I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the recommendations of the report 'Single and Homeless'; and welcomes the report as valuable research on which to base future policy.

One of the great advantages of these Friday morning sittings is that they allow Back-Bench Members to focus on topics of considerable importance, but which, in a crowded Government timetable, are all too liable to be squeezed out of consideration.

It is a great pity that the debates often take place against a backcloth of empty Benches. I am bound to say "empty on both sides of the House", so as not to be accused of making a party point. Nevertheless, the comfort that we take is that the matters that we discuss on Friday mornings are heard well outside the confines of the House. In addition, the Government of the day have an opportunity to give the House and the country their reactions to matters of considerable social importance.

My main reason for raising this topic is not only that it is a matter of unquestionable importance, but that it gives me—if I may make the only party political point that I propose to make during the whole of my speech—an opportunity to give the lie to the suggestion in some organs of the media that Her Majesty's Government—and therefore, by implication, their supporters—are not at all interested in this important subject, or, worse still, have tried to suppress some of the more important aspects of the report.

I want to give the Government the opportunity to outline their reactions to that important piece of research. In addition, I hope to comment on what to me are the fatuous suggestions that appeared in both The Times and The Guardian when the "Single and Homeless" report was published.

To get that disagreeable aspect out of the way quickly, I quote from The Guardian of 9 March 1982:

"The Government today is to publish a research report from which it has deleted half the recommendations to deal with the problem of single homeless people".

That is a serious allegation for a responsible newspaper to make. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm that that is not the case and that, like me—and I suspect like most hon. Members—he thoroughly welcomes this important document and there has been no question of its having been doctored before publication.

On 11 March 1982 The Times stated:

"Minister for Housing told MPs in 1979 that the Department of the Environment was sponsoring a 'major research project' on the accommodation problems of single people".

The article went on to say:

"The report, published as a Stationery Office booklet, came out … without copies being sent to the press or MPs."

As a Member of Parliament of some 12 years' standing, I am not accustomed to receiving every Government publication without invitation. Indeed I should make it clear that I do not want every publication to be sent to me without prior application. Therefore, the article in The Times of 11 March is not well founded. I regret that the article implied that the Government were undervaluing a piece of research which I believe they accept as being very important. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will comment on those press reports.

I congratulate the Centre for Environmental Studies on a very good piece of work. Although it confirms some of the factors that we all knew—or thought we knew—it reveals aspects of the problem that were not widely understood. Therefore, there is much to be welcomed in the report. Government policies can now, more than ever before, be based on facts about the single and homeless instead of on the widespread assumptions—some would say widespread prejudices—on which previous Governments may have been pressed to base them. Without qualification, I welcome the document.

There is widespread acceptance that the term "single and homeless" is synonymous with the dossers, the indolent and the alcoholics. Regrettably, the report confirms that such people form part of the single and homeless problem. However, those who read the report may argue that they constitute a part of the problem that may be easier to solve than some of the other parts to which the report draws attention.

The report broadens the definition of the single and homeless and pinpoints the wider aspects of the problem. Who else is included in the "single and homeless"? Some facts emerge from the report which have not always been at the heart of our previous considerations. It is revealed that women as well as men form part of the problem. For reasons that I have never understood, discussions on this difficult subject have always seemed to assume that the problem was almost exclusively confined to men. However, of those surveyed, about one-third were women. It also showed that the women tended to be fairly young. Perhaps we have not always been aware of that fact.

Most of those surveyed did not want to live in hostels. Previous debates have always seemed to revolve around the need for a hostel building programme. Nothing in the report denies that, but it underlines—perhaps for the first time—the fact that most of those involved would prefer to live in accommodation other than that provided in hostels. The report also reveals that there is a wide age range and that it is not only the elderly who are single and homeless. Those involved range from 20 to pensionable age. I should not automatically have realised that many of the single and homeless have skills and that some are highly qualified and have received higher education.

Although there are some with health and social problems, there are many within the category described as single and homeless who are affected by neither health nor social problems. We also discover that large numbers of the single and homeless, particularly in the large cities, have a Scottish or an Irish background. As one who, many years ago, came from Scotland to the South, I should be the first to be aware that a sizeable number of people living in the capital city and in the principal English conurbations come from Scotland and Ireland. I have to confess that, at a time of higher unemployment in those areas than we suffer in London and the South-East, it is not perhaps surprising that there has been a gravitation of Scottish and Irish people.

Without questioning the value of the report, I am led to wonder whether the sample upon which it was based will really turn out to have been wide enough to justify it as a total basis for future policy. Certain problems occur to me as I read the report. Even after a detailed study such as this, there is a question over the whole definition of the single and the homeless. I should like to mention one or two anomalies which, although not invalidating the report, pinpoint the need for further study.

I take first the problems associated with age. We find that 50 per cent. of people in the London borough of Haringey are between the ages of 20 and 29, whereas the average is 25 per cent. When we look at educational standards, again in the London borough of Haringey, we find that 68 per cent. stayed at school or had further education, whereas the average is 36 per cent. One might assume, on the basis of those findings, which represent almost half the total sampling, that the whole problem revolves around the young and the educated who happen also to be single and homeless. I suggest that that would be an unwise basis for policy.

I come now to those with social and medical problems. If we look at Tower Hamlets, another London borough, we find that only 35 per cent. have no physical handicaps, whereas the average in the sample as a whole is 54 per cent. One can be forgiven for concluding that the single and homeless are elderly, ill educated and in poor health. If that leads me to a conclusion it is that the Government have an important role to play in any policy for the abatement of the single homeless problem. Their area of activity is no more than to create the framework and no doubt to take account of some aspects of the finance. The real introduction of a solution to the problems lies with the local authorities. Different solutions will no doubt be proposed by different local authorities, because a different emphasis will be placed on who are the single and the homeless.

I wish to deal with more general points that leave me wondering whether we can rely upon this report as the total basis upon which to hang our policy. There is a high number, 40 per cent., of educated people, 12 per cent. of them with either degrees or technical college education, among the sample. Can it therefore be presumed that, whatever else the single and the homeless may be, they are not inarticulate but that they are rather impecunious? One would be entitled to draw those conclusions from the report. Again, however, one can only draw them from certain of the samples.

The difficulty that one encounters in basing policy on the report is that it does not cover a wide enough spectrum of society. That does not, of course, devalue its importance. We discover that 10 per cent. of the single and homeless suffer from mental illness. One is bound to ask oneself the question that the survey does not answer. Why are these people not either in a mental institution or at least in some way supervised? The report is inconclusive on the matter.

We discover that social and medical problems increase with the length of time that people are homeless. I should have thought, at the risk of challenging those on the Opposition Benches, who take a different view—there are not many hon. Members at this moment to challenge—that this may well be an argument at least for some short period accommodation. The shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980 may well prove a contributory solution to these difficulties. At the very least, they would prevent a long continuation of the problem. There would be the prospect, one hopes, that people would have a home for no matter how short a period. Those are some of the questions that arise from the report and it is correct that attention should be drawn to them.

I return to the central findings. If a large number are educated, the question arises whether we should concern ourselves at all. I doubt whether we should think about institutions. The report proves that most of the educated homeless are in large cities and wish to live near the centre of these cities. There are three recommendations that I wish to make. The first is that local authorities which find difficulty in renting tower block flats to families—there are many—might be encouraged to convert these flats to single accommodation. I go further. They might explore the possibility of furnishing the flats, wholly or partly, because this is the kind of accommodation that appears to be most acceptable to the type of person about whom I am talking.

Secondly, there should be an adaptation of the shorthold concept to give some minimum additional security to the tenant, while assuring the landlord that he retains the right of repossession. Thirdly, the banks and the building societies should be encouraged to develop the availability of mortgages to purchase inner city properties. We should press them to consider providing longer-term mortgages, so that people on modest incomes will be better able to purchase accommodation. We should ask them to consider the transferability of a mortgage taken out by a young woman to her husband when eventually she marries. Many young women, I believe, think twice before embarking on a mortgage which seems a long and onerous financial responsibility. I believe that the building societies, by introducing more flexibility, could encourage more single and homeless young people to purchase their own accommodation.

I wish to pay tribute to various voluntary groups. SHAC and CHAR have done good work and continue to do so. I must place on record, however, that I do not agree with the contention by CHAR that the problem can be solved only by the local authorities. I have no hesitation in saying that the local authorities have an important role to play, but we shall never solve this problem if we ignore the contributions that can be made by the private sector landlord, building societies and other institutions.

There is a big requirement to increase the supply to meet the demand at a price that can be afforded. No social service element is involved in this area of encouragement to the young, educated single homeless person. We need to consider the economic pressures on such people. It is interesting to note that many homeless people leave rented and furnished accommodation because it is unsatisfactory and the standards are unacceptable. That may be the reason for some—particularly the young homeless—to move on.

Is there anything outrageous in suggesting that there should be a tenant's charter or something of that sort for privately rented flats and bed-sits? Good landlords would have nothing to fear from that. The introduction of some basic standards of accommodation has never been given attention. If we did that, people would be less prone to move from unsatisfactory rented flats or bed-sits. only to remain homeless for a considerable time thereafter.

Of course, not all of the single homeless are young and educated. Therefore, I shall deal first with the young who have poor educational standards. They are likely to be what one might kindly call "occupationally mobile"—if they have a job at all. Many will be in casual work. It appears that more still will be in the catering trade and similar jobs on low income. It is an inescapable fact that many such people seem to prefer what I might call the "camaraderie" of institutions.

There is need to develop general purpose hostels, just as there is need to improve the standards of existing hostels. I have never understood why—I certainly do not understand after reading the report—hostels should be equated with down-and-outs. There will always be a range of single homeless people—youngish or perhaps towards middle age, with jobs, but on low incomes—who may welcome the opportunity to share in what I called the camaraderie of hostels.

