asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposal he has to boost construction industry output.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the confidence of the construction industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the confidence of the construction industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to boost construction industry output.

The £800 million of additional public expenditure which has been allocated in the past year for the period up to 1980 will provide a stable level of public sector demand for the construction industry. This will certainly assist in restoring the industry's confidence.

Is the Minister aware that following a number of bankruptcies in the Berkshire area there is still no confidence in the future of this industry? Therefore, will he take three simple steps to restore confidence? Will he, first, drop the proposals to nationalise this industry; secondly, rescind the Community Land Act; and, thirdly, look at the whole question of planning procedures in order to accelerate them?

The first two supplementary points put by the hon. Gentleman are, with respect to him, wholly irrelevant. On his third point, I am only too willing to examine our planning procedures so that we can accelerate them.

Is the Minister aware that the utter depression that exists in this industry will cause more problems in the future in terms of skill, because the young people are not getting the apprenticeships that they ought to get and will be short of skills at a later date?

It is a very serious matter. We are very much concerned to encourage industry and the various public sectors of the industry to maintain the right number of people under training for these skills and to encourage the acquisition of skills in the training centres outside the industry.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that if, under his blacklisting scheme, a nominated sub-contractor—that is, a sub-contractor which his Department instructs a main contractor to employ—breaks the Pay Code, the Secretary of State is claiming the right to break the main contract? Is not that absolutely abortive of human rights? Is that the way to bring confidence to the industry?

I discussed this matter with representatives of the industry as recently as 28th February. There is a problem in relation to sub-contractors. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are still under discussion between Government Ministers and the CBI.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Berkshire branch of the Royal Institute of British Architects believes that the present fiscal arrangements discriminate against the construction industry? What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about applying full depreciation allowances for new industrial and commercial buildings in the same way as plant and equipment are treated?

We have to try to get this matter in perspective. It is noticeable that over a number of years the discrimination to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been accepted by successive Governments in favour of the encouragement of investment. The fact is that there is now a 50 per cent. depreciation arrangement in year one for firms engaging in new factory building. This is a matter that we keep under review, and I am in touch with the Chancellor about it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be rather more seemly and a trifle less contemptible if Conservative Members were to encourage Conservative-controlled local authorities to engage in a higher level of construction activity than the very deplorable level which many of them undertake at present?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is particularly relevant in the whole area of house building, particularly local authority house building. However, as far as I can see, there is a very deliberate discouragement from Conservative Central Office and from Conservative spokesmen for local authorities to build.

I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already done in releasing more resources in this area. Does he agree that a great deal more could be done, above all on house repairs, where a great deal of new employment could be encouraged, with valuable results?

That is why we raised the limits and generally made the conditions easier last July. I have reason to believe that there will be an increasing uptake in improvement work during the coming year.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, far from the responsibility of the Conservative-controlled local authorities, it is the climate within which those authorities are expected to trade that has created the downturn in construction activity, and that the climate is one for which this Government are responsible? Does he understand that the Labour Party manifesto, on which he was elected, promised a stable work force for the construction industry? Why should his assurance be any more valid today than in 1974?

That comes ill from the hon. Gentleman, representing a party whose last major act of the almost forgotten Chancellor—the then Mr. Anthony Barber—was to cut public expenditure by £1,150 million in December 1973, of which over £850 million was in construction. Let us hear no more about stability from the hon. Gentleman.

Is not the fact of the matter that the fortunes of the construction industry rest to a very large extent on the levels of public expenditure? In that regard, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether a massive programme of improvement and modernisation in both the public and private sectors would not only be socially useful but would help to combat high levels of unemployment among building workers? What is happening in that area?

In reply to the original Question, I indicated that we had in fact made a substantial increase in public expenditure to help the construction industry in this coming year—1978–79—and that it would continue at a more stable level into 1979–80 and beyond. I believe that that will help the industry. As my hon. Friend knows, we also wish to see a considerable pick-up in investment in manufacturing industry. The figure that I gave indicates that there are certainly signs of that taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received an official communication from the EEC Commission about EEC aid for recent flood and storm damage in the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State recall that on 15th February the Commission stated that the offer of nearly £1 million in aid for the East Coast of England and parts of Scotland was made after discussion with United Kingdom authorities? Did the Government in those discussions put forward the case for part of the EEC aid going to the Lancashire coast, which suffered severe flood and storm damage in November?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the point about discussion. There might have been some informal exchanges, but there was no discussion with Ministers before the Commission made its offer. I have subsequently tried to sort out the general terms of the offer that was made. I have very much in mind the point made by the hon. Gentleman, that other areas of the country have also suffered and that it would be helpful if the offer were more broadly spread.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's contributions to the Community budget in 1977 exceeded receipts by no less than £377 million? Against that background, could not the Common Market mandarins afford to be more generous than they have been so far?

