asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he intends to allocate to local authorities for loans for house purchase and improvement in 1978–79.

A sum of £255 million will be available to local authorities in England in 1978–79 both for lending and for improvement grants. Virement provisions will allow authorities to adjust expenditure in each category to suit local needs. The building societies have agreed to provide an additional £267 million under the support lending scheme.

Does the Minister agree that the number of local authority loans indicates a substantial cut on the 1974 –75 figures, which is in breach of the Labour Party manifesto of October 1974 and, more importantly, must affect very harshly the poorest members of our society who look to the local authorities for such loans?

The figures in 1974 were exceptional—indeed, they were a record in terms of local authority mortgage lending. They were record figures for the simple reason that there was a mortgage famine affecting the building societies as a result of the failure of the general management of monetary and fiscal policy in this country.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has the balance of his figures right in this case? Is he aware that many people on local authority housing lists will be forced to accept local authority housing if they do not get the opportunity of obtaining a local authority housing loan? Does he appreciate that if people can get a local authority housing loan it is not only to their benefit but, in the long run, better for the finances of the local and central authorities?

It is a matter of priorities. If I had several hundred million pounds more available for housing expenditure I should like to see some part of it made available to local councils for borrowing. The fact is that we have had to make a choice in housing allocation. I have allocated money primarily to encourage resource expenditure rather than financing, because I believe that there is a vast alternative source of finance in the building societies. Through the building society mortgage support scheme, which we have increased by another £100 million this year, there is an additional source of funds available to people who would normally apply to local authorities.

Since the right hon. Gentleman feels that it is unfair to compare the 1974–75 figures with the figures that he has just announced, would he like to compare and comment on the comparison with the 1972–73 and 1973–74 figures, because those are also relevant? Also, would he like to remind the House of the Labour Party manifesto promise at the last General Election on the subject of local authority loans?

The Labour Party, in facing the election, was conscious of the enormous shortage and drying-up of building society funds—hence, as I said, the massive increase in mortgage lending in 1974–75, which was absolutely necessary.

Will the Secretary of State sanction a massive increase in improvement grants, first, because the system is labour-intensive, and, secondly, because it can be started far more quickly than new house building and can, therefore, relieve unemployment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many councils, such as Manchester, have bought up a large number of old houses with a view to improving them and that now, because the improvement grants have been cut off, those houses have to be left empty and unimproved?

I think that my hon. Friend will be the first to acknowledge and recognise—the figures have only just been released—that the North-West, Manchester in particular, has had a substantial increase this year in its housing expenditure allocation. There will be a marked increase in its favour in 1978–79. As for the way in which that money should be spent, I must point out that under the new block system it is possible for Manchester to aggregate both direct lending and private improvement grant money and to switch from one to the other if it thinks that that is the right thing to do. Improvement grants for local authority dwellings have also been increased.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inaugurate a departmental review of the operation of the rate support grant, with particular attention to the calculation of need, so that a more equitable settlement can be made in 1979–80.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inaugurate a departmental review of the operation of the rate support grant, with particular attention to the calculation of need, so that a more equitable settlement can be made in 1979– 80.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inaugurate a departmental review of the operation of the rate support grant, with particular attention to the calculation of need, so that a more equitable settlement can be made in 1979–80.

The Consultative Council on Local Government Finance itself has commissioned a review which includes consideration of methods of needs assessment and the grant machinery. Results will be reported to the Consultative Council in the spring.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the present formula operates severely to the disadvantage of counties with a growing population, such as the one that I have the honour to represent, and that it seems all the more unfair when additional resources are given to the metropolitan areas exporting that population?

No, Sir. I do not accept that. I understand very well the difficulties that faced all local authorities, and particularly counties, especially last year, because a redistributive mechanism is involved in the assessment of needs. On the whole, it operates against the counties in favour of the cities. I accept that. But I do not accept that the counties are disadvantaged, if we consider, as I believe the House does consider, that needs should be the major criteria upon which we should base the allocation of RSG.

Will the Minister bear in mind that rural areas, which are counties, tend to have rising populations and yet their resources are less, and that therefore their needs under the existing formula place them at a disadvantage compared with urban areas, whose resources tend to be greater and whose populations may well be declining? That is the point that we wish to register with the Secretary of State.

