asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains satisfied with the development of the Housing Corporation.

As the first Minister to answer a Question after your appointment, Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of the Department, congratulate you and wish you all the best for the future?

As the first Back Bencher to ask a Question in your tenure of office, Mr. Speaker, may I add my warmest congratulations to you, Sir?

May I say that I am obliged and that I shall take it as read for everyone else?

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will the overall strategy of the Housing Corporation now be directed towards the rehabilitation of housing rather than the building of new properties? Is it the intention of the Corporation to direct its funds basically towards towns at the expense of rural areas? Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that rural areas such as mine have acute housing needs both in new houses and in rehabilitation? Will he ensure that those areas are not neglected?

Order. Let me say at once that I hope that we shall begin as we shall continue and that brief supplementary questions, which will be much fairer to those with Questions further down the Order Paper, will be helpful to us all.

The Housing Corporation is working within an overall policy of bringing housing supply to areas where there is acute housing stress. But it has a statutory duty and it is not for the Department continually to interfere.

Does the Minister accept that some of us are not at all happy with the progress made by the Corporation since there have been innumerable delays in registering housing associations? Is there any chance of further finance being made available to the Corporation so that housing associations can arrange their finance when they have been properly registered rather than having to go through local authorities, which at the moment seems rather difficult?

Our understanding is that when there is some delay it is due to the anxiety of the Housing Corporation quite properly to see that the resources available are used where they are most needed. I could not give any definite answer about extra money today.

I shall comply with your request for brevity, Mr. Speaker. In view of the tragic recent deaths of old people from hypothermia, will the Minister discuss immediately—within a matter of days—the mass-scale insulation of houses, possibly along with and as part of the job-creation programme?

This is a very serious matter. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard the question and will give it urgent consideration.

Will the Minister estimate what resources have been made available to the Housing Corporation in the current year and what level of subsidy will result therefrom? I quite understand that he may not be able to give the figures now, but will he put them in the Official Report?

I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the information.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities did not submit their land acquisition and management schemes before 31st December 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities applied for extension of time for submission to him of their land acquisition and management schemes.

No land acquisition and management schemes were submitted to my right hon. Friend by 31st December 1975 since none was required to be submitted by that date. Seven authorities have formally requested an extension of time.

Did that fact surprise the Minister? Will he make certain that local authorities do not take on extra staff to comply with this regulation?

Nothing surprises the Minister. The Act clearly stated that the land acquisition and management schemes "shall be made"—not "submitted"—

"not later than 31st December 1975, or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case."

Is the Minister aware of the present enormous administrative burden of the land nationalisation scheme on local authorities? Is he especially aware that in Surrey, where £9 million has been taken off the rate support grant to be transferred to the London boroughs, it is difficult to decide priorities? Which does the Minister consider most important—providing more nursery schools and other vital services of that kind, or setting up bureaucratic schemes that nobody really wants?

The scheme is essential to the twin aims of positive planning and restoring to the community the development value that the community has itself created. Surrey's great difficulties are not a problem with which the community land scheme is concerned as the expenses of the acquisition of land by local authorities are not rateborne expenses.

Will the Minister tell the House how many schemes were and were not made by 31st December 1975? Will he now apologise to the House for his failure to accepet many Opposition amendments proposing that the date be deferred?

Judging by the Opposition's questions, it seems that hon. Gentlemen have not read the Act fully, as they have been talking about "submission" and not about "making". The plain fact is that Opposition Members, some of whom were asking for an extension of six months and in other cases a year, have been proved wrong. The overwhelming mass of local authorities have been in a position to agree their land acquisition and management schemes and there does not seem to be much difficulty.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the detailed results of the recent water survey.

Every effort is being made to have the report published before the Easter Recess.

Having expressed grave concern before a Select Committee in December about the quality of tap water, why did my right hon. Friend slip into the back pages of Hansard two days before the Christmas Recess in reply to a planted Written Question details showing that 4 million houses in this country—according to the World Health Organisation's figures—receive unsafe tap water first thing in the morning?

I do not slip answers to Written Questions into the back pages of Hansard in any circumstances. The report was made available to my Department a few days previously and I took the immediate step of trying to ensure that the information was available. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend asked about 20 follow-up Questions, which I was glad to answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest plans for freeing historic cities from heavy long-distance road traffic.

