asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he expects to meet the chairman of the British Waterways Board.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he expects to meet the chairman of the British Waterways Board.

I expect to see the chairman of the British Waterways Board during the next few weeks.

Will the Secretary of State draw the attention of the chairman of the British Waterways Board to the need for urgent repairs to be carried out to the canal system which has been languishing untended for some months due to an industrial dispute? Is he aware of the number of tunnels and canals that are closed because of the dispute? Can he give some reassurance to the House that the many people who take their holidays on the canals will be able to use most of them during the summer season?

I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are two aspects of the matter. One is the disruption to the canal system following the industrial action, which is most unusual in the canal industry, during the weeks over the Christmas period. That ended, I am glad to say, at the end of February. I understand that a great deal of work is being done. I hope that most of the routine maintenance will be completed shortly. The second and longer-term problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the carrying out of the Fraenkel Committee's recommendations. We have that in hand.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's view that not only is the canal network part of the national heritage but that it fulfils an important drainage function? When he sees the chairman of the British Waterways Board, will he be able to give him more information on the programme for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation? Does he agree that what is proposed shows the enlightened view of Her Majesty's Government and that it is a good signpost for future policy?

Yes. I shall want to discuss those matters with the chairman. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the canals have many roles to fulfil. Undoubtedly, one is recreation. Another is the movement of water to different parts of the country. Thirdly, there is the freight function. I am glad to have been able to give the go-ahead to the first commercial development of any major kind in the canal system in the South Yorkshire canal.

In view of the replies that the Secretary of State has given me about the lengths of canal that will be shut this summer, will he discuss with the chairman of the Board the position with regard to the mooring and navigation licences of those boats which will be unable to use the canals because they will be closed all summer? Will he also discuss the interests of commercial organisations which are unable to do business because of these closures?

Yes. I shall look into those questions. There have been some unfortunate tunnel collapses and they have to be dealt with in the most rapid way possible. I take a cautiously optimistic view. The situation looked much grimmer two months ago, and I believe that a good deal of the backlog can be cleared.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his forecast of the average domestic rate demand per head for 1979–80 or, if that figure is not yet available, the average demand per head in the current year in Wales, in the shire counties and in the metropolitan areas of England.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of average level of rate increases by non-metropolitan district authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of local government rate increases.

A full return of rates for 1979–80 has not yet been made to my Department. However, the latest estimate available to me of the average domestic rate demand per head, as opposed to the average domestic rate bill, for 1979–80 is: in Wales. £36·33: in non-metropolitan districts in the shire counties, £55·28; and in the metropolitan districts of England, £49·10.

Does not the situation reveal such a disparity that it suggests that major changes in local government finance will have to be introduced during the next two or three years? Further, does not that reply make it clear that the Conservative Party's reorganisation of local government in 1973 must be regarded as one of the major disasters of the twentieth century?

There are still quite important disparities in the rate burden in different parts of the country. To some extent, of course, we are seeking to change this through our use of the needs element in our annual rate support grant allocations. What my hon. Friend has said about the reorganisation of 1972 to 1974 is hardly a controversial matter in the House. I have not met anyone who believes that the 1972 solution was the correct one, and I am certain that the proposals that we have put forward for organic change will command the support of both sides of the House.

Does the Secretary of State now appreciate that his forecast of single-figure rate increases can be joined with the forecast of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 8·4 per cent. inflation as outstanding examples of Socialist statistics? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as long as he goes on assuming that expenditure is the best measure of need he will go on encouraging the extravagance of Socialist authorities, from which so many ratepayers are now suffering?

No, Sir, I do not. I think that expenditure across the country, and not confined to just a few authorities, is the only proxy for need that we can have. Any other method which sought to examine the individual budgets and requirements would lead the House, and any hon. Member who followed it, into a quagmire from which I do not believe there could be any escape. Therefore, I am not in any sense repentant about the method that we have used.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of Tory-controlled local authorities, including the Calderdale district council, are simultaneously substantially increasing rates and cutting services? Secondly, will my right hon. hon. Friend give his view on whether, after five years of studied silence, the Tory Party is likely to offer the electorate, as it did in 1974, the uncertain prospect that it will abolish rates if it is returned to power? What is the Tories' current policy on the rating system?

