asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold a public inquiry into the British Airports Authority's application for a second terminal at Gatwick airport.

Yes, Sir. The planning authorities have been told that this will be done.

As this application, if it were successful, could result in a fourfold increase in passenger traffic at Gatwick airport, will the Secretary of State ensure that the terms of reference of the inquiry are not confined to the effects on the local environment but will take into account the effects on the region as a whole, if not the nation? Will the inquiry take into account the wider social and economic effects, including the current review of the strategy of airports for the South-East?

I shall consider this matter carefully when I formally call it in, but there are certain procedures that have to be gone through before I shall be in a position to do that. As the hon. Gentleman knows—and I fully understand his interest in this question—it is my task to issue a rule 6 statement, and in that statement I shall identify the major matters of concern. It is open to the parties to discuss that rule 6 statement and to let me have their views on its circumference.

Will the Secretary of Etate ensure that the inquiry's outcome and his reaction to it are not delayed in a way which would limit the capacity of the London airports below what will be required in the years to come?

I am, I think, proceeding with proper speed with this inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows, the inquiry into the fourth terminal at Heathrow is also proceeding, and obviously we must bear in mind the whole question of the timing of the provision of airport capacity against the growth in passenger need.

Why should the Government think in terms of a second terminal at Gatwick, or a fourth terminal at Heathrow, thus inflicting more suffering on all those living near those places, instead of going ahead now with the third London airport which the Government said in their White Paper is needed? Why wait until the 1990s?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of the third London airport is much more complicated. It has engaged the minds of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for a number of years. There is the question where a third London airport, if it were decided that it was a national necessity, should be located. That is not an easy matter to decide. I do not think that I can be drawn further on that today.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to enable the board of the Peak District national park to be democratically elected.

We have no immediate plans to change the arrangements for the administration of the Peak District national park. Following the Sandford report, the Government accepted that there would be advantage in reviewing the administration and staffing of national parks generally in 1981.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of my constituents who live in the Peak park feel that the board is insensitive to their wishes and tends to place the interests of visitors above theirs? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is a great deal of merit in allowing them to elect a board direct, which would then be answerable to them?

The majority of the 33 members of the board—22 of them—are representative of councils in the national parks. The problem with the Peak park is that there are six county councils and nine district councils with areas within the park. When the Local Government Bill 1972 was being presented by the previous Government, strong representations were made by the district councils but were not accepted. My view is that the counties should give more consideration to representations by district councils.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, to facilitate the building of new factories and the creation of new jobs, he will reconsider his decision not to allow local authorities to sell land freehold under the Community Land Act.

No, Sir. The freehold interest should normally remain with the local authority. I have no evidence that this is a significant factor inhibiting industrial or commercial development.

Is the Minister aware that certain large companies, particularly multinationals, will not buy factory sites unless they are freehold? Does he agree that it is disturbing when that means that jobs go to other countries in Europe? Would it not be sensible to sell these factory sites freehold where necessary and forget about political bigotry?

I am not aware of that. Some firms prefer the freehold, often for precisely the reasons why we believe it should remain in community ownership. Leasehold land has been customary in new towns and in many local authority areas, and it has never caused difficulty.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of ground rents and the sale value of land are significant factors in determining whether industrial and commercial premises are located in urban areas, or anywhere else? Since, under the Inner Urban Areas Act, large quantities of money are being poured into the urban areas, may we have an undertaking that the Department of the Environment will monitor the level of land prices and ground rents in the inner urban areas?

That strays a little far from the original question. This matter is under review. My hon. Friend is right to point out that a whole range of factors will determine decisions taken by industrialists when locating their firms.

Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State on this issue? I have had to intervene twice to secure the Secretary of State's permission for the sale of freehold, as opposed to leasehold, land. Do the Government understand that one reason why the Community Land Act has failed so signally and so little land has been resold is that industrialists wish to buy freehold and not leasehold land? Does he recognise that this is just one more irritant that is frustrating industrial development?