The Department's road programme includes plans for bypassing another 20 historic towns and villages by the early 1980s. Proposals for a national system of lorry routes which would help to keep heavy lorries away from environmentally sensitive areas if they have no business to transact there, were announced to the House on 22nd January and are to be discussed with the organisations concerned.

Will the Minister confirm that, whatever may be the effect of the Government's public expenditure review on the whole national road programme, the relief of historic cities, including my own constituency, will continue to be given the highest priority?

I have no difficulty whatever in accepting the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Will my hon. Friend also plan to free citizens—historic and younger ones—from the pollution, mutilation and death coming from heavy lorries using residential streets which they were never intended to use?

I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments, but I must point out to him that local authorities already have power to deal with problems like this in residential areas.

Will the Minister bear in mind the present problems in the historic city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne where the improvement in the urban motorway system has led to considerable difficulty, as he knows, in the environment of Newcastle-upon-Tyne? Will he consider in such circumstances giving a high priority to heavy lorries avoiding residential areas?

I am certainly aware of the difficulties in the Gosforth area. Those difficulties are being studied.

Would it not be wise for my hon. Friend to give priority in road building schemes to areas where there is a local demand for them rather than to areas where there is a great deal of local opposition?

As my right hon. Friend will realise, the difficulty is that there is often a demand for schemes which are resented by those on whom the impact is more immediate. Part of the difficulty is to weigh the national claims and claims for schemes from different areas against the claims of quite legitimate local objections.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from the House-Builders' Federation regarding the supply of land for private house building; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to improve the availability of land for development.

The Community Land Act gives local authorities new responsibilities and powers for ensuring that land is available to meet the needs of both public and private development. I had a meeting with representatives of the House-Builders' Federation on 28th January, following a letter from it on 9th January, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied on 21st January.

Does the Minister realize that there is a growing view in the industry that, because of the Community Land Act, within the next two years there will be a quite disastrous shortage of building land and that, in the industry's own words, will bring the house building programme to a complete halt?

I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. His view of the effect of the Community Land Act was not basically one of the subjects we discussed with the House-Builders' Federation. Certainly the Federation raised points ancillary to it but, equally, it raised other matters—for example, planning procedures and how long they took, appeals, and even the density of planning permissions.

Will my right hon. Friend inform local authorities such as the Liverpool City Council that where land is available for the building of necessary local authority housing because of long housing lists, it should not be turned over to private developers until the needs of the local community are met, especially those desperately in need of houses to rent? Will he make it absolutely clear to local authorities that steps to let private developers have such land will be frowned upon by the Government?

As I said earlier, one of the basic principles of the Community Land Act is positive planning. That means a sensible assessment of what is needed for local authority house building and private house building. The change that will take place following the Act is that all development land will progressively come under the control of the local authorities.

Why shou1ci not land lying idle in big cities such as Liverpool be turned over to and developed by private enterprise?

Because people need houses to rent.

I was careful to avoid discussing any particular town and I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not do so. I was endeavouring to deal with general principles. Land required for housing should meet the needs of the community, both socially and for planning purposes, whatever those needs may be.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he proposes to have with the leaders of the railway trade unions about the future level of investment in the railway industry.

The consultations which I have already announced will certainly cover investment in the railway industry.—[Vol. 903, c. 362–3.]

Does my right hon. Friend confirm that British Railways have been advised that investment is to be held at £238 million during the coming years? Will he also meet the railway trade unions in the near future to discuss this vital subject?

What my hon. Friend said about the level of investment is correct. I had one meeting with the railway unions before Christmas. I have since met the TUC Transport Industries Committee and made it clear to the TUC and the individual unions that in the process of consultation I shall hope to have further meetings with them.

When will the right hon. Gentleman provide us with the results of his discussions? There is widespread anxiety amongst commuters and railway men in my area. When shall we get some answers?

I have already said that in the next few weeks I hope to issue a consultation document and then to embark on a very full process of consultation with a view later in the year to issuing a statement as a White Paper or in some other form.