There is also a need for special purpose hostels. Many of the single homeless have psychological problems. Some are young and some are not so young. There is a small but worrying group of people who sleep rough. I have no hesitation in saying that this is a considerable social problem. I want an expansion of such hostels. There must be hostels for those who would prefer to live in particular sorts of accommodation, and particularly hostels where an element of care can be provided for those with psychological or social problems.

There are also those whose only crime is that they are old and homeless. There is need for differential Government financial assistance to local authorities prepared to erect warden-controlled accommodation. Such accommodation gives these people all the advantages of independence. However, it also gives them the freedom to associate with others in similar circumstances. They also have the knowledge that they can fall back on a warden-supported system. This type of accommodation is satisfactory for those who are old but reasonably fit.

A phenomenon underlined in the report but which has not been emphasised in the past is the preparedness—almost the anxiety—of many in most age groups to share accommodation. How does one go about organising that? Of course, there are flat-sharing advertisements in newspapers. Some agencies have the job of bringing together two, three or more people who wish to share a flat. Government encouragement for, as distinct from Government involvement in, the creation of more of these flat-sharing agencies might play an important part in ending the problems of three or more single homeless people at the same time. That could be done only on a private basis. The fee charged would well be worth paying. Many would be prepared to pay it if they could, in the process, be brought into contact with an amenable Sharer. This applies particularly to furnished accommodation.

If local authorities feel that they cannot fill tower blocks with families, perhaps a greater effort should be made not just to convert them into single persons' accommodation, but for the authorities to act as agencies to bring together several individuals seeking such accommodation and who are sufficiently mobile to take advantage of tower blocks in a way that families cannot. If local authorities are unable to convert them into single units, why should the flats not be rented to several single people, with the local authorities acting as agents for the hopeful occupiers?

Recommendation 7 in the report states:

"At the local authority level provision for the single homeless requires co-ordination of a range of agencies offering advice, accommodation, cash, social and medical support. In our view, the legislative framework for such provision already exists; positive initiatives to intervene in the homeless problem can go a long way to improving measures locally and to exploiting the existing legislative framework to full effect. In some areas working groups have been established to co-ordinate the relevant agencies and to develop common policies in assisting single homeless people."

Of course, "co-ordination" is one of those much abused words which can mean anything or nothing to a variety of people. The report underlines the evidence that a lack of co-ordination can mean wasted facilities or even ignorance of their existence. Both Government and local authorities have a role, which need not cost much money, if any, to make those in the category that we are discussing more widely aware of the existing facilities.

On the question of legislation, that quotation no doubt implies that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 has not had an effect on the single homeless in the way that it has to some degree on those with families. The Minister may wish to deal with that when he replies to the debate. I repeat that it might be useful if the Department of the Environment and the housing and social services sectors of local authorities were to consider how best to coordinate their existing facilities and how to disseminate information to those who could best take advantage of it.

It is a useful, if somewhat incomplete, report. It reveals factors about the situation that have not hitherto been appreciated. It points to the need for action. I suggest, first, that action should be taken to ease the position of the young, educated homeless by more flexible use of shorthold tenancies, by longer period mortagages and by releasing flats, whether converted or not, in tower blocks for those who are fit.

Secondly, attention must be drawn to the need for more general hostel accommodation and a greater use of social service support in hostels for people requiring residual care. Thirdly, we must consider how best to encourage flatsharing by private or public agencies and create a code of conduct for landlords and tenants for flats and bedsitters. Lastly, the erection of warden-controlled blocks for the fit and the elderly must be encouraged.

Within the list there are many things that could be done now. Some need not cost money. I have tried to bring thought to bear on how to embark on a practical programme for a sizeable section of the community. I recognise the financial constraints and social imperatives. I have drawn attention to the important report and given the Government an opportunity to respond. It is my fervent wish that the Government will outline how they believe they can improve their role. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on raising this matter. I had been ambling more leisurely towards a much fuller debate on the report "Single and Homeless" at a later stage. I still hope that we shall have one.

Following the euphoria of last night's election, I hoped that we would have been joined by others who wished to take an early opportunity to express interest and to outline their policies on two major issues—juvenile crime and this motion. Their absence is perhaps a sad reflection of their interest. Many hon. Members cannot be here, but others should be here to debate such issues.

I recognise what the Government have done. The Minister will be aware of the feelings that I have expressed in recent debates. I do not retract what I have said. Indeed, I may add to it today.

I welcome the report. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said that the report had been unfairly received by the press, which suggested that a conspiracy surrounded its publication. Let us put the matter into perspective. Hon. Members had difficulty in obtaining the report. We do not expect to receive every report through the post, but we expect reports that have involved research by dedicated people and a great deal of time, effort and money to be readily available, without our having to create a fuss to get a copy. Members of the press who would normally expect to get a copy had similar difficulties. Why were so few copies of the report published and why is it so expensive? The price is almost beyond the pocket of those most interested and affected.

From all that, it may be reasonable to suspect that wide publication of the research findings and recommendations may have been thought to be against the interests of the Government. They may not have wanted a wide debate with by-elections pending. It may have been embarrassing for the Government to explain that they had taken certain action which was not enough, but that they would not spend more money on the problem.

A review is being conducted. I exonerate the Minister and his colleagues from my criticism, but other Conservative Members wish for severe and drastic changes in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which would worsen the position. I fear that we may be on the verge of recommendations on those lines. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government will not worsen the situation. I fear that the backwoodsmen may be forcing their will on the Government.

The Government may not have wanted to be asked by those who understand the problem and who are involved why they did not make the necessary resources available to tackle it. That is why we suspect that there may have been an attempt to keep the matter low key. I do not suggest that the report was deliberately hidden, although we could have been forgiven for thinking that when it was published the night before the Budget. Interest in the Budget would make sure that it did not get much publicity. Such tactics are used by Governments.

I say all that in reply to the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the press. In the circumstances, we were all entitled to feel that an attempt had been made to play down the report. This is an important document, the production of which took many years of study and research, and it comes up with some useful, informative and worrying findings. However, the Department's press release is contained on a single sheet of paper, and even that is not concerned entirely with the report. Only two small paragraphs deal with it. The greater part of the press release lists telephone numbers from which further information may be obtained.

It cannot be said that the press release demonstrates the attempt of the Government to say how proud they are of the document, that the research justifies what they have been saying about the problem and that they intend to act on the report's findings and want news of them blazoned in the newspapers. It barely mentions that the report has been published and it gives none of the details.

Those factors added together justify those of us who get the impression that the Government do not want the report's findings to be known too widely because it is too embarrassing in present circumstances, given all their other policies.

I congratulate the Centre for Environmental Studies and its research team. It is always invidious to mention names. However, the report refers to most of them, although it concentrates on the three researchers who produced it—Madeline Drake, Maureen O'Brien and Tony Biebuyck—as well as Patricia Downey, who was involved from the very beginning.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar tended to play down the immense amount of work involved in producing the report. He complained that the researchers carried out their studies only in Tower Hamlets, Haringey and so on. In my view, they involved a tremendous amount of work, and I am greatly impressed by the understanding and compassion that comes through the reports of the interviews conducted by the researchers and by the depth and detail of their documentation. Their approach to the problem of the single homeless deserves our congratulations.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar made a number of interesting references to Tower Hamlets and Haringey, but he missed the point. Because of the distribution of the kind of accommodation that is discussed in the report, it is inevitable that researchers concentrate on such areas as Tower Hamlets, Camden and parts of Liverpool. That is where the mass of this kind of accommodation, unfortunately, is to be found. Those are the only areas where the single homeless can find accommodation. That being so, I do not place too much weight on the hon. Gentleman's conclusions drawn from what he considers to be the key areas.

I mention these features because in my view this short debate will not be sufficient. We shall have to involve many more people in the debate both inside and outside the Chamber before we can begin to tackle the problem.

I refer now to the reception given to the report when eventually it was winkled out of the Department and sent to those places where it should be. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to press reports which said that the report had been doctored, and he denigrated that kind of reporting. However, I refer to a report published in the Bradford, Yorkshire, Telegraph and Argus. I do not know the paper, so I have no axe to grind in its favour or against it. It said:

"A storm of criticism is building up around the Government's decision to 'rub out' many of the recommendations contained in a major new report on the homeless."

It goes on to quote Professor David Donnison, the former chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and a member of the advisory committee that produced the report. He said:

"The report expressed our increasing conviction that hostels are not very good places to keep people… But I think the Government probably didn't want to provoke public pressure for expenditure at a time when they are trying to persuade local authorities to spend less—so it deleted half the recommendations."

It is not the press reporter who is saying that. Nor is it The Guardian or The Times. This is Professor David Donnison, whom we know and respect for the tremendous job that he did and continues to do. He said that half the recommendations had been deleted, and he went on to denounce the suppression as "an outrage".

The report got off on the wrong foot, and that is sad. I have read it, and I find it excellent. I cannot comment on the recommendations that were deleted—unfortunately, I have been unable to find them but later, perhaps, I shall comment on some of the recommendations that were included.

The background to the problem is set out clearly in the report. It spans a number of years. Work on it started in 1976. Probably it was overtaken in some respects by the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and the effect that that legislation had.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Tower Hamlets and Haringey, but they are not the only places concerned. He seemed to give the impression that it was a very small survey, not very widely drawn. Perhaps, unconsciously, he was suggesting that we should not take too much notice of it because it was concentrated on only one or two small areas, but over three years no fewer than 7,360 cases of single homelessness were covered by the research. I dare say that nowhere near as many people were involved in the various polls conducted in Hillhead. Polls conducted in relation to by-elections do not involve nearly as much research, yet their results are blazoned in every newspaper, and on television and radio.

