harsher effect. Therefore, we have tried to take account of the problem. The 2p figure will probably mean a 4 per cent. increase in rates. I do not think that that will impose an intolerable burden on county councils and other authorities.

When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that he is helping counties this year by the new formula, does he not appreciate that he is only building on last year's injustices? In practice, 14 shire counties will receive less cash in 1978–79 than they did in 1976–77, despite dramatic increases in prices since then. Does he further understand that if he had treated shire counties in the same way as he has treated urban areas in the past three years, shire counties would in 1978–79 receive £350 million more in a year than they would otherwise do? This is the nature of the scale of hardship imposed on shire county ratepayers.

Hear, hear.

Before Conservative Members chorus "Hear, hear", I would advise them to have a word with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), because they might take a rather different view of the appropriateness and correctness of the right balance to be struck between the assessment of need in different parts of the country. If the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is asking whether I think the urban and metropolitan areas should be denied the figure of £350 million, I think he is mad.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek a meeting with representatives of the building societies to persuade them to reduce the interest rates on home loans.

The Government maintain regular contact with the Building Societies Association. There have been three welcome reductions in mortgage rates this year. If receipts continue at present high levels, I am sure that societies will consider a further reduction.

Is the Minister aware that in October there were record receipts of £590 million by building societies and that that high level has continued into November, in spite of a 1 per cent. drop in interest rates? Does the right hon. Member agree that building societies have been laggardly in passing on reduced interest rates to home buyers? Does he realise that many people believe that there is bogus competition between the building societies that smacks of the worst elements of a cartel, which is not in the public interest?

I do not accept that there has been laggardliness. We have seen several cuts in the interest rate in rapid succession. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger, if not directly then indirectly, on an important problem, namely, the balance that must be maintained over a period of time, because there cannot be reactions to situations month by month. Our job—which we carry out jointly with the building societies—has been to maintain stability as far as possible. That means that in good times we must allow an inflow of money to take place at a certain level without an equivalent outflow into mortgages, so that resources will be available should the inflow drop later, while the outflow would have to be maintained. That is the difficult balancing process that we constantly attempt, together with the Building Societies Association.

What pressure will be brought on the local authorities to bring down their lending rates? There is some bitterness among those holding local authority mortgages that their interest rates are higher than those paid on building society mortgages.

Local authorities have a different financing structure, which gives rise to this problem. It is not a matter of pressure being required. We are watching the Consolidated Fund loan rates that give rise to this pattern. However, at other times building society rates have gone up while local authorities have lagged well behind in their interest rate increases. There is a balancing process, which does not always produce bad results for local authority borrowers.

With 15 changes in the minimum lending rate during 13 months, entirely as a result of Government policy, will there not certainly be a gap from time to time that can sometimes work to the advantage as well as to the disadvantage of borrowers? Do we not hear much less from hon. Members on the Government side when that happens?

I was not aware that the comments or queries put to me had come from just one side of the House, but I probably accept what the hon. Gentleman said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Building Societies' Association has informed me that there is likely to be a further reduction in the mortgage rate towards the end of the year, or possibly early in January? Will he confirm that his Department is investigating methods by which it is possible to ensure that local authority mortgage rates are brought more into line with the rates of building societies? What is he proposing to do in this regard?

On the last point, I can only refer my hon. Friend at this stage to the suggestions that we have put in our Green Paper on Housing Policy. On the first point, I am aware that there has been a general statement to this effect, but I would not define the statement that my hon. Friend attributed to the BSA as a decision that has still to be taken.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the need for relief for the 10,000 casualties in the disaster in Southern India, I sought your permission for a Private Notice Question. I accept that it was not allowed—

Order. It is not customary to refer to the fact that an application has been made for a Private Notice Question.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether I should be in order in renewing my application tomorrow, since there has been no ministerial statement on the matter.

I advise the hon. Member to study what I said earlier.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although we have had an hour on Questions to the Department of the Environment, we appear to have reached only Question No. 15. Those who have been in the House throughout the hour will agree that there have not been a particularly large number of supplementary questions on those Questions. Cannot some control be exercised over the length of ministerial answers, in particular?

We have covered 18 Questions this afternoon, but I agree that that is not good enough. I made my appeal at the beginning, but both questions and answers tended to be longer than usual.