That raises the whole question of the nature and imbalance of the monetary contributions that this country has made. We have been over this ground before. I thought that I should not necessarily raise it on this question of flood relief.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that although £900,000 has been received, it has not been allocated specifically to any region of the United Kingdom, and that any suggestion that it has is totally wrong?

I do not think that anyone has made any such suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman will understand from the nature of the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) that it would be premature to think of allocating it until we have decided which regions are eligible to receive it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that on the basis that help should first come from home, Thanet and the Canterbury District Council, despite the fact that severe damage was caused on 12th January and officials from the Department inspected that damage on 17th January, have still not received a single penny to help towards repairing the breaches in the sea wall and that more damage is threatened later this month?

Help will come from home. We fully accept the responsibility of looking after our own people in our own country. That is the intention of the arrangements that I have already announced. We have urged local authorities to use the powers that they have without any delay to deal with urgent cases of need. They have those powers under Section 138 of the Local Government Act. We have said that as soon as they have firm estimates they are to come to us so that we can decide how much and in what way we can assist them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated annual expenditure on the Palace of Holyrood House, Edinburgh.

The estimated gross expenditure by the Department on the Palace of Holyrood House for 1977–78 is £378,940.

Instead of spending all that public money on a costly white elephant, which is normally used for only one Royal visit and a couple of garden parties every year, will the Government consider the Palace of Holyrood House as a possible meeting place for the Scottish Assembly? If the Royal Family are stuck for digs when they visit Edinburgh, they could apply for admission to the Royal High School.

I should explain that the Palace is open to visitors throughout the year, except on occasions when the Royal Family or the Commissioner stay there. I am not sure whether the Scottish Assembly would want to emulate this Parliament by moving into a Royal Palace as we did in the sixteenth century. On that occasion the King invited the Commons into the Palace and closed the chapel for that purpose. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend's question ought to go to another place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider banning sales of council houses by local authorities where there is a known housing shortage.

Not at present. But I am concerned that some councils appear to be selling indiscriminately and disregarding local housing needs. I shall be ready to amend the general consent if circumstances warrant it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these post-war houses are being sold at the give-away price of £5,000 and that to replace them by new houses costs £70,000 over the 60-year repayment period? Will he look into the situation in Leeds where the council is continuing to sell council houses although there is a waiting list of over 20,000 families?

I shall certainly examine further the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. I am rather concerned at the extent to which indiscriminate policies are being pursued in some parts of the country. I shall watch the situation closely with a view to action, if necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every survey that has been carried out has demonstrated that about 80 per cent. of all young people want to own their own homes? Are Conservative-controlled councils to understand that the Minister is now threatening that the Government will take action against them if they meet that need?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should introduce a little coolness into his assessment of need in this area and should use his good offices to get local authorities with which he has contact to look at the detailed pattern of housing need and demand in their areas and match their action to that, and not to preconceived indiscriminate policies such as are advocated by him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Medway Borough Council is not only selling houses to sitting tenants but is embarking on an advertising campaign to persuade people living in flats and maisonettes who wish to buy houses to obtain transfers? Does he regard that as consistent with the policy of selling houses to sitting tenants and as fair to those who will have to continue to live for ever longer periods in unsuitable conditions because the houses that they need for their families have been sold off?

This is an important matter not only to Medway but to local authorities generally. One of the considerations that we have to keep in mind—and I hope that local authorities of whatever political persuasion will have it in mind in considering this matter—is the housing management of total estates, and the transfer of families from blocks of flats to houses which have gardens in which their kids can play. There is an indication that if present policies are per-sued indiscriminately certain blocks of flatted estates will be turned into ghettoes out of which families will not be able to move.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no council may sell below the cost of the house in the first place, and that a 20 per cent. discount on current market value provides a substantial capital and revenue gain to local authorities? Will he, therefore, allow local authorities, as of right, to sell at a 30 per cent. discount, which would still show a considerable gain to the taxpayer and ratepayer and give the local authority tenant the mobility that he does not otherwise enjoy?