The survey covered people from seven districts—Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent, Bedford, Brighton, and the London boroughs of Camden, Haringey and Tower Hamlets. The hon. Gentleman did not mention Camden. Obviously, that is a fairly broad spread of the country. Those are the kinds of areas where problems exist, as is well known, whether it be a seaside town or an inner city area.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent what I said. I take his point that the areas in which the surveys were undertaken cover a good deal of the country. My purpose in saying what I did about Tower Hamlets on the one hand and Haringey on the other was to pinpoint that from two London boroughs, not a million miles from each other, different conclusions could be drawn. Therefore, to take any of the recommendations as applying automatically to all the areas surveyed—and to many of the areas not surveyed—would be unfortunate. That is the only point that I was making.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlarging on the point. If I did him a disservice, I apologise to him, but I do not think that his explanation has changed the position. Because of the distribution of hostels, one would be bound to get certain results by concentrating on one or two places. I imagine that the survey was spread widely in order to get a broader band of results. That aspect did not come out in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am glad that he has at least put that right. I would not have wanted it to be thought that it was a narrow survey; on the contrary, it tended to go fairly wide.

There were 6,500 clients who were considered and referred to a national agency. They would obviously cover a wide spectrum of problems. There was a survey of 308 users of an East London night shelter. The findings of the survey in that respect are fairly comprehensive and I am sure that we shall take them seriously.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the mentally sick, the mentally handicapped, and so on. Quite unconsciously, people can fall into the trap of categorising people by saying "We know that they are all drunks or dossers." I know that that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but by referring to the mentally handicapped in this context it is easy to give the impression that such people comprise the bulk of the homeless.

A survey carried out recently by the After Six Housing Service Advisory Trust, which deals with the homeless in London, showed that only 7 per cent. of inquirers at its housing advice switchboard were known to have special problems, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. That leaves a lot of homeless people who are not known to have special problems. After Six included mental illness, pregnancy and serious physical illness among the special problems. Therefore, it would be wrong to blow up that aspect of the matter, because it would distract us from the nub of the problem.

The single homeless are not all dossers, drunks, ne'er-do-wells, drug addicts and winos. We must destroy that myth. I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar would not want to perpetuate it, but he may, unconsiously, have been fuelling some of the fires by trying to elevate one or two special problems. I hope that the Minister will accept that the research lays to rest the myths about homeless single people. We now know that there is a serious problem of homelessness and we should tackle it as a problem of homelessness. Within the problem, there are bound to be special categories, as there are among all classes, but we can deal with those in the normal course of our work.

The Department's report says that the single homeless are a wide-ranging, heterogeneous group with one factor in common. They lack a secure home. That is the aspect on which I concentrate. I tried in an Adjournment debate last Thursday to outline some of the problems suffered by those unfortunate people, including lack of security of tenure, vulnerability and lack of privacy. Those and other problems stem from the lack of a secure home and security.

As I said on Thursday, the single homeless have no social life. They cannot have a cup of tea and a sandwich at home; they cannot invite friends back to their room, because often they do not have a room of their own. Sometimes they have only a cubicle. I spelled out on Thursday the problems faced by those who, through no fault of their own, have to live in such accommodation.

According to the report, men in that category outnumber women by three to one, but the worrying feature is that the proportion of women is rising dramatically and the number is much higher than at the time of the 1972 study by the DHSS. The average age of those women is reducing. Most are under 30 and had further education or professional training beyond the school leaving age. That must worry us and make us ask how they got into their present position. That is another aspect which cannot be dodged. The report makes it clear that the economic state of the country is a major factor in people having to leave their homes. There are many reasons why people have to move. A major reason is to look for work. That creates an added burden for reception areas which already have insufficient resources to cope.

A total of 36 per cent. of people surveyed were in their teens or twenties. About 8 per cent. were pensioners, so we are discussing problems at both ends of the scale. The most recent jobs of 33 per cent. of the people surveyed were in the top three occupational classes. They had had professional, intermediate, skilled manual or unskilled manual jobs. That helps to explode the myth. The category of person involved is not necessarily that which is commonly imagined in relation to the homeless. That aspect should be emphasised.

The report brings out the vicious circle of being homeless and jobless. Once a person is unemployed he finds it difficult to find a home or any place to live. Once a person has been made homeless it is almost impossible for him to get a job. He is then on the awful vicious circuit of homelessness and joblessness.

I know people in my constituency who are reluctant to give a hostel address when interviewed by a potential employer because the employer will say "That doss house! That's where ex-cons and drug addicts live." One can see the employer's mind working as the address is given. A stigma is attached to being homeless and living in a hostel. A person might give a false address and get into all sorts of trouble. Desperation drives him to do that so that he can secure a job and return to mainstream housing.

The report illustrates the stigma involved. On page 88, it says:

"Another problem for hostel-dwellers is that they are frequently stigmatised by potential employers. As one person put it:

'If you are working, and you may be working in some hotel, you can't give this address to an employer as he's not going to entertain you, is he?'"

The minute that such an address is given the applicant's chances are over. The report continues:

"Pubs and entertainment facilities around hostels tend to exclude hostel dwellers. One discussant complained:

'I've been turned out of two pubs in this area because they told me I was a dosser. Everybody looks around and hears and it's embarrassing. I asked one chap why he was turning me out and he said "You live in…; you're not allowed in".'".

Such people have to carry that stigma. Is it any wonder that they go from bad to worse and get into trouble?

Another problem that worries me is the difficulty that hostel dwellers have in getting on to a doctor's panel and receiving medical care. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been trying to improve such facilities for many years. My example is of a man who had a colostomy following an operation for cancer and who needed privacy to change the bags containing eliminated body waste. He could find nowhere that offered him that basic requirement and he described his predicament on page 87:

"Of course, I've had a colostomy and I've got this bag and I have to change it. I've got a month's supply from the hospital—I'll show you one so that you know what I'm talking about. I've had this operation. They removed the cancer and I hope I do not get another one. I've got to do this two or three times a day and I need privacy …."

Where will that man get the sort of privacy that he needs in the sort of accommodation which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned at the end of his speech? The man has a serious problem, not because he does not wish to live in proper accommodation but because he cannot find accommodation at a rent that he can afford.

The outstanding feature not only of this report, but of the report by After Six entitled "London's Neglected Homeless", the Lewisham single housing group's report and the Association of Chief Housing Officers of Greater Manchester's 1980 survey of 11 hostels for the single homeless, is that the vast majority of those who live in such accommodation would be able to manage their own self-contained accommodation. In "Single and Homeless", the figure is 85 per cent. and I have also seen figures of 83 per cent. and 77 per cent. There is no doubt that the vast majority wish to live in decent houses, flats or bed-sits. They do not rule out sharing accommodation or the sort of special accommodation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but they wish to have more independence and privacy and all that goes with it.

Professor Donnison says:

"Most want a home of their own, but being in a hostel can actually make this more difficult."

That is true. Generally, people who live in those hostels do not qualify for rehousing by the local authority. They are excluded by the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 if they do not come into the right category. They do not accumulate sufficient points on most of the schemes run by local authorities and they will rot away in these huge prison-like institutions unless we begin to tackle the problem. As the report states, they need their own homes.

In the Adjournment debate last week I quoted the Minister for Housing and Construction, as follows:

"There is significantly greater scope for helping some of those now living in impersonal, over-large and unsatisfactory hostel accommodation to establish themselves successfully in contained accommodation—[Official Report, 19 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 595.]

We welcomed that statement and congratulated the Minister on it. I do so again this morning, because that is the nub of the matter. We must change our attitude to the problems of the homeless and understand their difficulties. We must then agree with the Minister's remark and ask ourselves what we can do about it.

Although I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about mortgages, that proposal would not have mach support among the sort of people about whom I am talking. On the contrary, I come across more and more people either in London or on the outskirts who are being de-housed because they cannot afford a mortgage or because they have been made unemployed. To say that they may now be able to afford a mortgage because of the recent slight reduction in the interest rate will not solve the problem. It will not be a major contribution to helping the bulk of the single homeless people about whom we know.

It would help if we extended the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 rather than, as I fear may happen, restricting it in any way. I am supported in that view by a press release far longer than that of the Government who produced the report. The press release is issued by the Methodist Church Press Service on behalf of a number of religious organisations, including the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, the Methodist Church Division of Social Responsibility, the Church and Society Department of the United Reformed Church and the Catholic Housing Aid Society. Commenting on the document, "Single and Homeless", they say that the scope of the problem is

"so great that the only adequate response is Government action. As well as strengthening the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, the Government should increase housing investment".

All those bodies, which are intimately involved with this problem, clearly and unequivocally ask the Government to strengthen the Act and bring into it those who were excluded from priority categories when it was first introduced. We are all saying that there must be more provision, not less, in the Act.

To sum up, I repeat some of the steps that the Minister should consider in his quest for a solution if we are ever to come to terms with this problem. I have mentioned the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. I have also said—I touched on this in an Adjournment debate—that we welcome the Government's initiative on hostels, and we were grateful for the Minister's reply to our letter to him when that initiative was taken. But that does not go far enough. I return to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the inference that only the local authorities should deal with this. I believe that he criticised CHAR for saying that the local authorities should handle the problem. We are not saying that it should be local authorities alone. The Government are making provision and taking extra initiatives for housing associations to become involved. That is good and we are delighted. In addition, however, they should embark upon a programme for local authorities to provide the necessary hostel accommodation, and adequate resources should be made available for local authorities to provide the range of accommodation needed by the homeless.