The truth of the matter is that within the needs grant there are really two major elements. One of those major elements precisely reflects increases in population. Therefore, to the extent that population is increasing it is reflected in the needs element. But the other part of the needs element reflects relative needs per capita, based upon the use of the various factors that enter into what we consider to be the main categories of need.

Whatever the Minister says, it is unfair, and many people in the South-West feel a real sense of injustice in these matters. Will he take it from me that services have been badly affected in rural areas, even when counties have tried to save money? The present basis is totally unfair, and we are getting rather tired of being clobbered in this matter.

I understand the difficulties that have faced many authorities and many of the counties in recent years. I do not wish to pretend that they do not exist. They are real. Nevertheless, I believe that we have chosen what is still the best of the formulae available to us in deciding how to meet the needs, which vary and are differentiated between different parts of the country. If we can find a better method of assessing needs I shall be extremely happy to use it.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Welsh share of the grant for the forthcoming year will decrease by 3 per cent., whereas London's share increases by 12·2 per cent.? Does he agree that the older industrial communities of South Wales face just as much the problems of poor housing and heavy unemployment as do some of the inner cities?

My hon. Friend knows that I have the greatest sympathy and concern for Wales, as I have for other parts of the country. However, the truth about London is that it is paying, on average, much higher rate bills than the rest of the country. Therefore, it seemed to me to be right to moderate that process during this rate support grant settlement.

In view of what the Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), how can he possibly justify the fact that since 1974 the counties' share of the needs grant has fallen by 16 per cent. and London's share has risen by 54 per cent., despite the fact that the share of the population of the non-metropolitan counties has risen, whilst that of London has fallen substantially? Further, how can he justify the fact that the average increase throughout the country is 7·3 per cent. and that in Lancashire, in particular, it is only 5·7 per cent., despite its growing population, to which he referred?

The truth is that there is only a partial correlation between needs and growth of population. In so far as the growth of population brings forth further expenditure needs, that is reflected in the formula. But the other part of the needs formula must take account of the services that are obviously much more expensive. For example, there may be a larger number of single-parent families or old people living on their own. If there are categories of need of that kind—they tend to accumulate in particular areas—one must acknowledge that there is a need, and it must be met.

Will my right hon. Friend disabuse the House of any notion that there has been some peculiar generosity to the cities? Is he aware that the grant to Sheffield has been savagely cut, in real terms, though Sheffield's needs have in no way diminished? Can he arrange for a public discussion of the basis of these calculations, which seem to have produced absolutely bizarre results?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that I explained to him on an earlier occasion—certainly during the course of our debate in December—that some effects were produced by a re-sorting of data in the RSG formula this year. Sheffield, like certain other metropolitan areas, was affected by those changes, which were agreed by all the local authority associations. But I do not believe that that is a continuing effect. It has happened in this year and is not likely to be repeated.

Does the Secretary of State understand that much of the anxiety on both sides of the House arises when he refers to needs but when in fact we all know that his calculations are based on figures that are about seven years out of date? Does he appreciate, therefore, that it is the suspicion of the arbitrary use of power behind closed doors which actually concerns hon. Members? For example, in September 1976 he injected unemployment into his calculations as a figure, and then, when unemployment was higher in September 1977, he took it out again.

I accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said—that there is a continuing problem with data and that, unless we have up-to-date information, whatever system we use for assessing needs is bound to be that much more fragile and less secure than we would wish it to be. Having said that, I do not accept what he said about arbitrariness and closed doors. If at any time the hon. Member wants to ask for a further debate on the whole question of how we can best deal with the assessment of needs, why does he not do so?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning the 1978–79 rate support grant for Essex; and what reply he has sent.

Since my reply to the hon. Member's identical Question on 23rd November 1977, I have been in conespondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I have sought to clear up the misunderstandings that exist about the safety net, and repeated my readiness to see a deputation of Essex Members.

Will the Secretary of State accept our thanks for that assurance? Does he understand that all Members representing Essex constituencies share the views expressed earlier on the question whether the rate support grant takes proper account of the needs of counties with expanding population? Does he further accept that in Essex this problem is compounded by under-funding on the transport supplementary grant, and not least on the hospital services? Will he consult other Ministers about the total flow of Government funds to a county in that situation before making next year's decision about rate support grant?

