asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will refer recent water rate increases by the Severn-Trent Water Authority to the Monopolies Commission.

No, Sir. However, when the Competition Bill is on the statute book it will be possible to decide whether the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should investigate the activities of this or any other water authority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great hardship caused to many people in my area because of water rate increases in excess of 60 per cent. and 70 per cent., against which there is no appeal and for which no rebate can be paid? Does he realise that under the Labour Government it would have been possible to refer such behaviour to the Price Commission? What immediate investigation can be promised into the pricing policies of this adipose monopoly?

Although it might have been possible to refer this issue to the Price Commission, it is not possible to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests in his question, that is, refer it to the Monopolies Commission because the water authorities are exempt under the present legislation. Therefore, the quickest way to resolve the problem is for the hon. Gentleman to give his full support to the Bill to set up the new arrangements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread resentment within the Severn-Trent area at the increases to which we have been subject during the current year? Does he realise that it is extremely difficult for ratepayers, for councillors and even for Members of Parliament to make proper representations on these increases? Will he take time to consider making water authorities more responsible to the electors within the areas which they are supposed to serve?

I recognise that the particular problem faced by users and consumers in the Severn-Trent area has been the wide fluctuation. In fact, in the previous two years there was a reduction in the water rate and a sharp increase in the last year. Part of this arises from what constrains the authority in its treatment of balances for the year, and this is one aspect of the matter to which we are giving consideration. But I should point out to my hon. Friend that there is a majority of elected members on the authority. In the case of Severn-Trent there are 28 out of 48 members elected, although, obviously, indirectly elected, and it is open to them to make their representations as members of the authority.

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is growing concern with every week that passes about the pricing policies and all that flows from the fundamental absurdity of the way in which this industry was established by the previous Conservative Government? Does he recall that we produced a White Paper with a view to tackling some of the worst features—such as the establishment of 10 separate nationalised industries—arising from this absurdity and to bring more central planning and overall financial sense into the system? Do the Government intend to proceed on the basis of that White Paper? If not, what alternative proposals do they have to meet the growing public disquiet?

It strikes me as a bizarre question from someone who had responsibility for the industry for five years to ask me, within three months, what we are doing about it. When one of the problems concerning a number of hon. Members is the very size of the authority involved—the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) made the point—I do not think that the solution is to go for one simply massive or overriding authority, and we do not propose to go down that line.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that retirement pensioners can effectively make use of his Department's homes insulation scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a special scheme for the elderly under the Homes Insulation Act.

We are giving consideration to the particular position of pensioners in the light of the results of the operation of the first scheme last winter.

Does the Minister recall yesterday's exchanges at Question Time about the ever-present and increasing risk of hypothermia faced by thousands of pensioners in the forthcoming winter because of the expected explosion of heating and fuel costs? Does he agree that there is an unanswerable case for giving pensioners as much protection as possible from these risks? If he does, will he consider recommending that the grant for insulation be increased to 100 per cent. for pensioners' homes?

I read the exchanges in the House yesterday. The hon. Member will be aware that the flexibility in the existing legislation arises from amendments that were tabled in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). The average rate of grant that is being paid is about £43 and the maximum available is £50 so that at present those on low incomes do not seem to be adversely affected.

Is the Minister aware of the great dismay among pensioners at the effect of the Budget and the escalating cost of fuel? Will he ensure that the Government make two announcements before the Summer Recess? First, will he ensure that there is an extension of the electricity discount scheme, to cover all fuel? Second, will he make a speedy announcement about a home insulation scheme for the elderly? Will he consider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and myself and make an announcement before Parliament goes into recess?

We are considering the position of pensioners and the electricity discount scheme. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the latter is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I can tell the House that we are concerned about the low rate of take-up of the existing home insulation scheme last winter. We shall shortly be launching a fresh publicity scheme to try to produce a significant increase in the rate of take-up of the existing scheme.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are making the greatest possible use of the home insulation scheme for homes that they own, as distinct from homes in the private sector? Will he urge local authorities to do everything possible to ensure that homes occupied by pensioners are properly insulated?