Does my right hon. Friend confirm that the document will be not a White Paper or a Green Paper but a genuine consultative document? Does he agree that to state firmly at this stage that £238 million per year will be the investment for the next five years could and will bring about the situation about which the three railway unions have been trying to warn the public?

I certainly confirm that the paper, which will be issued in the next few weeks, will be a consultation document in the full meaning of the word. As my hon. Friend knows by now, I do not accept the view of the railway unions about the consequences of this level of investment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the consultative document will be debated in the House? Will he also assure the House that any fare increases will be equitably spread and that there will be no question of discriminating against commuters?

Having a debate in the House, which I should greatly welcome, is obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

And the Opposition.

And the Opposition, certainly. The whole object of the trans- port policy review is to try to bring a greater degree of equity into a transport policy which fundamentally is in a state of complete confusion.

rose—

Order. There are similar Questions later on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the likely size of the rail network and the quality of its services based on a five-year investment level of £238 million.

I have no evidence that stabilising investment at about its present level—the highest for many years—need cause massive reductions in either the present railway network or quality of service.

Then can my hon. Friend assure the House that the consultative document will reiterate the Government's commitment to the present 11,000 miles of rail network? Will he accept that many Members' including myself, who represent constituencies with less than 20 per cent. car ownership find it very difficult to explain to our constituents why, at a time when the Government are massively expanding investment in the car industry, we appear to be proposing a major cut in public transport investment?

There has been a continuing trend under Governments of both complexions for the balance of public expenditure on transport to swing against the construction of roads in favour of public transport. I have already made it clear that my right hon. Friend and I have no intention of reversing or even stopping that trend.

Can the Minister confirm or deny reports that, with a view to encouraging the transfer of the transportation of goods from road to rail, substantial additional taxes are to be expected on road transport? Will he confirm that, as some goods cannot be conveyed in any way other than by road, to impose such additional taxes would be to increase the cost of living?

The consultative document will address itself to the proposition in the Socialist Commentary booklet on transport policy that all modes of transport should carry their full costs, and that includes their social and environmental costs.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that the railway unions and the Railways Board regard the present level of investment proposed by the Secretary of State as insufficient to carry out the necessary modernisation? If this is continued for a further five years, it can result only in a reduction in the railway network.

I point out to my hon. Friend that rail investment is now higher than at any time since the mid-1960s. That is in real terms and in absolute terms, even after allowing for inflation. He will also be aware that, after allowing for inflation, other support for the railways is running at historically high levels. What is more, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, all that we have asked the railways to do is to cut the deficit on freight account. There has been no request as yet to reduce the deficit on passenger traffic, which is running at a historically record level.

In view of the Minister's reply, will he give an assurance that the Leeds-Harrogate-York line or any part of it will not be closed under any new proposals?

I am not able to give denials or assurances about any stretch of line before the consultative document is published, and that will be very shortly.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that not only British Rail but the National Freight Corporation and the National Bus Company must have their future investment plans settled? Will he accept that in any announcement of British Rail's investment intentions he should announce his intentions for other nationalised modes of transport?

I have no difficulty in accepting my hon. Friend's proposition. Perhaps it is necessary for me to repeat that the present review of policy is not confined to the railways. It is an overall review of transport policy, involving all modes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what represen- tations have been received by his Department about the future of railway services arid whether he will make a statement.

We have in recent weeks received over 20,000 representations about the future of the railways. The vast majority of these have been in the form of tear-off slips bearing identical wording.

In any future review of rail services will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that socially necessary railway lines in Yorkshire are safeguarded, bearing in mind that it is a low-wage area and that the ownership of private motor vehicles there is well below the national average?

Those considerations will come under scrutiny in the review that my right hon. Friend was discussing earlier.

Will the hon. Gentleman remove uncertainty and doubt by confirming that work on the advanced passenger train will continue in view of its substantial export potential?

It would be wrong for me to anticipate the result of the review. I must ask hon. Gentlemen to be patient a little longer.

rose—

Mr. Walter Johnson. I apologise—Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

I make allowances for your Welsh squint, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) had risen earlier. That was why I called him.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, whatever else the railways will be, they will not be bus routes? Would he care to repudiate or publish—better still, publish and repudiate—the grotesque document which has been circulated within the Department suggesting that the railways be torn up and replaced by bus routes?

