asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had, and with which organisations, on the Strategic Plan for the North West.

I invited all local authorities in the North West Region, the regional economic planning council and a large number of other organisations to let my Department have written observations on the strategic plan. These are now being considered. The invitation included an offer of discussion with my officers, and three local authorities affected by the plan and two other organisations have availed themselves of the opportunity. With permission, I will circulate the names in the Official Report.

Will my hon. Friend accept that no meaningful discussions have taken place with any of the important authorities about the Strategic Plan for the North West? More important, will he ask the Secretary of State to ensure that at the very least the House debates the many serious problems facing the North West Region before assemblies are established for Scotland and Wales?

On the first part of the supplementary question, I can assure my hon. Friend that every opportunity has been given to the authorities to submit their written representations. I cannot give him a categorical assurance, but I would not expect an early announcement on devolution in England. In the mean- time my right hon. Friend the Lord President has already said that he will see what he can do about a debate on the strategic plan. That is a matter for him.

Will the Minister accept congratulations from the Opposition side of the House to those who were concerned in preparing the plan—the team, the councillors and the organisations? They have given us a valuable document for discussion. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to report to the House in some form the comments he receives from organisations so that we may have a reasonable basis for debating the plan in the House?

I endorse everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about those who have produced the plan. I will see what can be done to meet his suggestion, because we want the fullest possible discussion before my right hon. Friend announces his decision in the summer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the plan contains many interesting and sound proposals, its title is misleading in that the observations in the report are concentrated on a very narrow band of Lancashire and it does not apply to the North West generally?

I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about some aspects of the strategic plan. I hope that he and his authorities have submitted their observations, which will be considered.

There is considerable concern in the area of the Central Lancashire New Town and in North-East and North Lancashire about the proposed axis of development between Manchester and Merseyside. Will this be looked at carefully before any final decisions are made?

Yes. The plan submitted to us is a basis of discussion at the present time and all representations from the whole of the North West will certainly be considered by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take with regard to the London Rail Study—the Barran Report—and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach conclusions concerning the London Rail Study.

Much of the report is given over to establishing a sound basis for future decisions rather than to recommending particular courses of action. All the specific recommendations are in the first instance for consideration by the Greater London Council and the two rail operators. We are willing to consider any firm proposals they may put to us in the light of the report.

Does not the Minister agree that one of the most urgent problems facing London is a decision about Dockland development, an ingredient of which must be the building of the River Line? Since the decision should be taken soon, ought it not to be done while the team which is constructing the Fleet Line is still intact so that it could then, having finished one job, move reasonably quickly to the other?

The second stage of the Fleet Line is not in itself of a high priority. It assumes a high priority only when it is considered in conjunction with the River Line and the line down to Thamesmead. As for Dockland, while I agree that the Fleet Line and the River Line are very important in that connection, a complication arises between transport planning and land use planning, so that both have to be done together.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the importance of the River Line, the most important aspect is to provide transport for the people who already live in the area? For example, the interchange at West Ham between the District Line and the Eastern Region has been long overdue. It would cost very little to construct and it might be done very soon. Does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea to have a co-ordinating committee to knock together the heads of British Rail and London Transport?

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a proposition for a rail advisory committee in London, and this is being considered by the GLC. The question of the interchange was dealt with in an Adjournment debate and I think that I have also written to my hon. Friend about the matter.

Does the Minister recognise that if we wait for the end of the discussions between the GLC and the boroughs, which will go on interminably, this valuable study will not come to anything? Will he concentrate their minds by saying that his Department would like an answer within, say, six months?

Obviously we should like an answer as quickly as possible, but vast sums of money are involved and important strategic decisions require to be made. The Department has made it clear to the GLC and the rail operators that any proposals they put forward will be considered with alacrity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will make a final decision as to which Southampton dwellings will be eligible for insulation against traffic noise from the M27.

As soon as possible and in any case within the time limits laid down in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nursling link for the M27 is scheduled for completion in the autumn of this year, and that therefore there is an urgent need for action if many Southampton dwellings are not to be subjected to an intolerable level of noise? Does he accept that while there may be doubt in some borderline cases there is a large category of dwellings which, on any reasonable assumption about noise levels, must qualify for help? Will he take immediate action to provide that help?

