asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advantages he intends for those city dwellers living in the 14 partnership areas which will be unavailable to those living in the 15 programme districts or the recently announced 14 designated districts and London boroughs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advantages he intends for those city dwellers living in the 14 partnership areas which will be unavailable to those living in the 15 programme districts or the recently announced 14 designated districts and London boroughs.

All the authorities—partnership, programme, and designated districts—will benefit from Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. The 15 programme authorities will between them receive £25 million a year for three years from the urban programme. The seven partnership areas —where the problems of urban dereliction are greater in scale and intensity—will receive additional powers under Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill, industrial development certificate preference over other areas in the same region for those outside assisted areas, and an annual allocation of £66 million per annum for three years from the urban programme, related to a programme agreed between central and local governent through the partnership committee. Central Government's main programmes are also being adjusted to reflect the new priority being given to tackling inner city problems particularly for partnership and programme authorities.

Does the Minister not agree that the growing complexity of the various powers, the extension of towns and the fact that there is, in many of these areas, a proliferation of committee and bureaucratic work are making many people doubt whether this scheme will ever produce anything on the ground? Will he say something about progress?

There is far less complexity in the minds of the district and county councils which are the recipients of the powers than in the minds of some hon. Members. We have announced a number of decisions and people have tended to become a little confused about them. I note in particular the reference in the Question to "14 partnership areas" when, of course, there are in fact only seven. I do not see any reason why we should not clear these matters up in the House, and I do not accept that there has been any proliferation of bureaucracy in the partnership arrangements.

As Government policy is to bring back business to the inner city areas and to build factories on some of the vacant areas and derelict sites that abound in those areas, can the Minister explain how the Government can announce the granting of finance for building a new Lucas factory on the edge of Liverpool, on a green field site in Huyton, which is in total contradiction to the partnership aims and objectives, and flies in the face of the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Bill?

I do not necessarily accept that this is in total contradiction. The hon. Member is entirely correct in saying that we are trying to give an impetus to development in inner city partnership areas, particularly development areas, such as Merseyside, or special development areas. But it would be wrong—although we must look at particular cases —to say that new developments of factories should not take place in other parts of the development area itself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that much as the London borough of Lewisham welcomes the Inner Urban Areas Bill it believes that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating? Is the Minister willing to ensure that his Department will be very flexible and particularly speedy in the operation of this Bill, so that, if a situation arises in which it is necessary at very short notice to save employment, his officials will be able to move at the necessary speed so that employment can be saved before it is too late?

I accept what my hon. Friend said. We had the first partnership meeting in any part of the country only as recently as last October. In that period the authorities have themselves allocated the money that we have allocated to particular projects, running into many tens of millions of pounds, which is actually being spent now. There has been no loss of urgency or speed on our part. The Bill to which my hon. Friend has referred is in another place. As soon as it receives Royal Assent we shall use its powers and make the designations with all possible speed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember telling the House on 9th February that the 15 programme areas —the second XI—were to get £25 million starting in 1979 over a period of three years? Will the £25 million now have to be shared by the third XI, the 14 extra designated areas, which he has introduced? What does he intend to do about the fact that the whole of the enhanced urban programme—the £66 million plus the £25 million—will be more than accounted for by the extra money that will have to be found by local authorities as a result of the 2½ per cent. surcharge on national insurance?

I think the last point made by the hon. Gentleman was a little tortured, because the increase in local authority costs will be treated as eligible expenditure. We shall make decisions on that matter at the time of the increase order in the ordinary course of events later in the summer. The designated areas under the Inner Urban Areas Bill will be eligible for that part of the urban area programme that is still uncommitted. The House should bear in mind that the whole programme has been increased from the figure of £30 million which we inherited from the Conservatives to £125 million per annum as from next April.

How are my right hon. Friend's negotiations with Leeds progressing? Is he aware that misgivings are being expressed by voluntary associations in the area that their submissions have been completely ignored? Whether or not he approves the schemes, will he give an undertaking to examine them closely and ensure that there is no overindulgence by the present political leaders of the city towards the areas which they represent?