First, I have to remind the hon. Gentleman—I thought that he was a Minister in the Department of the Environment at the time—that the 30 per cent. discount introduced by some local authorities was authorised by the then Government at a time of steeply rising inflation in house prices. That was the reason given at the time, but that is not the position now. Secondly, the figuring that he has quoted is not strictly accurate. The 20 per cent. discount is a general rule. I believe that there are some circumstances, unfortunately, where the rule about sale below cost does not arise, and we are giving consideration to that. There is plenty of evidence to show that there is little capital gain. Most council house sales do not take place on the basis of building society mortgages. That form of sale applies to very few.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to nationalise the construction industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with building firms regarding social ownership.

I have no current proposals to nationalise building or construction firms; no consultations or discussions have therefore taken place.

Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean about his own views and intentions? Does he support the Labour Party's official policy? If so, has he costed that policy? Does he agree with the late Aneurin Bevan, who said that when we talk about nationalising the building industry we are really saying "Let's nationalise every industry in Great Britain"?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to read carefully the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party that was presented to the last year's annual conference. If he does so, he will find the answer.

I shall call first those Members whose Questions are being answered, and then I will give a run to the other side of the House.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is very forthcoming on this question. Has he had correspondence with any of the major British contracting firms? I am thinking particularly of Laing, Wimpey, Wates and Taylor Woodrow. When considering nationalisation, what regard is being given to the overseas activities of such firms, which are extremely beneficial to the balance of payments?

I shall have to check whether, on this matter, I have had individual letters from the firms that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. At present, I cannot recall. However, I understand his point about the great importance of the contribution that major construction firms play in the very large orders that are still to be won, and are being won, for British industry in the Middle East and in many other overseas markets.

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he has not carefully read the policy of the 1977 Labour Party conference on the nationalisation of the construction industry? Is it his intention to press for the implementation of that policy to be included either in the Queen's Speech or the next Labour Party manifesto, whichever is the first? If that is his intention, will he deny that the initial outlay will be £1,500 million and that the annual running costs will be £200 million in the implementation of that policy?

I think that I can safely say that I do not confirm the hon. Gentleman's tortured arithmetic. That apart, I say to him that I have read the document. It is a very good analysis of the problems of the industry. It identifies them in a serious way. As it states, it comes forward, as an interim report, with a number of proposed solutions. There will be further studies by the NEC—and no doubt with other bodies—before further decisions are made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reference to having no current proposals to nationalise will be severely damaging to confidence in the construction industry and, therefore, to investment and job opportunities? Will he now reassure the House that he has no proposals for nationalisation?

If the hon. Gentleman and and his party had said at a similar stage in the life of the Conservative Government that there was no current proposal to nationalise Rolls-Royce, the Conservative Government would have been safeguarding their position against all eventualities. Thinking does not stop when Members of Parliament become Secretaries of State, and the future of the industry is something with which I am much concerned.

Is it not clear that the Opposition Members who raise these questions today have not read the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party? Is it not also clear that the statement makes clear that the proposal is to establish a national construction corporation, based upon one or two of the major companies? The statement refers to the extension of direct labour organisations and the encouragement of co-operatives at the lowest level. This is not the full nationalisation of the industry. As the Estates Times has said about those who speak for the Opposition, they want to start doing something serious before they are to be taken into consideration on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have rumbled you."] They have really rumbled Conservative Members.

My hon. Friend knows better than most in the House what is in the document. As I understand it, he presided over the working party that produced it. However, I go slightly further than my hon. Friend. He wrote in Building Week only a short time ago that it may be possible to create a national construction corporation without taking over any contractor. I do not think that it is right for the House to judge any of these matters. They have yet to be concluded. They will be discussed and considered carefully.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members continually call for public expenditure when it will help the construction industry? Is he aware that many Labour Members believe that the industry depends almost completely on public sector orders and that the quicker it is brought into public ownership the better?

The matter that is of the greatest concern to the construction industry does not arise from the questions that the Opposition are throwing at us but lies in the overall demand that can be anticipated in future, in whether there can be great improvements in not only labour conditions, which are extremely important, but labour relations, and in whether there can be greater stability in the flow of orders from both the public and private sectors in future.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his answer will confirm the worst suspicions of those who have watched the evolution of policy in the Labour Party? Does he also understand that his evasive answer has confirmed that in that policy there is not hostility to nationalisation and that it is simply a matter of timing, of when it can be introduced with the minimum electoral disadvantage to the Labour Party? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that as long as that ambivalent attitude prevails on the Government Benches, investment will not flow and the present scandalous levels of unemployment in the construction industry will remain?

