asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of housing completions and starts in the public sector for 1978.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains satisfied with level of investment in house building in the public sector.

About 200,000 public sector homes are under construction in Great Britain, which should lead to about 150,000 completions, of which roughly 132,000 will be in England, in 1978. We have made provision for a public sector programme of 137,000 starts in England in 1978. I am acting to encourage the full use of the housing expenditure provision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members regard with some degree of pride the contribution that the Government have made to tackling the housing problem, especially the fact that 130,000 more houses have been completed in the public sector in the past three years than were completed during the last three years for which the Conservative Government were responsible? However, in view of the start figures in the public sector and the disappointing figures so far this year, does he think that it is time to take some drastic action to ensure that the Government's record is maintained? What action will he take against the Tory authorities that refuse to build in the stress areas?

The problem with public sector starts is a serious one, at least as regards last year. As I have said, we shall be taking measures to encourage local authorities to avoid what appears to be one of the principal problems, namely, slippage during the past year. It is true that the great majority of local housing authorities are not now under Labour control. That means that housing programmes are greatly influenced by the policy decisions of local housing authorities. If the local leaders of Conservative councils have listened to advice from the Opposition Front Bench, we shall not get the number of houses that we need.

Will my right hon. Friend be a little more explicit about the acute problem of underspending? Is his Department monitoring the problem closely? Is it possible for funds to be rapidly switched to other areas when authorities will not spend? Is he keeping under review the number of authorities that he designates as stress areas? Will he consider other areas, such as the Forest of Dean, in my constituency?

We have moved on a bit from the rather rough and ready stress area and non-stress area approach that I introduced in the summer of 1976. We have moved on to the new housing investment programme and policy approach that begins to try to assess the needs of individual authorities instead of the rather crude provision that we had before.

In view of the figures that have been bandied about on the Labour Benches, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, comparing 1971–1973 with 1974–76, starts were down by about 122,500, the greater percentage of those being in the private sector and not the public sector? Will he inform the House what was his estimate at this time in 1977, and what was the actual outturn? What does he regard as being responsible for the discrepancy?

When we took office in the beginning of 1974 there was the almost total collapse of private sector building. The reason was well understood, and nobody had any doubt about it. The reason was gross financial mismanagement, leading to a total famine of building society money. The situation was so bad that we had only 100,000 private sector housing starts, the lowest figure since the early 1950s. That was the result of the failure of the Conservative Party. There has been a substantial increase in the public sector housing programme in the past three years, in terms of completions, as compared with the three or four years of Conservative Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the desperate shortage, council house building has been more than halved in areas that are now controlled by Conservative councils, such as Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Leicester and Liverpool, which is controlled jointly with the Liberals? The notorious Tameside authority has not built a single house. Will my right hon. Friend intervene and get tough with these authorities? Will he do something about it?

I very much deplore, of course, the cut-back on policy grounds in local authority house building below the levels which we have been able to allocate to local authorities. I regret it all the more in areas in which there are actual clear shortages of rented housing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stop distorting the figures and confirm that private starts last year were 60 per cent. down on the last year of the Conservative Administration? Will he now answer my question regarding the deplorable result of 1977 in both sectors?

I do not accept that. We completed just over 300,000 houses last year, which is very much the same number as we completed in 1976 and 1975—

The worst record for 15 years.

—to the great benefit of our people. It was over 300,000 houses. That is not bad. I should like us to do better, but I am not at all ashamed of the achievement that we have had.

rose—

Order. I must now appeal to the House for shorter supplementary questions. I know the overwhelming temptation, but it is always good to resist it if possible. We shall not reach Question No. 12 if we do not move faster.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he is taking to improve confidence in the construction industry.

In addition to the £800 million extra public expenditure up to 1980, announced previously, the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday will benefit the construction industry by about £100 million of public expenditure. The investment incentives for hotels and agricultural buildings will generate further new work. The industry will also benefit from the changed tax arrangements for small firms. The tax relief for partners in consulting firms resident here and working abroad will benefit the industry also.