In the previous financial year there was a significant under-spend in the local authority element of the scheme as well as in the private element. We are anxious that local authorities should take up the full expenditure allocation under the scheme. For that reason our existing allocation for this year is completely unchanged. We hope that local authorities will take the maximum advantage of that.

As those on low incomes and pensioners may have to pay the bill for home insulation before they receive the grant, will that not automatically exclude them from the benefits of the scheme?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. We are considering whether we can waive that provision for the elderly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for funding objectors contesting major inquiries that involve complex land use and technological issues, involving controversial matters of national policy, especially where the proponent has close links to central Government.

None at present.

Why not?

Having considered the arguments put to me, I have found no cause for changing my mind or changing the position adopted by the previous Government.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that my constituents in North Bucks had to raise £70,000 to fight the third London airport inquiry in 1970? They are now faced with having to do exactly the same thing again. Is it not iniquitous that ordinary, decent, law-abiding people should be put in that position?

Occasionally these large and extremely important issues arise. Mr. Justice Parker has made several representations to me about the Wind-scale inquiry along the lines of those put to me by my hon. Friend. I am considering these matters, but at present I have not been able to introduce any changes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will be necessary to assist the local community in Northumberland to present its case when the Atomic Energy Authority appeals against Northumberland county council's refusal to allow test drilling for nuclear dumping in the Cheviots—or has he pre-judged that case by the statement that he made yesterday?

No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to assume for a minute that there is any question of pre-judging an issue of such great importance. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already announced planing inquiries in respect of equivalent activity in Scotland. The purpose of my announcement yesterday was merely to bring the investigations that we are conducting into line with practice already established in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in the United Kingdom are without inside toilets; how many are in declared housing action areas; and how many are under compulsory purchase orders for demolition.

House condition surveys in England and Wales in 1976 showed that there were then 1,181,000 dwellings without inside toilets. There is no precise information on the number of these dwellings in housing action areas, but monitoring of HAAs has shown that 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of dwellings lacked inside WCs. This would indicate that around 150,000 dwellings lacking inside toilets are within declared HAAs. The number of such dwellings included in compulsory purchase orders is not known. Questions related to Scotland and Northern Ireland are for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, is he aware of the figures published today by the national home improvement council, which reveal that in the first quarter of this year the number of those claiming improvement grants fell by 18 per cent? Does he agree that it is time to review the level of improvement grants and to try to stimulate more work within the building industry and the provision of better homes with inside toilets and bathrooms? Does he accept that over 1 million homes without inside toilets and bathrooms is totally unacceptable?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there has been a major advance. The comparable figure in 1971 was 2,032,000. Therefore, there has been a great advance. Improvement grants are under consideration in connection with the Housing Bill that we propose to introduce later in the Session.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the present situation is that the Labour Government cut the level of improvement grants on a vicious scale during their period of office?

It is difficult to know exactly what the previous Government did to try to help anyone wishing to improve their own homes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that all possible assistance should be given to private landlords to enable them to improve their housing stock and to pay for repairs that they cannot possibly fund from net rental income?

That is why we are considering improvement grants in connection with the proposed Bill to which I have referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the attitude of certain local authorities, such as Lewisham, in housing stress areas which refused to sell council houses.

We are preparing legislation which will give council tenants, including those in Lewisham, the right to buy their homes, and we shall be bringing the Bill before the House as soon as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that local councils at present refusing to sell council houses are doing nothing more than ensuring that a heavy financial burden will be placed upon council tenants because, when they are ultimately enabled to buy council houses under Conservative legislation, they will have to pay far more for them? Does he also agree that the only way to extend home ownership, which is a common goal on both sides of the House, is by selling council houses when there is a crude surplus of houses throughout the whole of the country?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is something of an impertinence for a Brighton councillor who has recently been elected the hon. Member for Anglesey to start asking questions about my constituency? Is he aware that the Lewisham council, which is one of the best housing authorities in London, will fight the Bill, like everyone on the Labour Benches, because it will ruin the chances of those in high-rise blocks in my constituency and in other constituencies? Has he any comments on what effect the sale of council houses will have in Anglesey and Brighton, especially in creating a situation in which council houses eventually become second homes, unoccupied for most of the year and used merely by holiday-makers?

