asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) if he will make a statement on the BAC3-11 proposals;

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he will announce a decision on the development of the BAC3-11 and of the Rolls Royce RB211/61 engine to power it; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to an airbus for Europe.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what discussions he has had about Government grants towards the production of the BAC3-11 and European Airbus; if he will publish the relevant figures; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a further statement on the BAC3-11.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what proposals he has received from European Governments regarding British participation in the European Airbus project; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the European airbus.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will now make a further statement on the BAC3-11 project.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what discussions have taken place with British industry regarding the BAC3-11 and European Air Bus proposals; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) if he will make a further statement on the future of the BAC3-11.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on his policy towards the European Airbus project; and to what extent this will involve Rolls-Royce Limited.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the future of the BAC3-11 and on the effect he estimates it will have on the financial position of Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what decision he has taken in connection with the Rolls-Royce proposal to develop an engine for the BAC3-11.

As I told the House on 9th November in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), the Government are studying both the BAC3-11 and the A300B.

First, does the Minister realise that the whole House would, I am sure, like him to go for the British aircraft? Can he say whether the proposition that there might be American engines in this British airframe is being considered? Secondly, can he confirm that the French have put in another proposal subsequent to that which he mentioned from the Europeans? May we be assured that he will not use the European Airbus as a lever to crawl into the Common Market?

First, proposals to the effect mentioned by my hon. Friend have been put forward by the Company and they are being urgently examined. Secondly, I am sure that none of my right hon. Friends has any intention of crawling into the Common Market, and this will not be used as a lever to that effect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more worthy projects in the aerospace industry have been killed since the war by indecision than by almost any other reason and that the BAC3-11 would produce a £720 million profit to the balance of payments between 1975 and 1983? Is he further aware that in the last 20 years £1,025,000 on average in Government aid per annum to B.A.C. has produced a profit to the balance of payments of £40 million annually on civil aircraft?

I have used most of those arguments myself on one occasion or another, but I do not entirely agree with the profit figures which my hon. Friend mentions.

Will the Minister beat in mind that the BAC3-11 is already about a year behind the A300B and that therefore a decision is urgent? Will he undertake to make sure that a decision is made on commercial grounds and is not influenced by political considerations?

As I indicated in my Answer, I appreciate that B.A.C. has had to wait a long time and I appreciate the need for urgency. Nevertheless, these proposals were such that it would not have been right to ignore them.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a principal potential customer for the BAC3-11, namely, British European Airways, has already voiced its views through its Chairman, Sir Anthony Milward, who has strongly urged the Government to buy British, which is obviously the opinion of most informed people in this matter? Secondly, will he ensure that this magnificent aircraft is not cast away as the TSR2 was before it?

I do not think that there is any comparison between this aircraft, which has not reached the stage of cutting metal, and the TSR2. I do not think that any of us could fail to be aware of the stridently expressed views of the Chairman of B.E.A.

Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that the British Aircraft Corporation is not coterminous with the British aircraft industry and that a private firm, Hawker Siddeley, has invested very large sums of its own money in the European project? Will he also say what is the difference between an all-British aircraft with an American engine and, as I understand it, a Yugoslav undercarriage and a Roumanian tailplane, and a European aircraft with British wings?

I assure my hon. Friend that all those matters have been, and are being, taken into consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before making any decision to go ahead with the airbus project, attention will be paid to the need for complete control over these multinational projects—the kind of control which has been lacking in the past but which is quite essential if a project is ever to be a success?

I very much appreciate those sentiments, but I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that while complete control is something at which successive Governments have been aiming, it is not all that easy to work out a system which is foolproof. Progress is, however, being made and I believe that the Panavia set-up for the M.R.C.A. is a considerable advance on previous organisations.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the whole cost of the BAC3-11 project so far has been borne by B.A.C. and that it has been, and still is, considerable? Will he remind the House how many jobs are in prospect it the BAC3-11 goes ahead?

I cannot give the exact number. There are a very large number of claims that very large numbers of jobs will eventuate from a go-ahead for the 3–11. We have, however, to bear in mind that Hawker Siddeley has financed its contribution from its resources.