We are in touch with all the programme authorities. There is not the same ministerial input into those programmes as there is in the seven partnership areas. Nevertheless, I shall consider my hon. Friend's comments. I am sure that his remarks will be brought to the attention of the leaders of the Leeds City Council. All programme authorities need to extend their contacts with the voluntary bodies in their areas if they are to have effective inner city programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Sports Council.

I shall keep in close touch with the new chairman, through regular informal meetings, as I have done with his predecessors.

Will the Minister do everything in his power to emphasise to the chairman of the Sports Council that, in turn, he should do everything in his power to ensure that FIFA does not exclude Scotland from future World Cup competitions just because Scotland does not yet have its own sovereign Parliament?

The fact that this matter has been raised by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends has not been very helpful. When I was recently in the Argentine and spoke to FIFA officials, I found on their part a disposition to abandon their previous attitude on this matter. I encouraged them in that direction, and this means that the home countries will continue to compete separately.

In considering future training programmes for footballers or others, will my right hon. Friend consider including some of our sporting journalists, who, having for 12 months lauded a team, found the day afterwards that astonishingly it seemed to be the wrong team? Would not a course in constructive criticism before the event have been as useful as the continual practice of destructive criticism after the event? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in political as well as sporting affairs the left wing is very important?

Wingers of both sorts are important in a football team. I agree with my hon. Friend; I found that the depressive effect of the feed-back from the wives of footballers on what they read in our newspapers was not helpful to the Scottish players.

Is the Minister aware that the subject of football is totally devolved? In view of the Scottish team's rather poor performance in the Argentine, does he agree that devolution is not such a good idea after all?

I am not sure where the logic of that argument takes us, since most of the members of the Scottish football team play for English football clubs.

Has the Minister at his meetings discussed the position of the amateur Rugby League game and its position in relation to Rugby Union?

I am glad to say that the new chairman of the Sports Council is a well-known Rugby Union international. He is getting on extremely well and is very acceptable to the Rugby League. I hope that these matters will be allowed to take their time. I am sure that satisfactory results will emerge.

I welcome the chairman of the new Sports Council in his new post. The Minister has just announced the new full grant for the Council. Will he have discussions with the chairman to see whether it is possible in practical terms to plan and construct new facilities within the 10-month remaining period of the grant, and will he consider having discussions with the Treasury about a rollover period?

This is a very difficult problem, but as it is intended that most of the additional £2 million is to be spent in small sums, mainly for the employment of specialised sports people and footballers to whom ordinary people might well respond, I do not think that the difficulty suggested by the hon. Gentleman will arise. I shall continue to examine the matter and if necessary I shall talk to the Treasury.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now announce his decision in regard to the proposed improvement of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the light of the fact that Yorkshire County Council has decided to contribute £1 million for the improvement scheme for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Waterways, if he will now give a firm decision in full support of this navigation scheme.

I hope to announce my decision shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the delay in this matter has already been outrageous; that seasons rather than weeks have now elapsed since he met the united interests of South Yorkshire; and that the environmental and economic needs of our area are such that a favourable decision is needed without further delay?

I understand my hon. Friend's desire and, indeed, impatience to have as quick a decision as possible, but I wish to point out that I met the deputation from South Yorkshire County Council on 2nd February. Arising out of that meeting there were a number of further questions on which we needed to be clear. We have been in touch with the authority since and I hope soon to be able to make my decision.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is about three years since the Minister with responsibilities for sport came to Rotherham and gave this scheme his wholehearted support? Is he aware that we thought the influence of his right hon. Friend on the Secretary of State was greater than it is? Is he further aware that this scheme has been discussed for a long time and that Yorkshire seems to have been very much neglected—not just by my right hon. Friend's Department but by other Departments? Is this taking place because we in Yorkshire are so wholeheartedly in support of the Government that we are being ignored? If so, let me warn my right hon. Friend that we are reaching the end of our tether and that if he does not do something in our favour we shall have to fight on?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this matter, as have many people in South Yorkshire. I am also aware that this matter has been discussed for a very long time and that proposals for such a canal have been put to my predecessors and turned down. I am telling the House that I am taking a further look at the matter. We are trying to obtain the additional necessary information about the scheme, and I still hope to make a decision shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme has implications even beyond South Yorkshire? If it proves to be a success, the scheme will have implications for other areas where such schemes might be forthcoming to implement the greater use of the inland waterways.