Is the Minister aware that the lack of confidence in the construction industry means that not enough young people are entering into apprenticeships and that in the future the consequent shortage of skilled workers in the industry will put very serious constraints on its capacity to expand?

I make two points in answer to the hon. Gentleman. First, in the midst of a major recession such as that through which we are going, one is obviously very seriously concerned about job prospects, which influence the intake of apprentices. On the other hand, it has to be said that in view of the very grave difficulties that the industry has experienced in the past three or four years, the maintaining of the standards and the numbers of apprentices training in the industry are very commendable.

Is it not the case that many Conservative-controlled local authorities—unfortunately, they are in the majority—are deliberately refusing to build and are spending well below Government limits, which they then use as an excuse, whereas some local authorities, such as Rotherham Borough Council, have been able to maintain an admirable programme, to the benefit of many of those whom I represent and of the construction industry? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the commendable are commended and the irresponsible criticised, if only to ensure that the building industry maintains efficiency?

I certainly accept the general point that my hon. Friend makes. Along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I shall be meeting housing authorities around the country during the coming months to discuss their housing investment programmes, the problems that they have had and the weaknesses of their programmes and policies as we see them. I hope that as a result of this and other contacts that we have with them, those authorities which have decided to cut back unnecessarily and wrongly will decide to make good their programmes. This also is an important contribution to maintaining construction industry activity and the levels of apprenticeship intake.

Does the Minister realise that the construction industry expected a much greater incentive from the Budget yesterday, and that the announcements made would not be adequate even for the South-West to correct the unemployment problem there? Why has the Minister had so little influence on the Chancellor in terms of giving greater assistance to the construction industry?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman could have been paying close enough attention either to the statement yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or, indeed, to previous announcements that have been made by him and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As I have already indicated today, there has been a major financial input into the industry—now well over £800 million. We want to see that expenditure taken up. That is the issue that is being put to me now. I urge the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to get in touch with their friends in local government to ensure that the programmes are taken up and that the construction industry is maintained at as high a level as we can provide resources for.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Knowsley Metropolitan District Council has the worst housing problem in the country, that it also receives less financial assistance from the Government than is the national average, and that it also happens to have a large number of unemployed construction workers? Does he accept that he could deal with both of these problems together and make a very valuable contribution to providing employment on Merseyside and dealing with the real housing problems of Knowsley if he were far more generous with financial assistance to the council?

My first comment on that is that the North-West Region had by far the biggest increase of the whole country in resource allocation for 1978 and onwards. If there are individual authorities that feel that the deployments of the regional budgets that we have made available have not assisted them properly, they are certainly welcome to get in touch with my Department and, indeed, with myself, and we shall do what we can during the course of the year to assist them to maintain the building and rehabilitation programmes to which they have set their minds.

What efforts did the Minister or his right hon. Friend make to try to persuade the Chancellor not to raise minimum lending rate? Or does the Minister think that the increase in MLR will help to bring forward more orders for the construction industry?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows from his own experience, we do not debate at Question Time, across the Floor of the House, the internal discussions that take place in Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new initiatives he intends taking to encourage local authorities to reclaim derelict land.

I am giving serious consideration both to how we can improve the ways in which we tackle the problem of derelict land, especially in inner city areas, and—together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry—to the possible extension of the list of derelict land clearance areas—to which 100 per cent. grants are made available. I have made a special allocation of £4 million in the current year for the reclamation of derelict land in inner cities.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that there is plenty of money available from central Government for local authorities in all the assisted areas for the purpose of clearing derelict land? Will he confirm that there is no hold-up in Whitehall with any confirmations of schemes? Does he agree that it really is up to local authorities to get on with this job and clear up this eyesore on the face of North-Western England?

I am not sure that I could say that there is plenty of money available. We still have a very major problem with derelict land and reclamation. We must proceed with it and get rid of the worst areas as quickly as we can. But it is true that there has not been the take-up in, I think, the last two years of the amounts that have been allocated. I very much hope that authorities will come forward with their programmes this year.