I believe that the hon Gentleman is in a state of almost permanent political neurosis on the subject of public ownership. I do not believe that any words that I can offer will help to relieve him of that unfortunate condition.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many Labour Members think that it is a pity that he said today that he had no further plans to nationalise the construction industry? Does he understand that one of the motives behind the Tories tabling so many Questions on this subject is that it assists them to obtain a number of directorships, bearing in mind the activities of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and his connections with Bovis? In view of the bankruptcies which have taken place in the industry and the dwindling number of directorships that are now on offer, obviously the Tories are running into serious problems and may even have to contemplate taking directorships of skateboard companies.

I appreciate that there is a close connection between a number of Conservative Members and particular construction firms. Whether that enables those Members to bring the necessary detachment to bear on the affairs of the industry or gives them added insight into these problems, I leave to the House to judge. In regard to future policy, I must point out that we have yet to have the kind of discussions that are normal within the Labour Party. If and when we make firm proposals on the construction industry or anything else, they will be made public and will be part of the agreed policy of the party.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for housing starts and completions in the public and private sectors.

The figures for January 1978 were published on 6th March. After seasonal adjustments have been made, there were 11,000 public sector starts and 11,400 completions in Great Britain; for the private sector the figures are 11,500 starts and 12,900 completions.

I congratulate the Government on the number of completions achieved in the public sector in the last three years, because it is a 50 per cent. improvement on the figure achieved by the Conservative Government in their last year of office.

I have expressed my concern on this subject for some time. It is a serious matter that there is a prospect of a reduction in the number of starts, not because of lack of resources provided by the Government but following the failure of a number of local authorities to take up those resources, with effects being felt in underspending and lack of housing investment. Before I consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend in seeking to solve the problem, I should like to consider other possibilities. We are now examining the matter closely.

Is the Minister aware that the Berwick-on-Tweed Borough Council is determined to build more houses but finds it impossible to obtain tenders because of the housing cost yardstick? Will he consider meeting a deputation from the council?

I do not know about the necessity for meeting a deputation from that council. There are other authorities which face similar problems in the region. I am aware that there are problems in the Northern Region that are more deeply felt than perhaps elsewhere in the country. We are examining the matter closely. We shall shortly have the quarterly review of the housing cost yardstick levels and I hope to take action following that review.

Since it is clear that Tory-controlled local authorities are dragging their feet on new housing starts, why does not my right hon. Friend step directly into house building by setting up an English special housing association on similar lines to the Scottish Special Housing Association, which can take over from the Tory councils when they fail in their duty to the public?

If one were to pursue that proposition—and this is not the first time it has been made—it would take some time, even if adopted, to implement and bring into action. In the meantime, there are other measures that we must consider in seeking to keep the level of housing activity up to that for which we have provided resource levels.

Does the Minister agree that it is wrong to expect local authorities to increase their borrowings for new building and yet to retain their rate demands within the limits required by the Government? Does he agree that the fall-back in the number of starts has occurred in the private as well as in the public sector? Does he not remember that Shelter condemned the Government's housing record in 1977 as being the worst for 15 years? Furthermore, does he believe that the current policy of mortgage restriction helps private industry to build more houses?

There are three or four supplementary questions tied up in the hon. Gentleman's comments. The answer to his point about the public sector is "No", because I do not think that the present state of the local rates is a reason for the hold-up in public sector starts. There are other reasons. Uppermost in my mind at present in this context are the policy decisions and influences stemming from the Conservative Central Office, from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, and from Conservatives in the town halls. As for the other supplementary questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I shall deal with them when they are put separately.

If builders know that there are sufficient mortgages available, does it not encourage them? Is not the best way to help keep down house prices to increase the supply of private and council houses rather than to restrict the supply of mortgages?

I do not follow my hon. Friend's reasoning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition memories are short. There has been much talk from the Opposition, but there was little action by the Tory Government in the early 1970s. We all know that what happened then was an explosion in house prices and a major collapse in house building in the private sector, from which we are still recovering.