That is a point very much in my mind. As a country we have not thought through sufficiently the possible future use of our national waterways.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the improvement of the canal is necessary as one of the steps towards the economic revival of the southern part of Yorkshire? Is he aware that some parts of the area have the highest rates of unemployment in the country and that improvement of the canal would greatly help its economic prospects?

I am well aware of the problems of the area, which I visited only a few months ago. I accept that a successful extension of the canal system would give a welcome economic boost and a psychological stimulus to the area.

Then let us have it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he anticipates publishing his review of the Rent Acts before the Summer Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of the Government's review of the operation of the Rent Acts.

I have not yet reached conclusions on this review. I shall, of course, report to the House as soon as I can do so.

The Secretary of State will be well aware that that is a profoundly disappointing answer. Is he aware of the situation in the provinces, where there is urgent need to experiment in loosening some of the controls of the Rent Acts to bring some of the property now standing empty into beneficial use? Contrary to that, is he aware of the position in Inner London, where statutory tenants and long-leaseholders are facing equal difficulty, and where there may be some need for increased control? Surely these matters cannot be left any longer, especially now that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to carry out rating revaluation on a rental basis.

As the hon. Gentleman knows—I have had the opportunity of exchanges with him—this is an especially complex matter. I agree that there are different situations in different types of private rented property, and even in different areas. We have received a large number of responses to the major questionnaire that we issued. There are many differences of view in the submissions, which we shall have to think through and of which we shall have to take account.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the major strategy of the Rent Acts is nearly right, a number of minor defects have appeared, many of them being virtually drafting defects? I refer to the second fixed term letting anomaly, in terms of private residential tenants and the abuse of licences and holiday lettings by many landlords, which have greatly reduced the beneficial effects of the Acts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that regardless of the full review minimum measures should be taken to remedy the minor defects and to introduce minor changes? Will he at least consider whether discussions should be held with important and interested parties to decide what changes may be made quickly?

As my hon. Friend well knows from his experience in these matters, these are extremely technical and complex areas. The number of loopholes, or whatever term one might use, to which my hon. Friend referred are extremely difficult to put right unless it is done within the framework of a general review. However, I accept his welcome opening remark that the major strategy of the Rent Acts is a correct one and should be sustained.

Will the Secretary of State give the House a firm date, preferably before the House rises for the Summer Recess, for the announcement of his conclusions? Is he aware of the considerable hardship that has been caused and is being caused owing to the drying up of the supply of rented accommodation because of the Rent Acts? Is it his intention to ensure the death of the private rented sector, as was the Labour Party's evidence in connection with the rent review? As a consequence, does he feel that the longer he delays taking remedial action the more likely he is to bring about the end of the private rented sector?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a firm date but I shall take into account what he says about the 'Summer Recess, as I have tried to take account of that factor in the questions that others have put to me. I think that the House will agree, on looking back over a long period, that it is easy to get Rent Act legislation wrong. I remind (the hon. Gentleman that the largest and, in a sense, the most wrong of all Rent Acts was the 1957 Act. It was designed to sustain the private rented sector but it accelerated its decline on a massive scale. That was the effect as people moved into owner-occupation, quite apart from the effects on tenants.