As I said, I am willing to see hon. Members from Essex. I agree that Essex has headed the league of counties which have been adversely affected by successive rate support grant settlements. I shall be willing to go over in detail the problems that affect the county.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour activists, who fully recognise the serious needs of London, can in no way begrudge the settlement within the metropolis but nevertheless feel that the needs element does not provide for Essex and cannot do so in the future? Is he aware that unless something is done about it before next year's grant is settled, services in Essex will inevitably deteriorate, or very heavy additional burdens will fall upon ratepayers?

I certainly hope that there will be no reductions in services in Essex, although I understand that the financial needs of the county may well face the county council with the necessity for a considerably higher than average rate call. I repeat that I am willing to examine with my hon. Friend and his colleagues the various factors that have affected Essex.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we might avoid this annual and rather pointless ritual of arguing about the effect of the rate support grant on individual areas if we set up a Select Committee to study the alternative methods of determining rate support grant and to consider the respective merits? Would he recommend such an idea to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

I certainly would not dismiss such a suggestion from my mind. But if my hon. Friend imagines that that would be a way of preventing, ironing out or somehow avoiding continued argument, I must discourage him on that point. As he knows, we have a continued dialogue with the associations of local authorities, and they do not always agree amongst themselves. I am sure that would be reflected in discussions in this House—and not necessarily on party lines.

Is not Essex's problem also due largely to the education system and the fact that it was the right hon. Gentleman's decision to remove the factor on education? When there are increasing numbers of schoolchildren, that must involve the county in increased expenditure. Is that not one of the key points that he must look at when revising the formula?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the re-sorting of the educational data which stopped the double payment of moneys in respect of authorities which are educating children and young people who live in another authority. It was an agreed recommendation of the local authorities that it should end. Additionally, in Essex this year the county was affected by changes in the improved data that became available in relation to earnings—earnings not only of male workers but of women workers.

If the Secretary of State was convinced by the Essex case, what powers has he to help that county in the 1978–79 settlement?

What we could do, and what we try to do when views are put to us by various deputations, is to consider within the working group the possibilities of testing different factors of need, so that we use those which are most relevant and which genuinely detect the existing needs.

Do I take it from that answer that the Secretary of State has no powers to help them?

What I do not have is the power to select a particular authority and say that I shall make money available to it; nor do I think that that would be a good power for Secretaries of State to have. I have to deal with broad categories of authorities and with broad categories of need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the forward supply of land for housing.

The message that I get is that there is no general shortage but that there are some local and individual difficulties.

How does the Minister reconcile his complacency with the view of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers that there is a danger of a serious land shortage which requires immediate action to be taken?

I have heard these views expressed, not only by the NFBTE but by other organisations involved in this area. I can only state that they are usually general statements that—to put it mildly—are not sufficiently supported by any firm evidence. We try to monitor as effectively as we can what is going on around the country on land supply and the servicing of land and planning applications that have been approved, and it is on that basis that I made the statement that I did.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that for about 35 years Lambeth and Wandsworth have owned 100 acres in Kingston on which 4,000 houses could be built? When are they going to get on with that? Why are he and his Department putting every possible obstacle in the way of our getting on with that job and substantially reducing the very large housing list in Lambeth and Wandsworth?

My hon. Friend is probably referring to a recent planning application and appeal that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend. I cannot add to the decision that was made on that case.

Is it not true that it is the Minister's figures that are generalised rather than particularised, and not the industry's? Is it not also true that a large amount of the land listed as being available for building is unsuitable or is very expensive land on which to build, and that there will be a considerable shortage of land for building at a reasonably low cost so that members of the general population may purchase their own homes?

I have little doubt that the land owned under various structure plans and local plans around the country includes land that would be considered difficult for development both by private enterprise and by local authorities, but the basis of my statement is, at least in part, the fact that on the information available there is about three years' supply of land available for development which has planning permission and is main-serviced. There is a considerable further supply that has not yet reached that stage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce the Housing Bill.

We hope that the Housing Bill foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech will be introduced shortly.

Is the delay in introducing the Bill due to a dawning recognition on the part of Ministers that Socialist housing policies lead inevitably to homelessness and to a growing readiness to accept the ideas underlying the last Conservative Housing Act?