I therefore hope that what I have said about local authorities today, together with what I have said in Adjournment debates, will be taken into account by the Minister. I do not think it would do much good to quote at great length today, although I should have liked to go into greater detail about Camden's policy, for instance. I shall perhaps be able to return to that in a later debate on this or some other report.

The hon. Gentleman seemed not to be aware, and he can be forgiven for that, that a number of local authorities—not just Camden; I have referred to Lewisham, and also the DHSS itself, as I mentioned in the recent Adjournment debate—have a planned approach to the problem. They are seriously considering how to tackle it and how to put these people into their own accommodation. As the Minister will know, Camden has produced a strategy for planned rehousing of single homeless people. The Government should encourage others to follow that example. The Minister should tell authorities that that is how it should be done and that the Government will take account of plans of that kind when considering HIP allocations and so on. He should say that the Government wish to channel more resources into that type of approach because they can see constructive results at the end of it. I hope that the Minister will tell us today that he would like all local authorities to take up that kind of initiative, and that he intends to step up the financial provision to make sure that local authorities can now carry out these planned programmes.

Other difficulties face councils such as Camden when they rehouse single homeless people. Many of those people would like furnished accommodation, which is almost non-existent these days, or totally out of their price range. So when local authorities or housing associations provide decent accommodation, furniture is a problem for many of these people. Often they have never had any furniture, and do not have the money to buy it. They need financial help in the beginning.

That brings me back to the Adjournment debate on 18 February of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), when he raised the question of single parents. I realise that that matter is not within the remit of the Minister for Housing and Construction, but I hope that he will bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the need to have another look at the regulations in this connection, so that help can be given to people who at the moment are being helped by some local authorities to find their own accommodation.

I conclude now, although there is much more that I could say. I hope that the Minister will have heard enough during the past few weeks to know that there is great concern throughout the country about this major problem, about our approach to the problem and—more important—about the lack of resources that are being chanelled in that direction. I hope that he will tell us today that the Government intend to take on board the recommendations in the report and the recommendations referred to by Professor Donnison which were omitted from the report. I hope that the Government will now reallocate resources to those local authorities which embark on a planned approach to housing single homeless people in self-contained units.

I am sure that the House is extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject. I share the disappointment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) that other parties are not represented here today. My hon. Friend made a very perceptive, constructive and effective speech in introducing the report entitled "Single and Homeless", and I thought that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, who also made a helpful and important contribution, was a little unfair to him in certain respects.

I start with the matter that was raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North about the circumstances surrounding the publication of the report. I shall take this opportunity to lay several myths once and for all. To do that I shall quote in full the letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North on 10 March, in which my right hon. Friend clarified the Government's position towards the recommendations that were originally in the report. I shall also explain the reasons why, through an administrative error in the Department, unhappily, copies of the report are not available in the Vote Office.

My right hon. Friend said:

"As you will appreciate, this document is not in the nature of a report to Parliament, nor does it deal with a subject raised in debates on matters currently before Parliament. The document is, in fact, an HMSO sale publication.

Our practice in such circumstances is to observe the usual courtesies by arranging for a copy of the document to be provided to the House Library at the time it goes to the Press and is placed on sale. The Department and the Stationery Office operate a standard procedure for this purpose.

Unfortunately, due to a combination of delayed delivery and human error, there was a breakdown in this procedure, with the result that the House Library did not receive a copy yesterday. We took urgent steps to remedy this, and a copy reached the House before 10 am this morning; and was followed by further copies at noon."

I stress that the letter is dated 10 March. The letter continues:

"Unfortunately, this failure in the arrangements has been aggravated by a misleading article in yesterday's Guardian, suggesting that we had suppressed preliminary conclusions from the research covered by the report. This is simply untrue: a first draft of the report was submitted to the Department, together with other working documents, to be subsequently polished and refined with the agreement of the researchers responsible for the study. No changes were sought or made by Ministers."

I repeat that:

"No changes were sought or made by Ministers. Nor is there any significance in the report's appearance on the eve of the budget. This was simply the earliest date HMSO could manage for an already long delayed document.

I hope this explanation will reassure you that the temporary unavailability of the report in the House Library was no more than a failure in the relevant procedures, which we remedied as soon as it came to our attention."

I received that letter. What worried me—and, I think, it would worry many people—was the phrase "polished and refined". It could be polished and refined by leaving out a certain page. I think that "polished and refined", not being enlarged upon, left room for doubt.

I do not think there is any need for the hon. Gentleman to feel that there is some sort of mischievous activity inside the Department relating to the words "polished and refined". They mean exactly what they say. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was a cooperative exercise between Department officials and the researchers who were engaged on that project. I repeat what was said in my right hon. Friend's letter.

"No changes were sought or made by Ministers."

I cannot be more emphatic.

I come to the substance of the debate. Before coming to various proposals that have been made it might be helpful if I set out briefly the background to the report. The report follows research that was carried out over some years in the late 1970s, and was commissioned by the Labour Government. We have made it clear that we think that it is an important report, the results of which we look forward to seeing.

The House knows that until the early 1970s the single homeless were widely perceived as what may be described as vagrants, dossers, or, in some cases, tramps. In addition to being homeless, they were thought to suffer to a large extent from various behavioural disorders. Homelessness was often associated with alcoholism and such difficulties.

By the mid-1970s it was clear that that stereotyped view of homeless people was becoming increasingly divorced from reality. That is why, in 1976, the Labour Government commissioned this detailed research project to give us a much more broadly based and accurate perception of those who were in the category of the single homeless.

The project had the specific objectives of providing information on the characteristics and composition of the single homeless group; examining their housing needs and preferences; and estimating for what proportion the primary requirement was in fact for accommodation rather than for personal human care. The study method included sample surveys of single homeless people in seven local authority areas—Camden, Tower Hamlets, and Haringey in London, and in Manchester, Brighton, Bedford and Stoke-on-Trent. It also involved an examination of the records of two agencies dealing with the homeless—a national referral agency and an East London night shelter. It also involved—and this is an important aspect of the work-direct involvement with the homeless people themselves by means of discussion groups and many in-depth discussions.

In a sensible, constructive manner my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar queried how far it would be right to draw national statistical conclusions from a sample survey based on seven local authorities, two agencies and in-depth discussions. The best answer is that as the sample, although representative, is limited in terms of the number of local authorities involved, we cannot claim that every statistic in the report necessarily applies nationally. The statistics for the sample are correct, but there would be a margin of error if we were to apply them nationally.

However, the survey is sufficiently representative of a cross-section for us to say that the broad conclusions and general thrust of the report are valid. That is my broad response to my hon. Friend's reasonable point. As hon. Members know, the conclusions of the report are set out in detail, but I should like to highlight two of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North drew attention to the fact that the report asks some of us to change our views on who are the single and homeless. There is a basic need to re-educate people about the nature of that group. It can no longer be claimed that the single and homeless always suffer from multiple problems, such as behavioural, mental and psychological difficulties and will always require some form of highly specialised accommodation. It can no longer be said that as a group they are all unsuited for conventional accommodation.

The report demonstrates that fact clearly. It points out that a significant proportion of the single and home less want to cope in independent accommodation and in the majority of cases could do so if they were given a little extra by way of supporting services from local authority agencies, families or friends.

That is such a crucial element in the report that I shall stress what is said on page 105:

"We conclude that about two-thirds of the single homeless require ordinary mainstream accommodation with little more than sensitive help and advice from housing management, to take account of their views on the type and location of accommodation, arrangements for sharing, need for furniture, and (for some) the need for practical help to arrange the move from hostel to more independent living. About half of this group will be willing to share their accommodation and the majority will require furnished rather than unfurnished provision. About half were assessed as having only one problem (such as physical illness) on the index of social and medical needs. These, or new needs as they arise, should, we consider, be met through the normal social service or medical provision, and do not necessitate residence in special accommodation."

That is a crucial aspect of the report's conclusions. It represents the central challenge to housing and accommodation and shows that a significant element of the single and homeless could use normal, more self-contained and independent accommodation, which should be made available to them.

There is a second and profoundly important conclusion to which reference has not been made but which I wish to highlight. It is important not so much for those concerned with housing as for those concerned with people in terms of their personal circumstances and their personal problems and for those who are concerned to try to help them. An aspect of the report bears on the social responsibilities of local authorities and the contribution that can be made by Churches, voluntary organisations and, perhaps most important, by families and friends.

I wish to refer specifically to recommendation 1 on page 106:

"The largest contellation"—

that should, of course, be "constellation"—

"of immediate reasons for homelessness is concerned with personal, familial or social crisis. Provision of advice and support for people in these circumstances would do much to intervene in the homeless process since at that stage a majority of our respondents were employed, and largely free from the problems that develop during protracted homelessness."

Hon. Members have concentrated on means of resolving housing problems that are created once homelessness has started. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it would be infinitely preferable if homelessness could be prevented before the problems of long periods of homelessness arise and create real difficulties for people, building up, possibly, over a period of many years.

I have made many visits to some major hostels, particularly in the London area—to Salvation Army hostels and places like Spitalfields crypt, Bruce House and Carrington House. One meets people using that accommodation who are there because they have fallen on particularly difficult times, sometimes involving tragic and painful personal circumstances. They may have lost contact with their parents and their families. There has perhaps been some alienation in the family circle or a marriage breakdown and there is no one to provide support or help them.

These are people who, in many cases, have been cast adrift. An important element of responsibility and need exists in purely personal terms, especially at times when divorces tend to have reached a high level and family ties and responsibilities are not as strong as those that prevailed perhaps a generation or so ago. There is a need to focus on the underlying causes of homelessness.

An important point in the report is that most people, when made homeless, are probably in employment. The homelessness is often triggered by personal family breakdown. If that can be avoided, or, if it is unavoidable, if others can come forward to pick up the pieces, the acute housing problems that arise when people become homeless can be avoided.