The Department seriously considers questions of noise level, but it is important that contracts should be let in reasonable numbers so that reasonable prices can be obtained. My hon. Friend says that certain areas will obviously require insulation, but when one looks at a noise map one sometimes finds that they are not quite as obvious as might have been thought. Noise is a funny thing and it has peculiar side effects. Sometimes an area that one would have imagined obviously needed insulation turns out not to need it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his departmental responsibilities in Scotland.

My Department is responsible in Scotland for commercial ports; railways; road freight; licensing and testing of road vehicles, and regulations on their construction and use; driving tests; sponsorship of the construction industry; the provision—by the Property Services Agency—of accommodation and related services for Government Departments, and the management of defence lands.

What benefit would accrue in terms of efficiency and to the Scottish taxpayer if those functions were hived off to a Scottish Assembly?

That is not for me, as an Englishman, to pronounce upon. The few functions that my Department exercises in Scotland are all matters that it has been thought convenient and efficient to administer on a Great Britain basis. But all these matters are subject to the most intensive study at present.

With regard to the Minister's responsibility for defence lands in Scotland, will he explain why, although it has been announced that live firing will not continue in the Pentland hills, his Department has also announced that it will be many years before it is possible to make that decision take effect so that the public may use the hills?

I agree that all sorts of live firing go on in all sorts of places. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that, I shall be happy to answer it.

If the right hon. Gentleman is with his Government colleagues in supporting the principle of devolution, may I ask him a simple question? Why has he not already devolved to the Scottish Office the greatest number of the items on the list he has given? What is his time scale for doing so?

The Scottish people will have to pay for all our railways.

The Scottish Office already exercises by far the greater number of, and by far the most important, functions of the Deparment of the Environment in Scotland. The remaining functions are under active study as part of the whole devolution study. As to the timetable, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said in the debate on the subject about a fortnight ago.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if there is a strong case for hiving off to an elected Scottish Assembly the activities he has just outlened, there is an equally strong case for them to be hived off to an elected North-West regional assembly?

That is an extremely interesting point, which has been much discussed.

asked the Seccretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Dobry Report on planning procedures.

The report was published on 18th February.

I am grateful to the Minister, who sent me a copy of the report. Does he agree with the report that planning applications should be divided into two classes, the relatively simple and the most complex? Shall we have an early debate on the report?

The report is subject to a great deal of consultation. We have written to over 70 representative bodies to consider the recommendations. I can give no undertaking about a debate, but I shall put the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

Will my hon. Friend note that many of us on the Government side would also welcome a debate on the report, and that the whole matter must be seen in the light of the Government's own proposals in regard to land?

I agree. I note my hon. Friend's point about a debate, but pressure on parliamentary time is considerable.

Is the Minister aware that we on the Opposition benches broadly welcome the report but that we reinforce the plea for an early debate on this important matter? Will he say something about the cost of implementing the report, in view of the great need not to impose additional financial burdens on local government?

One of the original reasons for the report was to see whether the planning process could be speeded up and the cost reduced. I note that the hon. Gentleman's point about a debate, and I repeat that I shall see whether it is possible to debate this important report.

As the chairman of a planning committee, may I ask whether, as we are talking about a consensus report which has already involved considerable discussion, my hon. Friend will issue a circular next week stating that local planning departments should carry out those items which do not require extra staff? Does he agree that otherwise this report, like the Borner Report on local valuers, will gather dust in the pigeonholes?

I cannot give an undertaking that a circular will be issued next week. Mr. Dobry consulted widely during the preparation of the report, but not on the report itself, and a number of its recommendations need assessment in relation to one another before any circular can be issued by the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a further circular to local authorities requesting them to curb unnecessary expenditure in the interests of domestic ratepayers.

No, Sir. I am satisfied that the circular already issued on 23rd December 1974 contains sufficient guidance.

That is an unsatisfactory answer. Is the Minister aware of the growing anger of ratepayers? They are not impressed by the general complacency about the subject. Should there not be another circular immediately to monitor capital expenditure in particular? Paragraph 6 of the Minister's Circular 171/74 is rather disappointing on that matter.

I am aware of ratepayers' concern. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman talks about complacency. I have been throughout the country talking to local authorities about the circular, urging restraint and urging that their expenditure be kept to inescapable commitments. Most authorities are obeying that request. The Government have expressed concern about the rates. But I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House of the unprecedentedly high rate support grant approved by the House in December.

