asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional funds are to be made available to the Development Commission for advance factories and nursery factory units in Devon and Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

I have yet to announce the Development Commission's grant-in-aid for 1979–80. This year £15·5 million was made available compared with £7·6 million in 1977–78.

Does the Minister agree that, judging by past performance, his Department should be more aggressive in its negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the need to gain a reallocation of resources for this purpose, particularly bearing in mind what is given to similar agencies in Wales and Scotland?

I should have thought that the fact that the grant went up this year from £7·6 million to £15·5 million—more than double—was an example of the Government's concern for the need for development. The hon. Gentleman must not ask for more public expenditure, and he must not ask for any reallocation of resources when so many of our social problems are to be found in the industrial cities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available grants under the partnership programme for the improvement and development of Liverpool airport.

The Liverpool inner city partnership programme contains no specific proposals for grants in relation to Liverpool airport.

Notwithstanding that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Liverpool airport is vital to the future of industry and commerce on Merseyside? If he does, will he take immediate steps to make representations to his colleagues to stop the conspiracy on the part of British Airways and the Department of Trade to downgrade Liverpool airport and transfer its passengers to Merseyside?

Such words as"conspiracy"do not help the case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade presented to the House a White Paper following two or three years of serious discussion of what is the best framework for a national airports policy. Although I am appreciative of the role of Speke in Liverpool, I think the hon. Gentleman will recall that it was Manchester airport that was classified as playing the leading role in the North-West region.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent improvements at Liverpool airport. Does he agree that it is a vicious circle if an airport such as Liverpool which is trying to expand under the"C"category is at the same time faced with a lack of cash for the provision of proper terminal facilities?

That is not a question for me, but, in so far as we are talking about the inner city programme and the Liverpool partnership, I think it is right to remind the House that the programme which has been agreed for the next three years does not contain proposals for improving Speke airport.

Will the Minister explain why parts of Garston, which are five miles from the inner city of Liverpool, are included in the partnership? Is it because it is a highly critical marginal seat?

Go round Garston and have a look.

Garston is really an enclave which has similar characteristics to the rest of the Liverpool inner city area. Garston was included at the express request, the unanimous request, of Liverpool city council, which the hon. Gentleman should know is not dominated by any one party.

Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) reveals a total ignorance of the situation in Liverpool and of the fact that Garston happens to be one of the oldest parts of Liverpool, as are parts of Walton? If the hon. Gentleman really knew his area he would know that.

I agree with my hon. Friend that anyone who knows the area —I know it too—will agree that Garston has many of the characteristics of the rest of the inner city area. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate, and the result of an objective consideration, that it was brought within the inner city area.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amounts of Government grants to local councils over each of the past five years; and what will be the amount of grants for the year 1979–80.

Over 70 different grants are paid to local authorities. By far the largest of these is the rate support grant. The 1978 rate support grant order now before the House envisages that the needs element of rate support grant for 1979–80 will be £4,715 million at outturn prices. I shall publish figures of needs element and of total rate support grant for the past five years in the Official Report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that the metropolitan district in South Yorkshire is dismayed at what has been happening there over the last two or three years, that there are large areas of dereliction and that there are pockets of high unemployment? Will he do more for this area to make certain that it gets its fair share, taking into account what has been missing in the past?

I am aware of the difficulties in the South Yorkshire area, and in the Dearne Valley in particular. However, I remind my hon. Friend that under the rate support grant for 197–0, which we have just completed, Barnsley will gain the equivalent of a 2·2p rate, Doncaster a 1·2p rate and Rotherham a 2·7p rate. Thus, in terms of RSG, I believe that the area is being helped. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been able also to assist in approving the South Yorkshire canal scheme, to which I know that he attaches great importance.

Has the Secretary of State, in assessing the balance of funds under the RSG to go to the rural and inner city areas, studied the report of the Child Poverty Action Group entitled"Rural Poverty "? Has he noticed that that report says that the problems in the rural areas will reach crisis proportions in the next five years and that, over the last 15 years, far too much public money has gone from the rural areas into the inner city areas?

I am aware that there are problems in rural areas, and we try to help them in particular ways, particularly through the Development Commission helping with small advance factories in areas of unemployment in rural districts. I hesitate to come to more than a preliminary view at the moment because we are looking at the whole range of problems and reports connected with rural areas, but I would certainly not use the word"crisis"on the basis of the information that I have at present.