On the question of restoration of mineral workings generally, is consideration still being given to the advisability of the introduction of restoration funds, such as for the iron ore workings, in order that some surety can be brought to the restoration of mineral workings, both those existing and those for which planning permission will be forthcoming in the future?

The question of mineral workings is a complex one, on which we have had a major report. That is still being studied in the Department, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman's question and be in touch with him later.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he had with the building societies prior to their decision to reduce mortgage lending by 10 per cent. a month between 1st April and 1st June 1978.

I personally met representatives of the Building Societies Association to discuss house prices and mortgage lending, and of course my Department is in regular contact with the association on this and other issues.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that inquiries that I have made in my own area confirm that the first casualties of this policy have been the very people—the potential first-time buyers—that the right hon. Gentleman claims to be trying to help through other policies, and that large numbers of them are now unable to get the mortgages that they would like? What will he do about this, to reintroduce some consistency into his policies?

I find that a remarkable question. I can think of no way in which the interests of first-time purchasers would be more damaged than by allowing just the kind of house price boom that we had in 1972–73. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements to regulate or generally to even out the flow of building society lending in respect of prices through the joint advisory committee of the Government and the building societies was introduced very late in the day by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) in the last few months of the last Conservative Government.

When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the building societies, will he tell them that he sees no necessity at all for any increase in lending rates as a consequence of the Budget?

I do not see any need for a change in building society lending rates as a result of the Chancellor's movement on MLR. However, the House knows that minimum lending rate and building society rates bear a very inexact relationship to each other. We have had many more movements of MLR than of building society rates in recent years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the construction industry as a whole believes that the building societies' action has had a steadying influence on the increase in house prices?

That is not true.

Yes, it is: I have just been talking to representatives of the industry.

I believe that no one in the House would wish to see an unnecessary explosion of house prices. I hope that our measures will have a steadying effect. It is a moderate cut-back, and of course we shall review the situation with the building societies towards the end of the second quarter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the Liverpool Inner Area Committee; and if he will make a statement.

I chaired the last partnership meeting in Liverpool on 10th March and I expect to chair a further meeting in June or July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of his effort to salvage the neglect of one hundred years in the inner areas is being frustrated by the closures and redundancies declared in the private sector, particularly on Merseyside? Will he not now take the opportunity to accelerate any programme for the development of community co-operatives in that area to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the private sector?

I am very much aware of the many heavy blows sustained on Merseyside, in terms of jobs, through firms closing during the past few months. Any measures that we can help with will be taken. Merseyside already has the highest possible priority as a special development area. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, along with myself, will want to consider any further proposals of the kind that my hon. Friend has made. However, in the terms of the partnership arrangements with Liverpool, I believe that we must go ahead with the efforts that we have just started there to make the city itself a much more attractive place than it has been in recent years for people to live and work in.

Is it the case that this committee met only once before March? If so, is the Secretary of State satisfied with these rather infrequent meetings? Is he, indeed, satisfied in general with the progress made with his whole policy on inner cities?

I think that I declared the partnership offer to Liverpool less than a year ago. We had the first meeting with the Liverpool partnership probably only six months ago. I do not think that we should be in monthly session with the partnership committee. That would be unnecessary and would generate an unnecessary amount of work. However, I think that we need to meet perhaps three or four times a year. The major task for Liverpool at the moment is to draw up its programme for the first three years of a rolling programme for inner city revival. That is what the council is engaged upon, with our help.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although we warmly welcome the attitude that he and his hon. Friends have taken to Liverpool, the Liverpool City Council has called a special meeting for tomorrow, on unemployment, and that I understand that it will be drawing up plans which could lead to proposals for the modernisation and the speeding up of the modernisation of both private and council property? Will my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the sort of ideas that the council has to bring down unemployment?