Will the Minister accept that many right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, are anxious about this matter? Is he aware that both sides have been subjected to a tremendous amount of propaganda? To allow simple souls like myself to make an assessment, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake at least to try to produce a neutral report from which we can make an assessment?

That, of course, is my endeavour in producing a report to my colleagues, but I assure the hon. Member that as the Member for Filton, I, too, am well aware of the pressures.

In coming to a decision, will the Minister bear in mind that the return on investment, the aid that would be given to our balance of payments and the industrial return would be far greater from the British project than from the airbus?

All those factors are, of course, relevant.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this indecision is worrying and unsettling to the people who work in the industry? In my constituency in Derby, there are reports daily of wholesale redundancies at Rolls-Royce. When will the Government make up their mind on this important issue?

I fully appreciate those anxieties, but it is essential, in the interests of the country, that we look carefully at the proposals which have been made to us rather than make a precipitate decision.

What would be the effect on the balance of payments if the B.A.C. were to buy the General Electric CF6—50 instead of the Rolls-Royce engine?

It depends a good deal on the aeroplane into which one puts the engine. If it were to go into the BAC3-11, the effect on the balance of payments would be in no way unfavourable. If it were to be bought in the Lockheed 1011, again the effect would not be unfavourable, but it would not be as favourable. If it were to be used in the A300B, there would be some gain to our balance of payments, but this would be the third choice from that standpoint.

Will the Minister at least assure the House that he will present to us the figures on which he will base his decision, so that the House can decide whether that decision is the right one?

If I were to do that, I should be abrogating the function of government, which is to make these decisions. When the decision is made, however, I promise the House that I will be as informative as I possibly can within the overall necessity of considering the public interest.

In considering the pros and cons of this decision, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the immense value of the sub-contracted work that would flow to British industry from a decision in favour of the B.A.C.? Will he bear this particularly in mind, reflecting that at least two of these firms are in my constituency?

I will certainly bear that in mind, including the latter part of my hon. Friend's comment.

In view of the Minister's rather sharp remark about the views of Sir Anthony Milward, may we take it that B.E.A. will be free to choose the aircraft that it prefers if the 3–11 does not go ahead? Secondly, even if the Minister is not prepared, as I think he should be, to place the full facts before the House before making the decision, may we have a White Paper afterwards in which the matter is fully explained and all the details are given?

I certainly was not intending to be sharp to Sir Anthony Milward, for whom I have a great regard. He has, however, made his views abund- antly clear and one can hardly fail to be aware of them. As to the decision, the hon. Member will, I am sure, appreciate that it must be a Government decision. I undertake, as I have said, to be as informative as possible within the confines of what the national interest demands.

Among the welter of conflicting advice, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, historically, an aeroplane the performance of which is optimised to suit the B.E.A. requirement does not meet a world requirement of sufficient size to sell enough aircraft to break even? Historically, this is an accurate statement.

I accept that, but I do not think that it is strictly relevant to the project.

Will the Minister note that some of us who have had responsibility for civil aviation believe that there is a most powerful case for the 3–11 on both technical and commercial grounds which has been further strengthened by the export success of the BAC1-11 during the last three years?

I am well aware of both the opinions that the right hon. Gentleman expresses and the facts relating thereto.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the commercial success of either the 3–11 or the airbus depends in large degree upon the extent to which either aircraft can be sold to North American civil airlines? Would he not agree that B.A.C.'s sales record is outstanding in this direction, as it has sold more than seven times more aircraft in North America than any other European aircraft manufacturer since the war?

Yes. Again, that is a factor that will be considered.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the progress and future prospects of the Concorde airliner.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will give the current estimate of research and development costs of Concorde; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on Concorde.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde project.

The two Concorde prototypes have now completed 310 hours of flight testing and both have flown at Concorde's cruising speed of Mach 2. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating all concerned on reaching this important milestone in the programme. As regards development costs, I have nothing to add to my statement on 28th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 193–6.]