I am aware that some authorities have managed, as my hon. Friend said, both to increase rates and to cut services, but I do not believe that the cuts in services will be a general feature of local authority activity during this year.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the real change in the rate burden arose from the act of his predecessor, Mr. Crosland, in switching a higher proportion of the rate burden from urban to rural areas, which the right hon. Gentleman has continued, and will he repent on this matter?

On this occasion, and unusually, I think that the right hon. Gentleman does not have the full facts. As the House well knows, the architect and author of the switch to this fairer system of regression analysis in determining the needs element was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who, very late in the day, saw the wisdom of making this change and saw that the previous system discriminated harshly and unfairly against the cities, where the greatest needs existed.

As the Secretary of State has been discriminating in favour of the inner cities by adjusting the needs element of the RSG, how is it that the Labour-controlled London boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Lambeth and Southwark have raised their rates by 49 per cent., 39 per cent., 39 per cent., and 27 per cent., respectively? Is it the truth that because they are Labour-controlled boroughs they have very little interest in the level of domestic rates?

This can be argued both ways. I think the House will recognise that the boroughs which the hon. Gentleman has cited are, by any standard, among the dozen or so most hard-pressed urban areas in the country. There is no question about that. It is not a matter for me, and I have never attempted either to condemn or to give my blessing to any particular local authority's rate increase. It is a matter for the authorities. That is for them to do and to justify to their electors. It would be an equally fair inference to draw from the hon. Gentleman's question that I have not moved the RSG sufficiently in favour of hard-pressed boroughs—rather the opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those Greater London boroughs which have conformed to the guidelines for rate increases for 1979–80 as laid down in his Department's circular 6/79.

The setting of rates is a matter for local decisions by elected members in the light of their assessment of local needs and circumstances. Of the 33 rating authorities in London, rate increases in seven—Bromley, City of London, Greenwich, Hammersmith, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster, are in single figures. One—Croydon—has yet to report, and the rest are in double figures.

Is it not ironic that, with the sole exception of Greenwich, the London boroughs which the Minister mentioned as having met the Government's target, and which have managed to keep their percentage rate increases in single figures, are all Conservative controlled? Is not the clear message from that that Conservative government, both locally and nationally, means sound budgeting and real concern for the interests of ratepayers and taxpayers?

The answer is "Not necessarily so". There are many areas of the country of which one may legitimately say there is underspending, just as others may argue that there are areas in which there is too much expenditure, at least in the short-term. That is perfectly reasonable. This is a matter for local judgment. Before the hon. Gentleman is carried away with the enthusiasm of his own rhetoric, let me point out to him that there are two other authorities in the London area which I did not mention. One of them is the GLC, which levied a rate in double figures, the other is ILEA. which is wholly Labour controlled and which achieved the distinction of a nil increase in the rates precept this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tories in temporary control of the London borough of Ealing have adhered strictly to the guidelines of Conservative Central Office and have achieved the ideals of that office by increasing rents and rates and running down services?

I am most disturbed to hear that the Conservative Central Office should seek to interfere with the affairs of any borough. I am sure that we shall hear a denial of that from the Opposition Front Bench—at least, I hope that we shall. In a number of outer London boroughs there have been sharp increases. Those took place under Conservative rule.

What advice does the Minister have to give, for example, to the ratepayers of Camden, where the rates have gone up nearly 20 per cent. as a result of the local authority breaking the national negotiating machinery and paying NUPE every penny that it demanded? Will he suggest that that matter should be referred to the district auditor?

That is not a matter for me to decide. I emphasise my view that in the great range of negotiations with the unions the local authorities are well advised to adhere to the national agreements. There is a margin for local negotiations which it would be foolish to deny, but in general it is far better to stick to national negotiations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tory-controlled local authority in my area has been able to keep down the increase in rates solely because of the generous increase in rate support grant that it received from him?

