asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received about the proposed reorganisation of water supplies.

In the last year we have received about 4,000 letters, of which roughly one-third have been comments on consultation papers, and one third have been about canals.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread dismay in the Midlands about a water undertaking which will stretch from Bristol to Grimsby, and is this not centralisation finally gone mad? Will the Minister confirm rumours that the Secretary of State is not as committed to these huge units of administration as some of his predecessors on both sides of the House in the past?

My right hon. Friend, like his predecessor, is committed to sensible reorganisation in the interests of the nation as a whole. I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind when he speaks of an authority stretching from Bristol to Grimsby, but the House will have an opportunity to debate this at the appropriate time.

Will the Minister say which of the letters sent to my hon. Friend merely forwarded letters from the Inland Waterways Association?

I think that we had about 750 letters from Members of Par- liament, of which about 700 enclosed literature from the Inland Waterways Association.

This large number of letters shows a welcome interest in the subject of water reorganisation, although many of them were from bodies which are perturbed about it. Will the Minister undertake to issue a White Paper setting out the Government's conclusions about these representations as well as the nature of the representations, and enable the House to debate the matter before the Bill is introduced either here or in the House of Lords?

We are at the moment preparing a document which will provide hon. Members with the fullest information about the consultations that have taken place and the representations that have been received. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend the Local Government Act to make provision for allotments.

No, Sir. As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) on 15th November, the Government intend to introduce in due course a separate measure to bring the law on allotments up to date.—[Vol. 846, c. 115.]

In my constituency there are hundreds of people who derive a great deal of pleasure from their allotments and they keep fit and active while tending them. Under the local government reorganisation there is no provision for the administration or upkeep of allotments. Does this activity not strongly merit encouragement, and will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?

There is provision, because where a district has a rural parish the allotments will remain under the control of the parish. Elsewhere they will come under the control of the district. The law will remain as it is until we bring forward the reform, the purpose of which is to relieve local authorities of control from Whitehall in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now give the number of council houses started in the United Kingdom in the first three quarters of 1972, 1971, 1970 and 1969, respectively.

During the first nine months of this year, 81,000 dwellings were started for local authorities. The corresponding figures for 1971, 1970 and 1969 were 93,000, 105,000 and 123,000 respectively.

What is the Minister doing, therefore, to reverse this disastrous fall to the lowest level in 11 years? Does he accept that we need more council houses and not fewer, because most working class families are dependent upon them, since they cannot afford to buy at present prices?

As I told the House the last time this subject was debated, no restrictions are placed on local authorities who wished to build council houses. The basic point was dealt with by my right hon. Friend in the debate on housing. There are no restrictions, and I hope that those who need council houses in their areas will put forward proposals.

Is not the important point the total number of houses built, and has the Minister seen the call for an increase in the supply of building land so that the house-building industry can build 10 per cent, more houses next year than they have done this year?

I entirely agree. It is essential to have an adequate supply of building land. It is extremely important that we should be able to get as many private sector houses started as possible, as there is such an enormous demand.

The House will have some sympathy with the Minister and with the Secretary of State, because their two predecessors got out just in time and left them very badly in the lurch. I wish to put two questions, in view of all the optimistic statements made from the Dispatch Box in the last two years. Is it not a unique achievement to preside at the same time over the biggest inflation of house prices ever known and the lowest rate of completions for 10 years? Will the Minister accept that we have reached the point at which the Government must announce what their housing policy is? It is not enough to have the totally discredited Housing Finance Act. We want to know their policy for increasing the supply of houses.

The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with what he has said. The Housing Finance Act is widely recognised by people both inside and outside the House as being one of the major reforms of housing that has taken place this century. The House must recognise that in the first ten months of this year public and private sector starts together are up 8 per cent. on the same period in 1971.

Do the figures include Northern Ireland? If not, will my hon. Friend tell us about the rate of building in Northern Ireland?

I rather hoped that I had left Northern Ireland behind me for the moment.

Do not the figures that the Minister has just given make a sick joke of the boasts of Ministers that the slums will speedily be cleared—a sick joke at the expense of those who are in need of new homes?

No. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. The great improvement shown by the National House Conditions Survey shows that that is by no means the situation. The progress that is being made with the improvement of our older houses and slum clearance is extremely encouraging.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities about the need to build houses to rent to applicants on their waiting list.