I have already made it clear that the Department has considerable reservations about various proposals in Professor Hall's report. The report has been published and is available to my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister agree even in advance of the White Paper that, if there were to be any prospect of commuter fares going up by the 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. rumoured, that would be unfair and would cause great hardship to tens of thousands?

My right hon. Friend pointed out that difficult questions of balancing equities were involved in doing anything to restore the finances of British Railways. It is beyond question that in certain parts of the country the major proportion of the subsidy to keeping fares down goes to the better-off sections of the community.

Will the Minister assure the House that there is no truth whatever in the rumour that the line from Glasgow to Stranraer is to be cut?

I am not aware of the rumour.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the ludicrous situation in Bristol where a land use transportation study has put forward comprehensive proposals to keep traffic out of the city at the same time as British Railways are to close a valuable commuter rail service within the city?

I am not aware of British Rail's closing any commuter service in Bristol or elsewhere. No proposals for such a closure have come to me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now fix a date to pay an official visit to a vehicle testing station.

I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave him on Tuesday 27th January.—[Vol. 904, c. 149–50.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that when he visits a testing station he will inevitably find vehicles that fail the test because their brakes or steering are dangerous being driven straight back on to the roads? Are not the drivers of those vehicles in breach of the law? What does he propose to do to prevent vehicles known by the testing stations to be dangerous from going back on the roads, where they are a potential menace?

Not all vehicles that fail the MoT test would be in breach of the minimum legal requirements. However, I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to achieve. He will be aware that there are considerable difficulties about giving MoT testers the powers that he contemplates.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the findings of the Consumers' Association and roadside spot checks by the police show that a high percentage of new vehicles have wrongly adjusted headlamps? Will he therefore re-examine the requirements for testing lights before reintroducing the headlamps regulations which he had to withdraw just before Christmas?

If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention during our debate on the order relating to headlamps he would have noticed that I made proposals for tightening up the MoT test in precisely that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has sought comments from the Advisory Group on Commercial Property Development on the development land tax.

Development land tax is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Advisory Group took account of the development land tax proposals in its report on the implications of the community land scheme for commercial property development.

Does the Minister accept that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have some departmental responsibility for the availability of land for commercial and industrial development? Does he accept that the first report of the Advisory Group on Commercial Property Development was widely held to be a most useful document? Does he further realise that it would have been even more useful had it been published in time to be taken into account by those engaged in the somewhat lengthy consideration of the Community Land Act? In the light of any comments in that first report on the rate of tax, will he now ask for a report from that group on that specific point?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Pilcher Committee produced a valuable report. I am sorry that he takes a slightly jaundiced view of the time of its publication. The report has been found to be useful and has been referred to quite considerably, not least by the hon. Gentleman himself.

"There should therefore be the most careful monitoring …".

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends are keen to see the Bill on the statute book and in operation at the earliest possible moment?

I shall certainly tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is not aware of it, of my hon. Friend's comment.

Although it is a matter primarily for the Treasury, will the right hon. Gentleman tell his colleagues there that it appears to be generally accepted opinion outside the House that a rate of 30 per cent. development land tax is far too high and that its only effect will be to stop land from coming forward voluntarily for development?

At the risk of intervening in what is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's sources of information are a little too limited and a little too narrow. That is by no means the general view.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a road sign to indicate that a length of road is without a footpath and is substantially used by schoolchildren who are obliged to walk in the roadway.

I shall be happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Is the Minister aware that there are three different signs to indicate that a motorist may encounter horses and ponies, cattle, or wild animals on the road ahead? It seems that we are rather out of balance in our approach. Should there not be a similar sign indicating that children may be in the road ahead?

There are signs to indicate the presence of schools and that children may be crossing. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is helpful and constructive and I am hoping to introduce and test provisional signs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a sign of this type would be welcome in rural Derbyshire, because an increasing number of schoolchildren are having to walk to school in order that their parents can save the increasing bus fares? Will he investigate the operations of the National Bus Company in Derbyshire to ensure that increases in fares, which seem to occur every few months, are genuinely due to rising costs and not to internal inefficiency?