I am aware of that. As my right hon. Friend knows, I live in his borough. I am also aware of some pretty sharp increases in rents that have taken place there.

Is the Minister aware that as five out of the six lowest increases are in Tory boroughs and four out of the four highest are in the Labour boroughs there is only one inescapable conclusion to be drawn, and that is that the Labour Party is profligate with expenditure in the public sector?

The opposite explanation is that these areas, often with their large Labour majorities, constitute areas of the greatest need in the country and in our inner cities. That is the alternative, and probably the correct, explanation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Community Land Act.

There has been a substantial increase in activity under the community land scheme during the last year—probably double that of 1977–78. The scheme is bringing land forward for housing development and is playing a useful part in our inner city and industrial development programmes.

Does the Minister agree that in the first two years of its operation the scheme lost £32 million, that it required 151 Government circulars to administer it and that it disposed of only 180 acres of development land? Does he not conclude that this really must be one of the most obvious failures of the present Administration?

I feel weary on behalf of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if that is the sort of stuff that he will be putting out to them. He knows sufficient—at least, he assures the House from time to time that he does—about the proper economic workings of business organisations and trading companies to realise that when looking at the values, disposals and income of a company one does not discount the assets of the company. That applies to the land scheme.

Despite the doubling, does my right hon. Friend agree that in its early years the scheme has been a grave disappointment to those who—[Interruption.] Before Opposition Members cheer they should wait to hear the rest of my sentence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this disappointing performance is due entirely to attempts by Tory councils to sabotage the scheme?

There are a number of reasons why, in the first two years of the scheme, the rates of success of acquisition of land and disposal of land for development have been below what was desired. One is that in the early days of the scheme it was inevitable that there would be a low rate of activity. A second reason is that during 1976 there was a genuine cutback of resources, which the Government had, unfortunately, to impose.

Does the Minister realise that we on the Conservative Benches despair of his salvation, realising that even at this eleventh hour he will not repent and confess that the Community Land Act has been the most ghastly bureaucratic and economic failure that any Government could possibly perpetrate? Will he be honest and admit that it will be with a sense of relief that he will see the abolition of this bureaucratic edifice by the next Administration?

The answer is "No". The kind of adjectives—of which we have become weary—that come from the hon. Gentleman are far more ghastly than any opinions that he has about the operation of the scheme.

Is the Minister aware that the Conservative-Ratepayers council at Clay Cross is trying to sell off the land and building known as the Clay Cross social centre before 24 May, the date when it will be kicked out? The council is trying to sell it for £50,000, but it will cost £200,000 to replace the building. The Labour councillors' request to know who is putting in the tender has been refused. The council is obviously selling the property to one of its friends. Will the Minister see to it that an investigation takes place before the poll on 24 May?

I invite my hon. Friend to let me have more details, and if it is within my power to do so I shall make inquiries. What he has described is not a unique example of the conduct of some Tory councils, guided by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The hon. Gentleman believes that if assets are sold now to make a quick quid to keep the rates down in the current year that creates future benefits for ratepayers. The opposite is true. The so-called party of business men should know better.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Government policy on the participation of unions in policy making and in the implementation of agreed policies in local government.

The accountability of local authorities to their electorates must not be eroded, but subject to this principle the Government believe that local government employees should be given all possible opportunities to contribute their views on matters affecting their legitimate interests.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the situation in the London borough of Islington? The Labour council proposed a rate increase of 40 per cent., the social democrats on the council proposed an increase of 32 per cent. and with the aid of one Conservative member that proposal was carried. Is the Minister aware that subsequently the NALGO branch there refused to help produce the policies designed to implement that 32 per cent. rate increase? Is not that a gross intrusion into the responsibilities of a democratically-elected council?

I hesitate to pass judgment on that now. I shall certainly look further into this matter because I believe that the legitimate authority of local councils should prevail.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it remains his policy, in relation to oil pollution, that the polluter pays.

Yes, Sir. [Interruption.]