Is it not a fact that the number of families made homeless through eviction since the Act has fallen sharply? Secondly, far from emasculating the Act as most Conservative Members want, should it not be greatly strengthened to block the loophole recently brought to light in a most exceptional legal case, where security of tenure and rent control were avoided by a trick in a lease in which the landlord required the right to sleep alongside his tenant in a one-room flat?

My earlier replies were addressed to the whole complex of Rent Acts. My hon. Friend rightly reminds the House of the most recent Rent Act, the 1974 Act. There is no doubt that the number of evictions of those previously in furnished tenancies has greatly diminished. To that extent, that effect is greatly to be welcomed. However, we have to try to get the balance right. There is the legitimate and proper interest of tenants, which the House, as in the past, has to safeguard and defend. We must also consider the workings of the Act and how we can achieve a better balance between landlord and tenant. We should try to achieve that.

Order. We are running very slowly today.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he envisages that new town and council house rents will be raised to cover 50 per cent. of current public housing costs.

The Government's existing rent policy and the proposals in the Green Paper are not related to any particular percentage. Gross rents already meet over 50 per cent. of public housing costs.

How is the right hon. Gentleman to get out of the dilemma that if rents are not raised the taxpayer and the ratepayer will not go on footing the bill indefinitely, as his predecessor recognised? Alternatively, if he does increase rents the tenants will not be able to afford them. Is not the way out of the dilemma to sell council houses, especially to those living in older ones on pooled rents?

I have given the answer to the hon. Gentleman that was implicit in his Question—namely, that at present levels the "over 50 per cent. of costs" that he was inquiring after is already covered. Secondly, I find his logic rather tortuous. He suggested that if rents are increased further to reduce the burden on ratepayers and taxpayers it would not be possible for tenants to afford them, yet his answer is to sell them at, no doubt, a higher cost per week, month or year for the persons concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems facing local authorities in terms of housing revenue accounts is not the relationship between the historical value of the properties and the rents being asked for them today but increasing interest charges that are placing a heavy burden on authorities? Does he agree that those charges are charges to which tenants contribute and are not something that is beneficial to tenants? In other words, they are paying the landlords over 60 years for properties built for about one-twentieth of their present cost.

It is true that interest costs on local housing revenue accounts provide a high proportion of the costs that have to be covered by rents. It is also true that as and when they vary up and down they have a marked impact on the level of rate support in contributions to housing revenue accounts and Exchequer support. However, interest charges are covered by all people who borrow, not merely those who borrow to provide rented accommodation. Owner-occupiers are included, too. For a large proportion of local authority tenants the levels of rent that are charged go more to reduce the burden of costs on recently provided dwellings at a higher cost than to pay for interest charges, on any analysis.

Will the Minister confirm that the last time the element of indiscriminate subsidy to council house tenants was increased in a big way was in 1974, when the Government decided to bribe council house tenants with the taxpayers' money to win the October 1974 election? Has he any proposals for similar bribes before the next General Election?

As a matter of fact, the Housing Act 1974 provided for considerable assistance in the provision of increased housing association dwellings and considerably increased assistance by way of improvement grants. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, which provided a simpler structure to subsidise capital investment to boost the provision of council housing, which had dropped markedly under the Conservative Government. I have no reason to be ashamed of the results of that Act.

To come back to the interest question, does the Minister agree that although private owners pay interest they do not pay it over a 60-year period? Will he confirm that people who are buying houses privately get almost as much, if not as much, in tax relief on their mortgages and that it is not only council house tenants who get public money but private industry, at the rate of about £11 million a day?

I shall confine my reply to housing. It is difficult to make absolute comparisons between general financial assistance to the private and public sectors, but, on balance, the kind of subsidy that is provided to owner-occupiers is, on the whole, as great as, and at times in history has been greater than, that which is provided to local authority and housing association tenants.

If, as the Minister suggests, the proportion of rents to costs is already over 50 per cent., why did the Government's 1976 White Paper on the subject assume that it was possible to achieve economies of £180 million by moving to that target?