That is a rather curious intervention, first, because it is based upon the assumption that there has been delay. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we published the Green Paper in July of last year and invited interested parties to comment upon it by 1st December. We have had comments and we have acted, I think, quite swiftly. I hope that we shall present a Bill very shortly.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the objective of the proposed Bill to assist first-time house buyers will not be achieved if building societies continue with their present practices, particularly with reference to red-lining, and their objections to flats? Will he ensure that the Bill makes provision for guarantees by local authorities, to enable those persons who are at present having the greatest difficulty in obtaining adequate building society mortgages to obtain them?

The whole system of interest-free loans for five years, which is the basic provision of the Bill, together with savings bonus schemes, will make it possible for a number of people who might previously have been thought not to qualify for a building society mortgage to qualify for one. I think it will b2 helpful in that respect. The problem of red-lining in general is one that has to be tackled more directly. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken a number of initiatives with building societies and local authorities to try to bring that about.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to require local authorities to set up dog warden schemes or, failing legislation, what encouragement he is giving to local authorities to do so on a voluntary basis.

The general establishment of dog warden schemes is one of the matters that I am examining in the light of public response to the report of the Working Party on Dogs. I hope to make an announcement on the report as a whole in the near future. Local authorities already have discretionary powers for the purpose, and I welcome the fact that several local authorities have already instituted such a service.

May I inject some sense of urgency into the Minister's deliberations, as this is a matter which is of interest not only to dog-lovers concerned with the welfare of animals but to those concerned for the general public? There is always the danger of outbreaks of rabies.

Since the hon. Lady came came to see me recently with a very distinguished delegation on this matter, I can assure her that she has succeeded in injecting a greater sense of urgency into my deliberations.

Can my right hon. Friend remind us when the departmental inquiry into dogs was set up, when it actually reported and how long it has been deliberating? Since, in the summer, my right hon. Friend said that he was considering making an announcement "soon", can he now give us a specific date? Is he aware that both dog-lovers and dog-haters would like him to take action quickly on that report?

I have not got the actual date with me, but I will write to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that my experience of consulting the world at large about the Working Party on Dogs is that it takes a considerable time. The correspondence is voluminous and needs to be studied with great care. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I hope to make a very early announcement.

May I remind the Minister that he gave me an assurance that he would deal with this as a matter of urgency during the passage of the Control of Pollution Bill in the spring of 1974?

That can hardly be the case, since the working party had not reported at that time. I do not think that I had even set it up at that time.

It was as a result of the Minister's undertaking that the working party was set up two years later.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations have been made to him by Hampshire County Council following the district auditor's report on the case of Mr. Anthony Johnson, a former secretary to the Council.

Hampshire County Council has made no such representations to my right hon. Friend.

Does the Minister appreciate that this scandal arose out of the local government reorganisation carried out by the previous Tory Government, with all the squandering of public resources and bureaucratic extravaganza that went with it? Will he give the House an assurance that all possible precautions are now being taken to prevent abuses of this kind in the future?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that he made about local government reorganisation. On the specific issue that he raised, Sections 159 to 161 of the 1972 Act provide the appropriate machinery for challenging action by local authorities that is outside their statutory rights and duties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most up-to-date estimate of the amount of land taken into public ownership by use of the Community Land Act, broken down by economic planning regions.

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

As the British total for last year was only 2,000 acres, and the Scottish total 66 acres, does this not indicate that the Act has so far failed to bring about a radical and much-needed change in the ownership of land? As far too much land is still owned by speculators, exploiters and people whose ancestors stole it, and as their claim to land ownership in many cases is doubtful, to say the least, will my right hon. Friend draw up a complete register of land ownership as a first step towards extending the public ownership of all land, in the interests of the community?

Whilst I am very much in favour, and will be pursuing the question, of better land management as a whole, I do not think that the setting up of such a register would be the first priority in moves to that end. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the community land scheme and the Act upon which it is based were designed in such a way as to allow for the cumulative build-up of action under the Act and not for some sudden takeover of all the land to which he has referred.

Will the Minister confirm that the amount of acreage resold in the first year of the Act was 33 acres, and that the number of circulars and ministerial directions issued by the Government in that time total 111?

I cannot confirm the precise figures, but I will, if necessary, write to the hon. Gentleman. On the main underlying point, I imagine that, whatever his views about the Act, the hon. Gentleman would not expect such a scheme to produce a balancing out of purchase and resale in the first 12 months of its operation. It is a cumulative scheme and is expected to operate in that way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the bitter disappointment about the way in which this valuable Act has been watered down? The Opposition think that it has gone too far, but we do not think that it has gone far enough. Is he further aware that only 800 acres of housing land have been publicly acquired, half of which would have been bought by the councils in any case? May I therefore ask him to implement the original plan as conceived and put forward in our election manifesto?