Order. I understand that it is our last day, but perhaps complimentary remarks from below the Gangway and across the Floor of the House can wait for just a few hours. I understand the endearment that exists, but it should wait until the hustings.

Leaving party politics aside for a moment, is the Minister satisfied that the oil companies are subject to sufficient scrutiny of their activities in relation to oil pollution, bearing in mind what is going on in the Shetlands? Does the Minister agree that the owner of the oil should be identified, partly if not wholly, as the polluter and as such should carry a major share not only for the cure of the oil pollution but for its prevention?

I listened with astonishment to the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I know that this is the day of atonement, as the hon. Gentleman said, but such a death-bed repentance is beyond my wildest dreams. Questions affecting the shipping activities of the oil companies which may cause pollution are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad to say that the oil industry has voluntarily developed the offshore pollution liability agreement under which local authorities may claim compensation for pollution damage and clearing-up costs arising from offshore oil exploration and production. In general, I agree with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Does the Minister have any idea, so long after the "Eleni V" trouble, when Norfolk county council will get the money that it has claimed?

I cannot answer that question without notice, but I shall be glad to answer it in the next Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on his policy towards the sale of council houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the steps he has taken so far to ensure that the basic housing stock of local councils is being preserved for rental to those people who need houses to rent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the sale of council homes and flats by local authorities following his speech in the House on 5 April; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what represenetations he has received from councils in response to his circular on council house sales.

Since I prevented the sale of vacant and newly built council houses. I have received several representations expressing views both for and against the present policy. I am satisfied that my present policy is justified.

Is the Secretary of State not yet aware that most people want to own their own homes? Is he aware that many council tenants cannot do that unless they are given every encouragement by the local authority and the Government? What will the Secretary of State do to help those council tenants who wish to buy their own houses when they are given the opportunity? Will he continue to be an impediment to their attempts to buy their own houses?

I am well aware of the wishes of many people to become owner-occupiers. I have implemented a range of measures since I have been Secretary of State designed to assist and facilitate that, including providing help for first-time purchasers. Our wish to encourage owner-occupation is not at issue. I said in my redefinition of policy that sales to a sitting tenant of two years' standing can proceed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Ashfield district council still refuses to sell houses to its tenants? Does he understand that these people regard these houses as their homes because they have lived in them since they were built? Why does the Labour Party continue to deny these people the opportunity to buy their homes, when the proceeds could be used to build much needed accommodation for the old and disabled?

With respect to the hon. Member, that is nonsense. Local councils, which are elected bodies and which have a duty to look after the housing needs of their areas, should decide broadly on these matters. Provided that they behave in a generally responsible manner, as most do, that is all right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a deep worry in the country about the housing stock because of the threats made by the Tories? Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who have for generations struggled to achieve a housing stock for those who urgently need houses feel deeply threatened by the sale of council houses?

I understand the anxieties, but they must be put into perspective. We are talking only of a minority of desirable council houses. The rest will not be sold, whatever the Opposition wish. Under the Tories' policy, people living in flats in the inner cities will find it increasingly difficult to find the houses with gardens which so many of them want when they have children. That would be the result of the Tories error of judgment. They would do better to turn their minds to the general improvement of local authority housing, as we propose in our new housing Bill, which will help millions of those council tenants who will not be able to take advantage of any kind of house sale policy.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the inconsistency between the policy of that great supporter of the Labour Party, the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which is selling off homes on its estate, and Greenwich council, which is also a supporter of the Labour Party, but which refuses to do that?

I do not see any inconsistency. It may be entirely appropriate. It depends on the condition of stock and the policy which it believes to be right. It is wrong to think that the same rules and considerations should apply to a particular body as to local councils which have statutory duties.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the satisfaction and pleasure in Birmingham at the announcement of his policy to restrict the sale of council houses to tenants of two-years standing? Is he aware that this is particularly so because of Birmingham council's decision to cut its expenditure on house building, house acquisitions and renovations to a sum which is far below the grant offered by the Government?