I now deal with the ways in which the Government believe that the housing needs of the single and homeless can be met more satisfactorily. I wish to examine, in what I hope will be a positive and constructive manner, a considerable range of options available within the public and private sectors to deal with the housing needs of the single and homeless and to try to create the better sorts of accommodation for which the report calls. I wish, first, to deal with short-term accommodation and then with longer-term accommodation.

Many homeless people will usually require rented accommodation on a relatively short-term basis. We attach considerable importance to ensuring that both the public and private sectors can make some provision for meeting that short-term need. In the public sector, as the House knows, we made a specific provision in the Housing Act 1980 for local authorities to make accommodation available on a short-term basis for up to 12 months, without full security tenure applying to certain categories of people whom the authorities were considering under the homeless persons' legislation. Although I fully understand that the generality of single people are not within the priority categories for the purposes of that legislation, some groups-elderly people or those who might be threatened with financial or sexual exploitation—fall within priority categories. Local authorities can use the provision in schedule 3(5) to the Act to give those people short-term accommodation.

On the general issue of homeless persons' legislation, I cannot add to what was said during a previous Question Time. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects shortly to be able to give the conclusions of that review.

I draw attention also to the special provision that we made in the Housing Act 1980 whereby local authorities can enter into what are often called "North Wilts" schemes, so that they can make arrangements with private owners of houses or flats to lease them on a short-term basis. Authorities can then use those properties for the short-term accommodation needs of people on their waiting lists. The owner of the property has a right of repossession at the end of an agreed term. That provides local authorities with a means of access to short-term accommodation for rented purposes if they want to use it.

We have now given all local authority tenants the right to take in lodgers and sublet. All hon. Members are aware, in their constituency capacities, that there is substantial under-occupation of local authority housing stock. As a matter of deliberate policy we have given security of tenure to all local authority tenants. That is an important security to give them. However, it means that there is considerable scope within the existing publicly rented stock for people to use the lodger and subletting ability that they now have under the tenant's charter. That also provides an avenue for single homeless people if they want to live in conventional forms of accommodation rather than hostels.

We have also done some significant things in the private sector to widen the scope for short-term provision. My hon. Friend rightly referred to shorthold. We brought forward that change, and it is important. It is of great regret to the Government that the Labour Party did not see fit to support what we did on shorthold. Indeed, it has made a commitment to repeal shorthold. That can only have the unhappy effect of ensuring that those who are now shorthold tenants will probably lose their accommodation before the end of this Parliament. In some cases they may run the regrettable risk of becoming homeless.

Shortholds provide a potentially valuable source of short-term accommodation. My hon. Friend asked us to make it more flexible. I should be ready to consider his specific proposals on that. We suggest that it is flexible now. It provides a means by which someone can let for between one and five years. I hope that my hon. Friend feels that that is sufficient flexibility on the length of tenure. It enables that form of tenure to meet the needs of many people, who may be single and homeless and who want short-term accommodation. If he wishes to make more proposals for greater flexibility, I shall be glad to receive his ideas.

Also in the privately rented sector we have made it much easier and more attractive for owner-occupiers who may have spare room, as resident landlords, to take tenants. Just as there is a substantial element of under-occupation in the publicly rented sector, there is also considerable potential in the owner-occupier sector for people who have houses or flats that are too large for them, who face large rate or fuel bills and who would be happy to let rooms on a sub-tenancy. We have made that much easier. Here, too, I hope that there is scope to meet the short-term renting needs of the single homeless.

I fully recognise and understand that the key priority is to provide satisfactory long-term accommodation. I stress that what the Government have done in legislative and particularly financial terms provides a basis for expansion in the public sector of the necessary accommodation for the single homeless. I refer particularly to what is being done through the Housing Corporation and the hostels' initiative. I shall come to local authorities.

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North was dismissive of what we have done. I do not know whether he intended to be so. We have made a substantial increase in expenditure on hostels which will be translated into a substantial rise in the number of bed spaces in hostel accommodation for various groups, including single people. We are carrying out the first major expansion in the building of modern hostels for many years.

In 1981–82 we made a specific allocation to the Housing Corporation for the first time for hostel provision totalling £12 million. For 1982–83 the total hostel provision within the corporation's programme has been increased to £18 million. The impetus behind the hostels' initiative is becoming evident in the number of bed spaces approved by the Housing Corporation. In 1979–80 the Housing Corporation approved 1,295 bed spaces in England. In 1981–82 the number was 1,575, and in 1982–83 it aims to approve over 3,000. In effect, we shall have more than doubled the rate of approvals for hostel bed spaces in three years, which will benefit a considerable number of single people.

I refer the House to the detailed answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on 20 November. I detailed the legislative and administrative steps that we have taken to improve hostel conditions. I attached a detailed list of approvals of new hostel bed spaces. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North both spoke of the great need to change the flavour and general associations of hostel accommodation and to get away from the big turn-of-the-century barracks built to house several hundred or even over a thousand people in impersonal dormitory accommodation. Hon. Members will see from my answer that in the approvals given the number of bed spaces in almost every case is below 100. In virtually every case the number is only 20 or 30.

That also deals with the important point made by the hon. Gentleman about the unhappy feeling of potential employers about the addresses of the big hostels. I share his regret that an employer should be prejudiced against an applicant because of his address. I hope that all employers take people entirely on their merits and their circumstances.

The new detailed list of hostel schemes that have been approved shows that they are all being carried out by housing associations. I imagine that when people from this sort of accommodation go to employers they will see housing association addresses, attached to which there can be no stigma, and that should override that problem.

We are moving into a quite new phase of hostel building both in terms of the extent of the hostel building programme and in terms of the type of accommodation being constructed. We are going in for much smaller units where there can be more intensive management and greater personal care, with nothing like the same degree of informality and sometimes the sense of rootlessness that is experienced in some of the very large turn-of-the-century buildings. That again will be extremely beneficial to those concerned.

I mention the very important announcement made by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 20 November about Camberwell. It is a major issue that we have had to deal with in London.

There has been a very satisfactory outcome with my Department and the DHSS working together to provide not only the capital funding for a substantial programme of hostel bed spaces to replace Camberwell but also the revenue funding. The House will know that it is the revenue funding of hostel projects which has been every bit as difficult as the capital funding. That, too, will provide us with nearly 1,000 additional hostel bed spaces in London over the next few years. We have done a great deal to improve the financial provision and the general thrust of activity on the hostel side.

I understand that many homeless people wish to get away from hostels and the very close sharing arrangement, especially the communal facilities, associated with hostel accommodation. Here, too, we are making an important change in the priorities that we are asking the Housing Corporation to adopt as from the next financial year 1982–83.

It is clear, as the report confirms, that it is not realistic to expect many people who are now single and homeless to move straight from the present hostel environment into totally independent, self-contained accommodation. There is a real need to create a halfway house, and that is often referred to as "hostel move-on accommodation". We accept that entirely, and we have made specific provision in the Housing Corporation's programme to give priority to schemes for two specific groups. We have asked the corporation to allocate funds for new schemes in what is called the "other needs" part of its programme. The two priority groups cover the disabled and people who are moving on from hostels. We envisage creating over the next few years a reasonable quantity of accommodation designed to help people move out from the existing very unsatisfactory hostels into a halfway house between hostel accommodation and completely independent accommodation.

I want now to turn to the activities of the local authorities, although I shall return to the private sector presently, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar that, although a major contribution has to be made in the public sector both by local authorities and the housing associations to meet the needs of single homeless, we must not discount the possibility of some single homeless people being willing to buy their own homes or, if they cannot buy outright immediately, to use one of our intermediate forms of tenure such as shared ownership. That possibility should not be ignored, although I accept that for a lot of the members of this group the requirement is for rented accommodation.

Local authorities need to look very rigorously at whether they can do more with their existing stock and by adding to that stock special types of newly built accommodation, on which I shall make some proposals in a moment.

My hon. Friend rightly suggested that we could help to get very much better use of some of the difficult-to-let local authority accommodation by utilising it for single people. In that respect I think that he is entirely correct. It is one of the central housing problems that we face and we are likely to face it for many years to come.

We face a mounting difficulty of getting acceptability—particularly as family accommodation—for much of the accommodation that we now have in the public sector. We get regular returns from local authorities as to the amount of stock that they regard as being difficult to let. It is a matter of real concern that local authorities, in their last housing investment programme returns, estimated that there were about 250,000 local authority dwellings—no distinction was made between houses and flats—that were in the difficult-to-let category. Local authorities should look very rigorously at the possibility of using that accommodation, not perhaps on a family basis but for single people.

Coupled with the difficult-to-let stock, I must stress that there are still significant numbers of local authority dwellings which have been vacant over a long period. The last HIP returns showed that there were about 24,000 local authority dwellings in England which had been vacant for more than a year. That is a significant total.

I draw the attention of the House to the answer I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), who asked me to state the local authorities in England which had more than 500 council dwellings empty for more than a year. The 14 authorities concerned were given in the answer that I gave to him on 10 March 1982.

We have a significant problem with difficult-to-let stock and a sizeable number of local authority dwellings which have been vacant over a considerable period. There is real scope for local authorities to utilise them for the benefit of single people. This is not just theorising, and I should like to refer specifically to a few authorities which have made the sort of conversion process to which I refer.

I understand that in Blackburn the council has successfully turned unpopular three-bedroom and four-bedroom flats on a deck access estate into furnised bed-sitters with shared bathrooms and kitchen. I have not seen that scheme but I understand that it has proved to be very popular with students, nurses and other single people.