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Lewisham authority, rather than concentrating its efforts on fighting the Bill, should concentrate on ensuring that it successfully uses its existing capital allocations, having underspent its capital allocation by a total of £6¼ million over the past two years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 11,000 new town tenants wish to buy their own homes and that 5,100 of them are in my constituency of Basildon? Will he ensure that the policy of the Government is in tune with the mood of the people, in contrast to that of the Labour Party, which intends to fight the people's wishes?

A remarkable result of the new consent that we issued for the new towns in May is that since then no fewer than 11,000 inquiries have been received from new town tenants seeking to buy their own homes.

Will the Minister say how the sale of council houses will help over 1 million tenants whose homes do not have indoor toilets?

We managed to retain in the current financial year an increased expenditure of £100 million on local authority improvements.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when last he had a meeting with the president of the Building Societies Association.

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

I have had two meetings with representatives of the Building Societies Association since taking office.

On the next occasion will my right hon. Friend convey the appreciation of the thousands of people in my constituency who are supporters of the Conservative concept of a property-owning democracy that the BSA did not impose an avoidable increase in the mortgage rate for the time being? At the same time, in the interests of wider home ownership, as the Labour Party moved into its new home yesterday in Walworth Road, Southwark, will he do his best to fix it up with a mortgage so that it may be free of obligation to its trade union landlords?

I do not know that I would want to rely on a long term covenant for repayment from the Labour Party. I agree that the building societies approached the whole question of the recent rate changes in a most helpful way.

The fact that the Building Societies Association is not putting up the mortgage is not due to the efforts of the Government. Does the Minister realise that the interest rate will be going up in the new year unless the Government bring MLR down from its present high rate of 14 per cent.? Although the Government keep talking about competition, where is the competition between the building societies? They are all putting up their rates simultaneously.

The hon. Gentleman is starting halfway down the road. The reason for the high interest rates is the high level of public expenditure that we inherited from the previous Government.

Is it not the remarkable form of intervention by the Government, unlike that of their predecessors, with the building societies which has succeeded in freezing lending rates while ensuring that investors continue to obtain the commercial return on their money?

This must be a decision for the Building Societies Association to reach in its own best interests. I believe that it did so in the most helpful way possible.

Will the Secretary of State confirm the newspaper reports that he has been discussing with the Building Societies Association the provision of further funds by it for the sale of council houses? Will he say where those discussions have got to and what effect any transfer of funds for the sale of council houses will have upon the provision of home loans to first-time buyers at this difficult time?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman raised a most important question. If we are to finance a considerable extension of the property-owning democracy there is a need for additional mortgage finance to do so. I am conducting discussions with, among others, the Building Societies Association to find out how we may finance the explosion in ownership which I am sure that the Opposition want as much as the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied by the trends in local authority manpower as revealed in the latest quarterly survey; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the local authority associations regarding the manpower levels revealed by the latest quarterly survey.

No, Sir. It is clear that in the last year local authority manpower was on the upward trend, which must be reversed if reductions in local authority expenditure are to be achieved. The March 1979 joint manpower watch survey was discussed with the local authority associations on 9 July at the consultative council on local government finance, which I chair.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that if he were to abolish or diminish the masses of statutory, quasi-statutory and regulatory controls, including the many surveys and forms with which local authorities are involved, he could allow a considerable reduction in manpower?

The Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of controls. Shortly we hope to announce a substantial removal of such controls.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the freeze on staff recruitment is a short-term measure to meet the emergency that he inherited, and that in the long term what local authorities badly need is professional advice on staff utilisation and planning from such bodies as the local authorities management services and computer committee?

There are two approaches to the question. The first is to ensure that local authorities produce detailed figures to show how they are performing in comparison with other local authorities. The other is to encourage the maximum degree of experimentation at local authority level, together with accountability to their own electorates.

Is the Minister aware—I think that he is—that one cannot generalise on such matters? In the case of the London borough of Newham there is the tragedy of Ronan Point, which is still not settled. There are three tower blocks that may fall down at any time, from which the occupants must be evacuated. Other houses in the vicinity must also be evacuated. This means that there will be thousands of people probably wanting houses. Does not that mean extra staff to deal with those problems? Will the Minister do something to help those people?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in fairness, will remember that the problem buildings to which he referred were built under the tightest central Government control—

People's lives are involved.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not shout.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you and to the House. However, people's lives are involved and the Minister is playing politics on the matter.