First, it did not do so. In any case, the figures provided at that time, to which constant reference has been made and no doubt gave rise to the original Question, were not target figures. They were forecasts which were based on the likelihood of certain interest rates being charged over a given run of months and years. That is always difficult to forecast. A change in interest rates can have a marked impact on the level of aggregate subsidy being paid. That has been the major cause of change.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish advice to local authorities from the working party which is considering remedial measures to deal with the problems of all-electric council houses.

The work on this subject is nearing completion and a domestic energy note will be published as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister for that reply and for his interest in this matter. Does he recognise how important it is to give tenants on estates which have had real problems an alternative to electricity as a heating fuel? Will he try to ensure that local authorities get encouragement and help to do just that?

I am certainly aware of the seriousness of the problem. The working party is considering the whole range of options, choice of fuel and so on related to the high cost, which is one of the causes of the serious position of many tenants now, particularly those in houses centrally heated by electricity.

May we expect to have legislation brought forward on this matter before the winter? As the Minister is aware, the problem of condensation is much higher during the autumn and winter months, and houses with electric central heating seem to be more deeply affected than houses with other forms of central heating. Will the Minister pay special attention to the problems of houses which have electric ceiling heating? Because of the high cost involved, many tenants cannot afford to meet the bills and find themselves living in intolerable circumstances.

The hon. Lady has highlighted a growing problem with regard to ceiling heating. Legislation is not required. The working party hopes to publish its advice and proposals before the winter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when council houses were first built they had chimneys and many had coinin-the-slot electricity meters? There seemed then to be far fewer cases of hypothermia and cut-offs. Would it be asking too much to return to the original good idea of burning coal in view of the stocks that we have and to ask the Electricity Council to put in more slot meters?

As one who comes from the Durham coalfield, I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. That point has been made to the working party. The heating system in public sector houses is a matter for local authorities, but we want to give as much choice as possible. That matter will be considered when we issue advice.

Does the Minister agree that ceiling heating was the consequence of cost yardsticks? The capital cost of installing ceiling heating was much lower than for other kinds of heating. Therefore, the tenants, in effect, through the exaggerated bills that they are now having to pay, are subsidising those false capital economies. Do the Government recognise that they have a responsibility to help tenants in those instances?

We share responsibility with local authorities on all housing matters, and we would not try to run away from it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I should not blame the yardstick. The yardstick is of long practice. We are anxious to maintain standards. That is important. The Green Paper indicated that we are also considering whether we can disengage from the detailed financial control that the yardstick envisaged. The difficulty was that installation was comparatively cheap. But we constantly remind authorities that running costs are even more important than the original costs of installation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the number of private rented properties to let has diminished since the Rent Act 1974 came into force.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the number of private rented properties to let has diminished since the Rent Act 1974 came into force.

From current estimates, there appears to have been no significant change since 1974 in the rate of decline in private lettings. We shall have a better idea of the decline since 1971 when we have the results from the national dwelling and housing survey later this year.

Does the Minister agree that his reply shows that there is a continuing decline? Does he accept that, whatever may have happened to the level of evictions, the availability of accommodation has continued to decline drastically, to the disadvantage of all those who are looking for homes, particularly the young? Does he further agree that, unless something can be done to make better use of our available housing stock and keep it in good condition, particularly in the inner city areas, he will not succeed in his policy for inner urban areas?

I take the last point first. I accept that there is a great need to improve the physical condition of the amenities of large numbers of rented properties, and, indeed, some owner-occupied houses, particularly in, but not confined to, inner areas.

Despite the Minister's protestations on this matter, does he accept that in areas, such as Reading, which are attractive areas for people to come and work in there is a desperate shortage of accommodation for single persons and for students? Will he, in his rent review, look at short-term leasing, because it could be (ne of the cures to this problem?