If I may attempt to link the matter of starts and completions in the private sector with the subject of house prices, may I ask the Minister of State what effect on house prices will be caused by the fact that the Government are leaning on the building societies? How does that square with the movement towards building societies and the legislation on this subject which is now passing through the House seeking to provide grants and loans to first-time buyers, which may affect prices in the opposite direction?

If I may take the hon. Gentleman's last point first, these mat- ters were examined and discussed at considerable length when the legislation to which he refers was before the House on Second Reading. Those matters will also be subject to a good deal of scrutiny when the Bill goes into Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange that payment for sewage disposal from properties not connected to the main sewers will be covered by payment of the appropriate rate, in view of the support for this course of a substantial body of informed opinion.

The Government's intentions on this problem are outlined in the White Paper, "The Water Industry in England and Wales: The Next Steps." (Cmnd 6876).

Is it not time that we had a firm assurance of imminent progress on this subject? Does the Minister accept that comparisons are being drawn between the experience of those whose waste disposal depends on cesspools and the cost of operating a sewered service in sparsely populated or remote areas?

The legislation on those matters awaits the parliamentary timetable, and it is not a matter for me. However, the White Paper outlined ways in which these problems could be avoided. In the meantime, I cannot make directions to local authorities to act as though the implemented.

Will the Minister also comment on the amount of dereliction which has taken place in the provision of underground services? Is he aware that in the older areas, such as Lancashire, possibly as much as £1,000 million will have to be spent on underground sewers which are falling in and which will create a huge problem in the next decade?

This is a matter with which many regional water authorities, especially in the North-West, are greatly concerned. It is questionable whether an amount could be fixed in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, but I repeat that this is a matter of which the authorities in the areas are extremely conscious.

Following the previous Question on the limitation which the Government imposed on the borrowing by regional water authorities, will the Minister consider allowing them to go into the open market? Is the Minister aware that they have had to borrow vast sums at high interest rates of 15 per cent. or 16 per cent.? Does he agree that it would be much cheaper for them to borrow on the open market? Is it not time to implement that policy?

Interest rates have not remained at that high level, as the authorities well know from their balances this year. This matter is included in the plans for the regional water authorities and is being discussed with the National Water Council.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce a Bill extending security of tenure to council house tenants.

As soon as we can complete the necessary consultations and a place can be found in the Government's legislative programme.

Does the Minister accept that the provision of security of tenure for council house tenants is an integral part of the last Labour Party manifesto? Is it not time we took action directly on this matter and, indeed, on the council tenants' charter? Will he do his best to bring forward legislation this Session?

I cannot guarantee the last request for reasons of which my hon. Friend will be aware. However, I can give him a general assurance that it is still our committed policy. We intend to bring forward legislation when we can. This will not be simple legislation. It will raise some complex legal and managerial questions, which will have to be resolved.

Is not ownership the most secure form of tenure?

The most secure form of tenure is not in all cases ownership. I hope that the hon. Member will not join or stay with that unhappy throng of people of his side of the House who wish to see the virtual end of the rented sector, which is primarily local authority and housing association owned.

Is the Minister aware that those with properties at Black-gang, in the Isle of Wight, certainly did not think that ownership was the most secure form of tenure? Will he look favourably at the idea of long-leasing council houses? Does he agree that that would be one way to get tenants to take more responsibility for maintenance?

There are a variety of ways in which we can implement the objectives that we have set out under the general heading of the tenants' charter. Long leases are just one of those ways. Some local authorities have tried three-, four- or five-year renewable leases. Others are embarking on co-operative housing, either by tenant management or tenant ownership. There are various other means that can be adopted. There is no single way forward. There are a variety of ways forward, and we shall pursue them.

Does the Minister recognise that there is no better way of giving council tenants the greatest possible capital stake than by giving them the opportunity to own?

I wish that the hon. Member would keep off this obsession. There is more than one way of handling housing policy, both nationally and locally. If he and some of his hon. Friends would pay attention to the variety of problems and needs that have to be met instead of riding one hobby horse every time the question of housing is raised, we might make some progress with them in establishing a constructive housing policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to extend the direct labour powers of local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the extension of direct labour activity.

I have no immediate proposals in this field, but it remains my intention to introduce legislation dealing with the activities of direct labour organisations. I have not had any further discussions with the local authorities since 1976 when the original Local Authorities (Works) Bill was being drawn up.

Since he dodged the question when he was asked it by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), will the Minister now say what such extension would cost? What does he say to the irrefutable evidence that where direct labour is used it is less efficient, more costly and less satisfactory than putting the job out to private enterprise?