When will the Minister be in a position to make a statement on the prospects of commercial success of the Concorde? Will he give the House a firm assurance that if there are indications that the Concorde will be a commercial success, the project will not be cut in the search for economies?

In reply to the first part of his question, I can only refer the hon. Member to what I have already said, namely, that I expect that the greater part of the tests will be completed by the middle of next month. I shall then have talks with my French opposite number, but I do not expect that the evaluation of the tests can be completed to the extent that is necessary to expect firm orders to eventuate until about March.

Will the Minister confirm that all past estimates have been fantastically unreliable? Can he assure the House in any way that the present figures are not likely to reach, say, at least £1,000 million? If he cannot assure us of that, can he, in the circumstances, at least tell the House that it will not be a commercial proposition in any way? If so, why is he going ahead with the project.

I think the hon. Gentleman has put forward a number of hypotheses on which I would not be prepared to give even a hypothetical answer.

While dissociating myself entirely from the last question—that this aircraft is unlikely to be a commercial proposition in the future—may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would not give some satisfaction to the House, and a crumb of comfort to me in all the questions that I have asked him, as to the maximum financial commitment over and above the £800 million already committed by the taxpayers of this country to this aircraft?

The estimate I have already given is the best estimate that can at present be given as to the cost of completing this aircraft. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman opposite says that it is not a very good estimate, but about 40 per cent. of the increased cost is due to increases in the cost of the raw materials for which his right hon. Friends had more responsibility than anybody else. That is a fact. I should be delighted to give my hon. Friend crumbs of comfort, but I am sure that he will appreciate that it is quite impossible for me to put my hand on my heart and give a guarantee on anything.

Since there is no likelihood of this being a commercial success and it obviously is a commercial loss of a very high order indeed—[Interruption.]—that has been stated by the Minister himself—can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the £825 million is likely to be recouped, how much is likely to be lost, and when he will draw this billion pound folly to an end?

As I think my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said many months ago, it is quite clear that this stage would be the worst possible stage at which to think of cancelling this project. [An HON. MEMBER: "A referendum?"] I have no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had a referendum in his constituency the answer would be overwhelmingly in favour of the project.

Would my right hon. Friend say whether the estimates are based on the assumption of supersonic flights over land being banned and make an early statement on that aspect?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is, Yes; as to the second part, this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long the current arrangements with the French on forward expenditure last? That is to say, when is he expecting that, after evaluation of the tests and orders have come in, he will be in a position to decide whether a full production programme may go ahead and by what date?

I expect that it will be some time towards the end of March, but it may be necessary to take a limited decision in the middle of next month in regard to a certain amount of the early parts of the production programme which the right hon. Gentleman himself originally authorised.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what representations he has received from the Anti-Concorde Society about damage attributable to supersonic testing of aircraft; and what reply he has sent.

I have in my present capacity received no such representations, although, of course, I am very well aware of the views of those supporting the Anti-Concorde Project.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the very great damage to the morale of those, in his constituency, mine and others, who work in the aircraft industry and who are not helped at all by the frequent pronouncements of this politically motivated organisation? Is he aware that if a pro-Concorde society were formed it would have a very different and larger membership?

While I accept the latter part of my hon Friend's remarks, I am bound to say that when I read the voluminous reports from this society when I was in Opposition I came to the conclusion that these were people who were best at spoiling their own case.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if, in view of the further escalation of costs, he will now withdraw from the Concorde programme.

No, Sir.

While I appreciate that the Minister would want to get the best out of the trial flights, may I ask him whether he would assure the House that once he gets evaluation from the trial flights he will consider suspending the programme? Does he, with hand on heart, believe that the nation can afford the luxury of Concorde at the expense of welfare milk, school milk, and increased prescription charges for the registered disabled?

I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the crux is the commercial factor rather than only the technical, because all the signs are that the technical tests will be successful, and it is then that we shall be able to judge the number of orders and, therefore, the aircraft's commercial viability.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the commercial success of Concorde to a large degree depends on confidence in the project, and that questions such as that just asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) do nothing but harm at this stage?

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the commercial success will be measured in terms of planes sold, and can he, therefore, say what the anticipated price of Concorde will be and what proportion of that price will be attributable to development costs?