I can understand that my hon. Friend is anxious, as I am, to see the scheme operating as steadily and as rapidly as possible, but I have to tell him that he is mistaken if he thinks that the scheme is not operating as the Act requires.

Will the Minister also prepare a register of all the land in the cities already owned by local authorities and nationalised industries, in order that we may also see how much derelict and wasted land already in public ownership is adding to the blight of our urban areas?

Certainly there is a problem in a number of city areas, and we are already taking action with regard to the first priority, the inner urban areas, where we are establishing the partnership and programme authorities. But I have to add that this is not simply a question of asking such authorities—and, one hopes, others later on—to look more carefully at the land holdings that they have; it is a question of looking at all of the derelict land and property in these areas, some of which is held by public bodies, including local authorities, and some by private owners.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve the external rear elevations of the Department of the Environment Building.

In order to improve the appearance at the rear of 2 Marsham Street, work is about to start on the provision of climbing plants.

I am grateful for that answer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the elevations in Monk Street, where reinforcing bars are sticking out of the foundations of the building in which he works and there is a great deal of rust and an unkempt appearance. The Department has today issued Circular 378 awarding good designs in housing, but it is about time it put its own house in order.

We certainly agree that we should make it a more attractive building, to match the attractiveness of the administration inside it.

May we assume that what the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has revealed is the latest episode in the Lib-Lab pact? Does not it prove that what the Liberals were really about was inspecting the numerous offices up and down Whitehall?

I do not think that my hon. Friend should draw that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman speaks on matters for which I am responsible. I regret to say that I rarely see him to discuss matters of mutual concern.

Does the Minister agree that the total benefits of the Lib-Lab pact are commemorated in Marsham Street by the gaps between the towers of the Department's building there?

As the hon. Gentleman was Minister when the building was created, I thought that the gaps had something to do with the intellectual gaps for which his Administration were responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with Greater Manchester Council and Stockport metropolitan borough about the provision of a permanent gipsy site in Stockport.

None, Sir. This is primarily a matter for the two councils, which have the statutory responsibilities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the legislation was introduced over 10 years ago to endeavour to solve the problems both of gipsies and of those who have to put up with temporary unsatisfactory gipsy sites close to them? Can he not now inject a sense of urgency into local authorities to see that they produce a solution equitable to both gipsies and to those people who have to put up with them on unsatisfactory temporary sites?

I have a great deal of sympathy with that supplementary question, which is why the Cripps Report was commissioned. Most people agree that it was an extremely valuable document, pointing the way forward in this direction, with a sensible balance between the conflicting interests. We are certainly urging local authorities to implement the report's provisions with the utmost urgency.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are implications for other metropolitan district councils in Greater Manchester because of the dragging of feet by Stockport and three of the other metropolitan boroughs which have so far taken no action in this matter? This means that citizens in boroughs such as Oldham cannot reap the benefit from having acted expeditiously and provided a site some years ago.

I understand that the Greater Manchester Council provided five permanent sites for 60 caravans, with two temporary sites for a further 15 caravans, and I believe that the Council is now considering two additional sites. It is for local authorities to carry out their statutory obligations. Clearly, the Government cannot comment on the detailed provision by every local authority in the country.

Will the Minister be prepared to designate small, limited areas which have fulfilled their duties and provided camp sites, without waiting for a whole county to be designated, as in the case of Lancashire and Lancaster for example?

I think that the logic of the Cripps Report pointed in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's anti-litter programme.

We are now urgently exploring with the local authority associations the date at which the litter abatement provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 can be implemented. I hope that it will be soon. I expect to be able to announce shortly a substantial increase in the grant in aid to the Keep Britain Tidy Group for 1978–79.

Will the Minister now give his support to compulsory deposits on canned and bottled beverages? Would not such a scheme reduce litter, prevent waste and, in time, lead to a reduction in costs?

It might do all of those things, but it is not a matter on which I am prepared to comment in answer to a supplementary question.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in some parts of the country in the past two or three years an improvement seems to have taken place? Does he agree that in the rest of the major parts of the country, where the situation is gravely unsatisfactory, firm sanctions must ultimately be applied?