The hon. Member is allowing himself to be persuaded by a lot of ill-digested and perverted information. The truth is that there is a great range of costs in the different building sectors, whether they are private or public. I do not believe that the measure that we have in mind—which has been discussed in the House—sensibly to extend direct labour powers would lead to any additional costs.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Sheffield Metropolitan District Council, since long before it was a metropolitan council, has a direct labour department which is the apple of its eye and which it guards most carefully? Is he aware that many millions of pounds have been saved by this department and that it is acknowledged by the citizens of Sheffield, who vote Labour repeatedly in order to achieve a strong Labour council?

That is true. The experience of Sheffield can be matched by many other former metropolitan councils. Direct labour plays a very important part indeed.

Will the Secretary of State please condescend to give the House some facts? Will he tell us what evidence he has that direct labour organisations, in any authority, are more efficient or more profitable than are private construction firms?

The hon. Member knows that the operating conditions under which direct labour organisations work are different from those under which building firms work in terms of house construction. One of the things that we wanted to do was to make it possible to sort out the different activities of DLOs so that the matter could be more sensibly judged in the future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that direct labour organisations, because of their size, have worked under great difficulties, and that there is a need to remove the restrictions from some of them? Will my right hon. Friend urge people to read the document on this question and examine the serious proposals for competitive direct labour organisations, for removing the restrictions, and for imposing serious control, which has sometimes not been forthcoming in every direct labour organisation as it has not been in many private enterprise companies which have gone out of existence?

My hon. Friend is right. There are unnecessary restrictions on a number of DLOs. As part of the general package to remove these restrictions, they should be put on an obviously competitive basis with private sector firms.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following the reduction in interest rates, diminishing the cost of council houses by 60p weekly on average for each 1 per cent. interest rate reduction, he will give the average fall in interest rates for local authorities on their new and total borrowing, respectively, since their peak; what future for average council rents he anticipates; and if he will now revise his guidelines and Green Paper proposals for further rent increases.

Local authority costs have not fallen by 60p a week. The local authority "pool rate" has fallen from 10·5 per cent. in 1976–77 to 10·2 per cent. in 1977–78, a drop of 0·3 per cent. or about 18p a week per dwelling. Expenditure on housing revenue accounts, including that from £2,000 million average investment per year, has increased.

Is the Minister aware that a number of housing directors and treasurers tell me that interest rates have fallen, on average, by 3½ per cent.? In view of this boon, will he reconsider the guidelines for increasing rents by 60p a week and the White Paper proposals to increase rents in line with incomes? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the vital decision last Friday to remove the condition that 60p should be added to rents if the high-price building subsidy is to remain.

I do not know what consultations my hon. Friend has had with directors and treasurers, but I am not sure that I should accept without further information that even in these cases the "pool rate" of interest—which is what counts—lias gone down by 3 per cent. I doubt that. It might have occurred in areas where there is a reduction in activity, but not in others. I see no reason for reviewing the guidelines in rent policy, either in the Green Paper or for 1978.

Does the Minister accept that most tenants would agree to rent increases if they felt that they had more control over their destiny? If the Government have not time to introduce a tenants' charter Bill, will they support the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre)?

There are serious inadequacies in that Bill. On the general point, I and the Government need no urging to get local authorities and housing associations to do more in democratising their procedures and in involving tenants—[Interruption.] I can tell those who are interrupting and catcalling that it was this Government who, among other things, introduced co-operative housing into the law. There are now 200 schemes in the pipeline, after only 18 months. Nothing was done by the Conservatives. Many other things are being done under this Government on the question of tenant management. I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is interested, even if his hon. Friends who are interrupting are not.

Many council house rents are far too high. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would make good sense to make a national reduction in those rents?

I do not accept my hon. Friend's general proposition. There may be individual cases where rents are higher than they should be. I only hope that full information and guidance is given to tenants about the rent rebates that are available to them. I do not accept that council house rents in this country are too high—

They are.

I know as much about this subject as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of the total amount of central Government money made available to the city of Birmingham for (a) house building and (b) home improvements in the current year; and what were the corresponding figures for the two previous years.