Naturally we are concerned about the circumstances my hon. Friend has described. He will be aware that the fares that schoolchildren have to pay are partly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who, I know, is also concerned about this matter.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a particular danger when a stretch of pavement normally in use is out of use because of drainage works or road repairs? Will he look into this aspect of the matter?

I shall be happy to look at any constructive suggestions for road safety.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with building societies about increasing their lending on older properties.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 14th January 1976.—[Vol. 903, c. 372–5.]

But is my right hon. Friend aware that in Sheffield there is some evidence that building societies are drawing arbitrary lines below which they will not lend on certain properties, for example, properties which they regard as being in unsuitable areas? Will he remind the building societies that they have not only a commercial responsibility but some social responsibilities?

I am well aware that the difficulty to which my hon. Friend has referred exists. I am glad to say that the Building Societies Association and the local authority associations had a constructive discussion on 30th January about problems such as that to which my hon. Friend has referred. The meeting agreed to set up a joint working party of officers soon to advise on cuts in local authority lending, the problem of older properties and all the questions to which my hon. Friend has alluded.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the scheme by which £100 million was set aside by the building societies for local authorities is not working? Therefore, will he authorise local authorities to underwrite the mortgage cases that they send forward to the building societies?

The £100 million scheme, as the House knows, has met with a number of initial difficulties. It is quite incorrect to say that it is not working now. It is working much better than it was three months ago, but, because there are still residual difficulties about the scheme, the building societies and local authorities have agreed to set up a joint working party to attempt to iron out these problems.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect in the near future to meet the Building Societies Association and individual societies to discuss a reduction in their mortgage rates in view of the recent fall in interest rates?

No, I have no immediate plans to meet them on that subject. We are, of course, constantly in consultation with the building societies about all aspects of the housing market.

Will my right hon. Friend bring his influence to bear upon the building societies to make them realise that those who are purchasing older properties are often young people starting off their married lives? Does he not consider that we should help them instead of driving them to finance companies, which have their poachers in all areas and which charge these young people tremendous rates of interest on the money they borrow to purchase property?

These are the people whom we want to help most. However, there is more of an overlap between local authorities and building society mortgage lending than most people probably suppose. I am anxious to maintain local authority lending at a level such as will be able to cope with the cases to which my hon. Friend has referred while leaving the building societies primarily to take over cases where in the past there has been a complete overlap between the two types of lending.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of repairing the M6 in Staffordshire; how long this will take to complete; and if he will make a statement.

Approximately 26 miles of M6 in Staffordshire will need repair within the next five years, at a cost of about £10·5 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern among local authorities in the West Midlands that this amount of expensive repair work is having to be done well ahead of the estimated date for such work? Is not this an urgent indication that we need an integrated transport policy which would take a considerable amount of the road traffic off the motorway and transfer it to the railways and thus prevent heavy lorries from pounding away and breaking up the motorway, which in turn means that enormous amounts of money have to be spent on repairing it?

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's sentiments. Whatever steps should be taken in an integrated transport policy will not succeed in transferring very much of the traffic now travelling on motorways to the railways.

Why not?

The reason why we have had to repair this stretch of the M6 relatively soon after the last repair was that there was a deformation in the wheel tracks of a certain stretch in 1972 which was causing considerable danger.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the individual amounts provided for the county of Lancashire in the year 1976–77 for bus revenue support and other transport services, including road maintenance; how this compares with the national average; and whether he will make a statement on his future intentions for supporting bus services where there is a recognised revenue shortfall.

The total expenditure accepted for transport supplementary grant purposes for Lancashire for 1976–77 is £16·4 million, equivalent to £12 per head compared with a national average of £l6 per head. Of this, £1·6 million is for bus revenue supoprt, which is equivalent to £1·14 per head, compared with a national average of £1·85 per head. The Government's policy on bus revenue support is set out in Circular 125/75 issued by the Department.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. However, will he take it from me that he has recognised the problem and realises that there is a need? Therefore, why does he not give more help?

Alas, I am unable to give as much help in as many directions as I wish.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in Lancashire about the length of time being taken in producing a co-ordinated policy on passenger transport, and that this is making it very difficult to provide economic services for bus passengers?