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said he would have realised that my reply had nothing to do with party politics. The buildings of the kind to which he refers were constructed under a system of detailed central Government control. That did not stop them being built. It is difficult for me to see why we should assume that yet more central Government control will solve the problem.

the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with the local authority associations the measures he sees as necessary to secure the release of land for development.

We have already encouraged the market to bring land forward by stopping the community land scheme, announcing our intention to repeal the Community Land Act, and substantially reducing the incidence of development land tax. We have stopped the arrangement whereby public land is first offered to local authorities, and we are considering a register of public sector land holdings which would enable unnecessary holdings to be challenged. We envisage a continuing responsibility for local authorities in ensuring the availability of land for development. We have discussed and shall continue to discuss these various matters with the local authority associations as appropriate.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he say what is the time scale for the register, knowing how long these things can take?

There is nothing to stop local authorities from instituting a register now. Indeed some have good records of their land holdings. Others, sadly—it is clear—have no idea of how much property they own. We hope to include a legislative requirement in a Bill which will be introduced in the House later this year.

What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the local authority associations before his peremptory announcement on 13 June that the redundant lands procedure was to be ended? Why did he make the announcement on so important an item of public policy by means of a written answer rather than an oral statement in the House?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise that point. The policy has been widely welcomed by the associations. It gets rid of an unnecesssary piece of bureaucracy that was slowing down the speed at which land disposal could take place and brings land into useful and effective use.

Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways of persuading people to put land on to the market is to impose a site value tax on that development land and land lying idle, something which the Labour Party included in its last manifesto? Will he confirm that joint schemes under the Community Land Act already entered into will be allowed to continue?

We have no proposals on the first item suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that that will come as a great surprise to him. On the second matter, we are faced with difficulties over the termination of this scheme. We are looking at each individual case and where legal and contractual obligations have already been entered into we shall obviously have to take them into account.

Does the Minister appreciate that when David Lloyd George suggested that there should be a land tax, he recognised that it would put up the cost of land? Does the Minister further appreciate that a quantity of this land is owned by hospital boards, Government Departments, the Defence Department, and so on? Will he make certain that they get some credit for their efforts if they release this land, as this will encourage them so to do?

Obviously, we would like there to be the maximum incentive for the statutory undertakers and for local authorities, to encourage them in the nationally valuable process of disposing of unused land. We are considering the ways in which we can give them the maximum encouragement in that respect.

Since the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, wishes to bring all available land into what he calls "useful and effective use", will he take action to prevent the Greater London Council from handing over its present housing land bank to private property speculators?

We seem to be getting slightly crossed wires. The right hon. Gentleman might like to direct his remarks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to complete his consideration of the long-term future of the rating system.

I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 27 June to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a more definite reply than that, why is it that he decided to cancel the revaluation when it was already in progress?

We have made clear that our intention is ultimately the abolition of the domestic rating system. It therefore made no sense to proceed with a rating revaluation exercise, which, as the hon. Member knows, would not anyway have come into force before 1982. I have no intention of taking lectures on this issue from Opposition Members who have never since the war carried out a rating revaluation in this country, and who are past masters at postponing such an exercise at every opportunity.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the present rating system is the manner in which his predecessors handled the rate support grant? Will he give an undertaking that when he next considers the rate support grant he will actively discriminate in favour of those authorities which, by good housekeeping and prudent management, hold down the levels of their expenditure, and against those authorities which spend their ratepayers' money like water?

My hon. Friend will understand that I could not at this stage comment in detail on the points he has made. We are now approaching very earnestly our consideration of this year's rate support grant. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's points, which we are bearing very much in mind. I have considerable concern about some of the evidence I have found as to the pattern of distribution in recent years.

Why does the Minister feel unable to comment at this stage? Could not he at least repeat to the House what his right hon. Friend said this morning to the Association of County Councils, namely, that next year's rate support grant will help the shire counties more and the cities and towns less?