The hon. Member is wrong. The evidence does not bear out what he has said. Many firms prefer the freehold for the same reasons that local authorities wish to keep it. There is hardly any evidence to suggest that what the hon. Member says is true. Indeed, the evidence of the new towns, stretching back many years, proves the opposite to be the truth.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present regulations in regard to the emission of dangerous substances into the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to his question on 8 November 1978.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is considerable apprehension about the emission of dangerous substances into the atmosphere? May we have an assurance that departments of environmental health, such as that in Bristol, will be given sufficient resources to monitor and deal with this problem? May we have an assurance that the regulations governing chemical and other complexes are sufficiently comprehensive to regulate, control and monitor the emission of dangerous substances into the atmosphere?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of his constituents. A great deal of activity has taken place following the unfortunate leaks. The Alkali Inspectorate investigated the matter. The firm agreed to install new equipment to prevent the leaks of hydrofluoric acid, and it has spent £⅓ million on the project. The Alkali Inspectorate served a notice following the last incident in November to the effect that the firm would have to close by December if there were no administrative changes in its control room.

In view of the concern about this subject, which was reflected in the length of the Minister's reply, would it not be a good idea if the Government took action on the recommendation in the fifth report of the Commission on environmental pollution, created a pollution inspectorate and brought the Alkali Inspectorate back where it belongs, in the Department of the Environment?

That is an interesting suggestion which would affect both sides of industry as well as the Government. The suggestion is being considered and pursued as rapidly as possible.

Is the Minister aware of the tests to ascertain the level of lead in the blood which are to be carried out in my constituency and elsewhere between Easter and Whitsuntide? When will the results of those tests be known? Will they be made public? Does he agree that public discussion on the results is necessary to decide what action might be necessary?

We always make the results of such tests public. We believe that it is vital that every possible piece of information is made known so that intelligent discussions can take place. I cannot give a date for the publication of the findings because most of the work is being done and co-ordinated for us by outside agencies, but obviously we want to publish the results as soon as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state his policy towards the terms and conditions of employment for local authority manual workers.

The Government recognised that it was right for the lower paid group of the local authority work force to receive more favourable treatment and for their longer-term position to be improved, by introducing a new and, we believe, fairer method of establishing pay, by means of an independent comparability study. These elements were embodied in the final offer made by the local authority employers on 22 February, and I am glad to say that a clear majority of the workers concerned have now accepted it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on this side of the House recognise that local authority manual workers do a vital job and have been low paid for too long? Does he also accept that this settlement represents a significant step forward and that we hope that it will go some way towards narrowing the disparity between highly paid local authority chiefs and the relatively poorly paid indians? Does he accept that this is a step forward and that the Government are making a positive contribution to the elimination of low pay?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the settlement. I believe that the comparability study—which I hope will be a permanent feature in the determination of the pay of local government manual workers and, indeed, of other groups—will not only bring more fairness in the determination of the reward to those who do most important jobs, but will give a greater sense of fairness where it has been lacking.

As the Secretary of State advocates a hierarchical system for wages and salaries, does one not arrive at the irrefutable conclusion that some people must be the lower paid? Who does he think they should be?

That is a self-evident proposition. Unless one has a society in which everybody is paid exactly the same, some people must be lower paid than others. The essence of the argument has always involved the degrees of difference and disparity between people doing different jobs in the community.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why he said recently that there was no more money in the kitty when, on the same day, the Prime Minister rightly said that a large grant was to be paid to the miners? If there is no more money in the kitty, how can the Secretary of State say that the comparability study will come forward with suggestions? Is not that either dishonest or not the full truth?

We can express our meaning in different ways. My hon. Friend could have interpreted my remarks to mean that we felt that we had come to the proper limit of the concessions that we should make this year in relation to the lower paid. He would have been right to interpret my remarks in that way. I wanted to make that absolutely plain, because without that certain affirmation on my behalf I think that the negotiations might have dragged on longer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes and council flats were sold by local authorities to sitting tenants during the first nine months of the current financial year; and what was the equivalent figure for the same period of each of the two previous financial years.