No, Sir; local authorities are well aware of the duty which Parliament has laid on them to consider local housing conditions and the need to provide housing accommodation to meet local needs.

When will the Front Bench accept responsibility for the shocking state we have arrived at with housing? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the first 10 months of this year only 107,000 houses were built by local authorities? When his hon. Friend says that in the first 10 months of this year there have been more starts, he is wrong, because the number is 105,000, which is fewer. What will happen next year? Is the Minister further aware that of all the large building firms engaged in system building for local authorities—building houses and flats by large panel methods —only one is still engaged on housing? What does he intend to do about this?

I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands the situation. It is for the local authority, assessing its needs, to develop the housing policy necessary for its own locality. No constraints or restraints are imposed by this Government, unlike the previous Government, on local authority building.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the need to issue a circular asking housing departments thoroughly to investigate their housing lists with a view to six-monthly updating, as many waiting lists are not factual and do not reflect actual housing needs.

Waiting lists can help local authorities in assessing needs, but they are of qualified value, because some local authorities impose residential qualifications and others do not, some people find accommodation or move away without taking their names off the waiting list, and sometimes people are registered on more than one list.

But if the hon. Gentleman believes that there are no constraints on local authorities' action in providing fresh housing, why did the Department in one of its recent circulars ask local authorities to inform the Minister of any such constraints that might exist?

Because we seek to be as helpful as possible to local authorities, though like the hon. Lady, we sometimes find it difficult to understand why they do not get on with housing programmes. The finance and all that is necessary is available to local authorities in areas of need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of housing in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region is sub-standard; and how this compares with the national average for the other regions.

Separate figures for the Yorkshire and Humberside Region are not available.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the picture that he projects to the House for the north of England will undoubtedly sadly be reflected in the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Can he any longer depend for relief of the situation on local authority building programmes, no matter how well intentioned? Will he look again at the improvement grant scheme? How far does the hon. Gentleman think its provisions are being devalued by the soaring costs of the last two years? How far is uptake restricted by the capacity of the building industry?

Increased costs have not caused any falling away in effective grant. The average figures show that great progress is being made in this respect. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the problems in this area, but the recently increased grant of 75 per cent. in development and intermediate areas has stepped up the rate at which the arrears in those areas are being made up.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Times Supplement article yesterday on Bradford, by Denys Thornton, in which he said that improvement schemes had solved the housing problem for the city, which is typical of the West Riding of Yorkshire? The City of Bradford has the best record for general improvement areas of any in the country.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this article, which was very encouraging and showed that Bradford, by local vigour, had taken advantage of the system of Government grants and was moving rapidly towards solving its housing problem.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Government have repeatedly pledged that all slums would be cleared by 1980? Is it not clear from the information already known generally, and from that supplied this afternoon about the North of England, that at the present rate of progress slum clearance will be achieved not by 1980 but by 1990?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is unduly pessimistic, because considerable progress is being made in slum clearance throughout the north and other parts of England, and this will be stimulated by the extra subsidy available under the Housing Finance Act 1972.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will send a circular to local authorities designed to increase accommodation provided for single persons.

It is for each local authority to decide what the particular housing needs of its area are and to consider what provision should be made to meet those needs.

That is a very disappointing reply. Is the Minister aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult for single persons to obtain suitable accommodation? I know that this type of accommodation entails increased costs, but does not the Minister agree that that is a totally inadequate reason for not providing sufficient accommodation of that kind? Will he bring more pressure to bear upon local authorities to increase the number of units of such accommodation?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the cost of providing self-contained single-person dwellings to Parker Morris standards will be taken into account in assessing the entitlement of local authorities, and housing associations—which can play an important part in this matter—to the new subsidies introduced by the Housing Finance Act 1972. The matter rests with local authorities to provide the initiative to cater for this need.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter? Will he take into account the fact that among the group of single people there are somewhat inadequate people, very often middle-aged single women, who find it very hard to keep their heads above water? Will he liaise with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, as I believe there is a serious need here which is not at present being met?

Yes. My hon. Friend would not expect me to recant one word of what I said earlier about the Housing Finance Act 1972, but I certainly take her point with regard to categories of single people. When the element of care is present the prime responsibility rests with the Department of Health and Social Security, but we are already in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and we intend to pursue this matter.