My hon. Friend has made almost precisely the point that I made earlier. It is an extraordinary coincidence that those councils which are most vigorous in selling in an indiscriminate way are at the same time cutting back on new house building in areas of clear stress for rented accommodation.

Is not one of the reasons why purchasing one's council house is so attractive that the average price of ordinary owner occupier houses has gone up considerably as a result of the intervention by the Secretary of State in lending by building societies?

We have exchanged views on this matter before. The movement in house prices under our so-called intervention in the building societies in the past five years is about one-quarter of what it was in the period 1970 to 1974, when the Conservative Government made no such attempt to intervene.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham his policy of allowing tenants of two-years' standing to buy their council homes and preventing the sale of empty and void property is welcomed? Is he further aware that the Tory council is crookedly getting round that policy by leasing and licensing empty, void properties so that people can jump the queue and be allowed to buy the property after two years? Surely that is not the intention of his policy.

I deplore any attempt to evade the effects of the amendment to the general consent which I issued a short time ago. It must not be assumed that the devices—some of which I have had a chance to study—will stand up in a court of law if they are challenged.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the blatant attempt by Left-wing Members to oppose the spread of wider home ownership in Birmingham will be much resented?

It is nothing at all to do with Left-wing Members. It has to do with responsible policy and meeting the needs of our people for decent homes.

What will it cost the occupant of a three-bedroomed council house to purchase it if he has been a tenant for the last two years and if the house was new when he took on the tenancy?

House prices vary from region to region. If I were to pluck a figure out of the air, I would say that it would cost about £8,000.

Does the Secretary of State understand that we regard his explanation of why his party is against the sale of council houses as nothing more than humbug? Does he understand that the only consequence of any scale of the doctrinal opposition of the Labour Party to the sale of council houses is to deny to millions of British people the opportunity to share in the benefits that property ownership involves?

That is a different matter. I do not believe that people who are able to buy a leasehold house, which is nearly equivalent to owner-occupation, are necessarily in the same economic circumstances as those who rent council houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the policy report of the Town and Country Planning Association on inner cities in connection with the revitalisation of rundown areas in cities such as parts of London; and if he will now make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the policy report of the Town and Country Planning Association on inner cities in connection with the revitalisation of rundown areas in cities such as Birmingham; and if he will now make a statement.

The Government's policy towards inner city areas remains as set out in Cmnd. 6845 "Policy for the Inner Cities". The partnership and programme authorities have made a good start in drawing up their programmes. The urban programme itself has been increased to over £125 million in 1979–80, and resources from main programmes are also being diverted in inner areas. Real progress is being made. The Town and Country Planning Association report makes a number of criticisms, many of which I do not accept. I am, however, always happy to examine constructive ideas for improving our policy and for making our cities places where people want to live.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report of the association expressed growing disquiet at the outcome of the Government's inner city policies? Does he accept that, in particular, it found increasing bureaucracy, waste of public money and failure to involve the private sector? What does he propose to do to rectify that manifest failure on the part of the Government?

I suspect that there is a sense of guilt in those who occupy the Opposition Benches when they direct their minds to the inner cities.

Answer the question.

Indeed I will. When the Government took office the so-called urban programme was running at about £22 million a year. It is running at £154 million this year. There has been a sevenfold increase in the amount of effort and money being directed to the programme in a period that is not easy for public expenditure. That is the difference in the measure of concern.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he cannot brush aside the serious and relevant criticisms that have been made of Government policy? Is he not ashamed that the Government have broken the promises set out in the 1977 White Paper? Will he apologise to the great mass of people living in inner city areas throughout the country for the way in which the Government have let them down?

This is one of the most remarkable pieces of impertinence that I have ever heard. It comes from an hon. Member who represents a Tory neglected inner city area in Birmingham. His comment is extraordinary. I am almost speechless in the face of such impertinence. I am far from being ashamed. The effort that we have put into the inner city areas and the general acceptance in those areas of what we are doing gives me every hope that our action is right and will be increasingly successful.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is right to pay attention to rundown areas it is important to ensure that no more areas become rundown? Does he agree that an important contribution to stabilisation and conservation would be the funding of housing co-operatives to take over from failing private landlords? Is he likely to be able to make any helpful announcement in that respect? Will he bear in mind that many multiple landlords, such as the Church Commissioners, are not likely to part with their property voluntarily? Does he have some proposals to meet that possible difficulty?