If further particulars are to be sent round the country urging thrift and good husbandry, will my hon. Friend take note, as I know he and my right hon. Friend have done in the past, of those local authorities which are squandering the assets of their towns, many of them authorities with large housing waiting lists, by selling off council houses as quickly as they can for cheap political gain? In view of what I know to be the genuine fears of Opposition Members about good husbandry and good management, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that any circular on the subject will have strong bipartisan support?

The selling-off of council houses would not have a direct bearing on the level of rate support. In view of the waiting lists, as my hon. Friend has said, and the need for rented accommodation, we as a Government would deplore the selling-off of the assets of local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider allocating an extra sum in rate support grant to the Greater London area in view of the recently announced rate increases.

No, Sir. The House approved the Rate Support Grant Order for 1975–76 on 12th December 1974. It was by a long way the most generous ever.

Does the Minister agree that local authorities are retained by ratepayers and taxpayers to provide local services and that in some senses they are in the same relationship as employers and employees? Will he, therefore, tell the House whether the social contract applies to local authorities? If so, what action should be taken by ratepayers when they are faced with a claim for rates which is in excess of the social contract guidelines?

Taxation does not come into the social contract, but I have said repeatedly to local authorities that the nation faces a great deal of economic difficulty. It behoves local authorities as much as anyone else to place priority on getting our balance of payments right and encouraging, for example, industrial production. That is the message I have tried to convey not only to local authorities in London but to authorities throughout the country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are increasingly sickened by the constituency demands of Opposition Members for more and more expenditure from central Government resources when at the same time they seek to criticise the Government for the increase in the public borrowing requirement?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We are this year providing £5,430 million of the estimated local government expenditure of £8,000 million. I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I take the same view about people outside the House who, not only in the same speech but in the same sentence, demand better services and reduced rates.

In view of the Minister's earlier reply, may I ask whether he considers that the current £140 million municipalisation programme of the GLC is helping to keep down London's rates?

First, I would very much like to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Opposition Front Bench. I am delighted to see him back in his place. As regards particular projects, the councils must decide whether within their areas they are inescapable commitments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further proposals he has in mind to increase the number of starts in the local authority house building sector this year.

Our encouragement to local authorities to build more houses will continue. We have already achieved a considerable upturn in public sector house building and my right hon. Friend will shortly be issuing a further circular to local authorities advising them on various measures to produce more houses, more quickly and more cheaply.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and I congratulate him on the measures that have been taken so far, but does he not agree that they are only palliatives and that a huge building programme is needed in view of the wreckage of the building programme left by his predecessors—namely, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)? Does he agree that the incentives so far offered are inadequate? Will he consider the whole situation in view of the fact that we need the biggest building programme in our history unless we are to be faced with the same housing problem at the turn of the century? Will he consider raising immediately the 66 per cent. grant on the capital programme as an incentive for a start to be made? Further, will he make sure that the Land Bill, which is shortly to come before Parliament, will contain adequate powers for local authorities to take into immediate control such building land as they require for building houses?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Land Bill which will be published shortly. I certainly agree that a very great deal more needs to be done to increase local authority and private house building programmes. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that at three minutes to 11 o'clock last night the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill received Royal Assent. That measure repeals some of the most obnoxious provisions of the Housing Finance Act. On that basis we can now go forward with the new subsidies to improve upon the already excellent record of the present Government. There were 151,000 tender approvals in 1974 compared with 114,000 in 1973. That is the highest total for any year since 1968.

Is the Minister aware that even when the latest legislation is in force many councils will find that with the maximum subsidy available there will be a deficit of approximately £20 a week on each new local authority house that is built? Is he aware that that deficit can be provided for only by other council tenants in the area or by the ratepayers? Is it not time that the Government came clean with ratepayers and council house tenants and told them of the full implications of their legislation?

We have dealt with this matter at length. The fact is that local authorities put forward their own proposals for rents based upon their own assessment of their financial position. They are no longer compelled by the Government to fix arbitrary rents based on diktats from Whitehall.