For 1978–79 Birmingham's allocation for block 1, which includes house building, acquisition and renovation, was £65·5 million. For 1977–78 the figure was £67·1 million. These are comparable figures at 1978–79 provisional outturn prices; similar figures for earlier years are not available. In addition, the Housing Corporation is currently investing £2·6 million in house building and renovation, and Birmingham has been allocated a further £3 million on housing for the period up to March 1979 as part of the inner cities construction package.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer, but does he agree that these increases do not keep pace with the rate of inflation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the existing circumstances where there are vast quantities of unused resources—human, material and financial—this is the best time, particularly when interest rates are falling, to embark upon a more ambitious programme of house construction and renovation? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that such a move would serve also to stimulate the economy?

As soon as we are able to get more resources put into housing construction and other public sector working, I would welcome such a move and take the necessary steps in my area of responsibility. My immediate problem, however, is to see that the resources that we have already made available are taken up. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers there has been a reduction in the house building programme for 1978 which has led me to have to withdraw some of the resources from Birmingham and direct them elsewhere in order to maintain use of the money available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his figures deliberately obscured the truth on this matter? On home improvements, does he realise that Birmingham has suffered because the Government's programme has been cut to less than one-third of its 1973 figure? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the serious social consequences of this to Birmingham and other large cities, where large areas of old housing are having to be left to deteriorate?

The figures were not intended to be misleading, nor were they. They related to local authority action in terms of house building, acquisition and improvement, which was what I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) to be asking about. There is a problem on improvement grants. It is a question not simply of what resources the Government can make available but of the resources that are being taken up. Consistently throughout the country in recent years there has been an underspend on the budgeted figure. We are taking action to try to get a bigger take-up of improvement grants. We initiated a campaign a few days ago to get that under way.

What action are the Government taking to deal with the bloody-mindedness of Conservative local authorities which refuse to take up resources and are thwarting the Government's efforts in this regard? Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion made earlier for the establishment of a housing agency on the lines of that in Scotland?

I cannot add to my earlier answer about a special housing association for England. There are ways by which we can secure an increased take-up. I do not want to go into detail about them this afternoon, but we are seriously examining such means and we shall be making an announcement fairly soon.

Order. I hope that no one else will copy the language of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). After all, we are the Mother of Parliaments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the allocation to Sheffield for the housing investment programme for 1978–79.

Following my meeting with Sheffield on 26th January, further discussions are taking place with the Department's regional office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sympathetic and helpful attitude to representations on this point is very much appreciated? Does he agree that it is of the utmost importance that cities such as Sheffield should be able to complete their full programmes without having to cut back through lack of resources?

I endorse that. Here we see the contrast between various authorities. This authority wants to go ahead with a building programme. I have undertaken to be as helpful as I can to ensure that it maintains its activity in housing investment in 1978.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make it easier for local and regional authorities to apply for EEC loans and grants under the regional Development Fund and Social Fund.

Questions about the Social Fund are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Full advice about applications to the Regional Development Fund has been made available to local and other public authorities. I have no reason to believe that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory.

Considering the striking amounts that have been granted by the two funds over recent years—in the case of the Social Fund it has been about £200 million since 1973, and £151 million from the Regional Development Fund since the beginning of that year—will the Secretary of State reconsider his reply and make every effort to ensure that local authorities know the best; and most efficient way of applying for this kind of resource assistance, bearing in mind that there is a gross imbalance now between different areas of the country? Does he agree that some local authorities are well clued up, while others are not? Is it not the job of the Government to make sure that local authorities apply efficiency to the maximum and—

Order. I do not know whether questions are as long as that in the European Parliament.

I certainly cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures. I think they may refer to the Social Fund, but of course they are gross figures and they take no account of our contribution. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should go out of his way to emphasise what appears to be a gift to this country and quote net figures instead of gross figures.

Will my right hon. Friend constantly make clear to those who think that the EEC acts as a Santa Claus to Britain that we always pay in more than we get out?

My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the overall contribution and the net benefit that we gain in terms of cash flow. With the Regional Development Fund, however, it is true that, exceptionally, we gain more than we contribute.

Does the Secretary of State recall the report of the Select Committee which looked into the Regional Development Fund and discovered that in the first three years we received £25 million a year? Does he agree that this is a minute amount compared with what our first five years of membership have cost us? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that cost is £800 million and that in 1979 and 1980 and beyond it will cost us £800 million a year to belong to the Community? The Regional Development Fund, therefore, is peanuts.

The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are correct. It is about £20 million a year net to this country, and in terms of regional assistance it ought to be seen also against the background of the sum of about £600 million a year that we ourselves contribute to our regions.