It is estimated that, between April and December 1978, English local authorities sold 23,400 houses and 400 flats. During the equivalent periods in 1976 and 1977, when authorities did not differentiate in their returns between houses and flats, sales of 3,734 and 9,440 dwellings respectively were reported. Information on the proportion of dwellings sold to sitting tenants is not separately compiled, but the evidence that we have suggests that a majority of such disposals would have been to sitting tenants.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures which he has just announced confirm the view which he expressed in his speech on Monday, that increasing numbers of council tenants have been and are anxious to buy their own houses, and will he say what proposals he has to meet precisely that demand which he himself acknowledged on Monday?

The hon. Gentleman ought to look a little more carefully at the announcement which I made. What I was determined to do was to put a stop to what I consider to be abuses, and the abuses are the sale of empty properties and newly built properties on the open market to people who, in my judgment, could just as easily acquire accommodation themselves in the private housing market. The argument about selling council houses or council properties to sitting tenants, especially in areas where there is not a great pressure—although there are many areas where there is still great pressure of housing need—is, in my view, rather different. Provided that the two years' residence rule is accepted, authorities will be free to continue to sell.

Will my right hon. Friend accept warmest congratulations on his three steps this week, which will go a long way to help those on the waiting lists for council dwellings? Secondly, if the evil of this municipal asset stripping continues, will my right hon. Friend go further and consider the Labour Party's policy of stopping all sales at below market price, which gives a discount to certain people and an unfair incentive to damage a social asset?

In fact, most sales below market price, as my hon. Friend puts it, are of new properties, where the cost of building has been in excess of the actual sale price. I believe that the measure which I have announced will largely take care of that. Beyond that, there is the question of the discount, but against the discount has to be weighed the fact of pre-emption—the right to buy at the original sale price—which a council may be able to exercise in five years' time, and that is a matter which needs to be balanced very carefully.

Can the Secretary of State give his estimates of the number of sales which will be diminished as a result of his announcement on Monday?

It is difficult to do that at the moment, because we shall have to compile—

The right hon. Gentleman has no idea?

At the moment I literally do not have a full picture of the number of houses which are being kept empty by different councils in London and elsewhere in the hope of selling them. We know a good deal about the GLC figures because those have become available, but I do not yet have, at it were, a nationwide picture of the number of houses which are being kept empty.

Is the Secretary of State telling the House that he announces policies without knowing the consequences of those policies?

That is an absurdity. The hon. Gentleman knows the position perfectly well. There are two aspects to the policy which I announced. The first is the number of houses which are empty at any given time. Secondly, there are the numbers which are about to be completed or are in the pipeline of construction and which, until I announced my change of policy, would have been sold. I cannot give an exact estimate of those figures, for obvious reasons.

Will my right hon. Friend say when the decision which he announced on Monday will come into force, since great damage is still now being done to housing in London by council house sales?

I have kept the period of consultation pretty short, and I intend to bring the new directive into effect at the end of next week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of his recent discussions with the National Water Council, he has yet reached any conclusion with regard to a possible amendment of section 30 of the Water Act 1973.

I have at present nothing to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 31 January.

Although the right hon. Gentleman was not, of course, responsible for the 1973 Act, he has been the responsible Minister for several years now. Does he realise that if the Act is not changed the shift from industry and commerce to the domestic consumer by 1981 could lead to increases of up to 50 per cent. in water charges for domestic consumers in Greater London and elsewhere? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel, therefore, that he is sitting on a water bomb, and when will he do something about it?

I entirely agree that this is yet one more consequence of the Water Act 1973, against which my hon. Friends and I voted at the time. It was piloted through the House by the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—

Wrong.