In Liverpool there are two tower blocks that were previously thought to be very hard to let. They had been taken over by the polytechnic, improved and let to students. The polytechnic manages the block itself, providing 24-hour entrance security and a resident caretaker. I understand that today all the flats are let and are occupied.

There is a need to do that kind of thing in the smaller towns and cities as well. For example, in Reading a block of maisonettes that has suffered from condensation problems has been successfully improved and converted, with the specific needs of working age single persons and couples in mind. When the scheme is completed there will be 29 two-person flats and 29 bed-sitters in the block, all self-contained. That illustrates the scope available to local authorities to use empty and difficult-to-let accommodation for the single. I tell the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that we would regard that as being a perfectly valid and, indeed, useful form of housing capital expenditure. If authorities wish to make use of their HIP funds in that way, they should highlight the fact in the HIP bids and the HIP strategy statements that they make to us. It will then be a part of the overall consideration that we give to a local authority in making its HIP allocation.

Local authorities should also use to the full the important new flexibility that we have given them in relation to the types of new houses and flats that we will subsidise, and consider what is available from private sector house builders. We made a beneficial and helpful change on 1 April last year by breaking free from the cost yardstick and the Parker Moms system. That enables a local authority to work out for itself the sort of accommodation best suited to single people and the single homeless. It will probably be property for rent and local authorities can go in for the small units available from private house builders and let them furnished or unfurnished.

Let me illustrate how the private building industry can produce a wide range of choice for local authorities if they wish to commission the construction of cluster blocks of flats and maisonettes to meet the needs of single people. In January this year the House-Builders Federation issued a press release listing all the house builders in England that are offering single person units. The builders would build them for sale, but it would be open to a local authority to approach any company to build such accommodation for rent.

A total of 33 builders were listed as building accommodation specially designed for single people. Local authorities should look at the options and the potential cost and consider whether they should supplement their existing rented stock with a limited supply of single-person units.

In many cases, local authorities will want to use such accommodation for rented purposes, but they should be alive to the fact that it is low-cost accommodation. I have seen such accommodation on sale for about £15,000—it may be slighter higher in London and the South-East. Such properties consist of a bedsitting room, a kitchen and a bathroom and it is attainable off the shelf at competitive prices from various builders. Even those on relatively low incomes may be able to get a mortgage for such properties.

Property for single people is available not only in the North or the Midlands. Single-person maisonettes were among the houses for sale at Beckton in the London Docklands. With the benefit of a mortgage subsidy that the builder is giving in the first year, those maisonettes were available for a net-of-tax cost of £27 a week.

Builders are trying to go down the market and provide economic accommodation for single people. For those who cannot afford to buy immediately, there is shared ownership a part-rent, part-ownership option, with a right to buy the balance later.

I ask authorities to look seriously at the range of flats and maisonettes that are available from private sector house builders and to consider whether they should supplement their housing stocks with clusters of such accommodation. In the current year many authorities will underspend on housing and we have made a significant increase of 6 per cent. in real terms in local authority housing capital provision for next year. Local authorities have the resources to make an investment in such accommodation if they choose.

I congratulate warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar on initiating the debate. It is valuable to have the opportunity to consider this important report. I hope that it will be widely studied by local authorities. It contains some important suggestions for action.

The Government urge local authorities to make full use of existing capital allocations and capital receipts. We urge them to make full use of the legislative flexibility that we have given them for short-term rented accommodation. We also urge them to make full use of the new range of accommodation becoming available through the Housing Corporation by way of housing associations constructing special hostel accommodation for the single homeless, and by private house builders who are providing a new range of house types which will be particularly valuable to single people.

I thank my hon. Friend for initiating the debate and congratulate him on the way in which he spoke.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) is not present, I accept the motion.

I am glad of this opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of water charges in Wales, in view of the complete failure of the Welsh Office to develop acceptable policy in this matter or to explain its position adequately at Welsh Question Time on successive occasions. In a short debate such as this it will be impossible to go into all the questions that arise from this most emotive of subjects. It is emotive because for year after year the Welsh water ratepayers—whether domestic or commercial, whether in a private house or a council house—have had to pay substantially greater water charges than those in comparable circumstances in England. The failure of successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, to provide an adequate solution has led to a position today where thousands of water ratepayers are saying "Enough is enough" and are refusing to pay their water rates for 1982–83.

It is a rebellion about what is in essence a system of taxation, about over-taxation, and about taxation without representation. It therefore bears all the hallmarks of a modern-day Boston tea party.

I make it clear from the outset that although there may be some criticisms of aspects of the Welsh water authority's administration, I do not regard that as the prime cause of our high water rates in Wales. Our argument is not so much with the authority as with the system laid down by the Water Act 1973, with the way in which successive Secretaries of State for Wales have implemented that system, and with the failing of the present incumbents of the Welsh Office to act even within the limitations of the present system, to ensure equitable charges for water services in Wales.

The level of water charges in Wales is a scandal. Both domestic and commercial ratepayers in Wales down the years have suffered a raw deal when it comes to water charges. The position today can be summed up quite briefly. During the current financial year Welsh water ratepayers have to pay 30·03p in the pound of equated rateable value, compared to 14·22p in the pound in the Severn-Trent area and 17·1p in the pound in the North-West area. The charge for metered water for industry and commerce is 100p in the pound in Wales for the current year, compared to 94p in the pound in the Severn-Trent area and 88p in the pound in North-West England. The irony is that Severn-Trent and the North-West of England get a large proportion of their water from Wales.

The charges this year, 1981–82, are higher as a deliberate result of Government policy. The Conservative Government, by rescinding the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 last year, have ended the partial equalisation of water charges that had some limited benefit for Wales. That partial equalisation was inadequate but it was better than nothing. With the deliberate ending of that scheme—which the Labour Government brought forward in 1976 after years of campaigning by Plaid Cymru—by the Tory Government, Wales must pay £3 million more for its water this year while areas of England, whose charges are lower than those in Wales, must pay £3 million less. That is partly the cause of the large discrepancies this year.

Next month, a new financial year opens. We in Wales are now receiving our water bills for the coming year. Those show an increase of 18·3 per cent. in the domestic water rate. The comparable increase in the Severn-Trent area is only 7·4 per cent. and in the North-West is only 9·7 per cent. So our already iniquitous charges are to be further increased way beyond the level of inflation. The gap between what we must pay and what the people of Birmingham must pay widens by a further 11 per cent.

Next year Welsh households will have to pay, on average, a water bill of £79·08. That will compare with £59·86 in North-West England, and £62·44 in the Severn-Trent area. In other words, the average paid in Wales is 32 per cent. higher than that in North-West England, which gets much of its water from Wales.

I wish to put it to the Minister in no uncertain terms that the people of Wales have had enough of this grotesque mistreatment. They have been driven beyond the point of patience, tolerance and forbearance. There is now a water rate rebellion in Wales on a massive scale, supported by people in all parts of the Welsh water authority area. The revolt is only just beginning. It is supported by local councils, trade unions, small business men, and the disabled and pensioners' organisations in an unprecendented unity of purpose. The campaign was launched only three weeks ago. If it continues to grow at its present rate, it will compare with the Rebecca rebellions of the last century against the iniquity of the toll gates. I warn the Welsh Office that this rebellion is not one that it can ignore or laugh off. It will do so at its peril. The Welsh people now expect the Welsh Office to take unto itself a new role, and for once to act as the defender of Welsh interests instead of the institutional apologia for London policy in Wales.

I wish to deal with one red herring that is constantly being conjured up by those opposed to fair play for Wales in regard to water charges. We are told that the actual rate poundage—the pence in the pound on rateable value paid by Welsh householders compared to English householders—is an unfair basis of comparison. We are told that because the standard of housing is lower in Wales the average charges falling on a family budget are not so different.

I wish to dispose of that argument in two ways. First, I make it quite clear that the basis of rateable value is identical in both Wales and England. The rateable value of a house is determined by the same principles in Wales as in England. A family house in Wales identical in size, perspective and environment to a house in England will have near enough the same rateable value. Unfortunately, the age and quality of the housing stock in Wales is much poorer than in England. Forty-one per cent. of our houses were built before 1919 compared with 29 per cent. in England. Nine per cent. of Welsh houses are declared to be unfit for habitation, compared with 5 per cent. in England. That is a result of historical social and economic factors, not least being the substantially lower average per capita income of Wales compared to England.

The only fair comparison—this was conceded by the Water authority spokesman in a recent letter in Y Cymro —is the water bill faced by an identical family living in identical houses in the two countries. Since the basis of rateable value is the same the comparison rests on the rate poundage charged. For the current year the unmeasured water supply average equated rate poundage in Wales is 30·03p in the pound, compared with 14·22p in the pound in the Severn-Trent water authority and 9·08p in the pound in the Thames area. Those figures are based on a Parliamentary answer given on 21 May by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

In other words, when we compare like with like—the valid comparison—Welsh people face water charges twice the level of people in Birmingham and three times the level of people in London. It adds insult to injury to tell the Welsh people that, because they are on lower incomes and cannot afford as luxurious houses as those in the London area, their average water bills are not too bad. In relation to the resources and their disposable income, the burden of water rate is appreciably higher in Wales. The people of Wales know that and no amount of jiggery-pokery with figures by the Welsh Office will change that reality.

This latest increase in the price of water in Wales is the straw that breaks the camel's back. We have protested before. We have written letters, tabled questions, made speeches. Nothing has happened.