I do not wish in any way to reduce the responsibilities of the local authorities in this matter, but will the Minister, perhaps in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, at least undertake some kind of survey to ascertain what kind of provision is made? To say the least, it is probable that there are great variations in provisions by local authorities.

With regard to local needs it must be for the local authority to make this study. But in October last my Department published a design bulletin entitled "Housing for Single People", for general information. That bulletin was the first of a series of three, which will deal with a housing project for single working people under retirement age which was designed by a department of the Leicester City Council. It is believed that this publication and the two that will follow will be very helpful to local authorities in terms of design.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of council house tenants are paying more rent as a result of the introduction of the Housing Finance Act.

This information is not available, since rents payable depend on the rebates granted to tenants.

Why is the information not available? Is the Minister aware that in Southampton 70 per cent. of the tenants are paying more? Does he expect that figure to be above or below the national average?

I cannot say more than I said in my original reply. As the rents payable depend upon the rebates granted, it is not possible for me to give a meaningful national answer to that question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants in England and Wales are currently on rent strike following the implementation of rent increases under the Housing Finance Act.

This information is not available.

Is not that in itself a disgrace? I can certainly tell the Minister that at least 5,000 tenants in my own constituency alone are on strike—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not tell the Minister things at Question Time.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the simple basic facts which are directly relevant to his own responsibilities? Is not he ashamed that by forcing up the rents of 5 million council tenants during a so-called prices and wages freeze he has produced a national rent strike? What else does he expect when he is pushing up rent by 7 per cent. a year, as he himself admits, while owner-occupiers are getting untaxed capital gains of 35 per cent.? Is not that the epitome of the unfair society? When will he reverse the policy or resign?

I have been in my present office for only three weeks, and I had not planned to resign yet. We have already debated all the debating points many times in the House. As regards the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, what information I have from some of the authorities is that the number of tenants on rent strike is small, and reducing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) came to my constituency to address a widely-publicised meeting to stir up feeling about the Housing Finance Act, and that out of 7,500 council tenants 31 people turned up, 12 of whom were members of the local Labour Party and five of whom were Conservative observers?

I am sure that by the end of the meeting they were all Conservative observers.

Is the Minister aware that an 86-year-old war-disabled widower in my constituency has just had his rent rebate reduced from £1·5 to 69p, thus imposing on him a rent increase, because the disregards in the Government's national rent rebate scheme are less generous than those of a progressive local authority like my own? Will he give the local authorities full freedom of action to be generous to those people who are being hard hit by the Government's policy?

Local authorities have a tolerance in these matters—[Interruption]—I believe that that tolerance was designed specifically to meet the sort of case that the right hon. Lady has in mind. I very much hope she will take the matter up with her local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to make a statement on the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden.)— [Vol. 847, c. 380.]

Which of the Ashby recommendations are the Government not accepting, and why?

If the hon. Gentleman will read the four columns of HANSARD which contain the detailed reply which I gave yesterday, he will know the answer to his question. The short position is that my right hon. Friend has been able to accept almost all the Royal Commission's recommendations in full. There are a few on which we have made marginal comments—

These are the few I asked about.

One or two. The hon. Gentleman needs to look up what I said yesterday before he asks ignorant questions.

Does not the Minister agree that the Government should give time for a debate on environmental pollution as soon as possible?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been three Adjournment debates on different aspects of environmental pollution, including one on the last Consolidated Fund Bill.

On a point of order. In view of the practice of giving written replies to parliamentary Questions—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's remark does not seem to accord with the convention. "Unsatisfactory" is the only epithet which can be applied.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce a decision on the A66 West Cumberiand-Penrith trunk road proposals.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29th November in answer to a similar Question.—[Vol. 847, c. 140.]

Does not the Minister agree that the improvement of the A66 trunk road from the M6 to West Cumberland is crucial to any attempt by the Government to encourage industrial development in that area? Does not he also agree that the inordinate delay since the closure of the public inquiry is inexcusable, and will he now get off his backside and announce his decision?

I agree with the first part of the question but reject utterly the second part. The public inquiry took 32 days and involved many environmental issues. There were thousands of objectors and objections to be considered. The result will be known in the very near future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has now received from British Rail about the future size of the railway network; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to my reply given to the hon. Member on 8th November.—[Vol. 845, c. 999.]