Well, since the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department, if he was not seeking to pilot the Bill through the House he was certainly not dissociating himself from it. The fact of the matter, as the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) says, is that in London in particular the switch of the weight of charges inherent in the Act will impose a considerable burden on domestic ratepayers in order to relieve commercial ratepayers. This is now being considered, but if it is to be put right and amending legislation introduced, we shall need the White Paper proposals. If the Opposition will give an undertaking that they will facilitate such proposals, we shall try to introduce them into the House at the earliest possible moment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why that was a bad measure was that it looked upon the supply and disposal of water virtually in a commercial sense alone, and will he confirm that after the Act was passed £100 million of rate support grant which would have gone to local authorities for sewerage works was removed by the Conservative Party?

That is certainly true, but I believe that the organisational changes which were brought about—in particular, removing from municipal control large authorities which had previously been very successful—are something which the country is still rueing.

Will the Minister consider with sympathy the need to amend the Act to allow water authorities not to have a completely uniform system of charging so that they may provide a rebate for pensioners and others on low incomes—a rebate similar to the rent or rate rebates which they would get through the local rates?

I understand that consideration, but it is not the Government's view that the service industries such as gas, electricty, Post Office and water should proceed in the same way as local authority services.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer which he has just given to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)? Is my right hon. Friend so out of touch with reality that he does not appreciate how vast has been the imposition of water rate increases as a result of their being taken off local domestic rates, so that pensioners and the low-paid are being hit very hard by the new charge? These people do not look at it in the way of gas and electricity services, as my right hon. Friend suggests. This is a charge which has been removed from an area in which they could get a rebate to one where they now cannot. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer?

I shall not reconsider it because my hon. Friend is totally wrong. Water charges have never been subject to rate rebates, and there is therefore no change in this situation. I could understand my hon. Friend arguing that they ought to be, but the fact is that water charges were never included in ordinary local rate rebates.

Will the Minister tell us the difference in the number of people employed in the water industry now compared with the number before the reorganisation brought about by the Act, and when he tells the House that there has been practically no increase in the number of staff, will he admit that the real reason why water rates have risen is, first, wage inflation over the past four years, and, secondly, the vast increase in interest charges on the capital investment of the industry?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of wages. It is a capital-intensive industry. I agree that one of the factors is interest charges. The recent increase of 9 per cent. on the basic rate of pay for workers in the industry will produce an increase in the water bill of less than 1 per cent. Wage increases in the water industry are not responsible for the considerable increase in prices.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of public sector pay settlements, he will consider further representations from those county councils who have suffered from his Department's redistribution of the rate support grant.

No, Sir. Pay settlements affect all authorities and the distribution of the grant in the 1979–80 rate support grant settlement was designed to avoid excessive losses to authorities.

May I revert to the relevant supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)? Is not it a fact that the Government first suggested a comparability study to NUPE officials at a meeting at which local authority representatives were not present and that local authorities were confronted with a fait accompli? Would it not be right for the Government to commit themselves to paying additional rate support grant to cover the cost of any differentials established by that comparability study or by others set up by the Government, such as the one on teachers' salaries?

It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that local authority associations were faced with a fait accompli with the development of comparability studies. There were many discussions with the local authority associations and the trade unions before we agreed on the proposal for a comparability study. I have already made it plain that the rate support grant cash limit will be adjusted to take account of the increase that is due to lower-paid workers as a result of the settlement.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when I complained to the House about the shortcomings of Westminster city council both Tory and Liberal Members argued that the only remedy was to change the political composition of the council? Does he agree that if the electors were to return Labour majorities we might be persuaded that the counties are in favour of public expenditure? Is it not nauseating that the shire counties are in favour of increased public expenditure only if somebody else provides the money?