I assure my hon. Friend that my Department is anxious to do whatever is possible to help Liverpool. We have increased the housing allocation for Liverpool in cash terms this year by 44 per cent., which is very high compared with other areas. We are of course, through the rate support grant, making a substantial contribution to the finances of the city of Liverpool. In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a big PSA building programme of major offices in the city. But we shall look at suggestions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to increase the opportunities for home ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to increase the opportunities for home ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase house ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to increase house ownership.

The Bill to provide loans and savings bonuses for first time purchasers completed its Committee stage yesterday. In 1977 more mortgages were committed than in any previous year and I expect that in the first half of this year there will be a substantial increase over the equivalent period of 1977. The many other constructive steps we have taken and are proposing to take are set out in Chapter 7 of the Green Paper on housing policy. The many other constructive steps we have taken, and are proposing to take, are set out in Chapter 7 of the Green Paper on housing (policy) (Cmnd. 6851).

Although the news about mortgages is obviously welcome, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we can now increase home ownership substantially and meet the aspirations of many council tenants only by selling to those tenants who wish to buy their homes?

No, Sir, I do not think that at all. Most certainly I do not think so in respect of those areas where there is an obvious shortage of rented housing. I do not see how that will help anyone. Nor do I think that it will be impossible for people who wish to buy houses in those areas to do so.

I propose to call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered with No. 6.

In connection with the opportunity for tenants of council houses to buy their homes, will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the restriction that those houses should not be sold below cost? Houses built since I have been in the House, at a cost of £16,000, now have a market value of £10,000. It is effectively impossible for the people concerned to buy their own homes, although they are being subsidised at the rate of £40 a week. Will he look again at this matter to see whether a time limit can be introduced to allow these people to buy at a different rate after that time?

I see great difficulties in any proposal that public sector property should be sold below cost. There may be exceptional circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but, in general, that would break all the rules of audit and public accounting responsibility.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it has taken the Government about three years to bring forward a measure to help home buyers? Does this explain the rather inadequate proposals in the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill? Will he take note that every opinion poll shows that the overwhelming majority of people want to own their homes, not to rent them? Will he look again at the question of allowing sitting tenants to buy their council houses, as that would give a tremendous boost to home ownership?

No, Sir. The matter is perfectly well established. But I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in the post-war period there have been at least 16 or 17 years of Conservative rule, and people had to wait until the Labour Government introduced a specific measure to help first-time purchasers only a few months ago.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, due to his Government's artificial control of mortgages, many potential first-time house buyers will not now be able to buy their homes? Is he further aware that his earlier statement that this would control prices is barking completely up the wrong tree, and that we shall have a position where first-time buyers will not be able to buy, and prices will continue to rise?

I really think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the whole strategy that not only I pursue but that the Conservative Government also pursued in their last days. The greatest damage would be done to first-time house purchasers if we were to have an uncontrolled take-off of house prices. I said earlier that last year we had a record number of mortgage transactions—over 780,000. The nearest we ever came to that figure before was in 1972, at a time when house prices were going up by 35 per cent. Last year we achieved the figure of over 780,000 at a time when prices were going up, overall, by 8 per cent. We believe that we can get a satisfactory take-up of mortgage transactions without a great upsurge of house prices.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Stockport area one estate agent is allowing several would-be purchasers of a house to believe that they have purchased the house and to start drawing up contracts and incurring expenditure in regard to solicitors? Does he not deplore this practice, and will he refer it to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection? Does he not agree that it should be made absolutely clear that it is disgraceful for an estate agent to raise the hopes of several would-be purchasers that they have bought a particular house?

That does not sound to me to be the kind of behaviour that anyone would wish to condone. If my hon. Friend will give me the particulars of the case that he has in mind, I will consider them, perhaps in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

Reverting to the question that my right hon. Friend was asked about the sale of public sector housing at below cost, is he aware that many of us are against the sale of public sector housing al any cost when there is a waiting list for houses? Does he agree that the public sector housing represents the main hope of homes for those who need them most?