Although the grant for next year may be a little better than the unsatisfactory amount provided for the current year, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the present determination of rate support insufficiently regards the acute need in older industrial areas, particularly those with small communities and those in the coalfields, and that if their needs were adequately reflected the rate support grant arrangements for South Yorkshire would be much better than they are likely to be for next year?

The rate support grant tries, above all, to identify and measure need in as objective a way as we can find. Although there are problems in the older industrial towns, taking the national picture which emerges through the RSG, it appears that the large cities and conurbation areas, and certainly their central districts, have greater per capita needs than the smaller industrial towns.

But is my right hon. Friend aware that in Derbyshire the local Tory newspaper, the Derbyshire Times, ran a story last week that he had deprived the county council and thereby the ratepayers of about £9·2 million? May I be assured that this is merely a question of redistribution, that the district councils, and the other councils within Derbyshire which also levy a rate, will get compensating amounts and that therefore that £9 million is a false figure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His question gives me a chance to make a general point and a particular one. In fact, the RSG total affecting the county of Derbyshire is an increase of 0·5p in terms of the rate, which is equivalent to over £750,000. But the main change, as my hon. Friend has suggested, is that the needs element will be paid direct to the districts, which I believe to be right. There is no reason why the county precept plus the district rate should change overall, but there will obviously be differences between the two. In some districts rates may fall, but in others counties must obviously increase the precept because they are no longer getting as much of the RSG as they did.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the RSG being allocated in as objective a manner as possible. Can he explain why the factors"persons over 65"and"persons over 75 ", which must have a major influence on the responsibilities of local authorities, are not used as determinants in the regression analysis in the needs element?

I suspect that the reason is that there are other factors in the package which goes into the RSG needs element and which are reasonable surrogates for the factors to which the hon. Gentleman pointed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of water supply resources for England in 1979.

Assuming average winter rainfall, normal supplies could be maintained in most districts next year even if the summer is dry.

Is the Minister aware that that assumption of normal winter rainfall does not seem well-founded? Is he confident that the water authorities—particularly the South-West authority—have taken action since 1976 to ensure that the people living there do not suffer from the extraordinary lack of water that they suffered in the summer of 1976?

I am glad to report that, since we gave so much attention to the South-West two years ago, that water authority, with the full approval and support of the Government, has carried out 31 major schemes which have improved the situation there. In spite of the dry autumn in that area, assuming that we have average rainfall from now on and that people there continue to save water, we should be all right even in a dry summer.

Is the Minister aware that many of us appreciate the considerable steps which the Government have taken to improve water arrangements, but is he also aware that one need that remains is the production of a water Bill for the House to consider which will deal with the present gross anomaly affecting those who are not connected to main sewers?

There is a need for a water Bill to deal with many of the anomalies left by the Water Act 1973. We hope still to be able to introduce it at an early stage.

But what about the results of the famous, or infamous, court case in connection with Daymond, with the effect that there will be retrospective demands on some ratepayers going back four years? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something urgent about that?

There is no need to, because most water authorities over-provided as an insurance against Daymond and have not been called upon to pay the amounts that they expected to pay. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date.

Will the Minister bear in mind that he can always rely on some of my constituents to pray for rain in the event of another drought? Will he bear that in mind, in view of the beneficial results that it had last time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very well served in that respect in my own constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the report on his Department's review of the Rent Acts will include recommendations relating to harassment.

We have increased the maximum fine on summary conviction for harassment to £1,000 in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and at the same time strengthened the civil remedies in the Administration of Justice Act 1977. I cannot yet say whether there will be further measures emanating from the review of the Rent Acts.

Given the small proportion of complaints against harassment which reach the courts, does the Minister feel that the laws against harassment are operating satisfactorily?

There are some outstanding cases which reach the media, and we are concerned about them. A number are closely intertwined with alleged loopholes. I say"alleged ". Some concern loopholes in the legislation which we are looking at in the context of the review. We must bear in mind that many incidents of harassment are dealt with on a negotiating basis. Some local authorities have successfully established tenant-landlord relations officers who help a great deal in liaison, negotiation and settlement of disputes between landlords and tenants in the inner areas of London and in other parts of the country.