The right hon. Member will recall a previous Question Time, when my right hon. Friend made quite clear that we intended to end the drift away from the shire counties, which has been the pattern of recent rate support grant allocations. We stand on that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend spelt it out very clearly in his speech today to the ACC.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he considers the present system of a water charge based on rating valuation to be fair; and whether he is having any consultations with a view to changing that system.

This is a difficult issue. The present system of basing domestic water charges on rateable value has the advantage of being comparatively cheap and easy to administer but the disadvantage of being unable to reflect variations in individual demands for water.

Does that mean that my hon. Friend has taken sufficiently on board the widespread discontent on each side of the House, already voiced this afternoon, about the water rating system in operation in most parts of the country? In view of the fact that it is his right hon. Friend's intention to abolish in time the domestic rating system, does it not follow in logic that at the same time the water rating system should be similarly dealt with?

I should have thought that the abolition of the present rating system would have a considerable effect on the way in which water charges are worked out. I am aware of the unpopularity of water charges. If anything, they are even more unpopular than rates. But in those areas where the authorities have introduced a two-part tariff, taking into account standing charges, I have not noticed that bills are any more popular.

Will the Minister accept that the present system of water charges is particularly unfair on those on low incomes, widows and single persons, living in fairly highly rated properties? Is he aware that these people may be eligible for rate rebates on their ordinary rates but not on their water rates? Will he seek to amend section 36 of the Act to allow the authorities, where they deem it appropriate, to pay rebates to people in these categories?

No, Sir. There can be no question of allowing rebates in this way. Water authorities have the power, in cases of hardship, to make certain arrangements. The unfairness that the hon. Gentleman mentions is one reason why we intend to look at the present rating system.

Does the Minister not agree that there are ways in which the problems could be eased in present circumstances? Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friends to consider ways of arranging for the Department of Health and Social Security to make direct payments of pensions to people in receipt of supplementary benefit? Will he also have discussions with his right hon. Friend to encourage local authorities to agree to include the water rate within the council rent payment? Will he take all steps possible to try to ensure that all water authorities introduce a realistic, regular and, if possible, monthly payment system for people on low incomes to assist them to meet what this year has been a very real shock in many areas?

I am sure that the water authorities will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says about water charges. I remind him that water charges have never been taken into account in relation to rebates on rates, and nor, since 1974, have sewerage charges.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the size of the problem, and that, because of the rating system, in the Suffolk coastal area people pay more for their water than they do towards the cost of the district council? Unless we move fast on the change in the rating system, it will be extremely difficult to control democratically the decisions of the water authorities. Does he agree that if we want to cut back on Government expenditure, we ought to press very hard in this area?

My hon. Friend confirms the fears in all parts of the House on this matter. I remind him that we meet the National Water Council on a regular basis, and that the majority of the members of the regional authorities are, as my right hon. Friend has said, elected from the local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reductions in the inner cities programme are envisaged for 1980–81; and how these will affect Sheffield.

The Government are discussing inner city policy with the local authorities principally concerned. Public expenditure programmes are also being carefully reviewed. Announcements about future policy, and the size of the urban programme, will be made in due course.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inner cities programme has important social and economic consequences to do with the possibility of regenerating small-scale industry in the centres of some of our industrial cities? In the light of this, would it not be the height of stupidity to cut back this programme at a time when it is just getting under way?

The hon. Member will know that in our tax changes in the Budget, in our speeding up of land disposal and in our speeding up of planning proposals, we have already moved very decisively to help the small sector of industry. I totally agree with the philosophy that he has expounded.

When the Minister is considering the inner cities programme, will he remember that most people living in the large towns and cities no longer live in the inner city but in the outer city? Many of them in the large towns live on large council estates. What steps will he take to help the people living in these vast council estates, rather than the few people left in the inner areas?

There are two immediate proposals to help council tenants and encourage them to stay. The first is the right for tenants to buy their own homes. One of the principal reasons they leave council estates is to buy their own homes on the fringes of cities. The second proposal is to give those who remain a charter to set out their rights and encourage them to become more involved in the area. The fact of the matter is that our inner cities have, over too wide an area, become unattractive places for people to live in and unattractive places for people to invest in. Until we recognise those two harsh facts, we shall not begin to have policies for restoring the situation.