The introduction of the transport policies and programmes system has been a great help for county councils in focusing their thinking on priorities in the areas for which they are responsible. We shall fairly shortly be coming forward with a consultative document dealing with wider national considerations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of travel by public transport, buses in particular, has risen much faster than the rate of inflation generally? Does he agree that there is a danger that the services in Lancashire will disintegrate totally unless further funds are made available?

Rates of increase depend on the base year. There was a considerable period in which fares did not rise nearly as fast as the general rate of inflation. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point. That is why last August I invited all the county councils to come back and bid for additional supplementary grant to assist with bus revenue problems. I am glad to say that a great many did so, and I was able to accept virtually all the higher bids.

As it is the Government's declared policy that bus fares should rise, what action does the Minister propose to take in relation to authorities that ignore the Government's advice and put the extra cost on the rates?

We on the Government side of the House meant what we said when we made it clear that we thought that authorities should be able to decide how to deal with local problems in the light of local needs and that the decision was to be devolved locally. That is quite different from the situation that existed under the previous Administration.

What does my hon. Friend say about his policy in reply to my hon. Friend's Question, particularly the latter part? He has not so far said what he intends to do with bus services with a recognised revenue shortfall. Surely he is not pretending that the circular, which his Department sent out just after Christmas, advocating the liberalisation of licensing laws and allowing minicabs and things like that is the answer to the problems of the National Bus Company.

The National Bus Company has serious and continuing problems, many of a secular nature deriving from the increase in the ownership of private cars and, in part, the present economic circumstances, which are leaving people with less disposable income.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general authorisation for the payment of improvement grants without authorisation under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1974 up to the maximum discretionary level (i) for houses built before 1919 and (ii) for houses built before 1946 and acquired under the municipalisation programme.

Initial repairs to newly acquired council property and all improvements to acquired property in housing action areas do not count against the allocations approved under Section 105.

As far as I heard that reply, I think that it was welcome. Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that the expenditure on Section 105 grants is probably the most productive, pound for pound, of all expenditure to meet housing need? Is he aware that during the current financial year administrative delays, and particularly the late stage in the year at which information was given to local authorities about the amount that they might spend, have seriously stultified this expenditure? Will he take steps to ensure that in the next financial year authorities are allowed to spend the money more effectively?

I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. We have already announced the allocations for next year. They were included recently in the Official Report.

In order to assist the laudable wish to improve houses built before 1919, would it not be better to save money by stopping municipalisation altogether?

The evidence that we have is that some very acute housing distress has been met by the allocations. I take a view contrary to that of the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Minister confirm that the provisional figures for 1975 show that the total number of improvement grant applications approved was 159,000 compared with 453,000 for 1973, a disastrous and discreditable drop in this vital sector where the resuscitation of our old housing stock is so essential to the wellbeing of our people?

The hon. Gentleman does his case no good by these exaggerations. The figures that he gave are over the whole field, including private improvements, and bear no relation to the tremendous social problem and the reason for our allocations. We are directing resources where they are most desperately needed.

Does the Minister agree that the figure for 1973 for local authorities was 193,000—more than the total provision for 1975 for both sectors?

I am not denying these figures, but they must be seen against the context of an increase in actual resources of almost 30 per cent. for the housing need of this country, an increase which has been directed to where it is most needed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against decisions by local planning departments were heard in 1975.

11,486 planning appeals were decided during 1975, 3,078 following local inquiries and 8,408 by the written procedure.

Will my right hon. Friend consider examining an awkward feature of planning procedures whereby planning officers recommend acceptance of a submission by developers, the submission is then rejected by the elected representatives of the people, the councilors, and there is then a public inquiry at which planning officers refuse to appear on behalf of the council and ratepayers who employ them and pay their salaries? This is creating bitterness in local government.

I have not been made aware of this situation and it would require a great deal of thought. After all, if one is to give such authority and independence to local government—as my hon. Friends and I believe to be right—this must in most cases be a matter for local authorities to decide. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me about the matter, I shall certainly look at it.

What is the approximate time that it now takes from appeal to decision?