Will it be possible in the forthcoming housing Bill to deal with some of the loopholes to which my right hon. Friend referred? Is he aware of the extent to which the decision in Somma v. Hazelhurst has made the application of the Rent Acts almost a voluntary exercise on the part of landlords? Will he take steps, as a matter of urgency, to remedy the situation?

We do not have it in mind to draft the prospective housing Bill to deal with matters arising under the Rent Acts review. As I have indicated today and on previous occasions, in the context of the Rent Acts review we are looking at various items of evidence about loopholes in the Acts which relate to harassment and other matters. In due course we shall no doubt be legislating on that basis.

Is there not a substantial argument for a new court of first instance specialising in landlord and tenant matters, with the emphasis on reconciliation? Will that consideration be included in the Department's review?

Yes, indeed. We have already published our intention to consider the idea of a landlord-tenant tribunal. We have also indicated that in the review we shall be looking at the possibility of merging tribunals with rent officer facilities, but no conclusions have yet been reached. There are problems in this area. I should hesitate at this stage to say that we have come to a firm conclusion on the matter. Certainly it has played an important part in our thinking during the review.

Will the Minister promise an early report aimed at restricting the landlord's right to harass and evict?

The case to which my hon. Friend referred is one of the areas of concern which come under the general heading of loopholes which we are looking at in the review. We are concerned with the loophole cases which come to our attention, but it would be wrong to overstate the extent of the problem. The Rent Act as a whole, for the majority of tenants benefiting from it, is working well and smoothly. However, that does not mean that we should not look at particular cases which come to our attention.

Will the Minister take the opportunity of the review to extend Rent Act protection to local authorities which are not housing authorities? Why should the tenant of a county council which owns a number of properties not have the same protection against eviction as the tenant of a private landlord?

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to public sector tied cottages or service tenancies. If he is referring to local authority tenants, I can tell him that we are going to deal with that aspect, as we have clearly indicated on a number of occasions, in the context of the prospective housing Bill. We propose to introduce security of tenure for public sector tenants.

Will the Minister for Housing and Construction understand that in this sector of the property market there are many aspects of concern about the diminishing availability of houses to rent? For the right hon. Gentleman now, after the life of an entire Parliament, to go on talking about a review which has been in existence for over three years is a scandal of complacency.

The review has not been in existence for three years. [HON. MEMBERS:"How long? "] If the hon. Gentleman had checked the record of our announcements about the review of housing policy he would have established that we announced our intention to undertake this review and formally to initiate it arising from that housing policy review. Indeed, we referred to it in the Green Paper, which I am sure all Opposition Members will have read word for word.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what role he plays in an advisory or consultative capacity in the provision and maintenance of adequate hospital facilities in new towns.

I discuss particular difficulties with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services from time to time and this Department has regular contacts with the Department of Health and Social Security about problems associated with the development of health services in new towns. These liaison arrangements are supplemented by direct contact between new town development corporations and the appropriate regional and area health authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while this liaison is going on, new towns, including Hemel Hempstead, still do not have the bricks and mortar to provide the new acute hospital facilities which are urgently needed? Will he look at the arrangements to see whether he can persuade those responsible for the development of new towns to include hospital developments at the time of building amid all else that is new and splendid in the new towns?

I am well aware of the situation described by my hon. Friend. As he knows, I met a deputation from the Dacorum hospital action group in September, when the argument was impressively put forward. But, as he knows, the provision of hospital facilities is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I understand that proposals for the provision of facilities in the northwest district of Hertfordshire are now under consideration by my right hon. Friend and that my hon. Friend's concern is being taken fully into account.

Is it not a farce that, for instance, the new town in my constituency was set up 10 years ago and that it took 10 years to get £200,000 out of the Department? Is not there now a strong argument for looking at every new town and providing proper, adequate facilities to meet what the Secretary of State called extra resources for disadvantaged persons?

I cannot make any comment on what may or may not have happened 10 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given some assistance from the new towns budget to make provision for the increased population that is being received by the new town in his constituency. As I emphasised, the provision of hospital resources nationwide is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, and he has to take decisions in the light of the growth of population in different areas, including new towns.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that exactly the same situation obtains in Telford new town, this is a question concerning the machinery of Government? We want better planning machinery. Does he agree that it is a waste of resources to build houses to which people cannot be attracted because facilities in the area are inadequate?