The attitude of Conservative Members is extraordinarily insensitive to the needs of the country as a whole. Naturally, as we all do, they speak for their own areas, but the blindness that they exhibit to the needs of the cities and the great conurbations becomes apparent as each rate support grant order comes before the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the distribution of rate support grant? Is he aware that district councils such as Trafford have been clobbered for two years running in terms of their share of rate support grant? Although the Trafford council has effected as many economies as possible, Trafford ratepayers will be faced with an enormous burden this year. Is he aware that the general view is that squandermania councils seem to get the money and that councils that look after the interests of the ratepayers are those that get hammered?

That is an extremely partial statement. It is not for me to comment on the rating decisions of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that we try to find the best methods of estimating need and to pay rate support grant needs element on that basis. We do our utmost to be impartial.

We are encouraged by the Secretary of State helpfully saying that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the latest settlement for public sector workers. As the settlement includes a £1 payment in anticipation of that which the comparability study finally yields, may we take it that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the full and final settlement when comparability is established?

Account will be taken of that. The hon. Gentleman is referring to what may emerge from the comparability study and payment from 1 August. We shall adjust the cash limit to take account of that. The local authorities impressed upon me that they would take aboard the £1 payment on account in the 22-week period between now and 1 August.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings have been built in the public and private sectors in the past five years: and how many dwelling have been improved in the same period.

In the five years up to the end of 1978 1,479,900 dwellings were built in the public and private sectors. The figure for dwellings converted or improved with the aid of grant or subsidy from the beginning of 1974 up to the end of September 1978 is 1,037,300.

I thank my right hon. Friend for supplying those figures. Is he convinced that the mix is right? Is he sure that enough smaller dwellings are being built in the public and private sectors so that those who are getting on in years who wish to move out of large three-bedroom houses, whether they be council or owner-occupied properties, have a suitable house to which they may move? If they have smaller dwellings they will have properties with lower rateable values, which in turn means lower rates and smaller sewerage charges. Contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a short time ago, rebates cannot be obtained on sewerage charges. If we can get the mix of dwellings right, everybody will be helped.

I am not persuaded that enough smaller dwellings are being built in the public or private sectors. I have been doing my best in the past five years, as I did when not in my present office, to persuade local authorities and builders to switch over to providing many more smaller dwellings to take account not only of the needs of the retired, although I take strongly the point that my hon. Friend has made, but of the demographic revolution that has taken place. It must be borne in mind that 50 per cent. of households in Britain are now one and two-person households. Neither our existing housing stock nor the building programmes of the private or public sector meet the need that has been produced by demographic change throughout the country.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel pretty ashamed of the results of his efforts of the past five and a half years? If he had only kept the level of total house building at the 1973 level, another 1 million families would be living in either new or improved dwellings.

I am much in favour of doing more and more about housing, in whatever office I hold. I am not ashamed of what we have done against the background of the most major economic crisis that Britain has faced for 50 years. The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If we had pursued the 1973 level—there were fewer than 300,000 completions in that year—throughout the years that we have been in office, we would have achieved less than has been done.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to cause an investigation to be made into the manner in which the London borough of Ealing is maladministering the conversion of a sector of homes in the Hanwell district of my constituency, which is causing grave distress to the tenants?

If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall investigate the matter. His supplementary question gives me the opportunity to say that I hope that more local authorities will consider the procedures that they adopt in handling improvement grant applications. There is a great deal to be done to streamline the procedures that are used in many areas.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most dramatic and disturbing reduction in house building has occurred in the private sector? That has resulted in about 250,000 employees being thrown out of work. Is he concerned about that dramatic reduction, and what steps is he actively taking to improve the situation?

Let us get our facts right. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. The figure for the year following the collapse of the boom in 1973 in the private sector was just over 100,000 housing starts. Starts have gradually risen—not as rapidly as I would have liked—to 157,000 in 1978 and a prospect of over 160,000 in 1979. There has been an increase and not a reduction following the collapse of the boom that was our inheritance from the Conservative Government. My most immediate concern, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will share, is to deal with the reduction of housing activity by many local authorities throughout the country. That applies across the board. However, the majority of local authorities that have reduced housing activity happen to be controlled by members of the hon. Gentleman's party. I trust that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will join me in asking and urging Tory and other councils to do more and to take up the resources that we are providing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities in the Greater London area on the co-ordination of measures to clear up the backlog of refuse which has accumulated in different boroughs, as a result of the re-fuse collectors' industrial action.