Does not the Minister realise that the House is waiting with bated breath for the next exciting episode on who pinched the report from the Department and give it to the Sunday Times? Will the Minister give an undertaking that any British Rail report that includes an increase in the size of the railway network will be fully considered by him without bias in any shape or form?

Yes, of course; I gladly give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Gentleman. Any report for which I have asked from British Rail will certainly be considered without bias. If I may say so, I enjoy the spectacle of the hon. Gentleman's waiting for anything with bated breath.

When my right hon. Friend considers the possibility of having to reduce railway traffic if it becomes necessary, will he please bear in mind the growing perils to those who have to use main roads like the M1 and M6—

And Whitehall!

—and that these perils are likely to increase if the railway service is diminished without the most careful thought?

I have no desire to reduce the volume of rail traffic.

Does the Minister realise that the leakage of the terms of the report has led to widespread concern about the future of many railway services and about the manner in which the leak is being investigated? Will he make a positive statement to allay the widespread concern and to indicate that Government thinking is that the vialibilty of the railways should be sustained by further Government support rather than by a reduction of services, which is a suggestion that is being canvassed?

As the right hon. Gentleman realises, the Government have given considerable and generous support to the railways. We have at some length gone into the matter of the document which got out. I can only repeat that in a comprehensive examination of the railway system it is not unwise for all kinds of alternatives to be thoroughly examined. The fact that one got out does not in any way justify some of the conclusions that were drawn from it by many people who, I suspect, wish to stir up anxieties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many railway lines there are in Wales that are grant-aided under the Transport Act where the grant terminates on 31st December, 1972.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1st December—[Vol. 847. c. 261–2.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there is a great deal of concern in Wales for the future of these 16 railway lines? Would he not further agree that there is need for an early and clear statement that these lines will be retained, particularly since, when his party was last in Government, it closed 800 miles of railway line in the Principality.

Repeated statements that lines will be kept open would probably not be necessary except, perhaps, for the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman persists in asking. Since he challenges me on the question of closures, I must remind him that whereas, rightly or wrongly, the Administration that he supported closed 2,300 miles of railway lines in six years, since this Government have been in office 200 mile have been closed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will widen the scope of the Land Use Transportation Study being undertaken by his Department jointly with the Bristol City Coun- cil to include the whole of the new Avon county area.

The study will concentrate initially on Bristol and its neighbourhood but later work will cover the whole of the new Avon County.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are people in Bristol who feel that the transportation study is perhaps being produced by the Department more as a sop to people like me who ask awkward questions than as a genuine attempt, as the Tyne-Wear and Merseyside studies were, to arrive at a long-term answer to the many problems, which do not only involve Bristol? Does he agree that it does not make sense to restrict the area of the study to a tight little circle around the city?

It is not the intention that the study should be so restricted. The representation is more or less designed to ensure that it will not be. I assure my hon. Friend that I have far more desire to learn from him than to present him with sops.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his best offices to make sure that the study is produced as quickly as possible, because, whether it is widened or not, it is essential that it be produced quickly, as the growing uncertainty and unease throughout Bristol will continue until the problem is sorted out properly.

I appreciate the extent of feeling in the area and the complexity of the problem. I shall do my best to see that the study is completed as soon as possible, but I want it to be comprehensive.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the arguments about the county of Avon it was consistently stated by his Department that Bristol was a centre for a larger area to include the county? It therefore seems strange that a transportation study can be made exclusively for the city of Bristol. Will it include the future of Lulsgate airport?

My hon. Friend will perhaps do me the favour of reading my reply. I have no intention that the study should be confined to the city of Bristol. I have said that it will certainly cover the whole of the new county of Avon, and will if necessary go wider than that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many lorries examined by his inspectors during the last 12 months were found to be overweight; and what this was as a percentage of all lorries examined.

The figure was 3,662, representing 2 per cent. of all checked, in 12 months to the end of September.

Will the Minister make it clear to the House and the country that each one of those vehicles is unsafe and a potential killer, and will he do something about trying to increase his inspection?

Yes, Sir. I have done something to increase the inspection and to improve enforcement. I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says. Overloading is a menace.