I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair. I should have thought that, within the area of their responsibilities, new town development corporations do remarkably well in providing adequate facilities. It would obviously not be right for the full facilities to be provided initially, though they may be planned for the stage at which the new town development is completed. Considerations of that kind presumably influence my right hon. Friend when making decisions about the time that a new district general hospital or whatever may have been planned should begin.

As a result of the television programme which the Minister saw, does he agree that the lack of health facilities is the main preoccupation of the people of Redditch? Can he tell us what has happened to the working party made up from his Department and that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, which the then Minister of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), told me he was establishing to remedy the problem that new towns are established without adequate health facilities, be they casualty services, health centres or hospitals, as in Redditch?

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer here and now, but I shall write to him on the matter that he has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the likely average increase in domestic rate in 197–0 as a result of his rate support grant settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will he the rise in domestic rates in 197–0 as a result of his rate support grant settlement.

The settlement is compatible with the national average of domestic rate increases remaining in single figures. I am assuming that local authorities will think it right to link their rating for contingency allowances to the assumptions made in the cash limits, and to plan to make some drawing from balances. It is for individual local authorities to decide increases in domestic rates, but I assume that the authorities will act with their accustomed responsibility.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the local authority associations and, indeed, most informed and independent observers are predicting that, inevitably, rate increases will be well up into double figures? Does he not recognise that, at least in part, this is a direct consequence of allocating the rate support grant largely on the basis of past patterns of expenditure by local authorities, so that inevitably those authorities that are wasteful and extravagant are encouraged and those that are prudent are penalised?

Hear, hear.

Do I hear a note of dissent from London and metropolitan Conservative Members to those cheers? However, I turn to both questions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in spite of the new system in the needs element Berkshire ratepayers will have a rate rise well into double figures? Is he further aware that the local authorities feel that he has provided insufficient resources to cover future pay awards, which is something that puts pressure on the rates? Will he resist the proposed pay increase for manual workers which appears as though it may go above 5 per cent?

The pay question is, of course, a factor. But we have made plain our expectations in this area. The Government's pay and counter-inflation policies are implicit in the rate support grant settlement. In regard to Berkshire, I do not know what the local circumstances are which will lead to changes. The hon. Gentleman should remember what I said earlier, namely, that this is the first time that there will be a direct payment of the needs element to the districts. That may well mean that counties will have to precept more. But it does not mean that that totality of rates in the area will be greater.

Prior to completing his assessment for the next financial year, will my right hon. Friend take into account local authorities such as St. Helens which have demolished hundreds of houses which were unfit for human habitation in order to provide decent homes for people?

My hon. Friend can rest assured that housing factors which are relevant to the establishment of differential needs per head will be tested and included in the rate support grant system. Indeed, a housing factor is included in the package this time.

The Secretary of State talked about gloomy forecasts. Does he recall that, although he forecast under double figures rate increases for this year, some rate increases were above that level? Wigan was a case in point, where the rates went up by 18 per cent., and in York they went up by 21 per cent. If, as Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman has a concern for the ratepayer, does he accept that he cannot deal in averages and that he must address himself to the problem of people who suffer massive rate increases? If there are to be rate increases of 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. this year, how can people be expected to accept 5 per cent. wage settlements?

It is ridiculous for any Secretary of State, taking account of all the different circumstances of local authorities, to attempt to couch his forecasts in anything other than average national terms. An average is an average, which means that some increases will be below and some will be above. I therefore put it to the hon. Gentleman that in looking at particular figures—it may well be that this year, as in past years, and under previous Governments, there will be swings at both ends of the range—he should look at the total circumstance, including the actual size of rate bills which are paid on average in the areas concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is deep feeling about the disparities in the rate support grant? For instance, in Sheffield, where I come from, where a good council has husbanded its resources very carefully over the years, people feel that they have been very ill done by. This is the talking point throughout Sheffield. Will my right hon. Friend look at this a little more carefully and explain more clearly the criteria on which he bases his judgments?

I am aware that Sheffield, unlike most of the major cities, has had a small reduction in its rate support grant this year. There are reasons for that which, frankly, lie in the particular package of needs factors which have been identified. But, as my hon. Friend knows, I am willing to meet representatives of his city—they have already been in touch with me—to discuss the whole matter with them just as soon as we are free of the rate support grant debate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he expects to complete before Christmas his consultations with the local authority associations regarding local government reorganisation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the transfer back to major city authorities of powers removed from them in recent local authority reorganisation.