Order. I must point out to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) that the length of his supplementary question has cut out his colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from estate agents about the effects of the Rent Act on furnished lettings; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has received a number of representations from estate agents about the effects of the Act. These were mainly concerned with lettings by temporarily absent owner-occupiers.

My local estate agents tell me that since the passing of the Act 25 per cent. fewer lettings have been effected and that landlords are not wanting to relet furnished accommodation once it becomes vacant. Is the Minister aware that as a proportion furnished lettings have been steadily declining although the actual number of lettings has remained fairly constant? Does he accept that his Act will push down the numbers? When will he change this legislation? Instead of helping the situation, it is worsening it.

Myths are growing up that are unsubstantiated by evidence about the reduction of the furnished housing market. One of the reasons for there being fewer advertisements for furnished accommodation is that security of tenure now exists in furnished accommodation. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have had no representations from estate agents along the lines he has put forward.

Does my hon. Friend agree that landlords as a group have never been great friends of tenants, and that the Conservative Party has always loved to desperation practically every landlord who has ever lived?

The scales remain on the eyes of Conservative Members when it comes to landlords but fall when it comes to tenants. There are good landlords but, unfortunately, there are too many bad landlords. Our legislation is intended to protect good tenants from bad landlords.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his estimate of the average 25 per cent. increase in rates refers to domestic late-payers or not.

As I made quite clear in our debate in the House on 12th December last, my estimate of a 25 per cent. average increase was for domestic rate bills in England and Wales in 1975–76. The estimate allowed for the special domestic relief scheme introduced in 1974–75, excluded water and sewerage charges and was based on the essential proviso that all authorities fixed their budgets in accordance with the guidance on expenditure levels subsequently set out in my Department's Circular 171/74.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Would it not have been more honest, however, if right at the beginning he had said to the House and to the nation that the average increase in domestic rates would be 35 per cent. to 40 per cent.? Knowing now that that is the situation, what help does he propose to give to domestic ratepayers?

We cannot possibly know whether that is the situation as we have had final rate determinations from only 48 out of more than 400 rating authorities. Therefore, any guess as to the final outcome is purely speculative. If in the latter part of his supplementary question the hon. Gentleman was suggesting—I do not know whether this reflects Tory Party policy—that after the additional £2,000 million grant given this year, given the country's desperate economic situation and the constant pleas from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for more constraint in public expenditure, we should find yet more money this year, I am not in agreement with him.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the bigegst rate support grant ever contains a proportion to be spent on education, so that no local authority should cut back on existing education services in an endeavour to keep within the guidelines of the 25 per cent. which he laid down?

There is no reason why authorities should cut back on services. The grant settlement assumed that there would be an increase in real terms of 4 per cent. in spending to meet inescapable commitments. Therefore, there is no reason why there should be a cutback of existing services.

Does the Secretary of State accept that not only domestic ratepayers but also small businesses and shopkeepers face a grim picture? Does he also accept that it is not merely a question of controlling local government extravagance but that there is a desperate need for central Government not to im- pose additional expensive services on local authorities?

Of course the non-domestic ratepayer is also much concerned. That is why we have so arranged things this year that the non-domestic ratepayer is likely to have a smaller increase than is the domestic ratepayer. The non-domestic ratepayer was hard hit last year and that is why we deliberately made a difference for this year. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, circular 171/74 makes clear—and I have repeatedly made clear—to the associations that we shall desist from the bad practice of all Governments of asking for economy on the one hand and on the other hand charging round the country making pleas for pet projects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what evidence he based his prediction that the total rate demand for 1975–76 should not on average exceed that for the current year by more than 25 per cent.

I ventured no such prediction. I said, and have repeated, that a 25 per cent. average increase in domestic rates was possible if, and only if, local authority spending was restrained within the totals set out in the rate support grant settlement of last November.

Averages are misleading, and sometimes are meant to be. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the average rate increase in the Greater London area will lie somewhere between 40 and 86 per cent. for all authorities and whether countrywide the water and general services increases are likely to be from 25 to 50 per cent.? What will happen now that there is to be no special rate relief in the coming financial year—a relief which amounts to £150 million in the current year? What will be the general effect on the situation?