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to housing, which is one of the major factors in inner city areas, and the role of housing co-operatives in achieving improvements. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has been in close touch with the housing corporations with a view to increasing the part that housing co-operatives may play.

As a member of the TCPA, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman express criticism of its report. I look forward to hearing the substance of his criticism. I recognise that he has been seeking a different mechanism to help the inner city problem. This is by way of—

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is leaving us today, but he must still ask a question.

I have a series of questions, Mr. Speaker. I start with my first one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only resources that the inner cities need? I recognise what he has done in terms of partnership agreements Is that policy being effective? Is he satisfied with the progress being made in the London docklands? Is he looking for additional ways and means of offering help there, both financially and administratively?

The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions. He asked in what way I was not satisfied with the TCPA report. I shall tell him. The association's remarks about the need for getting on with local plans and not waiting for structure plans are ones with which I entirely agree. That is exactly what we did, and it is exactly that power that the House enacted in the Inner Urban Areas Act only nine months ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rundown areas of cities are not necessarily enclosed within the boundaries of partnership agreement areas? Will he have a chat with the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who has seen for himself the rundown and dilapidated condition of the part of Selly Oak which borders on the Bristol Road? Is he aware that the only improvements made in recent years in that area by the Conservative county council and the Conservative city council have been projects financed wholly by moneys provided by the Government? Will he give the House an assurance that he will recognise the fact that there has been gross negligence, and undertake after the election to provide more positive support in areas, such as Selly Oak, which are outside partnership areas?

I assure my hon. Friend that inner city policy will continue to receive high priority and much ministerial effort as long as a Labour Government are in power. I have always understood the difficulty about drawing boundaries for partnership and programme areas. It is an extremely difficult problem. I have never taken the view that the boundaries that we have so far determined will necessarily be the end of the matter. We have to carry out reviews as we go along.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while there are great problems in the inner city areas, there are inner areas of boroughs and towns outside those areas that are not so designated but where substantial improvement needs to take place? Will he explain how that improvement can be carried out within towns in shire counties, bearing in mind that the present Socialist Administration have, unfortunately, severely reduced the allocation to shire counties by way of the rate support grant? Does he agree that in the areas about which I am concerned there are many houses worth improving? How can local authorities make awards to young married couples when their budgets have been reduced because of the reallocation of the rate support grant?

There are many ways in which major cities and towns in shire counties can be assisted. One method is to do precisely what I did this year, namely, to allocate directly the needs element of the rate support grant. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman viewed that policy wih some satisfaction. It undoubtedly helped the otherwise rather highly rated urban centres in the shire counties. A number of the major cities in the shire counties—three examples are Nottingham, Hull and Leicester—are programme authorities and are receiving special Government assistance to deal with their inner city problems. A number of other areas have become desigated districts within the Inner Urban Areas Act. They can exercise some of the powers in the Act for the benefit of residents and employment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to avoid waste and excessive costs in local authority direct labour building organisations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities adopt improved accountancy management procedures in order to avoid losses and excessive costs in local authority direct labour building organisations and in related ancillary services such as architects and civil engineering departments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will recommend improved accountancy and management procedures to local authorities in order to avoid losses and excessive costs in local authority direct labour building organisations.

Yes, Sir.

What an extraordinary answer. Is the Minister aware that his intentions about future legislation are now totally irrelevant? More to the point, will he say why he resisted the bringing forward of legislation to control the waste and inefficiency of direct labour organisations for so long, when his noble Friend representing the Government in the House of Lords welcomed and supported the private Member's Bill of my noble Friend, Lord Kinnoull?

I shall not comment on the somewhat garbled reference to what happened in another place. It is sufficient for me to look after affairs within my area in this place, for the moment anyway.

Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friends and I, from the Government Back Benches, will press the Government after 15 May to reduce the amount of work done by direct labour organisations and also the direct supply of architectural, surveying and other services?

The hon. Gentleman had better save his prejudiced pressures for his own Front Bench spokesmen for another occasion, under whatever circumstances. If the Opposition turn their attention to a large number of Conservative councils, they will meet some resistance to some of their prejudiced attitudes. There are 456 direct labour organisations in local government in England and Wales, a large number of which are run by Conservative councils.

Is it not utterly cynical to decide to legislate to protect the interests of ratepayers after the time when legislation may conceivably be introduced by the Government, especially having wasted five years resisting the proposal? Will the Minister give us his pledge of support for this measure should be personally, by chance, be re-elected?

I found it difficult to follow that somewhat circumlocutory question. The answer is that the hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), has got it wrong. The Government prepared a Bill to deal with those matters. It would have provided for proper and efficient accounting procedures. It would also have placed capital works projects by DLOs on virtually the same footing as that for private enterprise firms. In 1976 the Opposition prevented us from introducing that Bill. They, and not the Government, must carry the can for that.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities have sufficient protection against private enterprise organisations working for local authorities? Does he recall that Taylor "We built Ronan Point" Woodrow cost the nation about £40 million at current prices to restore the difficulties that arose from Ronan Point? Does he accept that Bradford, which is a Tory-controlled council, replaced the two shoddy private enterprise contractors in Keighley by a direct works department because it recognised that it would be more efficient and effective?

It is right to place on record, as there is so much deliberate misrepresentation on this matter by the Opposition and others, that time and time again the capital works departments or sections of DLOs around the country have to step into contracts to pick up the pieces left behind by the disasters of private enterprise.

Will the Minister accept that he could very easily have got the Bill through the House had he restricted it to direct accounting procedures in local government? The Bill that he talked about was a comprehensive measure to extend the whole range of DLOs throughout the country. That was why, during the Lib-Lab pact, he could not get Opposition support for his Bill.

I well understand why the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a very high regard, is feeling a little sensitive about this matter. He did not even read the Bill at the time, otherwise he would have known that it provided for the sort of thing that he wanted. Had he read the Bill and come to see us about it, he would have known that what we were seeking to do was to put DLOs on the same footing as equivalent private enterprise firms. The Opposition resisted the Bill and it was lost. When we come back to office we shall reintroduce it.

If I may be allowed to anticipate the inevitable events of the next few weeks, I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) that we shall take action in the next Government to deal with direct labour organisations.

The hon. Gentleman had not even read the proposals that we had put forward. He was so full of his prejudices—as were other Members, including at that time Liberal Members—against DLOs that he, like them, did not even bother to find out what we were proposing. The Bill is in draft in the Department. [Interruption.] If we tear it up we shall destroy the very thing for which people are now asking. We introduced proposals in 1976, and Opposition Members, in an unholy alliance, resisted them. That is why we did not get the Bill which would have put things right.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the hon. Member, I shall take his point of order immediately after I have made the short statement that I wish to make to the House.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

This is an important amendment because it introduces the possibility of a doctor being appointed to the new council. We appreciate the purpose of the amendment but, in our view, this is very much a matter now on which the various nursing professions should advise. Therefore, we hope that the Secretary of State will not make appointments without first taking their advice.

I am not entirely happy with this amendment, and in reading the reports of the debate in another place I find the arguments less than persuasive. The suggestion was made by the proposer of the amendment that the automatic right of doctors to be nominated to the council would not lead to their tending to dominate the proceedings. I feel that that is probably far from the case. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, who moved the amendment in another place, shot his own fox when he said that the nurses would need specialised medical advice because medicine was becoming more and more complex.

"If, however, that does not work out, there is provision for the appointment of people to the Central Council by my right hon. Friend, or by whatever machinery there is to ensure that there is a proper spread and proper representation of people who can teach health visiting, midwifery, general nursing and its various aspects."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 November 1978; c. 19.]