Of course, that is the general view that we have, that where there is a substantial shortage of rented housing it really is imprudent—indeed, silly—to embark upon programmes of substantial council house sales. We have made that view clear from the beginning.

Why does not the Secretary of State understand that it is the young married people who will be affected by the cut-back in building society mortgages? Would it not be more politically honest if he were to seek legislation to control mortgages? Then we would all know where we are.

Enemies of the first-time house purchasers, the young couples, are those who would simply leave increases in house prices unrestricted, fuelled by an unending supply of building society money. We recall the days of the hon. Gentleman's Government, when secondary banks and other financial interests were involved.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that selling council houses will not add one brick to the housing stock? Does he further accept that this has more to do with Tory mythology than with good housing practice?

Yes, Sir. I very much regret that so much ideology has gone from the Conservative side into the whole question of houses to rent and the sale of them to their tenants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the home improvement scheme.

I should like to see better progress generally, accompanied by a greater switch of resources to deal with the worst of the improvable houses. The alterations in the grants structure proposed in the housing Green Paper are designed to help in achieving these objectives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome though the extension of the scheme has been, it has not helped the large number of people who live in the most inadequate of housing, such as those of my constituents in Ormskirk and Lathom, who do not have main drainage or main sewerage and are not able to take advantage of the home improvement scheme?

I am most anxious to help those who live in houses in conditions which most of us would find completely unacceptable, and to see that resources are directed to the houses in most desperate need, in order to rescue them. I take on board what my hon. Friend says and will certainly have a look at the position.

Is the Minister satisfied that the public expenditure White Paper envisages a decline in expenditure on home improvement in the next two years? Would it not be more sensible to divert expenditure from programmes such as municipalisation in order to help with rehabilitation and home improvement?

If the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the White Paper on cash limits, and so on, which was issued yesterday, he will find that that is not correct. I would regard as a very worthwhile exercise in public expenditure the diversion of resources to the houses that are really in most desperate need of the basic amenities from a social point of view, giving families a chance to live in decent conditions, as well as rescuing old houses and preventing them from becoming slums.

Will my hon. Friend, in spite of what the Government have done for the first-time home buyer, do something about the young couple who buy very old property and find that they have great difficulty in getting a second option mortgage when they want to improve that property? Will he do more for them than he is doing at the present time?

This, indeed, is one of the aims that we had in our proposals for repairs, and so on. These are the very people who would be helped most.

Will the Minister consider complaints that are now being received that the qualifying rateable value levels are far too low and exclude many people who would like to improve their own homes? Does he agree that the conditions and restrictions imposed by some local authorities—in particular, in respect of additional works to be done to houses—while they may be a counsel of perfection are nevertheless unrealistic and deter many people who have not the extra money?

The cost limits and rateable value limits have been raised recently, but we are anxious to make sure that resources go where they are most desperately needed. We continually review these matters, as we do the attitudes of local authorities, but it is not for us to dictate. We make suggestions from time to time that more flexibility should be accepted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the housing investment programmes for 1978 for the six largest metropolitan districts, and the metropolitan districts in West Yorkshire; and if he will give any information that is available to him regarding the size of the respective waiting lists of the local authorities.

Tables showing authorities' bids and allocations for 1978–79 have already been placed in the Library of the House. Information about local authority waiting lists is not collected centrally. I invite my hon. Friend to seek this information from individual local authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled authority in Leeds has cut back its house building programme from 1,750 to 1,250, despite having a waiting list of 20,000, and that the local politicians running that authority are laying at the Government's door the blame for lack of financial resources?

We are in negotiation with the Leeds authority. My regional officers are now talking to that authority about specific schemes. We have said that where there is any hold-up, the authority should have other schemes ready to bring forward.

Is the Minister aware that Leeds citizens and ratepayers have never had a better deal than under the Tory leadership which has been there since 1975? Does the Minister recognise that the Government themselves have allocated only two-thirds of the housing investment programme grant for which application was made?