I should need notice of that question. However, the period has shortened very considerably. In part this is because there have not been as many appeals. This improvement goes back to the number of appeals that used to be made in the 1960s—about 430,000—as compared with the bonanza years when they were well over the 600,000 mark, and the general increase in the planning inspectorate during the past few years. However, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the facts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the most up-to-date figures for house building in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

I estimate that 173,000 new dwellings were started and 160,000 completed in the public sector in Great Britain in 1975. Starts were therefore up by 18 per cent. on 1974 and 53 per cent. on 1973, and completions by 24 per cent. and 49 per cent. This is encouraging progress and indicates the success of the measures we have taken to reverse the disastrous trend of 1970 and 1973.

There is no doubt that these are better figures, but will my right hon. Friend accept that they are simply not good enough and do not compare with the three years 1966 to 1969 when about 1,200,000 houses were built? To achieve that, we had to take certain decisions with regard to stopping office building. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a need for a change in the financing system to enable local authorities to improve upon these figures? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long.") Will my right hon. Friend take all possible steps—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two question—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Three."] Two, according to my reckoning. Perhaps he would get the answers to those first.

I shall save the next until tomorrow.

I thought that that was a rather grudging response on the part of my hon. Friend and that he might have been a little more enthusiastic. I am certainly not satisfied with the figures yet, despite the fact of a major improvement. I should certainly like to see the figures rise.

As one of the Minister's senior statisticians is represented on it, does the right hon. Gentleman accept the recent report of the NEDC forecasting panel that council house building will drop in 1977?

No, I do not accept it. I read it with some care. I think that forecasts of what are likely to happen two years ahead are rather pointless. I am glad to see that the NEDO has revised substantially upwards its July figures of the likely level of starts and completions for 1976.

Before the Minister becomes too complacent, may I ask him whether he accepts that the total housing figures at present are below those at the comparable stage of the last Conservative Government and, taking into account the number of improvement grants, way below those?

The figures I have announced are much higher than those which the Conservative Government left to the incoming Labour Government. The peak figures of new house building occurred not under the Conservative Government but under the last Labour Government.

When I was Chancellor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further works in New Palace Yard await completion; what they will cost; and when they will be finished.

No further works are envisaged, Sir. The works at present in hand will be completed by the end of April.

Does not the whole story of this disgusting and profligate waste of public money show that it should never have been undertaken orginally? Could not the millions of pounds that have been spent so far have been better applied to building houses?

My hon. Friend could have made that point in the debate. The House decided on the development of the car park.

Does the Minister accept that this is the longest running farce in London and that we should have had much better cost control over the work that has taken place? It is a very bad example to the general public.

If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a Question about the detailed costing and the way it was arrived at, I will certainly give the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether losses by direct labour departments of local authorities are treated as part of the relevant expenditure upon which rate support grant is based.

An estimate of the interest charges generated by local authority capital expenditure, whether by direct labour departments or private contractors, forms part of relevant expenditure.

That does not answer the question whether losses form part of relevant expenditure. Is the Minister aware that it is intolerable that ratepayers should be asked to pay more rates to subsidise an activity that is competing with them, whether in direct labour or in municipal trading? Will he look into the whole situation and have a working party or a Royal Commission investigate abuses?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the work of direct labour departments is regularly tested in competition with private contractors. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Yes, it is. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of raising this subject in a debate a few days ago when the Government answer was given. Relevant expenditure is indeed considered and is part of the rate support grant.

Will my hon. Friend consider encouraging local authorities to expand and improve direct labour forces to bring down unemployment and put up more houses?

It is indeed the policy of the Department and of the Government to expand efficient direct labour departments. I remind the House that in the long run public works departments are democratically accountable to the electorate.

Have the Government any proposals for obliging local authorities to draw up their accounts for direct labour departments in such a way that they are all done on a common basis and so that there is no way of shifting losses to other parts of the local authority's empire?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced, we have set up a departmental working party to consider accounting and tendering by direct labour departments.

As that working party will not be reporting for at least a year, why cannot the Minister accept as an interim measure the CIPFA recommendations, which would do exactly what my hon. Friend has been asking for?

This question has been asked many times in the House. We have set up the departmental working party, which is a fact-finding exercise, so that we may give the right answers when we have acquired all the information we need.