My hands are not tied. The clause is purely permissive. It is not a very important amendment, and I am sorry to take issue in this matter. It merely clarifies the situation. Some noble Lords were suspicious. They thought that we might be able to appoint vets under the existing wording. We therefore changed it.

I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I think it fair to say that the Opposition take a great deal of the credit for the inclusion of district nurses in the consultations. We hope that the district nurses will appreciate that the Conservatives have consistently said that they should have proper representation in order to preserve their identity. This amendment will achieve that objective, and we welcome it.

I am delighted to see that this change has been made. In Standing Committee the Minister was kind enough to reply to a couple of interventions about the structure covering district nursing. It was clear to the Committee that there was an illogicality in the proposed structure.

"I sometimes wonder why I make speeches, because I seem to have to go over the same ground so often in order to hammer into the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) what is going on."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 December 1978; c. 275.]

I am having to go over again what I said in Committee. The district nurses wanted a standing committee of the Central Nursing Council and standing committees of the national boards. We therefore wrote that into the Bill. During the course of the Bill's passage they decided that they wanted a joint committee. We have now given them a joint committee of the central council and no committees of the national boards. I am sorry to have to repeat that to the House.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I have a particular kite-rest in this amendment because it removes the amendment that I moved on Report earlier in the year. Once again, I find the arguments adduced in the other place not entirely convincing. There have been suggestions that this would cause a reduction in the majority of mid-wives on the midwifery committee because some midwives might be away on their professional duties. That is unconvincing. It was also suggested by Lord Briggs that the general public should not be involved. I find that unconvincing. There has been a suggestion that the Royal College of Midwives did not approve of this Bill prior to the passing of this amendment. That is also unconvincing.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The improvement in the Bill also shows the value of the House of Lords and how a Labour Government make use of it. I have sat in the House for the last half hour and I have never known business speeded up so well or so many Lords amendments agreed by the Government and passed by the House.

This is a most significant amendment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis).

The only significant point that has been made in this short debate is that by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). I disagree with him. I believe that the existence of the other place prolonged the controversy. I am sure that if the professions had known that their chance of amending the Bill ended in the House of Commons they would have concentrated their minds even more wonderfully than they did.

The Minister has just made one of the most outrageous statements that have been made in the House this Session. It was uncalled for and totally unjustified, and it cast a slur upon those people who have given of their time, effort, experience and expertise to improve a Bill. I take grave exception to the Minister's remarks. He said that there should be no secondary revising Chamber to improve upon legislation thrust upon us by the Government. It is a disgraceful, final valedictory address to make from the Government Front Bench.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Hon. Members on both sides will have received representations in the last few days from the Central Midwives Board, the Health Visitors Association and the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors. Those bodies still have some reservations about the Bill. Our earnest hope is that once the Bill is passed it will be developed to the advantage of all three professions.

I apologise for arriving late. I have received representations. All the professions will be given through this machinery the chance to come together in a structure which gives them a better and larger say in their future. It is new ground and we are sensitive to that.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 12, 13, 17 to 20, 24 to 26 and 34 to 50, including amendment No. 49A.

For 90 years the House has tried to put on the statute book a Bill to deal with estate agents. The House of Lords has made the Bill more comprehensive. If the Bill is helped in a final burst of speed to the finishing post I should be happy if the House took all the amendments together and agreed to them all.

These amendments achieve exactly what we hoped to achieve when the Bill was before the Commons. We wanted commercial and industrial property to be included. However, we were told by the Minister that such property was outside the scope of the measure and that this was consumer legislation only. Now the Bill covers a wider area and the House deserves an explanation.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) tabled' an amendment which was not selected because, according to our rules, it was out of order. Nevertheless, the Lords amendments cover all land transactions involving a capital value and business transactions when there is a transfer of goodwill. The Bill is now a more comprehensive measure and it goes beyond the ambit of a consumer protection measure. I welcome the changes.

The conciliatory attitude displayed by the Minister to the Lords amendments should assure the Bill a speedy passage. We all welcome that—certainly those who have been engaged in both sessions on the Bill. We shall feel a weight lifted from our shoulders before very long.