I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend has found places where there has been an improvement. We must all make our own judgments. I believe that the filth and squalor in our cities is getting worse. I hope that people will apply their minds to this problem, as it is an important environmental factor affecting millions of people living in our cities.

Is the Minister aware that one of the disastrous effects—certainly in my constituency—of the rate support grant settlement recently announced is that, unfortunately, further cuts will need to be made in the staff who look after the highways? This will mean that the amount of litter, which is growing, will become even worse. The trees that have been planted by councils over the years to improve the environment are not getting the attention that they need, and are dying for the lack of it.

I should be very sorry if that were the case, but it is a matter for the local authorities to decide their priorities within their expenditure. However, I am convinced that all local authorities are taking their environmental obligations increasingly seriously.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what criteria he chose Ministers of differing status to sit on the seven partnership committees set up for the inner cities; and which Ministers have been chosen.

In view of the need for close ministerial involvement in the partnership committees, and the considerable work load therefore involved, I have asked three of my ministerial colleagues to act as chairmen of individual partnerships. For details I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) on 15th December 1977.

In view of the importance of industry and of the Secretary of State's new Bill, is it not odd that, for example, in Manchester an Under-Secretary has been appointed from the Department of Industry, whereas a Minister of State will be sent from other Ministries? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to explain that?

No, that is not an entirely accurate description of what has happened. We are working with our colleagues in other Departments on all the partnership authorities. Ministers from the Department of Industry attend partnership committees at different levels, whether as a Minister of State or as an Under-Secretary. However, the important point is that all the other Departments principally involved are present at ministerial level.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than limiting the scope of the various Departments, the matter should be approached with the widest possible involvement of the Departments concerned? Furthermore, the broadest possible basis for community involvement in inner city area schemes should be employed.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The involvement of the community—and there are, in virtually all inner city areas, many different voluntary organisations—must be brought into relationship with the partnership authorities. That is one of the main matters upon which we have asked the partnership committees to report at their next meetings.

Should the partnership scheme's priority aim of increasing employment in the inner cities be taken as the signal for the expansion or for the contraction of direct labour departments?

I think that a lot will depend on the circumstances, the wishes and the organisation of local authorities. Direct labour organisations are by no means the universal pattern. In those areas where they exist, I have no doubt that they will be able to make a useful contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many notices of public works contracts and licences, advertised in the EEC Official Journal in accordance with EEC directives, have been published by British local authorities; and how many have been accepted by non-British contractors in other EEC countries.

Up to 30 November 1977, 2,742 public works contracts had been advertised in the Official Journal of the EEC by local authorities in the United Kingdom. As far as I am aware, none of these has been placed with a contractor based in an EEC country other than the United Kingdom.

What, then, is the point of continuing with this bureaucratic bumbledom?

This is an arrangement that was not exactly introduced by myself, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. I assume that United Kingdom public works contractors may have the opportunity of contracting for work in other European countries, just as they have here.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Texaco Limited has just placed an order with a Spanish company for an oil refinery at Milford Haven?

I am not aware of the details of what my hon. Friend has just stated, but I shall willingly look at the matter. However, the Question is directed to the subject of local authorities.

Does not the answer prove that Continental contractors see how many British contractors go bankrupt and have no desire to work in this country?

What a miserable view the hon. Gentleman takes. It is disgraceful. If the figures mean anything, and if I had to put an interpretation on them, I would say that they show that British local authorities, when they have rival bids put to them, have tended to choose British contractors. That, no doubt, reflects the admirable work of British contractors.

Presumably the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, since exactly the same system operates throughout the Common Market, our excellent contractors would do extremely well on the Continent of Europe.

I should have to look up the details of that, but I shall willingly look into it for the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a special departmental inquiry into the question of giving adequate compensation to householders affected by flooding in the Greater London area during 1977.

An inquiry is not necessary. Local authorities possess adequate powers under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 to spend money or grant loans to alleviate the effects of emergencies or disasters such as flooding.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he note that I was suggesting not that central Government funds should be used but that an inquiry might be useful in getting greater co-ordination, in the sense that last year, when there was violent flooding in August, there was a considerable difference in the treatment meted out by local authorities in terms of the size of compensation payments and the number of people compensated?

I am aware that different local authorities place different emphases and hold different views, but, in fairness, I must say that the impact of this kind of emergency was different in different areas, not only between boroughs but within the boroughs concerned. I think that we must leave it to the elected local authorities to make their own judgments on the basis of their local facts as best they can in this matter.