In fact, the allocation was increased this year. We are now asking the Leeds authority for details of any schemes which it says it cannot bring forward. I suggest that the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised are more appropriate to the hustings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been released for housing development in England, Scotland and Wales since the Community Land Act came into force.

I am not sure what the hon. Member means by "released". There is enough land with planning permission for about six years' house building at present rates.

Is it not quite clear that what is meant by "released" is what has actually been made available from the local authorities for development? Is not the Minister frightened to give the answer because the statistics to date are absolutely appalling and pathetic? Is it not a fact that the Community Land Act, in terms of results, is proving the most expensive and disastrous venture by a Labour Government since the groundnut scheme?

The hon. Gentleman may be confusing a number of Acts, ownerships of land and different sets of statistics, which he has not specified. The plain fact is that there is land available for house building on the scale to which I have referred. I have indeed recently met the House-Builders Federation, not for the first time, to discuss among other things land supply questions. I have invited the federation to identify, so far as it is able, specific areas where there are problems as it sees them. I shall be glad to pursue those problems. What is more, I shall be glad to advise local authorities—including the hon. Gentleman's own local authority—to buy land through CLA powers where local shortages are evidenced to me by the house builders.

Is the Minister aware that many of us want to thank him for the recent circular, which goes some way to making good the lack of application of the Community Land Act? There is a long way to go. In particular, will he ensure that land which has been disused for 10 years or 20 years, perhaps in dockland, is valued at its current use value—which is nil—and not at £20,000 or more, which is what is being asked for in many cases?

On the latter point, I do not think that I can give a quick answer on valuation questions in that way. I do not think it would be correct to say simply and generally that all land which is at present disused, and has been disused for some time, is necessarily without value, any more than other disused objects—which have had a value in the past—would have a nil value today in such circumstances. It is rather more complicated than that.

Has not the Minister by his evasive answer in effect confirmed that all of the claims made during the passage of the Community Land Act were virtually groundless? How long is genuine development throughout the United Kingdom to be frustrated by the permanence of this legislation on the statute book?

The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The general answer is that he is talking without knowledge of the operation of the Act.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory and evasive answer to my Question, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of availability of privately rented accommodation in areas where there is a high proportion of residents in the armed services.

The decline in private renting—and the corresponding increase in renting from social landlords—has been a country-wide phenomenon. I have no evidence that it has been especially significant in garrison towns.

Is the Minister aware that families in the armed services have traditionally relied upon the availability of short-term lettings? Is he aware that the Government's legislation has made it difficult for house owners to let their houses and has caused vicious hardship to those who wish to take private lettings?

We have no evidence that that is the case. The Government have given very positive direction to local authorities about the difficulties for Service men, which we fully understand. This was also included in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, which went through the House last Session. We are well aware of the difficulties, but I do not accept at all the alegations that the hon. Gentleman has made about the Rent Act legislation.

What does the Minister mean by "social landords"? Is he referring to the landlords of some of those vast, derelict council estates whose tenants cannot wait to get out of them or, alternatively, to move into private sector accommodation and buy wherever they can?

Yes, indeed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I do mean the public sector. There are thousands of families in this country who are dependent on the public sector and who are well satisfied with the contribution made by local authorities throughout the country. The attack on public sector housing does the hon. Gentleman no credit at all.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet completed his review of the future of rent restriction of lettings.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that one of the 12 conditions for the Liberals' support of the Government was that furnished lettings restrictions should be abolished? Is the reason why the Minister has not done this the fact that the Liberals have not pressed it, or is it that he has simply refused to listen to what they said?

I would have to check the record on that point and, no doubt, consult the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and others in order to pursue it. But the original Question asked whether we had completed the review of the Rent Acts. The answer is "No".

Has the Minister had a recent meeting with the National Union of Students to talk about rent restriction in respect of student accommodation in places like Reading, where, at the beginning of the last year, about 114 students had to sleep on the floors of various halls because of the lack of accommodation?