Has the Minister ever tried weighing an articulated lorry, axle by axle, on a public weighbridge which is more suited to a wheelbarrow? Does not he agree that one of the main answers to the problem is more, bigger and better public weighbridges?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is, "Yes, Sir". The answer to the first part of his question is, "No, Sir; I have not tried".

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in implementing the recommendations of the departmental working party on the parking of lorries.

Nineteen sites have been identified for acquisition and development.

When will we actually see some of these lorry parks built and operating?

It takes a little time; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be patient.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please try to help me by dealing with the lorries that are parked on the pavement outside the front doors of my constituents so that they cannot get in their street doors, and so that ambulances and fire appliances cannot get to and from fires and accidents? The police will not do something, nor will his Department, yet if I were to blow my top, something might be done. The Prime Minister does not have these lorries parked in Downing Street.

The prospect of the hon. Member's blowing his top is truly terrifying. Hungry though I am for opportunities to please the hon. Member I have to tell him, with great disappointment, that the last Government passed the responsibility for traffic management in Greater London to the Greater London Council—so the power to please the hon. Gentleman is temporarily taken from me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been undertaken regarding port facilities for tankers of one million tons deadweight.

The National Ports Council said in its annual report for 1969 that facilities could be provided without unreasonable expense if the need arose.

If ships are to be developed to that size, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why we should spend millions of pounds of public money developing port facilities at Maplin and an adjacent airport, including expenditure by the country of millions of pounds on dredging, when we have facilities in Scotland that do not need dredging to cater for that type of vessel?

I am very conscious of the potential in Scotland, to which the hon. Gentleman has properly drawn attention, but I do not think that that should necessarily prejudice or render unnecessary the development of Maplin.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great environmental dangers of allowing super-tankers through the Channel to discharge at Maplin? Will he use to the full the deep-water facilities existing on the west coast of the British Isles?

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that I certainly wish to see the deep-water facilities on the west coast used to the full. The first part of his question is really one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now consider raising the 70 miles per hour speed limit on three-lane motorways.

No, Sir.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of bunching at 70 mph on the motorways, the safety record in those countries with no speed limit, the effect on the motor industry of this restrictive limit, and the fact that the law is increasingly ignored by people in public life, including some of his ministerial colleagues?

I have considered all the factors to which the hon. Gentleman so graciously referred, and I have been unable to find any grounds for changing my mind.

Does not the Minister agree that the figures supplied to him by his officers in the Department show that the density of traffic on some of the motorways is now so great that many people are driven to question whether 70 mph is a safe limit? Instead of his being persuaded to raise the limit, there is a strong case for lowering it, in the extremely dangerous conditions now existing on our motorways, particularly in the North of England, where I happen to live.

I hope that it is not due to the hon. Gentleman's influence. What he says is true. There are occasions and places on the motorways where the traffic is far too dense for 70 mph to be safe. That is, of course, the maximum speed, and not the speed at which people are obliged to travel.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now carried out an investigation into the allocation of discretionary improvement grants to Government Ministers.

I have no evidence of any departure from the appropriate procedures by any Government Ministers.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Tory Party Chairman and Secretary of State for Defence received a £7,200 discretionary improvement grant from Chelsea and Kensington Council on properties that were bought for £90,000 which the noble Lord subsequently converted to six properties with the help of this grant and sold for £270,000? Will the Minister accept that the name of the game is not "improvement", as his predecessor used to say, but "double your money"?

I saw certain Press reports, and I saw the statement that was issued by solicitors for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence making it clear that he had no personal financial interest whatsoever in this matter, and I have no reason to suppose that the appropriate procedures were not followed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made with his investigations into the abuses of house improvement grants.

My survey of the social implications of house improvement in Inner London is making good progress.

Does it include an investigation into the activity of two senior Ministers—the Secretary of State for Defence, and the former Minister for Housing and Construction in his activities in Southwark? The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly recollected, in answer to Question No. 15, the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence's solicitor, which alleged that the trustees were acting on behalf of the Secretary of State's family without his knowledge—although the profits obtaining from the transaction in Ovington Square were more than £100,000. If the Minister expects the House and the country to believe his right hon. Friend's assertion that he knew nothing about it he had better think again. The letters that I have received show that the public is only too well aware of the racket that is now going on between Ministers and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department.