With reference to the floods that hit North-West London last August, can my right hon. Friend say whether, under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, it would be permissible for two tiers of local authorities—for example, the London borough of Ealing and the GLC—to co-operate in making compensatory payments and assisting victims? If so, ought he not to encourage them to act in a civilised, sensible way by sharing the responsibility, instead of bickering stupidly about who should do it?

I should have to ask for notice of that question. I will check the Act in detail to see whether the two tiers could provide assistance jointly, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

Would it not be better to concentrate on preventing flooding rather than on compensation? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture why the completion of the Thames Barrier has been delayed for two years from 1979 to 1981, at ever-mounting cost to ratepayers and taxpayers?

So far as I am aware—this is an off-the-cuff observation—the flooding to which the questions have so far referred did not relate to the flood barrier but arose from difficulties due essentially to the overflowing of the River Brent and related waterworks in the North-West London area.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents were very adversely affected by the recent floods? Is he further aware that the cost of preventing such floods recurring in the area is astronomic, running into many millions of pounds—quite beyond the capacity of either the GLC or the individual boroughs to deal with? Is there not, therefore, a case for some discussion on this issue, perhaps between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, together with local authorities, to see whether special assistance can be given?

Again I speak off the cuff, but my understanding is that the GLC has undertaken, and I believe is still in the midst of, a major review of the implications of the flooding. On the basis of the information available to me, I would not accept the general proposition that the resource requirements for undertaking a programme of works has been, over the past years, or will be, in the future, beyond the capacity of the GLC and the local authorities, especially the GLC. In any case, there is considerable Government assistance by way of rate support grant to annual revenue costs of local authority expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now abolish or revise the Parker Morris standards for housing.

We will not abolish the standards, but, as stated in the Green Paper on Housing Policy, we believe there is a need to introduce greater flexibility into their application, and we will consult the local authority associations about this.

I am glad to hear that. Is the Minister aware that these standards were laid down as minima, but that more and more local authorities appear to be interpreting them as maxima? In view of the difficulties, which I am sure the Minister appreciates, particularly over such things as the need for alternative heating systems, will he do what he can to speed up this study?

I take the hon. Gentleman's general point. Indeed, his specific example is very much in my mind. Briefly, I should like to see a system in which we provided for a range of options for standards and gave greater flexibility to switch from one element of expenditure to another in different kinds of housing, if need be, giving a council the authority to improve on heating, if it is prepared to forgo other provisions. We are still working on this matter and shall be having consultations about it.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in creating this flexibility we do not encourage a reduction in standards? Will he remember that we are suffering today from reductions in standards that were approved and brought in by the Conservatives years ago?

This is a great worry to me in any system of flexibility that we introduce. I shall bear it closely in mind. In introducing flexibility, we must not risk a runaway erosion of standards. I am certainly intent on avoiding that.

But is not the real question not a reduction of standards but the wrong standards? The present Parker Morris standards are putting increased costs on tenants and local authorities. Is the Minister really saying that we shall have further discussions about this, when there is concrete evidence and there are proposals for change that have been on the table for a long time?

Various views have been expressed about the standards. The hon. Gentleman is taking a contrary view to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith). As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is suggesting that the standards are too high and that there should be a genuine reduction. I do not accept that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of his previous statement, why provision for the introduction of a tenants' charter for council property is not contained in the present Government's legislative programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of his previous statement, why provision for the introduction of a tenants' charter for council property is not contained in the present Government's legislative programme.

Before we proceed to legislation I want to give full consideration to the representations received, particularly from local authorities and their tenants. I have not yet completed this study.

Does the Secretary of State recall that early last year, when the Government voted down a council tenants' charter Bill introduced from the Opposition side of the House, two ministerial assurances were given that a similar Bill would be introduced by the Government? In view of the Government's reluctance in this respect, will he accept notice of my intention to introduce again a similar Bill?

We shall obviously consider the content of the Bill when the hon. Gentleman introduces it. I certainly agree that we said at that time that we were anxious to introduce a measure on this important matter, and that is what I still intend to do, as soon as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman's original proposals on this matter were welcomed on both sides of the House. Council tenants, certainly in my constituency, would like to see an extension of the powers they already have in this regard to run their own estates. Is this now another election gimmick, in the sense that it will not be brought forward but will just be talked about?