That is one of the factors which I am proposing to discuss next month with M. Mondon.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what are his plans for recouping the expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom in the Concorde project.

We aim to recover a part of the development costs through a levy on sales.

Is the Minister, then, conceding that it just is not possible ever to recoup the huge capital outlay by the taxpayers of this country on this wasteful project?

Yes, I think that that has been the bipartisan approach for many months.

Is that true if one takes the stretched Concorde into account and if sales of them go very well—if there is no American supersonic aircraft?

I think that this is moving into the realms of hypothesis on which it would not be wise to base a commercial or financial decision. On present expectations it is wise to recognise that we shall not recoup a large part of the development costs.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the future of the multi-rôle combat aircraft project.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence stated in reply to a Question on 28th October, the first major development phase is now proceeding on a tripartite basis.—[Vol. 805, c. 140–1.]

Is it not a fact that the range of the MRCA is considerably less than that of the TSR2, and, now that British forces are to remain east of Suez, that there is considerable anxiety whether this aircraft will have the range to be of effective use in oceanic areas of the world?

It is, of course, true that the range is less than that of TSR2, but it is designed for a different rôle, and I do not think it follows that, because there is to be a limited presence east of Suez, that makes this aircraft an undesirable one with which to proceed.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply how aircraft equipment will be selected for the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

Aircraft equipment for the MRCA will be selected by agreement between governmental representatives and the aircraft prime contractor, Panavia, after a process of competitive tendering has taken place.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the terms of the programme permit American equipment companies to bid into the programme on equal terms with British companies, whereas British companies have no such privilege in the United States? I hope that under this programme he will see his way to negotiating an offset agreement with the United States.

If a significant part of either the equipment or the avionics should go to a United States contractor, I will closely bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement about the proposed new strike-trainer aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

At my Department's request the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation have submitted proposals for meeting this requirement. Information is also being obtained on the Alpha Jet which is being developed jointly in France and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has no intention of seeing this country join the Europeans in the Alpha Jet project? It is about time that we had an aircraft which has British design leadership in it and, therefore, a British submission should be accepted.

I am very hopeful that one or other of the British aircraft companies' proposals—and both companies are putting them forward—will be in every respect acceptable, but it would be wrong not to look at any proposition in regard to the Alpha Jet at the same time.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is very clear evidence that the capacity of design and management of this project on the part of the Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, is already grossly overstretched?

I think there may be something in what my hon. Friend says, but one must bear in mind that this is relatively a simple aircraft.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on progress with the liquidation of the Beagle Aircraft Company.

The liquidation is progessing satisfactorily. A considerable part of the company's assets has been sold and a majority of creditor's claims have been settled. The Rearsby factory has been closed down and the Liquidator is currently negotiating the disposal of the remaining assets at Shoreham.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much public money has been lost, and can he specifically say what is to become of the Royal Swedish Airforce Bulldog order?

I am not in a position to answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question as yet, because this will depend on the price at which the remaining assets are sold. As to the Swedish order for Bulldogs and for product support of other Beagle aircraft, I am glad to say that it has been possible to dispose of these liabilities to Scottish Aviation, and I hope that this support ensures that we shall very much reduce possible claims for breach of contract which otherwise might have had to be levied against the company.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

On 20th October the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, and its outstations became part of the Ministry of Aviation Supply. My hon. Friend will be aware that the future of the whole range of responsibilities of my Ministry is at present under review. I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 27 of Cmnd. 4506 on the Reorganisation of Central Government.

I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend, and I hope that the current Royal Aircraft Establishment research programme will be scrutinised to see whether it contains any work which should be transferred to industry as the user.

This question and other questions are subject to review almost continuously, but I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have not had a great deal of time to go into that matter in detail.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, when the review of the work of his Department is completed, it is contemplated that Farnborough, which has a high proportion of civil work, might be transferred to the Ministry of Defence, which would be most undesirable?

This is one of the principal problems that will be the subject of review. It would be quite wrong of me to try to prejudge the result.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what Government funding has been provided for design studies into lifting bodies and re-usable space vehicles and shuttles in the past six years.