He should resign.

I believe my right hon. Friend, and I believe that other people will believe him. If the hon. Member does not believe him, he must make allegations elsewhere—perhaps outside the House. I have no evidence at all that other than the appropriate procedures have been used in all these cases.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider making stronger representations to local authorities urging them to be a little more liberal with their descretionary improvement grants, so that areas which they are at present declaring redevelopment areas and which contain many sound houses could be declared improvement areas and many excellent houses retained for the future?

These, of course, are very much matters for the discretion of the local authorities.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the use of these improvement grants, certainly in many Inner London boroughs, has resulted in deterioration and loss of rented accommodation, particularly in the family sector? Does he not accept that abuses and harassment take place, in many cases long before the actual grant application is made? Will he not do as his hon. Friend says but instead ask local authorities to be a little more discreet in their application of these grants? Will he try to do something to stop harassment, for instance, by reviewing the existing laws relating to it, so that cases can be brought against landlords and speculators who indulge in this kind of action?

There should certainly not be harassment and, as I said in answer to Questions on 15th November, tenants' rights are not affected in any way. Indeed, we want to take the maximum action possible to ensure that tenants know their rights. It is sad that more private rented accommodation at fair rents is not available to people, but the party opposite has done as much harm as anyone in preventing its being made available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to make the designation order under Section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, the application for which he has received from the Manchester City Council.

I cannot yet add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 21st November in answer to a similar Question.— [Vol. 846, c. 365.]

What possible justification is there for a delay of 14 months in making this designation order? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ratepayers of Manchester have spent £31,500 on providing a caravan site under the 1968 Act, yet my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) are still plagued with problems arising from the indiscriminate parking of caravans in close proximity to their homes?

Manchester Corporation has fulfilled its statutory duty, but it is necessary to consider this over a wider area. The city has to provide only 15 sites. Counties have to provide for all gipsies resorting to their area, and it is important to ensure that when one squeezes the balloon in one place it does not burst in another.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the urgency of the situation arises from the Blackwin Street area in my constituency where, over a period of months, the inhabitants have been terrorised, their houses robbed of lead, and they have had to put up with intolerably insanitary conditions on the slum clearance site adjacent? They cannot go on putting up with these conditions which are caused not by gipsies but by tinkers? The designating order must be granted with urgency.

This must be considered over a wider area. We must see that the city is not decanting these people into the area of its neighbours.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the noble Lord Lord Sandford promised early consideration after the debate on 14th November, and that in the meantime people living in my constituency are suffering a great deal from the fact that they are in proposed clearance areas and are also suffering threats, abuse and damage from these itinerants? Will he do something urgently about it?

Consultations are going on. I realise that there is a balance to be struck, but the solution is for all authorities to carry out their statutory duty and make the provision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to Newport.

I have at present no plans to do so but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State hopes shortly to visit the ports of South Wales.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that I wrote to the Minister for Transport Industries five weeks ago about the serious situation developing among the ports of the Severn Estuary? Does he further appreciate that it was that Minister who made the decision to authorise the Port of Bristol expansion that is causing all these difficulties? Will he still further appreciate that his promises of no poaching of trade have been valueless? Will he therefore come to Newport and other South Wales ports to explain the situation?

I have read the report of the Adjournment debate which took place on 28th November. It showed that Labour and Conservative Members from the Bristol Channel area had comments to make on the hon. Gentleman's observations. I have been able to see how successful the ports in South Wales—including Newport and Port Talbot—are in dealing with the competition which they have inevitably to face. It is much more encouraging than the hon. Gentleman would lead the House and the country to believe.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will strengthen the safety measures for sub-aqua divers.

I have no evidence to suggest that the safety guidance issued by the British Sub-Aqua Club to its members is inadequate.

Bearing in mind that this is a rapidly growing sport, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient decompression chambers available to meet the need?

I agree that not only on the sporting side but also because of oil exploration in the North Sea, many more people are going in for diving, and also that the larger cylinders tempt them to stay deeper for longer. There is a need for more decompression chambers. The Royal Navy provides a 24-hour cover, with helicopters, as needed, to take people to decompression.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current average time between the lodging of an appeal against a planning decision, the hearing of that appeal and a decision by him; and how these times compare with two years ago.