I have had no such proposals by the NUS generally or by the Reading branch of the NUS specifically. It is the experience over many years that at the start of the academic year there are residual difficulties concerning a relatively small number of students first entering university. On past experience, these problems are overcome in a matter of weeks or months—very shortly after they are experienced. On the question of security of tenure, the NUS takes the same position as that which the Government take. I have had no subsequent views expressed to the contrary by the NUS.

Will the Minister indicate when he will complete his review and when he will publish his findings, in view of the continuing hardship being suffered by landlords and tenants alike as a result of this legislation, as the Government's own consultative document acknowledges?

I do not think that I can give a date now, nor would I accept the implied exaggerated view that we constantly have from the hon. Gentleman about the operation of the Rent Act 1974, which he has been challenging, criticising and attacking for the past four years but which he did not vote against when it was before the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that students will very much resent the clumsy attempts from the Conservative Benches to use their housing needs as an excuse for the general pushing up of rents and an attack on other people's circumstances? Is he also aware that students have no wish at all to be used as pawns in this way and that they support the Government in this matter?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. At a much earlier date the NUS expressed fully and clearly to me its views in support of our general legislative position on security of tenure. Since then I have made efforts, in conjunction with the housing association movement, the NUS and local authorities to get a wider provision for single person housing in order to assist students, and others in a similar position, with their housing. This is beginning to produce results around the country. There is a much greater variety of provision for single people such as students by both housing associations and local authorities. I hope that this will continue to expand.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with progress on the improvement of thermal insulation on the nation's public and private buildings.

Further energy saving measures were referred to by my right hon. Friend yesterday in the course of his Budget Statement.

While welcoming the Government's belated recognition that many owner-occupiers are just as much in need of assistance with their insulation as council house tenants, may I suggest that the Secretary of State for Energy should not have excluded them and discriminated against them in the first place? Would the Minister tell us the maximum grant available under the scheme? Will it provide for adequate insulation, rather more so than the scheme that provides inadequate insulation for council house tenants?

I do not accept that the intention was ever discriminatory. We had to think through the arrangements to assist people in the private sector as well as in the public sector, and only three or four months have separated the announcement of the local authority measures and those that I have just announced today relating to the private sector. What we are offering is basic insulation of the kind that most people think is worth doing—insulation of loft spaces, lagging of water tanks and also of pipes in the loft space. The maximum amount available is £50, or 66 per cent. of the cost, whichever is lower.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective thermal insulation can be provided by the use of double of even triple glazing? What steps is he prepared to take to encourage the use of double glazing?

I am aware that substantial savings can be made with double glazing as with other ways of saving heating in houses. But the sensible thing for us to do when millions of houses in this country are almost totally uninsulated is to get on with the job of saving energy in the most cost-effective way. That is what we propose.

Has the Secretary of State talked to any builders lately about the £50 figure? Such a piffling amount would not insulate one-quarter of a loft.

There is no difference between those figures and the sums that we indicated for the local authority housing programme. I do not think that I agree with the hon. Member. It is the experience of most people that relatively small measures of insulation—of loft space, water tank lagging, and pipes leading up to the loft—are very cost-effective and inexpensive to carry out.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action is proposed to encourage the development of co-operative housing.

I believe that co-operative housing is a vitally important part of social housing in this country. Since our initiative in legislation under the Housing Subsidies Act 1975, and in the setting up of the Co-operative Housing Agency shortly afterwards, about 150 co-operative schemes have come into the pipeline, round the country. I am examining further the proposal in our housing policy area paper for establishing a right to collective purchase by private tenants in certain circumstances. I have also asked the Co-operative Housing Agency to report to me on the possibility of establishing a distinctive co-operative tenure by statute.

I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he continue to encourage the work of the Co-operative Housing Agency and remove any opposition to the development of co-operative housing in this country? If necessary, will he consider bringing forward a co-operative housing Bill in order to meet the housing needs of the people, as well as those of local authority-occupied property? This could play an important part in our housing programme.