As the Minister has already confessed this afternoon that the Government have succumbed to the blandishments and pressures from Tory shires to give them a bigger share of resources at the expense of the hard-pressed inner city areas, has he not sounded the death knell of inner city policy?

Nobody has announced any reduction in the urban programme for next year.

The inner cities will lose £700,000.

The figures that we have announced for the current year, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, amounted to 4 per cent. of an increasing programme and are largely accounted for by under-spend, in any case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the current housing cost yardstick allows for adequate standards of heat insulation.

All new dwellings must have, as a minimum, insulation standards which conform to the building regulations. But whether a dwelling can be regarded as adequately insulated depends on a number of considerations, including how well its heating system is matched to the dwelling design and specification. There is no specific allowance in the housing cost yardstick tables for the provision of heat insulation but the tables are constructed having regard to any requirements imposed by building regulations.

Is the Minister aware that many local authorities are concerned that they are unable adequately to insulate the houses that they are building? Will he look at this problem again because it seems that the answer he has given is at variance with the policies of the Secretary of State for Energy who wants to encourage more fuel saving?

I shall be delighted to do so. I am not aware of any problems, because present yardstick procedures allow authorities to choose a higher standard of insulation and they can make use of a 10 per cent tolerance.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not the insulation of new properties which is the problem, but the failure to insulate older properties? In all-electric homes, of which I have about 3,000 in my constituency, the occupants not only have the worry of energy conservation but the additional worry of the electricity bill. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a lack of insulation throughout such houses?

I am aware that this is a problem. The joint working party on heating and energy conservation in public sector dwellings has issued guidance to local authorities on remedial works in electrically heated dwellings.

Is the Minister aware that as a result, perhaps, of advice given, ordinary people, living in conditions of damp and misery, are told that the only way to cure that situation is to open windows in mid-winter and to heat their homes, resulting in a cost which they cannot afford?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has, of course, particular problems with the Braunstone estate. However, it is perfectly fair to say that one of the ways of preventing condensation is to have adequate ventilation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered a capital grant towards the introduction of meters for the domestic water supply to enable water authorities to invoice on water used.

No, Sir. I do not think it will be appropriate for such costs to be met from public funds.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, and throughout the country, many elderly people are living on their own and paying more for their water supply than some houses where there are seven occupants? This is totally unjust and totally unfair. As we meter gas and electricity, can the Minister say whether we could move towards a fairer situation, using water meters?

I am somewhat sceptical about the advantages of metering water. The National Water Council is considering a pilot scheme of this kind to see whether the cost benefit study would prove what my hon. Friend obviously believes it would.

A large part of the water service charge is for sewerage. As yet no one has proposed that we meter the disposal of sewage, so would it not be crazy to meter water? Would it not be far better to have a rebate system, such as that which applied in 1973, when people were entitled to a rebate of their sewerage charges?

I really do not think that this is the occasion to draw a distinction between sewage and water. I am sure that the definition would vary from one hon. Member to another. I remind the hon. Gentleman that what really matters is that we should try our best to make the water industry efficient and keep the bills as low as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the principle which should guide legislation is that people should pay for what they use? Consequently, a metering system is ultimately the fairest system that we could have. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the failure to revalue the rating system will only heighten the anomalies thus increasing the need for a complete reappraisal of our rating system?

These are obviously very severe problems, but I am sure that the House would agree that we in this country use water in a ridiculous way. [Interruption.] I am not speaking personally. In other countries they treat water as a vital commodity. I am not certain that that applies here.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely right, because so much of the water which is disposed of is treated and becomes drinking water? Therefore, in terms of finance in this industry it is totally ludicrous to divorce charges on one side of the industry from the other. Is he further aware that we share the hon. Gentleman's scepticism—which he also asserted last time he answered questions, regarding the change to a metering policy—and feel that it would cause hardship to the larger and poorer families? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Severn-Trent authority was empowerd by him to introduce meters at a cost of £50 each? Who is to pay for the metering and inspection service? Is this not a redistribution of charging within that authority, militating against the interests of the poorer and larger families?