The Government will be consulting the local authority associations and other bodies on the detailed proposals for organic change before legislation is introduced. I hope that these consultations can be completed fairly early in 1979. I have received representations on this issue from the local authority associations, from the nine major non-metropolitan cities, from a group of medium-sized districts, and from a large number of individual local authorities.

In his recent Guildhall speech the Prime Minister referred to restoring powers to the big nine cities, plus Norwich. Was he, in mentioning Norwich, implying that towns of that sort and size would, without exception, have powers given to them? If so, what will be the minimum size for a town before powers can be given to it? If that is not what he was implying, why did the Prime Minister mention Norwich?

I should not want to incur Mr. Speaker's displeasure by again reading to the House the statement that I made on 3rd August, which I think the House will recall, in which I set out very carefully what I had in mind for the whole range of districts which would be affected by organic change. I should like to help the hon. Gentleman with his interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks. What the Prime Minister referred to were the big nine which, in a sense, are only distinct from others in that for them we are prepared to consider restoring education as well as other services, such as social services.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one of the big nine—the city of Leicester—the Tory-controlled housing committee has this week recommended the slashing of the housing programme in this stress area from the original figure of 1,000 to 250? Does he not feel that this doctrinaire, despicable act is scarcely likely to encourage the return to Leicester of powers which in other respects it would be so welcome to have back?

I heard of the recommendation of the housing committee in Leicester virtually to halve its housing programme this year. I believe that that decision has yet to be reported to the full council. That disturbs me because it is happening in far too many Conservative-controlled authorities where there is an undoubted need for rented housing. That is to be deplored.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the collapse of his public sector housing programme is taking place in Labour as well as Conservative-controlled areas because of the housing costs imposed by the Government?

In his Mansion House speech the Prime Minister was referring to our popular proposal to help to undo the worst nonsenses of the 1972 Act. That is what we intend to do. Our proposals go well beyond the big nine. For the social services, the proposals will include the possibility of Norwich and a number of other cities of a similar size regaining those powers which they were able to manage sensibly before.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local authorities which are to have their powers restored to them will wish to congratulate him and the Government on their firm action against the extraordinary proposition from some county councils? They would appreciate it if the Minister could specify as soon as possible which powers are to be restored.

I am anxious that the matter should progress beyond the stage that we had reached when I made my statement on 3rd August. That is what we shall be doing as soon as we embark upon the consultations. I believe that there is wide support on this side of the House, but I do not accept that this measure will not command considerable support from the Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for the ownership and control of industrial and commercial assets in the new towns after the winding up of development corporations.

It remains Government policy that the Commission for the New Towns will own and manage these assets. I am still considering the terms and conditions under which local authorities could acquire some of these assets.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are worried that the transfer of control over industrial and commercial assets from a locally based new town development corporation to a national authority such as the Commission for the New Towns might diminish local influence and add to bureaucracy? Should not our ultimate aim still be the original one proposed by those of us who are connected with the new towns movement, namely to transfer the assets to the control of the local authority after the development corporations have been wound up?

I should make it clear that the Commission for the New Towns has undertaken to ensure that a large measure of responsibility rests with the local manager in each town or group of towns. Consultations are now taking place between members of the Commission and individual local authorities which are reaching their wind-up date or where the new town corporation has already been dissolved. The consultations are based on finding the right consultative arrangements between the local authority and the local manager of those assets.

Order. We must not enter into long arguments. I shall call one more hon. Member to ask a supplementary question and then I shall move on.

Why does the Minister not simply sell off those assets and save some public money for once?

Because I think that we have a better regard for the public interest than the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has held discussions with representatives of the North-West water authority about the cost of replacing the antiquated sewerage system in the region; and if he will make a statement.

I have had no direct discussions with representatives of the authority, but officers of the Department maintain a close liaison with the authority's management team on this subject. I understand that it is not yet possible to make any accurate estimate of the probable costs involved, and I can add little at this stage to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on 27th July.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obsolete sewerage system in the North-West is a consequence of many years of neglect? Would it not be totally unfair if householders were called upon to foot the bill, particularly as the rate rebate formula does not apply to water rate contributions?