We have kept in close touch with local authorities in the Greater London area. Particular authorities have had difficulties, but none has sought direct assistance from the Government. There has been a gradual improvement in refuse collection and disposal services in most London boroughs since the final offer was made by the local authority employers on 22 February. Now that union members have endorsed the pay settlement, that improvement should be greatly accelerated.

I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed reply. In view of the bad effect on morale in the London area, where there is still a great deal of rubbish lying around in different boroughs, does he think it would be right for the Government to go further and encourage local authorities to bring in private contractors to assist in clearing up the backlog and to make a RSG payment, which would not be very large, to help this exercise?

I do not think that ad hoc machinery would now be appropriate. London's refuse collection is, in any case complex, given the different responsibilities for collection and disposal that exist. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about morale. It affects people's morale to find piles of litter accumulating over a long period of time. However, I think that the existing procedure is well established. This is not the first time that there have been refuse collection strikes. There are well established procedures for dealing with this problem. Where competent authorities decree that there is a fire hazard or a health risk which is sufficient to warrant urgent action, they have a duty to act and, if need be, to call in contractors and to use any other method to meet their statutory obligations.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, following the recent agreement between the trade unions and the local authorities, the piles of rubbish, especially in South London, are already beginning to disappear, in spite of the fact that the agreement is only 36 hours old? It is a great credit to the local authorities, the associations and trade unions that this agreement has been reached.

I am glad to hear that there is noticeable improvement in South London. However, there are some areas where the accumulations are large and where it is important that people make an early return to work.

To avoid a repetition of this disgusting affair, will the Secretary of State encourage local authorities to consider refuse collection by private contractors? Is he aware that the district council in Essex which decided to go over to private contract did so with the full co-operation of the regions and that there has been no interruption of refuse collection? The work force is contented and there has been a huge saving in public money.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The best way to prevent a repetition of this affair is to establish the kind of fairness in pay determination which I believe the comparability arrangements will achieve. One additional feature of this comparability agreement, to which I attach great importance, is the acceptance in advance by the unions and employers concerned of the findings of this independent body.

Before he considers the suggestion that has just been made may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that, if we exclude the past three months, the vast majority of strikes occurred in the private, not the public sector? Therefore, we may be storing up more trouble for ourselves if we transfer this public work to the private sector.

I am not encouraging any such movement. The best way to ensure peace in sensitive parts of the public services is to have a method of pay determination which is fair, and is seen to be fair.

Will the Secretary of State deal with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison)? Will he look again at the benefits that will accrue to the ratepayers of Maldon by using the private sector for the collection of refuse? Will he examine the benefits that have occurred and put forward the arguments fairly to the House so that Members of Parliament may make a judgment based not on mythology but on savings to ratepayers and benefits to union members involved?

The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous. He is obviously trying to stir things up in a totally unhelpful way. This is a matter for local authorities to decide. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about wishing to avoid a repetition of this wretched business he should welcome the progress that we have made to establish comparability.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in preparing legislation to enable persons appearing at a local planning inquiry to receive financial aid to engage professional advice.

My right hon. Friend is considering this question in the light of the representations made to him.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when his right hon. Friend agrees to a local inquiry, usually at the behest of the ordinary people of the area, and he appoints an inspector, the local authority has present its legal officers and chief planning officers, and that if a big organisation is involved it has its lawyers and planning experts there?