The question of short-hold tenancies or lettings has been raised on more than one occasion in the last year or two years in the House and elsewhere. The general view that we have expressed ahead of any final conclusions that we may reach on the Rent Act review is that, as at present and as previously postulated, such ideas would undermine the whole concept of security of tenure generally and, therefore, could not be accepted.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real problem with the Rent Act is not its harshness but its inadequacy to protect tenants and their right to security of tenure? Does he agree that the recent judgment in Somma v. Hazelhurst, together with the growth of agencies dedicated to the evasion of the Rent Act, makes amending legislation to protect tenants far too important to await the outcome of the review body's report?

I cannot usefully add to what has been stated by my right hon. Friend in answer to a previous Question. I urge my hon. Friend not to overstate the position. If it were true that the Rent Acts had not served their purpose in establishing security of tenure, there would be urgency. Loopholes have been established recently in certain court cases which have brought certain aspects of the legislative drafting into question, but that does not alter the fact that in the last 10 years or more since 1965 there has been security of tenure. That has benefited hundreds of thousands of families. We intend that it should continue to do so.

Will the Minister come out of cloud-cuckoo land? Does he realise that his enthusiasm for security of tenure is causing thousands of houses to be left empty? Will he answer a simple question? Why is it that once upon a time houses for rent were owned by pension funds, including trade union pension funds, but pension funds are now buying antiques instead of providing houses for the working class?

I shall not enter into that argument. I cannot answer in one sentence the first part of the question about the original source of private rented accommodation. These questions lead me to ask Opposition Members on the Front and Back Benches whether it is the intention of the Conservative Party to abolish security of tenure. Until now, at successive General Elections they have issued statements denying any such intention. Perhaps we can be told what their intention is.

Is it not true that the decline in the private rented sector has occurred since the First World War, when it was decided that if we were to have houses fit for people—let alone heroes—to live in they would have to be Government-assisted by helping with mortgages and subsidising the council sector? Is it not true that the Labour Party has done this consistently in order to improve standards?

My hon. Friend is right. That is what gave rise to the information that I provided earlier. There are today about 8 million rented dwellings. There were about 8 million rented dwellings 30 or more years ago. The bulk of them today are provided to good standards by the local authorities. In earlier days the bulk of them were provided by the private sector to bad standards.

Instead of throwing spurious charges at the Opposition Benches, the Minister would do better to answer the question which has been put to him repeatedly: when will he show real concern for the 750,000 empty houses in which people could now be living if he published the review of the Rent Acts, which are a major cause of the problem?

I do not accept that the Rent Acts are a cause of the problem. More action has been taken under the sponsorship of this Government to tackle the problem of empty properties in the stress areas than was ever taken when the Conservatives were in office. I have made no spurious charges. I asked a simple question. Is it the Conservative Party's intention to abolish security of tenure for tenants?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the leaders of the Building Societies Association.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had with the Building Societies Association.

I met the chairman and deputy chairman of the Building Societies Association on Thursday 8th June.

Is it not ironic that as Government policy permits the phasing out of the request to the building societies to reduce their lending to first-time buyers and others, the same people will now be subject to an increase of between £5 and £10 a month on the average mortgage as a result of the defects in Government policy in another sphere?

Of course, I regret the increases in mortgage rates. The hon. Member is right. The effect on the average £10,000 mortgage—which is roughly the sum that people were taking out in April this year—for first-time buyers is about £5 a month net of tax. The hon. Member will agree that if building society rates were at the level at which we inherited them from the Conservatives the increase that first-time buyers would have to pay would be not £5 a month but £10.

Was the recent increase in the mortgage rate in the public interest? If it was not, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what powers he requires to ensure that the Building Societies Association acts in the public interest?

The public interest in relation to building societies and interest rates cannot easily be defined. There are at least two or three major considerations which must be balanced. First, and obviously, everyone is anxious to have the lowest possible lending rate. Secondly, we have a strong interest in seeing that there is an adequate supply of building society money so that would-be owner-occupiers can receive the mortgage money that they need. Thirdly, we must ensure that the money market is not swamped with building society money. If it were there would be a house price explosion of the kind that we experienced when we had a Conservative Government.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his intervention which led to the drying up of mortgage funds was completely counter-productive? Does he agree that it increased prices considerably and caused suffering to those who wanted a second mortgage? In the interests of house buyers will he guarantee the building industry and the public that there will be no further Government interference in an area about which they know absolutely nothing?