The current average time between the lodging of a planning appeal and the decision is 51 weeks where I decide the appeals and 36 weeks where the appeal is decided by an inspector— about 31 weeks of which represents the time awaiting the local inquiry. Comparable figures two years ago, when the volume of appeals was about 40 per cent, less than now, were 43 weeks, 29 weeks and 24 weeks respectively.

I recognise that the number of planning applications going to local planning authorities has sharply increased in the last year to almost 500,000, and that more than four-fifths are permitted, but would my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless agree that those figures cause great concern? Would not he further agree that in the minds of the public the administration for dealing with appeals will never be considered satisfactory until the average time between the lodging of an appeal and the decision of the Minister is reduced to the statutory period that a local planning authority has to deal with any application, namely, two months?

Those figures give me no cause for satisfaction. I think it was recognised many months ago—and my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry took action—that we needed more inspectors. They are now coming forward. One always has to bear in mind that in making planning appeals people put in a lot of time and effort in putting forward their proposals. They have to be considered very carefully. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point.

Why does it take the Secretary of State 15 weeks longer to decide an appeal than his inspectors?

Many of the appeals which are decided by me are the more complicated ones. Inevitably, therefore, the process of considering them is longer. I hope that more appeals will in future go straight to inspectors. That should follow from the new regulations which have just been laid before the House. The figure is now 60 per cent., and I hope that it will be about 75 per cent. or 80 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements exist for co-operation between his Department and the Scottish Office in matters concerning the environment.

There are many different arrangements for inter-departmental cooperation. My Department and that of my right hon. Friend use them as appropriate.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that there is a great need for a very clear statement about the coordination between his Department and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, since in Scotland there is great concern about the pollution of the environment, for example by North Sea oil? Can he give a clear statement on the administrative functions of both Departments, so that we can know where we are in this question of the preservation of the environment?

The consultation goes on at every level from Cabinet Committees down to ordinary inter-departmental consultations. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scots do not change just because they get into Government. It would give him the greatest possible satisfaction if he knew of the number of occasions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or one of his colleagues says, "I think that the committee should know about the position in Scotland."

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision will be included for eyesight testing in his proposal to issue driving licences for life.

I do not propose any changes.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study the letter that he has had from the British School of Motoring about the 1,452 people whose eyesight they tested during the Motor Show recently? Does he realise that, of those tested, 44 per cent. had some kind of defect, 19 per cent. were a definite potential hazard on the road, 20 had vision only in one eye and ten could not even see a number plate at ten yards? Is he honestly proposing to give these people driving licences for life?

Perhaps I should point out first that it is an offence to drive on the roads with defective eyesight. Secondly, this matter has been looked at frequently and, as far as I know, no one has yet felt justified in imposing on the motorist a rather tiresome need to go through tests which would, in their result, be unrewarding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he will apply when considering applications to exploit mineral deposits in national parks.

My right hon. and learned Friend considers each case on its own merits, but a very strong case indeed is needed to justify new mineral workings in national parks.

Does my right hon. Friend pay attention to the criteria laid down by the Minister for Town and Country Planning in 1949 in respect of this matter, which said that exploitation must be absolutely necessary in the public interest, and that it must also be clear that no alternative source of supply is available?

Having regard to the fact that some 16 of every 100 acres of land in England is either a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty, it is not surprising that many important minerals are under national parks. It is manifestly right to require strong justification for those workings, but it is also right that each case should be tested on its merits.

What co-ordinating machinery has the Minister established between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the implications of the Industry Act 1972, which would allow a 40 per cent. grant to be given for mining operations in many of our national parks?

That is another question, which the hon. Gentleman may table.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people feel that no minerals, apart from coal, should be mined here if they can be obtained anywhere else in the world?

That may be, but we have recently been able to have an environmental success in dealing with the extraction, for example, of china clay on Lee Moor, where the company has undertaken to make environmental improvements and to do landscaping, which will greatly benefit the whole district.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in considering applications for office development permits for speculative developments in central London.

Applications for speculative office developments in central London are generally acceptable if they provide for the replacement of obsolescent premises by new buildings offering roughly the same amount of accommodation; otherwise speculative develop- ments are allowed only if substantial public advantages can be identified.