Averages are not misleading; they are simply averages, which implies that some are above and some are below. That is a fact about averages. We all appreciate that the London rate increase will be substantially higher than the average. On the other hand, we also know that there are cases which are lower than the average—such as, for example, Leeds, Lincoln and others of which I have a list. It would be foolish to speculate on the final result for the year because as yet we lack adequate information. On the question of special relief, I must emphasise that the Government have already contributed an additional £2,000 million to assist ratepayers compared with the previous year. That is a substantial sum to be going on with.

Has my right hon. Friend any advice to offer to local authorities whose commitments next year may lead them to have rate poundages in excess of an additional 25 per cent. following their decision to go in for civic buildings and other projects which by no stretch of the imagination can be termed "inescapable commitments"?

I cannot comment on any particular case, but I must confess that I am taken aback by the plans of a number of local authorities at present in respect of huge expenditure on new town halls, city halls, county halls and office blocks. I must be fair and say that this is sometimes the consequence of local government reorganisation, which means that in certain cities two headquarters are needed where only one was needed before. But a number of councils are being near to reckless with ratepayers' money in expenditure on these luxury items.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the national average of rate increases in 1975–76.

As so many authorities have yet to decide their rate levels for 1975–76, there is not sufficient information to enable an estimate to be made.

Will the Under-Secretary please go on another journey, this time to the local branches of the Labour Party, which in county after county are trying to frustrate the Government's wishes by opposing the councils which are restraining increases in local government expenditure? Is it not time that those Labour Party branches learned the truth about our national situation?

I totally repudiate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Labour Party branches. If time allowed I could give many instances of Labour groups on councils which have not only co-operated with the Government but have done their best, sometimes against Conservative-controlled councils, to abide by the Government's guidelines. The majority of councils are doing that. There are exceptions, as my right hon. Friend has said. I have no doubt that the electorate in those areas will bear due regard to what the Government have said and what their councils are doing.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is nothing short of a public scandal that local government officers and employees earning in excess of £200 a week are claiming threshold payments?

That depends on the size of the authority and the responsibility of the officer concerned, bearing in mind that local government and the level of administration of local government must compete with the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Humber Bridge to be opened.

I understand that, unless unforeseen difficulties arise, the Humber Bridge Board expects the bridge to be open by the end of 1977.

I am not sure how familiar the right hon. Gentleman is with the South Humberside and Grimsby area, but is he aware that the road system on the south bank is totally inadequate? Will he consider delaying the opening of the bridge until adequate roads have been constructed to take care of the expected traffic?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been around in that area a good deal longer than he has and I had a rather larger majority than he did at the last General Election. I am very familiar with the question of the South Humberside roads and I am not satisfied with progress. The broad picture is that west of the bridge the position is satisfactory. East of the bridge, which is what concerns both of us, there will be a gap between the opening of the bridge and the completion of the road network. I am constantly trying to speed up the completion of the road network, but that is easier said than done.

The Opposition remember the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) at a by-election in North Hull when she promised that the bridge would be built. Does the Minister accept that what worries people in the area is not the opening date but the cost? Is he prepared to reconsider the financial implications?

Any coincidence of timing with any by-election was entirely adventitious. The cost of the bridge has escalated, as indeed has the cost of all major road-building projects. The cost is now put at £37 million, but I have no plans to reconsider the cost with the Humber Bridge Board.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how his review of homelessness is progressing; and if he will make a statement.

There have been discussions between the Government Departments concerned, and a consultation paper will shortly be issued to the local authority associations and representative voluntary and professional organisations.

As there are at least 10 empty properties for every homeless family, does the Minister agree that no single action would do more to help the homeless than the quicker re-use of empty property? Even in advance of this consultation, will he give a vigorous new prod to local authorities, because they own a large proportion of the empty properties throughout the country?

It is both local authorities and others, and we wish to give a prod to all. I draw to the hon. Gentleman attention the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) in which he announced possible measures for the future to enable empty private properties to be brought into social control in co-operation with local authorities or housing associations. That is one part of it, but local authorities must certainly make better use of their own properties.

Will the Minister initiate a crash house building programme to help simultaneously the homeless and the unemployed along the lines of President Roosevelt's New Deal, the NRA? Will my hon. Friend consider seriously a special subsidy above that contained in the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act for every new council house started within the next 12 months? Would not that have a dramatic effect on house building?

I share my hon. Friend's view that a great deal more needs to be done. The new subsidy provided in the Act which became law yesterday will be a major incentive, but I share my hon. Friend's view that further incentives will be necessary, and that is the purpose of the housing finance review upon which we are engaged.