About £200,000.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the advanced project team of B.A.C. Warton patented its MUSTARD project as far back as 1964, and now that American Rockwell is entering into collaboration with B.A.C. on such projects, a valuable lead and the great potential for the 1980s and beyond could be lost?

I am not sure whether that has any direct connection with the Question asked by my hon. Friend. I am aware of the fact, and further contracts are being negotiated both with B.A.C. and Hawker-Siddeley in relation to the £200,000 we have contributed to the European space effort.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what advice his Department has given to Messrs. Rolls-Royce Limited in connection with its technical and financial management.

My Department has kept in continuous close touch with the company and has endorsed its proposals to strengthen its technical and financial management.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what time he first became aware of the form of the financial and technical difficulties from which Rolls-Royce was suffering? Were they all concerned with the development of the RB211, or were they also concerned with overloading the company with projects which it was incapable of supporting?

As far as I recollect, the first time I became aware of this was on 20th August, but the previous Administration had warning lights about a year ago, as a result of which the then Minister of Technology asked the I.R.C. to intervene. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are commissioning a firm of accountants to give accounting advice. The troubles are almost exclusively tied to the development of the RB211–22. That is all I can say at the moment, but I will keep the House informed.

Would it not be normal to ask accountants to investigate a company before money is invested in it rather than after, and what, precisely, will Cooper Bros. be doing?

As a counsel of perfection, I would entirely accept my hon. Friend's advice, but at this stage of the development of the engine the contractual situation is such that time did not allow for that exercise. The accountants are to give us a final—we hope—check on the figures, which have varied from time to time and have given us cause to believe that an outside check would be valuable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to give directions to local highway authorities concerning the repair and upkeep of pavements; and if he will exercise such powers.

No, Sir. Highway authorities already have a statutory duty to maintain pavements.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable number of accidents suffered by pedestrians, particularly by elderly people, which are caused by defective pavements? Will he take steps to encourage or enable local authorities to devote more resources to the repair of pavements?

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961, put the ordinary road user in a better position in relation to accidents on the pavements. We have recently received the Marshall Report on the maintenance of highways, and this contains valuable recommendations to highway authorities on the maintenance of footpaths and roads. We are studying the report to see how it can be implemented.

Has my hon. Friend noted a judgment which was given last week and which seemed to imply that it was satisfactory for pavements to be inspected once every three months? Will my hon. Friend say what is the position when it is reported to a local authority that a pavement is in a dangerous condition?

I think that my hon. Friend is simplifying the decision in that case, but I do not wish to act as a court of appeal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman for local government.

I am considering this, in consultation with the local authority associations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that he will pursue the policy, which was advocated in the last Government's White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation, of establishing a local government Ombudsman? There are many people in need of such a service. When can we expect a White Paper announcing the Government's intentions on the future of local government?

The latter half of the supplementary question is an entirely different question. This is a matter with which we are progressing as speedily as possible. I cannot give a definite date at the moment. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience as Minister, will agree that before coming to final conclusions on what should be done in this sphere, there should be proper consultation with local authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend say what representations he has received from the Parliamentary Commissioner on this point?

As far as I know, none, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman in his consultations with local authorities take into account that they have a lot to hide? Is he aware that more than two-thirds of my daily mail is taken up with complaints against the London Borough of Bexley, which I partially represent? He should not be misled by the local authorities.

I am certain that the previous Government in setting up a proper redress against grievances would consult the local authorities concerned, and I am doing that.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are perfectly capable of fighting their constituents' battles for them, whether or not with local authorities? Will he firmly resist any suggestion for setting up more bureaucracy to come between a Member and his constituents?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to extend the fair rent system.

As I announced on 3rd November, I propose that the fair rent principle should be extended to council dwellings and that controlled tenancies in the private sector should more rapidly be brought into the fair rent system. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Housing and Construction, will shortly embark on consultations with the local authority associations on the details of these broad proposals.