That is why, earlier this month, Plaid Cymru launched a campaign of civil disobedience on this issue. I returned my water bill for next year—a bill of £267 which is likely to be higher than my electricity bill for the year—to the Welsh Water Authority telling it that I have no intention of paying it until a more reasonable level of water charges is put before the people of Wales. Hundreds of people, to my knowledge, have subsequently joined the campaign. Whole villages have given their support. Community councils have urged the people of their area to withhold their bills. I have had letters of support from the old and the young, from the unemployed and from business men, from Gwent and from Gwynedd. A redundant steelworker from Newport, whose water bill for next year is £139, wrote me as follows:

"It is to be hoped that more and more people will withhold payment of these water rates because I am sure that a massive response throughout Wales is the only way to get results."

Almost all the residents of the private estate on which he lives have signed a declaration that they intend to withhold their water rate payment.

The Wales Council for the Disabled has also written:

"These increases can only serve to further erode the very low income of many disabled people in Wales … Disabled people in Wales will share your concern and support your campaign to introduce a more equitable system of charges for water rates in the future."

I draw to the Minister's attention the case of a disabled lady pensioner, over 90 years old, paying £57 a year water rates—more than £1 per week. She wrote as follows:

"It really is too bad at my age, over 90 years, to charge that ridiculous amount when I use very little water. First of all I am disabled and unable to go into a bath so the nurse gives me a blanket bath once a week and I have a 'face and hand wash' daily. The chain in the toilet is pulled once a day when the commode is emptied. I don't apply for supplementary benefit. I try and manage on my retirement pension."

I draw the Minister's attention also to a constituent of mine living at Cae Bold, Caenarvon. She lives by herself in a one-bedroom flat and is dependent on her pension. She has just received a water bill for £127·62. I know That I can quote in Welsh from a letter from a constituent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall do so. My constituent writes:

"Rwyf mewn helbul garw yn trio byw yn y flat yma ac wedi cael bil dwr am £127·62. Mae'n amhosibl i mi ei dalu. Gyrrais y bil dwr i'r Social Security pan gefais ef bythefnos yn ol, and ei yrru'n ol a wnaethant a dim dimau ar ei gyfer … £19 yr wythnos sydd gennyf ar ol talu rhent a thrydan. Does gennyfbron ddim i brynu bwyd; mae'n wir ddifrifol arnaf. Nid wyf yn gwybod beth wnaf efo'r bil dwr yma."

Order.

I was quoting, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have come to the end of my quotation.

Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman should give us the English interpretation.

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the risk of continuing a little longer, I shall do so. I realise that there is a little more time than usual for this debate. My constituent wrote as follows:

"I am in considerable difficulties trying to live in this flat and having received a water bill for £127·62. It is impossible for me to pay it. I sent the bill to the social security office when I received it a fortnight ago but they sent it back and contributed not a halfpenny towards it … £19 a week is all I have after paying my rent and electricity charges. I have hardly enough to buy food. It is truly difficult for me. I do know what I can do with this water bill."

That case sums up the iniquity of the present system in which no rate rebates can paid for water rates and in which the charges are now out of people's reach. It highlights an aspect of the problem that is of general application, not just in Wales—the fact that, whereas a pensioner or disabled person, or a person on very low income, can obtain a rebate on his general rates, no rebate whatsoever is payable on his water rate. As a result, we have the ridiculous position of a widowed pensioner living by herself paying the same water rates as the house next door where there may be four or five persons earning substantial wages. The manifest unfairness of this has been pointed out time after time, but nothing has been done about it. This Government, like their Labour predecessors, have ignored this scandalous travesty of justice.

I have worked out the cost of water to a single pensioner living by himself or herself, assuming a water bill of £100 a year. It has been calculated that a person, on average, uses about 30 gallons of water a day—a figure which was quoted by the last Government. About 11 gallons are used for washing and bathing, and about 11 gallons for toilet purposes. The total annual usage for such a person is therefore about 10,000 gallons, which means that the widow or widower, after allowing for sewerage charges, is still paying in excess of £5 per 1,000 gallons for the water consumed. This compares with £1 per 1,000 gallons for metered industrial consumers, and only 4·3p per 1,000 gallons paid by the Severn-Trent water authority for the water that it takes from Wales. In other words, the widow pays 100 times more for the water that she uses than the Severn-Trent authority pays. And I cannot for the life of me see how this falls within the spirit or the letter of section 30 of the Water Act 1973.

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the charges paid by commercial users, has he reckoned with the standing charge in calculating those figures? Is he not aware that the 4·3p payable by the Severn-Trent water authority is for untreated, unpiped water?

I accept that there are standing charges. There are standing charges for more domestic and industrial users. My bill this year had an £11 standing charge, which I had to pay even if I used no water. So the standing charges hit both sides. I accept that some cost is involved in converting the water extracted by the Severn-Trent water authority to the water that comes out of the pipes. None the less, a range of 100 times the price that is paid, in my view, seems way beyond what is said in section 30(5) of the Water Act 1973, namely,

"it shall be the duty of every water authority to take such steps as will ensure that, as from a date not later than 1st April 1981, their charges are such as not to show undue preference to, or discriminate unduly against, any class of persons".

I contend that there is discrimination here, and it works particularly hard against pensioners and single people living by themselves on low incomes.

I quoted the case of a 90-year-old lady from Biwmaris in Anglesey. It is hardly surprising that she is up in arms about the water bill. In 1973–74, the unadjusted water rate in Anglesey was 3·4p in the pound. The figure for 1982–83, excluding fixed charges, is 28p in the pound—an increase of over 800 per cent. in less than a decade. The Minister may well look sheepish as he prepares to defend the indefensible.

Another equally ridiculous example that has come to my attention is of a shop in Caernarvon, which has to pay £800 per year in water rates. Its only use of water is for a toilet used four or five times a day, and for a wash basin. The burden of water rates on small businesses such as this is absolutely crippling and totally unfair. The Government had promised an alleviation of the water rates on small businesses. What is happening in Wales in terms of water rates is the exact opposite.

This is not a new problem. In 1975, the Daniel Committee, which had been set up in response to strong feelings about high water charges in Wales, recommended:

Early action should be taken to reduce the difference in average water charges between the Welsh National Water Development Authority and other authorities."

To this end, the Daniel report called for legislation to be introduced as soon as possible, either to allow the commercial pricing of water taken from Wales for use elsewhere, or to operate a levy and subsidy system that would limit price fluctuations to plus or minus 10 per cent. at most. As an interim measure, Daniel recommended an Exchequer subsidy. In practice, this report led to the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1976, which, although it brought only limited benefit to Wales with some £3 million per annum, succeeded in achieving none of the recommendations of the Daniel report.

That brings me to another aspect of the problem—the performance of the Welsh water authority over the past decade since it came into existence. The present structure of the water industry was set up by the Conservative Government of 1970–74. It was a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), who was in charge when the Welsh water authority set its first budget. I visited Brecon at that time, early in 1974. I have no doubt whatsoever that some fundamental mistakes were made in the way in which that first budget was put together, and that we have been living with the consequences of those mistakes ever since. Quite frankly, the first chairman of the authority and the former Secretary of State for Wales must carry a lot of the responsibility for the way in which the new water authority sets its spending patterns. The present Secretary of State for Wales complains about waste and inefficiency. If there is such waste—and no doubt examples can be quoted—it must be rooted out. However, the buck must rest largely on the desk of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors and himself, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South, for the way in which the whole show got off on the wrong foot. We may also well ask why it has taken three years for the Government to act on the matter.

There are many people in Wales who feel that the way in which the Secretary of State has tried to put the blame for the water charges on to members of the water authority is extremely distasteful. The responsibility for ongoing inefficiency must ultimately rest with the Secretary of State. It is to him, not to any democratically elected body, that the water authority is answerable, and he must carry the can for its failings. Having said that, the proportion of the water charge which can be explained by such inefficiencies is probably no more than 3 or 4 per cent. and falls a long way short of explaining the high water charges in Wales.

I should also like to say how regrettable it is for the Secretary of State to imply, as he has done recently, and as has been interpreted by the press, that there is any question as to the effectiveness of the water authority's retiring chairman, Dr. Haydn Rees. I have little doubt that Dr. Rees has done as good a job as was possible, given the structure that he inherited from his predecessor, and that he had to work within constraints where there was no leadership whatsoever from the Welsh Office on vital policy matters.

I only hope that the new chairman, Mr. John Elfed Jones, will get more positive support from the Welsh Office in his daunting task. His appointment is one that we welcome and we wish him well. However, he will be powerless unless the Welsh Office ensures that there is proper agreement with the Severn-Trent water authority and the North-West water authority in respect of charges. It is our belief, however, that the Welsh water authority will not be properly answerable until it becomes a democratically elected body that is responsible to the Welsh public. At present, the water ratepayers do not know to whom to turn with their problem, since neither district nor county councils have direct responsibility and since very often the public have no idea as to who are the nominated authority members within their areas. It is truly a position of taxation without representation, and the Welsh water ratepayers are in the same mood today as was seen at the Boston tea party 200 years ago. The new structure of the Welsh water authority that is due to come into force next week is no answer to the problem and, if authority meetings in future are to be in secret behind locked doors, the problem will worsen rather than improve.

The result of the 1973 bureaucratic reorganisation in Wales, with no democratic accountability, is in stark contrast to the position in Scotland, which was not covered by the 1973 Act. The reorganisation in Scotland was the reverse of the England and Wales pattern, with local authorities being given full powers in relation to water supply, sewerage and drainage.

The result has been far better control over the cost of water in Scotland, and the charge in terms of rate poundage range between 7p in the pound in Fife to 15p in the Highlands area. This compares with the charge of over 30p in the pound in Wales. That puts paid to the hoary old argument that the scattered, depopulated nature of Wales is the cause of higher charges. In fact, the average charge per household in Scotland is £23, compared to £67 in Wales.