May I refer the Minister to the aspect of homelessness known as squatting? Is he aware of the growing concern among local authorities and the mounting public anger over the spectacle of families in dire housing need who for many years have been on council housing lists being pipped at the post often by families moving in from outside the district? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also of the great burden put upon ratepayers by the money which local authorities have to spend to make good those premises once the squatters have gone? Will he take steps to strengthen the powers of local authorities to deal with this growing problem?

It is certainly a serious problem, and it is one to which we are giving marked attention within the Department.

Is the Minister aware that some local authorities which wish to deal with the housing problem have trouble over the definition of "homelessness"? I understand from consultations with one of my authorities that although it wishes to purchase properties it has not been able to satisfy the Minister's Department in this respect. Is the definition of "homelessness" under consideration?

It is part of the review that is taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take arising from the fourth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

I shall be writing to the Chairman of the Royal Commission shortly giving my detailed views on the report. In view of the wide interest in the matters covered by this report, I intend to publish the text of my reply along with other material summarising the action taken in response to the first four reports of the commission.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to paragraph 143 of the report, which points out that some Western European countries are more ambitious than we are in the removal of lead additive from petrol? Will he have a private chat with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on this point?

I have indeed had a private chat. The question of lead in petrol is one of the most controversial, not merely environmentally but scientifically, in the whole aspect of environmental pollution. I am aware of the problem, and I hope to say something about it in my reply to the chairman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in which of the months since March 1974 the number of private houses started in Great Britain has exceeded the number of private houses started in the equivalent month of the previous year.

None, Sir, as was the case in 11 out of the 12 preceding months. Over the period since March 1974 the number of public sector starts has been greater each month than in the corresponding month in the previous year.

As the figures clearly show that the Government's April 1974 measures failed, what confidence can we place in the January 1975 measures?

We can place confidence in the fact that net new mortgage commitments were running at £140 mil- lion per month last spring and that the January figure for this year was £348 million—far more than double.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a further impact could be made on the construction of private housing if local authorities were encouraged to speed up their procedure for the consideration of planning applications? Is it not unsatisfactory that many local authorities meet only once a month—some only six-weekly—and that they sometimes demonstrate incompetence in dealing with applications?

I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend has said. Guidance will shortly be issued by the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he now has any plans to control the flow of funds available for disposal by the building societies.

As I made clear in the House on 27th January—[Vol. 885, c. 43–4]—the Government are committed to the principle of stabilisation of mortgage finance. We maintain close and continuing consultation with the Building Societies' Association about the measures which may be necessary from time to time.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that deposits coming into the building societies are increasing rapidly? If and when the house market begins to move shall we not face the serious danger of a repetition of the spiralling house prices which we experienced in the early 1970s? Therefore, is it not necessary to set up a stabilisation fund in the immediate future?

Yes, Sir, there is a danger that a combination of greatly increased mortgage commitments, combined with the present failure to increase the number of starts in the house building sector, could lead to a wholly undesirable house price explosion. This is at the forefront of my mind in discussing the question of stabilisation. However, it does not involve any question of a stabilisation fund because, in effect, the Government are now acting as a stabilisation fund. I take my hon. Friend's point.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider taking the step advocated by the Conservative Party at the last election—namely reducing the level of mortgage interest for first-time home buyers so that we can begin to get people into houses rather than leave them empty?

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed my recent statement that we have introduced, with the agreement of the building societies a low-start mortgage scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy towards assistance to those with local mortgages whose interest rates are currently in excess of the Building Societies Association's recommended rates, following his general review of housing finance.

While the longer-term issues will be considered in the review of housing finance, I am now studying whether anything can be done in the short term about the difficult problem of local authorities charging high mortgage interest rates.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in correspondence with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment I was promised a full reply at the end of November? Will he recognise that many people with variable mortgages with local authorities are paying over 11 per cent. and that, as recognised in the scheme, they are often people with lower than average incomes? Does he appreciate that some of these people face real difficulties in meeting their commitments, which grow greater from month to month, and feel that they are being treated unfairly compared with people repaying mortgages to building societies? Will he treat the matter as one of urgency and introduce an interim solution very shortly indeed?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had a reply to his letter. I have a draft copy in my brief and I hope that he will get the reply quickly. I agree with him that this is an urgent matter, and we are trying to find a way to deal with it.