No. If we were approaching it simply in that spirit, we should produce it straight away, given the obvious attraction that the hon. Gentleman says it has. We want to consider it seriously. It affects the daily lives of many millions of people and we want to get it right. The concept of a tenants' charter covers a wide area and we have received, and are still receiving, a lot of representations on it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgency about this matter in two fields—first, in repairs, which in many local authorities are outstanding to a high degree, and, secondly, in evictions, many of which are taking place, particularly in industrial conurbations?

I certainly agree that repairs and, indeed, security of tenure are important matters, but they are not the only ones. There are the rights of tenants in relation to subletting and taking lodgers, and the important questions, for tenants, of how far they can organise their own exchanges and transfers. In addition, there is the whole question of tenant participation and management.

Does the Secretary of State understand that it was nine months ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) first sought leave to introduce this matter to the House? It carries no conviction to suggest that it takes nine months to hold consultations on a matter of this sort. As it would be given full support from the Opposition side of the House, why does the right hon. Gentleman not simply get on with it?

The hon. Gentleman should know that we published a Green Paper in July, gave people until 1st December to give their major responses, and sent out a series of follow-up consultation papers inviting further responses. The information is only just coming in.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was made available by way of local authority mortgages and loans to help people buy and improve houses in Liverpool in 1974–75, 1975–76, 1976–77 and in the current year, giving the percentage decline for each year.

Liverpool's direct lending for 1974–75 to 1977–78 was £4.8 million, £3.7 million, £2.2 million and £1.2 million, respectively. In addition, support lending available between 1975–76 and 1977–78 totalled £2.55 million. In 1978–79. Liverpool will have £5 million for direct lending and improvement grants and for support lending. I have asked what it needs from the substantially increased amount available nationally.

Does the Minister realise that this is the principal fund to purchase and improve older houses in inner city areas, such as Liverpool? How does he reconcile the accelerated deterioration of older houses in the inner city with the statement that he has pensioned off the bulldozer?

I find the form of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question rather obscure. I realise that there are many figures which are difficult to follow, but if the hon. Gentleman will read the text of what I have said he will realise that there is increasing provision for home lending. I am still awaiting a response to my inquiry from Liverpool about what it would require from the greatly increased support lending available from building societies in the coming year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to stop local authorities building over-large council house estates and use the money saved to increase improvement grants for rundown older houses in urban and city areas.

I refer the hon. Member to my written reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on 16th December 1977.

In view of the quite deplorable decline in the number of improvement grants in the past two or three years, should not top priority be given to improving the existing stock of housing rather than to building vast new council estates? Would it not be sensible for the Minister to issue one of his famous circulars to local authorities instructing them to get their priorities right in that respect?

I think the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that he should get from the Vote Office or from my Department—I will send it to him if he wishes—a copy of the circular on housing strategies and investment programmes that we issued not very long ago to every local authority. In that circular he will see his question answered more than fully. I shall be glad to discuss the matter further with him if he wishes.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to strengthen the legislation in respect of the allocation of improvement grants? Is he aware that builders are now, in contravention of the Housing Act 1974, taking out leases in order to obtain the £2,900 improvement grant in places such as Chelsea and Kensington, and Bath—both Tory-controlled—and that those two councils are conniving with builders to get round the Act in order that builders can start the winkling jobs they were doing before and which the Act was designed to stop?

As my hon. Friend indicated, in the Housing Act 1974 we took a number of steps to stop the growing abuses that had arisen in the immediately preceding years. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of the allegation in the second part of his supplementary question, I shall inquire into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any of his functions in relation to sport will be devolved under the proposed devolution legislation.

My responsibilities in sports matters relate to the United Kingdom as a whole, in co-operation with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales already exercise responsibility for sports matters in their countries, and no changes are proposed under the devolution legislation in my functions with regard to sport.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in order to get hold of the Royal High School building the Government had to evict the Canoe Club from its premises? Will he nudge the Lord President and ask him whether devolution will bring any benefits that will in any way compensate the Canoe Club for the loss of its premises?

I certainly cannot comment on the British Canoe Club, except to say that, whatever happened, I am glad to report that canoeing is one of the sports in respect of which we are making admirable progress in international affairs. I have no doubt that this has someting to do with the fact that it is based on devolutionary considerations with United Kingdom overall control.