Certainly I believe in co-operative housing. I have done so for many years—long before coming to this place. I believe that it should become an important part of social development in this country. Certainly I shall consider the possibility of legislation in due course. That is why I have invited the Co-operative Housing Agency, which has done commendable work in the short time that it has existed, to submit a report on the problems and needs of legislation in this field.

Is the Minister aware that he is liable to damage this valuable movement if he insists on referring to it as a form of social ownership? Would he give equal encouragement to equity sharing schemes in which many people participate as the first step on the ladder to home ownership?

There are two different kinds of tenure. I do no damage to the co-operative housing movement by referring to it as a form of social tenure. It started out as such many years ago, and my great regret is that it has not expanded as widely in this field as it could and should have done, and as I hope it will do in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department has taken to investigate the effects of coastal damage during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Following the recent storms, Ministers and departmental officials visited a number of areas which had been severely affected.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he confirm that the amount of damage in the last 12 months has been exceptional? Will he say when he hopes to come forward with a clearer view of the picture, particularly in relation to the uncertain responsibility of local government and central Government on financial assistance issues?

This Question deals with coastal protection, not flood damage. Flood damage comes under a separate Act, and is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. We shall try to get a picture as soon as local authorities inform us of the extent of the damage suffered to the coastline. As the hon. Member may recall from yesterday's Budget Statement, the Chancellor indicated that extra resources would be made available this year, under this legislation, to help deal with the problem.

Will the Secretary of State take account of the idea that some part of the money mentioned in the Budget yesterday—a total of about £20 million—should be allocated to Southampton University, which is doing good work investigating the effect of dredging in the Solent and the English Channel? Certainly it is believed that this is affecting the coastline in the Isle of Wight and other parts of the South Coast. If the scheme can be extended in this way it would be very valuable.

I shall consider that matter. Whether it is a departmental responsibility that accrues to me I doubt, but that does not mean that I cannot talk to my right hon. Friend who holds that responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in considering the approval of compulsory purchase orders by local authorities in relation to properties subjected to gazumping.

There are no powers of compulsory purchase in relation to such properties.

What does my hon. Frend intend to do about gazumping? Is he aware that the practice is spreading? If he does not intend to make it illegal, will he give local authorities some powers or at least take powers himself to deal with the problem?

There are already fairly wide powers of compulsory purchase as well as powers to purchase properties in particular circumstances. I do not think that, as a general policy, compulsory purchase legislation should be introduced into the question of the negotiation of private sales of properties between individuals. The answer lies in maintaining the kind of stability in the housing market to which we referred earlier today. The Law Commission looked at the legislative aspect and concluded, in a report made two or three years ago, that legislation was not the right way of handling the problem.

Any question of increasing the price after the parties involved in a property sale have reached agreement is morally indefensible, but will the Minister continue to tread very carefully and keep to what he has already said? Does he agree that gazumping is the greatest symptom of inflation, rather than the cause of it?

I accept that general principle. It is not just a problem of the seller's asking a higher price after negotiations have been well advanced, so that the buyer withdraws from the negotiations; it can work the other way round in certain circumstances. If one were to legislate, one would have to go against buyers who withdraw from the purchase during negotiations because they decide to take their transactions elsewhere.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider discussing one of the two following methods with professional bodies concerned in house purchase and sale as a possible means of alleviating the problem of gazumping? They involve either requiring a vendor to deposit with the estate agent replies to preliminary inquiries to local searches and possibly a certificate of structural soundness in order to narrow the time within which gazumping can take place, so that a willing buyer can enter into a contract quickly and with little risk, or, alternatively, requiring the vendor who withdraws in order to sell to a higher bidder to indemnify the disappointed purchaser for his surveyor's fees and other costs that he may have thrown away in consequence, out of the additional profits that the vendor has made from the higher price.

First, to operate such a system on either count would be highly bureaucratic and, if anything, would slow down the procedure rather than speed it up. I do not think that I can deal with these matters fully by exchanges in Question Time. I shall carefully study the hon. Gentleman's remarks and consider the matter.