Since there is a shortage of new houses on which building societies can make advances within the average income of working people, will my hon. Friend look into the situation whereby building societies are loth to advance money on older houses and are thus forcing people to go to local authorities whose interest rates are higher?

That may be so. The situation varies. Most local authorities are still bringing down mortgage rates. Only a very small minority are affected, but admittedly this is a serious problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up an inquiry into the cost of local government reorganisation with particular regard to gradings and salaries of chief and senior officers.

No, Sir. Local authorities are responsible for the grading and salaries of their staffs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that ratepayers do not share his complacency on this matter? Does he not agree that it would be better to prove the point which I seek to make by setting up a nationwide inquiry so that the chief and senior officers throughout the country whose salaries are in excess of that paid to the Secretary of State for the Environment could at least attempt to justify the income which they now receive?

My hon. Friend talks about the salaries of chief and senior officers. Top salaries are due for a special review in 1975. Undertakings were given in various negotiating bodies that top salaries for personnel in reorganised local government, the National Health Service and water authorities would be reviewed by April 1975 in the light of the experience of the new posts.

Will the Minister look back at the Official Report of 13th February in which there appears a very good debate on this subject? In that debate the Liberals also asked for an inquiry. I draw attention to some staggering figures—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Will the Minister look into the situation of the regional water authorities, over which he has some control, since rates in one town in my constituency have risen by 974 per cent. in respect of sewerage services?

I am aware of the concern expressed about the increase in water rates. I would tell the House—I do not blame the hon. Gentleman—that many of the difficulties in regard to the regional water authorities were caused by their creation and the way in which they were created by our predecessors. The rates charged by regional water authorities are subject to control, and the question of salaries and expenditure is under constant review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes publishing a White Paper or introducing legislation to follow up the new towns consultative paper.

My right hon. Friends are awaiting the outcome of the consultations.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the consultative paper is the first statement of intention since the new towns were contemplated? Does he not agree that if he wishes to maintain the necessary progress of the new town movement he should come to the House with a clear statement as soon as possible, otherwise he will frustrate many thousands of people in the new towns?

We are hoping that the results of the consultation will be received by the end of the month, and certainly before Easter. On this basis firm Government policy could be announced during the summer, with legislation to follow next year. On the question of a debate, this is the third time in the House this afternoon that there has been a request for a debate on a subject. I shall put the matter to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I think my hon. Friend will understand the pressures of parliamentary time.

May I support the hon. Gentleman when he says that there is need for a debate? May I request that, if there is to be a Bill or White Paper, some reference will be included as to the need for the rate support grant and that help will be given to the new towns, especially where there is a population increase?

This is the difficulty with the rate support grant. We have tried to improve matters in the rate support grant for this year. There are constant reviews to see how we can improve the formula, particularly in respect of counties which have new towns in their midst.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps the Government propose to take to secure financial support from overseas for the construction of the Channel Tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on 28th January.—[Vol. 885, c. 153–4.]

In view of the recent debate on this matter by the European Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are looking either at direct cash aid or at guarantees from the European Investment Bank?

There is a misunderstanding, as there was throughout the debate. It was not the shortage of loan funds which caused the Government to take the decision to abandon the project. The reason was that the companies were trying to enforce a date which we were not prepared to accept. With regard to the debate which has been referred to, the Commissioner, Signor Mugnozza, said firmly that the Commission had no means or resources of its own to offer to Governments, and the resources of the European Investment Bank would be irrelevant to a project of this size.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary showed glee in announcing housing figures for 1974 which showed an improvement on 1973? One suspects that those figures will improve further during the year. Is my right hon. Friend, like me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have been known to vote in the same Lobby on occasions. Is he, like me, prepared to give consideration to the fact that one of the reasons why the figures are better is that we tended to concentrate our resources more sharply and clearly upon housing requirements? In that event, whether the Common Market aids us or not, we cannot afford to use our resources on projects such as the Channel Tunnel.