Has my right hon. Friend any intention of extending the fair rent principle to furnished dwellings? Will he particularly take into account the desirability of transferring the duties of furnished rent tribunals to the fair rent system?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Francis Committee is reporting on the problem of furnished dwellings, either at the end of the year or early in the coming year. I wish to review the position of furnished dwellings after I have seen that report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to extend the rent differential to all local authority houses irrespective of low income areas and everything else, in which case the administration may be very heavy? What about the liberty of local authorities to make their own decisions?

I believe that the position whereby local authorities have the liberty to keep on providing houses for those in need without many of the financial limitations that affect those local authorities at the moment will be a very important freedom.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the content of the Question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is directly in line with Labour Party policy? We hope that he will pursue it. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it strange that he should be moving before he has the report of the Francis Committee, and will he tell us the time scale involved?

The only announcement I have made so far is about unfurnished accommodation. I have made no announcement on furnished accommodation because we are awaiting the Francis Committee's report.

Is it not a fact that the Government will take all dwellings out of rent control, even houses without inside water, a bath and a lavatory? Is not it monstrous that hundreds of thousands of tenants in slums will be decontrolled in this way?

As a result of fixing a fair rent for properties without proper amenities and in bad condition, the rents could be lower than controlled rents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the general improvement areas declared by local authorities under the Housing Act, 1969 were originally intended for slum clearance and redevelopment.

Local authorities are not obliged to give this information but from the reports available I have no reason to think there are many such cases.

Will the Minister take it from me that during the visits I have made round the country I have seen many authorities with serious housing and slum problems who are doing precisely this? Will he be a little less complacent about it and stop local authorities from switching from slum clearance to improvements and abusing the Act?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are being complacent, why on earth, when he was in office, did he frame the present Act in this way?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to increase the building of houses to rent by local authorities in development areas.

The reform of housing finance which my right hon. Friend announced on 3rd November will mean that local authorities with serious housing problems in development areas as elsewhere, will be better placed to solve them.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that great doubt still exists, particularly in development areas, about this possibility? Is it his intention to increase the amount of local authority building for tenants, because a very large number of people cannot afford to buy houses?

What my right hon. Friend said in his statement was that local authorities with the worst housing problems would receive the most help.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when we shall have a statement filling out some of the details of the very vague statement made on 3rd November? Secondly, since there is grievous disquiet in the development areas about many aspects of government policy, when will his right hon. Friend, who has regional responsibilities, among others, make a statement on the Government's regional policy?

In regard to the second part of the question, I will ask my right hon. Friend to get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. As regards the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend is about to engage in negotiations with local authorities. When they are complete, further statements will be made.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of his decision to encourage the sale of existing houses in new towns, he will now take steps to ensure that in future more land in new towns will be allocated for private building of houses for sale than for corporation building of houses for rent.

The proportion of land to be used for these two purposes is bound to depend on complex local circumstances. I shall however be encouraging development corporations to make enough land available to allow private house building to take an increasing share.

Am I safe in assuming that my right hon. Friend is aware that if we are to reach the 50–50 ratio which is the absolute minimum acceptable to most of us on this side of the House, in new towns particularly, he will have to divert very large areas of land to have houses built on them directly for sale instead of going through the back door of renting them to tenants first and then selling them?

I think that the 50–50 ratio was agreed by both sides of the House. Certainly, I agree that much progress must be made to reach that figure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider new regulations for the stowage of heavy loads in lorries.

My right hon. Friend is very concerned about the safety of the loads on lorries and is considering what further guidance might be given on this subject.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but would he not agree that the present regulations are very imprecise, particularly in regard to open lorries, and that some loads are so stowed that they are a danger to the driver and to other road users?

My hon. Friend would know that Regulation 76 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations requires the packing, distribution and adjustment of load to be such that no danger is caused, and also requires that the load must be secured so that no danger is likely to be caused through its falling off. I recognise the need for further precision and my right hon. Friend is right now looking into this matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at present the Minister for Transport Industries is considering an increase in the permitted load on lorries? How does that square with what he just said?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that increase in load is one thing and increase in an unsafe load is another. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will in no sense consider increases in unsafe loads.