I know that on occasion individuals and groups feel overawed by the advice which the large organisations have. However, this may often be exaggerated. It is not normally necessary for objecting parties who engage themselves in an inquiry voluntarily to incur an expensive outlay in presenting their case. It is the duty of the inspector—I underline this—and any assessors he may have to satisfy themselves on all the relevant issues.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the dice are heavily loaded against the objectors at any public inquiry? The planning officer recommends a scheme, which is approved by the town planning committee. Therefore, the residents in an area which will be totally disrupted as a consequence of any such scheme are heavily disadvantaged by the situation in which they find themselves. Does the Minister agree that there is no fundamental difficulty in sorting out the irrelevant objections from the serious objections in the way that cases put to the Legal Aid Committee are sorted out? Will he look into this matter more seriously?

Order. Hon. Members are not being fair when they argue a case instead of asking a question.

My right hon. Friend recognises that there is a great deal of anxiety about this matter, especially where financial support may be necessary because of the technological research that might be needed to examine the case properly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the regional price limits fixed under the House Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978.

The illustrative limits we have published will be revised to take account of price movements. The limits which will apply when first home loan payments are made in 1980 will be set, by order, during that year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that by fixing these regional price limits he is effectively excluding from the scheme thousands of young couples who live in areas of low income but high housing costs, such as in my constituency in Bournemouth? What plan does the Minister intend to draw up to help those young couples who have been discriminated against in this way?

I have answered that in part already by making it clear that the regional price limits that we have published so far are for guidance only. The price limits that we shall decide upon in 1980 will take account of price movements. However, in the meantime I assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme, as we have designed it, and the limits that we set regionally, are aimed to provide cover for two-thirds of first-time house purchasers. During last year about two-thirds of first-time buyers in the South-West were buying at prices below £13,300, which is the present guide figure for the region.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what benefits are expected to flow to the construction industry from the 1979 inquiry into purchases of building materials.

Manufacturers and contractors will benefit from the better understanding of the construction market which the inquiry will provide, and from the improved price and cost indices my Department will be able to produce.

In view of the structure of the industry and the large number of very small firms on the building and construction side, does the Minister agree that it would have been much easier to get the same information out of an inquiry into sales of building materials rather than one into purchases of building materials?

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and in fact it was considered, but, without going into detail at Question Time, the position is that the interplay of buying and selling inside the industry led us to the conclusion that the best way of establishing information would be by going to the consumer, that is to say, the purchaser of materials. In designing the system we excluded large numbers of the small building firms. We have not included in the surveys any firm, for example, employing fewer than 20 people. Very large numbers have been excluded.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt have read the Labour Party report on the building materials industry. As a number of monopolies control the industry, has not the time come to move in and bring them under control in order to reduce the price of materials in the industry?

The only case to my knowledge which has been the subject of report in recent times concerns the cement producers. I am not aware of any others, but in any deliberations that we undertake in this direction I shall take account of any other information we receive.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the Association of County Councils.

I have regular and frequent contact with representatives of the Association of County Councils.

When the Secretary of State next meets the representatives of the ACC, will he tell them—particularly in view of answers given today to the effect that the rates in most counties are likely to go up by about 30 per cent.—whether the Government have any plans to reform this increasingly unfair method of taxation?

I do not accept that, and I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said to the House on previous occasions, but not today, that, following the change in the allocation of needs element between shire counties and shire districts, there is an exceptional and inevitable increase in county rates this time, just as we believe there will be a somewhat exceptional reduction in shire district rates as a consequence of that change.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Association of County Councils that its reactions to his plans for organic change have been entirely predictable and very boring? Does he agree that by far and away the best form of local government that this country has seen is the county borough form of local government, which was largely controlled by the Labour Party? Does he look forward, with me, to the day when we shall have unitary authorities throughout the country and get rid of county councils and the Association of County Councils?

I readily endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to the work of the county boroughs in the past, and I very much regret the way in which they were submerged in the reorganisation of 1972. May I encourage my hon. Friend now to look to the future? I understand that the proposals that we have put forward for organic change—for giving more powers to districts and taking some of the powers away from the remote counties—now have the agreement and endorsement, at least in principle, of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). That, after all, is a quite considerable conversion.