I find that question extraordinary. I assume that the hon. Member was referring to the time when, three or four months ago, I asked the building societies to look at the pace and level of their lending because I was anxious about the sudden escalation in house prices. I asked them, and they agreed, to reduce the rate of lending. Had I not asked them to reduce the rate of lending, I can assume only that they would have less money today than they have and that the shortage would be greater.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the composite rate of tax charged to the building societies will fall significantly this year, bringing them a substantial windfall? Under those circumstances, does he not believe that the increase in the mortgage lending rate of 1¼ per cent. is exorbitant? Will he see the building societies again and ask them to give the benefit of their privileged tax position to house buyers and borrowers?

I am aware of the point about the composite rate, but I am also conscious, as the House has to be, of the competitiveness of other claimants on the savings of the country. We wish to maintain a situation in which we do not have a famine of mortgage money. There is a difficult judgment to be made about precisely what is the right rate at any moment.

When the Secretary of State saw the building societies' leaders, did he not agree with them that they had no choice but to put up the interest rates in the way that they did? They are forced to compete with the rates which the Government are paying for the vast excesses in borrowing in which the Government are indulging and which are forcing up interest rates throughout the whole economy. Did he also tell them that the problems of the building societies are symptomatic of the declining confidence in the Government's overall economic policies, which have led to an increase not only in building society rates but, bank and other rates?

I think that later today we shall hear a rather different version of recent events in the economy than that put forward so briefly and inaccurately by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I believe that when the minimum lending rate went up, as it did on Thursday, some increase in the building society rate was almost impossible to avoid. Nevertheless, the extent of the increase is a matter for considerable discussion and one upon which difficult judgments have to be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to take in order to encourage the take-up of rent allowances.

In addition to the existing measures of promotion by central and local government, which have produced a steady and substantial rise in take-up over the last four years, I have commissioned new studies and am preparing further guidance to local authorities.

As the take-up rate for rent allowance is only about 30 per cent. still, and as the private rented sector has a far larger proportion of poor and old people relative to other sectors of housing, does not this mean that a lot of people are suffering hardship who are unaware of their rights to rent allowances? Why are the Government so slack about doing something energetic to inform tnese people of their rights?

The hon. Member is out of date about the take-up. In the past two years, ending April 1977, there was a rise of between 30 per cent. and 35 per cent to 50 per cent. and 55 per cent. in the unfurnished sector. We are glad about that, but we are far from satisfied. We issue a leaflet each year and I have commissioned a study to discover why people are not applying for their entitlement to rent allowances.

Does the Minister agree that the existence of a scheme of rent allowances makes it seem illogical to hold down so severely the level of rents in the private rented sector, which has the inevitable effect of discouraging a valuable supply of homes?

That matter is being considered in the Rent Act review.

Will my hon. Friend consider the confusion that exists among many tenants about the difference between a rent rebate from a local authority and a rent allowance from the DHSS? Is he aware that in many cases one bestows an advantage compared with the other? Will he see what can be done, so that a tenant is properly informed either of the advantage of a rebate or the advantage of a DHSS allowance?

That is a difficult matter. We find that tenants are confused, which is why I have commissioned more research to find out whether we can simplify matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he now expects to be able to give any advice to local authorities concerning the blacklisting of companies which have breached phase 3 of the Government's pay policy, on the lines of the circulars which he issued concerning phases 1 and 2 of the policy, before the end of phase 3.