I understand that part of the reason that the water charges and sewerage charges are lower in Scotland than in Wales is that in Scotland they still attract rate support grant, whereas in Wales they do not. That is a blatant unfairness and discrimination against Wales, and in effect the Welsh taxpayer is paying a subsidy towards Scottish water rates as well as bearing the full cost of his own water rates. I expect the Minister to say quite clearly why that discrepancy between Wales and Scotland has been allowed to persist.

This local authority-based democratic control also gives a structure for integrated planning and resource management, and gives the Scottish people direct representation in the authorities which manage their water. There are many lessons for Wales from Scotland, and Plaid Cymru would like to see the Scottish model of accountability introduced in Wales.

The Severn-Trent water authority and the North-West water authority have been allowed to run rings around the Welsh water authority during recent years. An example of the contempt in which they hold the Welsh water authority is the fiasco relating to the water installations located in the Welsh water authority area. In 1974 the Welsh water authority came in for criticism because capital works in Wales were to be leased to Severn-Trent for a peppercorn rent of 5p per annum. That agreement was never concluded, and attempts to secure a better agreement have foundered. For eight years, no rent has been paid by Severn-Trent to the Welsh water authority. In the words of Mr. Ted Meredith, finance director of the Welsh water authority:

"For one reason or another, an agreement has never been settled."

Where on earth has the Welsh Office been in relation to this dispute for the past eight years? Presumably it preferred an easy life to confronting the Department of the Environment in order to force the issue.

That leads to the similar lack of urgency shown by the Welsh Office during the recent months on the question of making additional charges on Severn-Trent and the North-West England authorities for water that they get from Wales.

Last year, during the passage of the Water Bill, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), made it clear that the Welsh water authority does have the power to make additional charges to authorities that get their water from Wales. I refer him to the debate on 19 February 1981, cols 469–471, and to columns 469 to 471 of the Official Report. In the light of that clarification of its powers, the Welsh water authority made proposals on 3 August 1981 to Severn-Trent for a new and higher scale of payments for the water that it gets from Wales. On 25 September, Severn-Trent notified the Welsh water authority of its refusal to pay the new charges. On 9 October, the North-West similarly refused to pay higher charges. On 15 October, the Welsh water authority formally asked the Welsh Office to use its powers under the schedules in the Water Act 1973 to resolve the difficulty. The Welsh Office made no response until 16 February 1982—the day after I raised the issue at Welsh Question Time—and then the Welsh Office merely asked for more details rather than giving a decision on the dispute. The Welsh water authority gave the required information on 16 March. There has still not been a decision and one is unlikely, apparently, before May. As a result, next year's water charges have had to be based on the assumption that no further payment will be made by Severn-Trent.

I must ask the Under-Secretary of State why it took four months for the Welsh Office to ask relevant questions of Severn-Trent and the Welsh water authority. Since the Water Act has been on the statute book for nine years, why on earth has no procedure to deal with such a dispute been drawn up? I put it to the Minister that his Department's culpable negligence on this matter has cost the Welsh water ratepayer millions of pounds for the coming year.

I shall now say a few words about the principle of charging for water which Plaid Cymru advocates as an answer to the problem currently facing the Welsh water ratepayer. It would appear that there are four courses open to the Government. The first is that nothing is done, and that we in Wales continue to suffer substantially higher charges. That course is just not acceptable, and if the Government try to sit it out there will be an escalating rate strike in Wales which will reduce the finances of the water authority to chaos.

The second course of action is that there should be a direct Government subsidy to reduce charges in Wales. Successive Governments have come out against that, and the Daniel report foresaw it as only an interim and short-term course of action pending a more acceptable long-term solution. If this Government are concerned with establishing a system which minimises waste and inefficiency, the introduction of a subsidy may not appeal to them, at least on anything more than a short-term basis.

The third course would entail full equalisation of charges so that there is one uniform charge for the whole of Britain. That clearly would be advantageous to Welsh water ratepayers, but when the Labour Government considered that in 1975–76 they shied off from following that course because of the reaction in other parts of England. The partial equalisation that was introduced in 1976 barely went a quarter of the way towards equalisation. Furthermore, the present Government have made it quite clear that they are out of sympathy with that proposal, and regard it as unacceptable if there is to be a drive towards a more efficient water industry. While we in Plaid Cymru can see that within the present political structures, it offers greater fair play than the status quo, it does not offer Wales the opportunity to get proper recompense for the development of our own natural resources, nor does it give any challenge to the Welsh water authority to improve its performance.

That leaves the fourth option—which we advocate—that the Welsh water authority should be entitled to sell water piped or abstracted from rivers controlled by reservoirs in Wales. We regard this as a reasonable proposal, so that Wales gets some recompense for the land that has been lost in providing the reservoirs, and for suffering the rainfall which fills them. Water is a valuable raw material. The fact that it is a replenishable commodity, as opposed to a depleting one, in no way weakens that argument. Hydro-electricity is a replenishing commodity—but no one would expect a country to give it away free of charge.

On this matter I believe that I am knocking on an open door, since the Under-Secretary of State indicated as long ago as 1977 that he favoured the solution. If I can refresh his memory, he said in the Standing Committee on the Water Charges Equalisation Bill on 24 February:

"What I propose in the amendments is that there should be a more commercial pricing of water transfers…I suggest that the price should be enough to ensure that the average price of water to Welsh consumers is no different from the average price of water to consumers in Severn-Trent and the North-West."

He added that

"water is a scarce resource. Why should the areas that have it in abundance, and have very little else in abundance…not regard water as a saleable commodity."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24 February 1977; c. 393–5.]

I could hardly have put the argument better myself. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind over the last five years. Certainly the experience of Wales, now that equalisation has been abandoned, shrieks out for some new system.

We, in Plaid Cymru, propose that a charge of 25 pence per 1,000 gallons be made on all the water that is obtained from Wales. For that purpose, we would want the Welsh water authority to have its boundaries redrawn so as to be coterminous with Wales—to include Montgomeryshire and not Herefordshire. Such a charge, applied to all water supplies, whether piped or abstracted, would give the Welsh water authority an extra income of some £40 million a year. We propose that half of that should he used to reduce the water charges, giving an effective reduction of 20 per cent. in Welsh water rates. We would propose that the other £20 million be used to increase investment in the Welsh economy, not least in improving water supplies and modern sewerage systems—work which could provide employment for an extra 2,000 people from among the legion of unemployed in Wales.

Our proposals are not unrealistic. On the present year's figures, the domestic rate in Wales would be immediately reduced from an average of £67 per household a year to £56, while the effect on Severn-Trent would be an increase from £57 to £64. For the North-West, it would mean an increase from £54 to £57. That is virtually in line with what the hon. Member for Conway proposed in 1977. There would be similar changes in the metered charges.

We therefore urge that this course of action be taken by the Welsh Office and that it insist that Severn-Trent and the North-West meet these reasonable demands. I realise that it would be difficult to bill them in time to be effective for the year 1982–83, and therefore, in view of the fact that it is the Welsh Office's delay that has made this impossible, we propose a once-off grant of £20 million to the Welsh water authority for the coming year in order to facilitate an immediate reduction of water rates in Wales.

Water is a vital raw material—an economic resource without which life cannot go on. It is a resource which we have in relative abundance in Wales. We suffer the higher rainfall on our mountains and many of our valleys have been dammed to provide reservoirs for the conurbations of the Midlands and North-West England. In some instances, whole villages have been uprooted to allow reservoirs to be built for English cities. The experience of Capel Celyn in Merioneth, 20 years ago, typifies the exploitation that took place. The people of that village did not want their valley doomed or drowned. The 36 Welsh MPs—for once—stood together in their opposition to it. But Capel Celyn was drowned despite the protestations of the whole of Wales. The voice of Wales was drowned at Westminster when the interests of the city of Liverpool were at stake.

The same thing happened with the Clywedog reservoir. My parents-in-law used to farm a beautiful corner of that valley. It is now a large, dark artificial lake, meeting the economic needs and the well-being of Birmingham. It is little wonder that Wales feels very strongly on this matter.

There is one word for what we have suffered in Wales on the water issue. That word is "exploitation". It is not the first time that Wales has suffered from the exploitation of her natural resources. The pock-marked faces of the coal mining valleys of South Wales tell the same old story. It is the people who now reside in those valleys after the coal has gone who have to cope with the residual mess—the despoliation, the industrial disease, and the environmental legacy of systematic exploitation by a system which took the wealth elsewhere. For the coal of Glamorgan, read the slate of Gwynedd. It happened because we allowed it to happen. It is exploitation that is happening today with that most vital of natural resources—water. But it will not happen any more. Either through, or despite, the machinery of government, this system of control and charging for Welsh water resources will end. Whether the Welsh Office, or its big brother, the Department of the Environment, likes it or not, there will be change. The bells that chimed beneath the water of Wales ring out a message that will be heard. The only question is when, by whom, and how much suffering must there be before this change is achieved.

My party does not believe that Westminster or any London Government have it within their capability to act against this exploitation of my country. They have neither the will nor the way. Governments in London will only concede when they are forced to it by the people of Wales. "Trech gwlad nac arglwydd". Why we have to fight every single issue, like the water saga, one at a time, time after time, beats me when we could with our own Government have a systematic control over our own natural resources and manage them in the interests of the people of Wales rather than for the financial benefit of others.

The only certain solution to our problem of water charges in Wales, as with so many of our other problems, is the achievement of an independent Welsh State whose remit is to serve the whole of the Welsh people. This Tory Government will only fiddle at the fringes of the problem of water charges in Wales, and the Government's response today as always will be mean, prevaricating, and sanctimonious. If no solution is on the table in the Minister's response—and I expect none, knowing this Government—then I call upon each and every water ratepayer in Wales to withhold his payment from now on and to continue to refuse to pay until Wales gets justice on this issue.

The hon. Member for Caernarvon—