There have been many years of neglect and it is a serious problem, particularly in the North-West. I shall be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend, the local authorities and the water authority whenever they wish to do so. There must be more detailed surveys to find out what is involved before we can hold discussions. Householders will have to pay in one form or another, however the replacement is financed. I understand that the water authority has resolved to increase its capital programme over the next five years by about 50 per cent.

Before regional water authorities are allowed to engage in huge and lavish public expenditure schemes, will the Minister devise a method by which they are more accountable locally for the money that they spend?

I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman being in the Lobby with us when we voted against the Water Bill in 1973. There is a serious problem in our old industrial cities, which is caused by the collapse of underground sewerage facilities. That problem must be tackled. It does not involve the use of unnecessary or lavish public expenditure. That expenditure is essential in the public interest.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a frightening picture of underground dereliction in the North-West? Is it not crazy that under the water equalisation grants system the North-West of England will pay £750,000 to the national pool in order to subsidise areas such as East Anglia?

When the capital programme gets under way in the North-West, the equalisation picture will be different. That is one reason why I shall be happy to meet the authority to discuss the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of the proceeds of sale of council houses to tenants by local authorities when his Department approves and finances the housing investment programmes of such authorities.

No account is taken of the proceeds of council house sales, or other receipts, when annual cash allocations under the housing investment programme system are determined for individual authorities.

Will the Minister rethink that policy? He does not accept the Conservative policy of enabling council tenants to buy their properties, but should it not be common ground that if we are to deal adequately with the homeless problem the degree and extent of council house sales should be taken into account in considering a council's housing investment programme? Would not that lead to a more dynamic investment policy and housing programme by local authorities?

Policies of indiscriminate sales do no good to people who are in need of housing. Secondly, on the technical point, to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests would produce double counting in allocations, because account is taken of housing receipts, from whatever quarter, in enhancing the total national budget for housing. To do it again when we come to the individual allocations of that national budget would result in double counting. It is an unnecessary device.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wrecking policy of the GLC in housing is destroying any chance of London's housing problem being solved for many years ahead?

I am aware particularly, as I think I have said previously in the House and elsewhere, of the repugnant policy of touting empty properties around the market while people are in need of housing. We are studying the matter closely. If necessary, we shall be prepared to take action in due course.

If the Minister for Housing and Construction is so concerned about the indiscriminate sale of council houses, does he intend to take powers to prevent it by the housing Bill which he is about to introduce into the House?

Our policy stands as it was stated quite clearly in April 1974, within three or four weeks of our being elected to office. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman advocates the need for more rented housing, he will take care to cease the practice of encouraging Tory local authorities to sell rented housing, for which he himself is claiming there is a need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any further applications from foreign companies for quarrying in the Peak national park.

There are no such applications before my right hon. Friend. Applications for planning permission would be made to the Peak park joint planning board in the first instance.

Does my right hon. Friend accept from me that my motive in asking the Question was to try to ensure that people in the Peak park have adequate employment without this at the same time involving the destruction of the surpassing beauty of this area? Will he further accept from me that the scars being left within the park are horrific and far more massive than the average person understands? Will he ensure that there are clauses in any of these contracts to ensure that the ground is set right after the profits and the materials have been taken out? This is absolutely necessary as, for instance, the great area on the periphery, extending for miles between Buxton and Bakewell, looks like the mountains of the moon, frankly—and they are almost as big.

I entirely agree with those considerations. My hon. Friend's opening comments very properly showed the balance which Ministers and planning boards must hold. In this respect I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as delighted as the Government are with the new agreement reached between the board and Dresser Minerals, under which that company has entered into a full bond guaranteeing absolute restoration of the 10 acres to be mined. We regard that development, upon which we have congratulated the planning board, as a very significant step in the direction in which we and my hon. Friend wish to go.

Will the Minister reject the mercantilism and xenophobia of the Question by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), in which he refers to foreign companies only? Will he assert that the Government are in favour of both inward and outward investment and that considerations will be equally applied to both foreign and domestic companies?

We apply the planning laws impartially between all applicants.

That is right.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about future charging for water supplies.

The basis upon which water charges are made is contained in the Water Act 1973, and I have no statement to make upon that matter at the present time.