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that these are matters for the Severn-Trent authority. That authority determines the costs of delivering water to its customers. The same applies to metering. However, I certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

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

I met Sir Frank Price on 26 June. I have not yet arranged further meetings.

What help, advice and encouragement is the Minister able to give to the board for the development of freight-carrying on waterways, bearing in mind that there is a saving of some five times the amount of energy when carrying freight by canal as opposed to road?

Obviously we would be anxious to examine any potential for carrying freight by water. We have made clear to Sir Frank Price our interest in the future of the British Waterways Board and the canal system. It must be recognised that, while we can talk about the South Yorkshire canal, which can be designed specifically for carrying freight on the right type of barges, much of the historic canal system has very restricted lock sizes. The possibilities for carrying freight on those canals are much more limited.

Does the Minister intend to change the structure of the British Waterways Board, which was the declared intention of the previous Labour Administration, or does he intend that the board should carry on in its present satisfactory way?

As I made clear earlier, the previous Government's proposals to merge everything into one huge authority will not be proceeded with. We think that the British Waterways Board is best able to serve the interests of consumers and those who use the waterways by remaining an independent entity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that in the next phase of the urban aid programme a minimum percentage of at least 40 per cent. of the total funds are made available to promote voluntary and charitable work.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that in the next phase of the urban aid programme a minimum percentage of at least 50 per cent. of the total funds avilable will go to promote voluntary and charitable work.

As I have said, the Government are currently reviewing the urban programme. I cannot comment on particular aspects before the outcome of that review. The voluntary sector has a positive role to play, but I do not feel that I can fix a precise apportionment in the way the questions suggest.

I am most grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the cornerstones of Conservative policy is self-help and voluntary endeavour? Will he, therefore, use the urban aid programme to encourage voluntary organisations in cities such as Newcastle upon Tyne to the utmost of his ability?

This year the voluntary bodies will get nearly £10 million from the urban programme for new projects, which is £3 million more in real terms than last year and £7 million more than the year before that. I believe that my hon. Friend will feel that that is a move in the right direction.

Although I know that my right hon. Friend does not like to interfere with what local authorities do, is he aware that many local authorities, especially those controlled by the Labour Party, have already indicated that for next year their first target for cuts will be the work of voluntary and social organisations? Will he please do something to ensure that they are not allowed to do this?

I thank my hon. Friend for his fair and dispassionate assessment of my attitude towards local authorities. I should tell him that voluntary associations attract support from the local authorities to the tune of 25 per cent. of the costs, and there is, therefore, a relationship between that and their enthusiasm for the schemes. I very much accept the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Sir W. Elliott) have made, that there is a role—in times of public constraint perhaps a particularly important role—for voluntary organisations.

When the right hon. Gentleman is discussing the question of rate support grant and the shift in favour of the shire counties, will he ensure that shire counties in which there are district councils with difficult inner city prob- lems will maintain and increase the amount of money going to the inner city areas? Can he also say when he expects his review of the problem to be finished, because many towns with inner city problems are seeking to plan their progress over the next few years but are unable to do so until they know the Government's intentions?

I do not think that there is any difficulty in the planning of the programmes in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Over the past few weeks, my Ministers have been in very close touch with the programme and partnership areas and a dialogue has been maintained and continued in this respect. The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that it would be quite irresponsible to suggest, particularly in the climate of public expenditure constraint into which we are about to enter, that it is possible to talk in terms of increasing programmes.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) that he does not want to interfere with the right of local authorities to do what they want in their areas, will he now abandon his plans to force them to sell council houses?

No, because the people of this country have clearly voted to achieve such an end.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future of the Commission for the New Towns; and if he will make a statement.

The future of the Commission for the New Towns is being considered.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can I draw his attention to the large number of factories, shops and offices that are sited on land which is owned by the Commission for the New Towns? Can he give any indication as to the possibility of their being able to purchase the freeholds?

The decisions on individual properties are, of course, a matter for the Commission. As to the principle, the Government favour the policy of sales to existing lessees, which I assume is what my hon. Friend was referring to. That can certainly include the freehold.