When the Secretary of State meets the ACC, will he discuss with it its recent publication on the growth of central Government control over local authorities? Will he explore the values to the ratepayer and taxpayer which could emerge if there were a freeing of the discretions of local government and the benefits which could come as a result of the greater efficiency and the lower cost of far less detailed central scrutiny?

I shall discuss that with the ACC. Indeed, I willingly joined the local authorities and encouraged them to set up precisely this study. I hope, however, that my discussions with the ACC will not be confined to those matters. I very much want to hear the results of the studies in which the ACC is engaged in the new working party set up by the hon. Gentleman to consider further the question of organic change.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the extent of damp in post-war houses; what research his Department is doing into its causes and effects; and what proposals he has to combat the problem.

There is no precise information on the extent of dampness. However, my Department and the Building Research Establishment have carried out much research into this, and advice notes for housing authorities and householders will shortly be issued.

Will the Minister accept that thousands of houses are being built today without cavity wall insulation? Will he help to overcome this problem by slightly relaxing the permitted cost limit? For instance, this morning Salford council is asking for £90 extra on each house in the case of 570 new houses. That would overcome this disadvantage.

If Salford council has proposals to make to me, I shall be glad to consider them. They have not yet been received by me. Speaking more generally, it is not true to say that many thousands of dwellings are being built today with substandard insulation. No doubt arguments could be put in favour of better standards of insulation, especially in view of the need for energy conservation, but it is a subject which has to be looked at with very great care indeed, in both technical and economic terms. It should not be assumed that by increasing insulation standards and ignoring other factors we shall get better results. I am committed generally to this approach, but we have to take several factors into account before we come to a conclusion on the matter.

Do not most of the complaints which most hon. Members of this House receive come from the tenants of post-war council houses? Do not many of the complaints concern condensation which is caused because the tenants cannot afford to run the excessively expensive heating systems which have been installed?

I believe that there is evidence of that. It is one of many pieces of evidence that we have. I have some cases in my own constituency in London. The installation of certain kinds of heating systems has contributed to costs and to inefficient heating standards. In a large number of cases, however, the installation of those heating systems, to reduce costs, occurred at a time when housing cost yardsticks were being held down and not reviewed sensitively in the light of changing costs. That was before my time, and not since. It was under the last Tory Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes introducing to alter the basis for eligibility for grant aid and loan sanction for local authorities to undertake coastal protection schemes; and if he will make a statement.

None at present. However, I intend, when resources permit, to review both the provisions of the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the way in which it is administered.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, under the existing arrangements, there are certain inconsistencies and anomalies between grant-aid available for new schemes on the one hand, and renovations on the other, particularly where private households are involved and where these homes form the sea wall? Is not there an urgent need for a review of the arrangements, specifically bearing in mind what has happened in villages in Devon and Cornwall this winter?

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is why I want to put such a survey in hand as soon as I can. The Act has been in force since 1949. It produces tremendous disparities, particularly in Government grants, which range widely from 24 per cent. to 79 per cent. I hope that we can make progress as soon as resources are available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that under modernisation schemes every house owned by local authorities shall have a fireplace with a back boiler installed.

No, Sir. It is for the local authority concerned to decide what sort of space and water heating should be installed in modernised dwellings in the light of local needs and circumstances.

Does not my right hon. Friend feel that he is reneging on his duty and responsibility? Is he aware that in the Mexborough area houses are being modernised and gas fires are being installed without any back boilers? Is it not crazy that in these days when central heating is being installed we cannot even make funds available to the local authorities to instal back boilers?

That is not the position. The decision on particular heating systems lies with the local authorities and their professional advisers and designers. We do our best to review the housing cost yardstick, which affects these matters, on a quarterly basis. We do it regionally to take account of all local factors on price and costs. Against that background, I do not accept that it is for me to direct local authorities about their particular heating systems.