I am flattered that my hon. Friend can see so clearly the resemblance between us. As to the substance of his question, I cannot wholly agree with my hon. Friend since I have pointed out—and this matter will come up again in the next Question—that the resources we save by not going ahead with the tunnel will not be available for housing or anything else. Those resources will be required to finance alternative forms of transport investment to move the same number of people across the Channel in different ways.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what revision he plans for investment in British Rail as a result of the cancellation of the Channel Tunnel project; and if he will make a statement.

It is too early to say.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it seems inconceivable to many people that the Channel Tunnel was cancelled because of a misunderstanding over dates? Does he recognise that the guarantees which were to be provided by the Government may be available elsewhere? Will he at least state clearly in principle that the Government will not obstruct any proposals which may be made from elsewhere to enable Channel Tunnel companies to build the tunnel?

There was no misunderstanding over dates. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have said before, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, that we shall seriously consider any proposals that might be made.

Will my right hon. Friend consider as a matter of urgency diverting Channel Tunnel investment to British Rail so that it can replace some of its worn-out and obsolete stock on secondary lines which are now much in need of an urgent cash injection to attract people from the roads to public transport?

The investment will in practice have to be diverted not only to British Rail but also to the operators of ferries or hovercraft and to improve some of the ports which will carry more traffic. That is where the investment will have to be directed.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the effect of rumours on people trying to sell property in the area affected, particularly Newington? Does he realise that such property has been blighted for more than 11 years? As long as these rumours exist, it is difficult to sell property. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Channel Tunnel will not be started again, as he did three weeks ago, but of which nobody took any notice?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have effectively lifted the blight for the foreseeable future from the parts of Kent and Surrey which were affected. I do not believe that any of the ideas floated in the Strasbourg discussion will come to fruition. I do not believe that sufficient European funds are available, either in the Commission or the European Investment Bank. Nevertheless if any proposals are made I shall not reject them before I have considered them.

Some hon. Members who voted with a will to get rid of the Channel Tunnel realised at the time that that action would cause severe congestion, especially in South-East London. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind, especially when considering the future of transport in London, and realise that if he rules out the extension of the Fleet Line to Lewisham, which is not irrelevant to this matter, there will be great disappointment in many parts of South-East London?

My hon. Friend is right. By no means all the consequences of cancelling the tunnel will be agreeable—very far from it. We are now examining in some detail the consequential decisions that have to be taken regarding all other forms of transport as a result of our decision to cancel.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce proposals to enable the public works department of a local authority to undertake work for another authority.

I am extremely concerned about this problem, which is causing anxiety in several areas. I hope shortly to lay an order before the House to resolve the immediate difficulties arising from local government reorganisation. Any wider proposal would require legislation and I am urgently considering this.

Will my right hon. Friend give a definite assurance that the long-term problem will be solved by general legislation as soon as possible?

I cannot give a definite assurance because our study of the matter has not yet come to fruition. I think that my hon. Friend probably knows, from many statements I have made in opposition as well as in government, that I am personally strongly committed to the maximum possible expansion of direct labour departments.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the very unsatisfactory economic performance of many of these departments? Would it not be a contribution to restraining the increase in rates if their activities could in turn be restrained?

There are good and bad direct labour departments, just as there are good and bad private builders. For my part I am anxious to encourage efficient builders, whether publicly-owned or private.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the creation of new villages as opposed to new towns.

The consultation document on new towns, of which I informed the House on 15th January in reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller), invites comments on the idea of clusters of new villages within travel-to-work distances of each other. I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will be among those who comment.

I welcome the Minister's comments, but may I make the point that new towns have failed in human and social terms because their size makes the creation of a sense of community almost impossible to achieve, and that for that reason the creation of new settlements the size of villages should be tried?

The consultation document provides many interesting innovations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that size is crucial and that we should be looking at the size of a community and all its social consequences.

Before my hon. Friend gets on with looking at this interesting idea about new villages, will he bear in mind that white collar and manual staff employed by the Commission for New Towns are apprehensive about their jobs and about the future until his Depart-men sets a firm and early date for the transfer of assets to the elected local authorities?

That is another matter, which does not arise on this Question. But there is still a very considerable job to do by the commission with special regard to industrial and commercial land.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider setting up also an old towns corporation in order to bring back prosperity to decaying inner city areas of the North-West?

No Government have done more than this one in rate support grant aid to older local authorities in order to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman rightly asks us to do.