Is the Minister aware—as was his predecessor—of the necessity of ensuring that the Commission for the New Towns provides local offices, with adequate powers to take local decisions when it takes over new towns at present in the hands of development corporations? Is he aware that unless strict instructions and pressure are brought to bear on this issue, we may find a state of affairs in which decision-making is much more remote than at the present time, with more bureaucratic interference in the affairs of local authorities than prevails even with new town corporations?

The number of new town dissolutions that will take place in the near future is relatively small, but the plans for the dissolution of Corby, Harlow and Stevenage development corporations in 1980 remain unchanged.

When considering the future of the Commission for the New Towns, and contrary to the last question, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Commission for the New Towns does not get hold of the assets of those towns given up by the development corporations? Will he ensure that they are either realised by sale, or that arrangements are made for their transfer to the district councils?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commission for the New Towns and the development corporations are engaged in discussions with the Department about the possibility of disposals in the course of the current financial year.

The Minister talked about discussions. Can he tell us what instructions the Secretary of State gave to the chairmen of the new town corporations about the disposal of assets when he met them last week?

My right hon. Friend stressed to the members of the development corporations that it would be beneficial to the taxpayers, in meeting the burden of indebtedness which the previous Government left us with, if there were a programme of asset disposal in the course of the current year.

rose—

Mr. Osborn, to ask question 18.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to make elected councillors personally liable for irresponsible and discriminatory action.

While it would not be right to introduce legislation to make councillors personally liable for all decisions taken by their local authority, it would be open to any citizen to take his local authority to court if he felt they were discriminating against him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Sheffield ratepayers represented through chambers of commerce, the chamber of trade and Conservative associations welcome the initiative of the Conservative Government to reduce public expenditure? What is a matter of concern is the outburst, that has since been withdrawn, by the leader of the Sheffield city council designed to limit public expenditure in Conservative wards in a Conservative constituency, namely, Hallam. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that and on the need, perhaps, for a constitution and a Bill of Rights affecting local government?

I am sure the whole House welcomes the fact that Councillor Wilson, the leader of the council, has now made clear that it is not the council's policy to discriminate against particular parts of the city. Any such proposition would be quite intolerable and unacceptable, quite apart from being a total nonsense.

Is the Minister aware that all councillors are liable to their electorate? That is why the city of Sheffield has had a Labour council for 50 years. Is he also aware that, when a Conservative Government insist on slashing the resources available to any city, it is reasonable that the city councillors should concentrate what resources they have on the most deprived sections of that city?

Of course any local authority must use its discretion as to where it commits its expenditure. The proposition put forward was entirely different, and was based entirely on party political grounds. I merely make the point that it totally overlooked the fact that there were many Labour voters in the areas that would be discriminated against and many Conservative voters in the areas that would have benefited. The thing was palpably nonsense, and, quite apart from that, utterly repugnant on any moral principle.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector dwellings were relet during each of the years 1976, 1977 and 1978.

About 350,000 local authority dwellings were relet in 1976, and about 390,000 in 1977, including a substantial number of relets to existing council tenants. No figure is available for 1978.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that on 27 June the Minister for Housing and Construction told the House that the Government could not extend a statutory right to buy to tenants in private rented accommodation because those dwellings were needed for relet? Is he aware that there are hundreds of thousands of people on council waiting lists who are in desperate need of accommodation and who cannot afford to buy, for whom the private sector provides no answer? Is it not, therefore, a fact that these 390,000 relets are even more important than those in the private sector? Will not the effect of his policy be to extend the waiting lists for those in greatest need?

I shall interpret what I think that the hon. Gentleman said. He falls into the usual fallacy of those in the Labour Party of assuming that every council tenancy automatically becomes vacant. If we waited, it would be decades before there were sufficient moves. The sooner that the hon. Gentleman understands that, the sooner he will realise why the people of this country voted for council house sales.

What plans does my right hon. Friend have for introducing a tenants' charter for those people who wish to remain council tenants? That would remove the irksome, bureaucratic controls that many councils, particularly those con- trolled by the Labour Party, impose on their tenants.

My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend say that we are considering what should be put into the Housing Bill on that point when it comes before the House later in the Session. The one thing that we shall try to do is to make it easier for council tenants to behave in a responsible manner, rather than as serfs of Labour-controlled councils, as in the past.