In the light of that reply, will the Minister say how he can publicly justify the approval of a permit for a £20 million speculative development in Shoe Lane, just off Fleet Street, for Capital and County Properties, for no particular tenant? I think that the Minister knows the chairman of the company well enough. Is not this just another rather scandalous example of pandering to profiteers?

If the hon. Gentleman has a specfic case in mind, perhaps he will table a Question upon it.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the time has come to switch the emphasis of development in central London away from office building and towards the provision of more residential property? Now that my hon. Friend has resumed his interest in housing affairs, I hope that we shall see a decisive change in that direction.

I certainly note my hon. Friends views, which he has expressed to me very forcibly on many occasions.

The Opposition will want to pursue the question of speculative office development permits at greater length on another occasion. However, may I put this question in a wider context? Is it not the case that the report of the Layfield Inquiry on the Greater London Development Plan is required to say something about office strategy in central London? Can the Minister say whether that report has been received? Above all, can he assure the House that, contrary to recent Press reports, when he has the report he will publish it for public discussion before the Government come to a conclusion on it?

As the right hon. Gentleman will have seen, there is a specific Question on that matter later on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the London boroughs Action Group on London Housing is now visiting; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what London boroughs have been visited by the London Housing Action Group since 15th November 1972; and whether he is now in a position to say when it will report.

In addition to the authorities listed in my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) on 15th November, the action group has now visited Havering. But it is still too early to say when the action group will be reporting its discussions.— [Vol. 846, c. 117.]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he fully aware of the appalling housing problems that inner London boroughs are facing and of the complete lack of willingness on the part of certain outer boroughs to help in any way? Although the outer boroughs have housing land available for housing development, they are selling it off to private developers. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the report is presented, the action group's terms are sufficiently wide for recommendations to be made which would call for the Government to take action against such authorities?

The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the action group will report in detail in due course after its series of visits has been completed, but the action group includes highly experienced and respected councillors and aldermen, from both major parties, and they are having discussions with all the London boroughs to secure maximum cooperation on agreed measures to help to deal with London problems.

As the action group has visited the borough of Havering, can the Minister assure the House that he will give the fullest backing to the intention of Havering to provide housing for rent in the Emerson Park area, which intention is being strongly resisted by members of the Conservative Party in the borough?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is the total picture of London that must concern me, and is my responsibility. I am not prepared to discuss individual boroughs or individual circumstances in detail.

This action group, which was set up with a great fanfare of trumpets by the Department one-and-a-half to two years ago, has reported once already. The Minister says that it is circulating and discussing things with the boroughs. Will he tell the House where one additional acre of land has been produced in the outer London area as a result of its activities? If not, when may we expect to see such land made available for municipal housing to help inner London?

I hope that Opposition Members will not damage the very good prospect that arises from the good work which is being done by the action group. The land availability survey showed that large quantities of extra land have been found in London and, therefore, produced help in dealing with the serious London problems. There are a number of ways in which co-operation and help can be given, and examples of that help are coming forward as a result of the visits.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to oblige garage owners to display prominently on their forecourts leaflets and/or notices supplied by his Department, announcing and explaining new laws and regulations pertaining to the motorist as they become applicable.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that new driving regulations are not widely enough publicised, with the result that they are often contravened by motorists before they even know of their existence? The one place to which all motorists have to go is their garage. Would that not be the most effective place to publicise new regulations?

I entirely accept the validity of my hon. Friend's general point. I will certainly look at means of making the information more readily available to the public. But the idea that motorists are likely to be lured from their cars to read pamphlets published by my Department and exhibited on garage forecourts is a little far fetched.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the content of the pamphlets published by his Department? When, for instance, will there be a new Highway Code? When will he re-edit the Driver's Manual? Is there yet any comprehensive summary of the regulations which a driver has to comply with?

That admirable classic work, the Driver's Manual, was republished only this week or last week.

I thank my right hon. Friend for letting me know.

I hope that my hon. Friend will lose no opportunity of studying it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that garage owners are taking no notice of anything his Ministry says on any subject whatever? Will he try to get these garage owners to behave properly, and not to indulge in the peculiar rackets that they are engaged in?

When the hon. Gentleman makes that sort of observation I suspect that it springs from his own unhappy experience that no one has been taking enough notice of what he says.