New clauses in Government contracts were introduced in April. I am still considering the question of advice to local authorities, following up that given in circulars 123/75 and 103/76.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has been telling me that for months and that there are now only a few weeks left to the current pay round in which he has time to issue advice? Has he not been advised that councils which incurred needless extra expenditure through refusing the most advantageous tender, merely to comply with a Government policy which lacks the force of law, would risk a surcharge of their councillors for that offence? Is not that why he has failed to issue a circular so far?

No. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are coming towards the end of the current pay year—that is a perfectly legitimate point to make—but there has been a long series of negotiations with both sides of industry. The Government did not make clear or decide about their own clauses in contracts between Government Depart- ments and agencies and the building industry until, I think, the end of March and the beginning of April. So there has not been all that much time since then. There is something in the further point that the hon. Gentleman made. It would be for a council to decide whether its actions could be justified if they were challenged by a district auditor or in a court of law. Since the whole purpose of pay policy is to achieve what we consider to be a major policy in the national interest, I should be most surprised if local authorities were to get into any difficulty on that account.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a much more serious issue affects the London borough of Ealing through the activity of the council? Since we have had the new Conservative council there has been the cancellation of large council housing estates and swimming pools, which had been designed and for which the contracts had been signed and building firms engaged. Compensation is to be paid, but the council is to deny people these amenities and will make its contribution to rising unemployment.

I know very well the misfortune that Ealing suffered in the May elections, but I was not aware of the matters raised by my hon. Friend. If he would like to give me further details I should be glad to receive them.

Is it the Government's policy to set up a public procurement agency for the co-ordination of the laying out of contracts in the public sector, as required by the unanimous vote at the Labour Party conference last October? Would such an agency have regard to the black list of companies when coordinating the offering of contracts for public works?

I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman on the last part of his question, because he is raising hypothetical matters. However, if he is asking whether we are thinking how best we can co-ordinate purchasing for public contracts, I can tell him that in so far as we are able to smooth the flow of orders nationally and regionally, that would be of great benefit to everyone, but no one should pretend that that is easy to achieve.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to modify excessive increases in the level of council house rents imposed by individual local authorities.

I see no reason to extend existing powers to restrict council rents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many council house tenants are the captives of reactionary Tory councils, and is it not true that many of these councils have imposed massive rent increases in spite of the windfall brought about by reduced loan charges in the last year? Do not rent increases of this nature stimulate both inflation and wage demands? What steps are being taken to protect those tenants?

Under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, which we introduced, we treated as a central issue the return to local authorities of the right to fix rents. That right was taken away by the previous Conservative Government's Housing Finance Act 1972. We would therefore be loth to increase powers in this direction. On the general question of rent levels this year, as I understood the position earlier this year, when decisions were being made by local authorities. I did not expect exorbitant increases to be proposed. There may have been one or two, but I believe the vast majority were very moderate. I cannot tell at this stage whether there have been any changes in policy subsequent to recent events, so I am not yet in a position to judge.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) that many ratepayers are the prisoners of Labour-controlled councils and that they are getting pretty fed up with the situation in which under many authorities the rents from council housing do not even cover the current costs of running the estates, let alone the capital and interest charges that are due upon them?

That is a most exceptional situation. It is not common. It happens most commonly among Conservative-controlled authorities in Greater London. Generally, the level of rate fund contributions varies enormously across the country regardless of the political nature of the control in the town halls. To my knowledge it is not the case that all Conservative-controlled councils avoid any kind of rate fund contribution, any more than it is true that all Labour-controlled councils make such contributions. It depends very much on local costs and difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent progress has been made in declaring housing action areas.

Up to the end of May 282 housing action areas have been declared in England, 43 of them since 1st January this year.

In order to build upon that impressive rate of progress, will my hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to those groups of householders and tenants who wish to make joint opposition at local inquiries to plans for wholesale demolition and clearance, rather than simply opposing piecemeal the categorisation of their own houses, and to put forward alternative proposals for housing action areas?

I am aware of the situation in the Derby City Council area, but we have no power to compel a local authority to declare a housing action area. It is a matter for the local authority. However, I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.