Is the Minister of State aware of the deep concern felt by many local authorities, including Berkshire county council, that the implementation of section 30 of the Water Act may cause a steep rise in domestic water charges? Without metering, does not the Minister agree that it is impossible to introduce a charge which is not arbitrary? In those circumstances, what proposal has he either to amend section 30 or to ensure that domestic charges do not rise at a time of pay restraint?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House and the country to the likely effects of section 30, if that section continues to be unamended. The effect would be to transfer some of the weight of charging to the domestic consumer from industry as a whole, which would have rather serious repercussions. However, I am sure that individual metering of domestic water supplies in households is not the way to deal with that problem. It would be an extremely expensive operation and it would be an impost upon large families and the poorest families who are least able to bear that charge.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many water authorities are discussing exactly such matters as he has mentioned—metering, making charges for connections, and so on? Will he ensure that they stop making this kind of investigation and these studies and use the money thus saved possibly to devise a form of lavatory that uses less water, which would give them more saving and is technically feasible?

I shall not comment upon my hon. Friend's last proposal—unless this new method of flushing which he has mentioned is intended to flush out the monstrous suggestion that we should have water metering. I assure my hon. Friend that the present Government have no intention of embracing any such policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to bring forward in order to increase home ownership.

From 1st December prospective first-time buyers can begin to qualify for benefits under the"home loan" scheme. I recently announced a decision to keep the value of the option mortgage subsidy at the same level as basic rate tax relief—33 per cent. The Housing Bill will include provisions on local authority mortgage rates and guarantees. I hope to expand the support lending scheme with the building societies. I shall continue to work with the societies to create a stable housing market.

Is not the Secretary of State rather ashamed of that complacent reply, having regard to all that he has done to stop house purchases and all that he has done in regard to rent restrictions to stop houses being let? Does he not have some positive ideas to get better housing in this country?

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned with the increase in home ownership, which I understand he is, he will have noticed that home ownership has increased about 600,000 in the past four years. He will have noticed, further, that we have introduced a scheme to make it possible for the first time for many people who are not particularly well off to surmount the first major hurdle of accumulating a sufficient deposit in order to begin to become home buyers. That is the purpose of the new home loan scheme which we have just launched and which I believe many people will want to take up.

Does not the Secretary of State agree, however, that the combination of a 12 per cent. minimum lending rate with a 5 per cent. maximum limit on wage increases is almost a classic formula for preventing young people from buying houses and, therefore, for ensuring that tens of thousands of building workers remain unemployed?

The 12 per cent. mortgage rate is a very unwelcome development. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the number of people buying their homes has increased. Indeed, the number has been running at a record level this year, and that follows 1977, which was an all-time record year.

Is not the Secretary of State aware that in each year of the present Government there have been 40,000 fewer new homes than in the four years of the previous Conservative Government? Is not he further aware that the single most significant step that any Government could take to increase the prospect of home ownership is to give a statutory right to council tenants to buy their own homes and, therefore, to enable those people who are at present council tenants to share in the massive personal benefit that has accrued to those who have bought their own homes in a property owning democracy?

All that the hon. Member is saying is extremely obvious. He is saying that if I am prepared to contemplate a massive reduction in the necessary supply of rented accommodation, I can have an equivalent increase in owner-occupation. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. It is in the interests of our people that we should make available an increased supply of homes for owner-occupation and not deplete a necessary local authority rented sector.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, I raised the issue of the future control of new town assets. It appeared that because of the length of the Ministerial reply you determined that only one supplementary question would be taken. As many hon. Members are extremely concerned about this very important issue, is it reasonable that because a Minister makes a reply which is viewed as being rather long those hon. Members should be deprived of the opportunity that would normally have been made available to them of questioning the Minister on a subject of this importance? I do not normally intervene in such matters but, with respect, I think that the circumstances to which I have referred were a little unfair to hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we had already spent six minutes on one Question about new towns and that his Question on the new towns took another three minutes out of our full total for Question time. It is a matter of being fair not only to hon. Members who are still on their feet but to other hon. Members who have taken the trouble to put Questions on the Order Paper and are hoping that they will be called. If the day comes when the hon. Gentleman has the honour to sit in this Chair, I can assure him that he will find that at every Question Time people are disappointed by not being called.