asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish the report by Messrs. George Corduroy Ltd. into alleged contractual irregularities concerning the M5 motorway.

I hope to publish the report later this month.

I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now more than 15 months since the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and I first approached the Department about this matter? Will my hon. Friend undertake to publish the Corduroy Report in full and not merely in extract form, in view of the serious nature of the allegations, the reputation of the firm and the representations of the individuals who brought forward the allegations?

There have been certain technical problems about publishing the report. We received the results of the investigation in September last and the final report was received only a few days ago. However, I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to amend the Caravan Sites Act to enable areas smaller than counties to be designated thereunder.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the law as it stands, when a local authority provides an authorised caravan site, that provision is rapidly followed by unauthorised users occupying adjacent land, such as the present site in my constituency adjacent to the Park Street roundabout, land that is owned by the right hon. Gentlemans Department? The filthy state of such sites merely antagonises those who might otherwise be in favour of producing further authorised sites. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter again? If he wants the policy to succeed and to have sites provided legally throughout the land, something must be done to ensure that a difficult situation is not created, for that merely produces objections to legal sites.

I do not think that there will be much disagreement in the House about the importance of the problem and the difficulties that are involved. The question is whether the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman would help or hinder the situation. I understand that in the hon. Gentleman's area it is the county that has responsibility. Incidentally, it is a county that has done very well in tackling this problem. However, if we are to tackle the problem in the way he suggests—namely, by the designation of smaller areas—I think that the effect will be wrong in that we shall create a patchwork quilt of designation, which will mean that thereafter travelling people will be camping in unauthorised camps. That is exporting the problem. That is not the way in which to proceed. The problem needs to be considered, for undoubtedly there are many people who are engaged in this way of life. I do not think that the splitting up of designation is the right answer. There is a school of thought that believes that counties are too small an area to be designated and that it might be worth considering larger areas.

As the largest London borough—namely, Bromley—has an area of about 40,000 acres and possesses these powers, does my right hon. Friend agree that a district such as Peterborough, which has 82,000 acres and which has energetically pursued proposals to look after the gipsies in its area, should not have to wait for extra powers for controlling travellers on the highway because the rest of the county area is perhaps slow to respond?

It is clear that this is a genuine difficulty. There is the danger that we may be exporting the problem to someone else. It is easy to consider the matter only from a relatively narrow point of view. I understand the problems and I sympathise with those affected, but I believe that the answer is the provision of more sites.

In view of the situation at Berwick-upon-Tweed, in which he has taken a close personal interest, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that special difficulties arise if a large number of caravans are imported into an area so as to inflate the demand for a site? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unless some kind of estimate can be made of the number of people for whom the local authorities are obliged to provide, there is potentially no limit to the number of people who might like to park a caravan in an attractive seaside place?

It is a difficult problem, but the point about the nomadic way of life is that people are imported, or import themselves, from one part of the country into another. That is exactly what has happened in Berwick.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Chairman of British Railways concerning the reduction and curtailment of services; and if he will make a statement.

The Chairman has informed me of the general lines of the management action the board proposes to take so as to meet its financial targets.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's railways policy is having a disastrous effect on passenger and freight receipts, despite an increase in charges of 48 per cent. last year? Does he realise that the Government are on a collision course with the railway unions and the public over any cut-back in services? I warn the Government that they will face a fight from the unions and the public, not only on any cut-back, but on any reduction in services. There must not be another Beeching.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the passenger deficit this year is running at £330 million and the freight deficit at £70 million. I assure him that all the trade unions represented in the railway industry are being consulted, and will be further consulted, in the preparation of a fundamental review of transport policy now being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself.

Is it not increasingly clear that the Government are moving towards the abandonment of the transport policies on which they fought the last two elections? Will the Minister say when we can expect a White Paper—a document that is clearly becoming more and more urgent? Will he also say specifically what the Government intend to do about the unauthorised freight deficit?

As my right hon. Friend has made clear, no decision has yet been taken on whether the results of the transport policy review will be published in White Paper or some other form, but we hope to bring it out to the public probably very early in the New Year. The question of the freight deficit of British Rail is under consideration on the lines of reducing it to zero—in other words, of eliminating it—by 1978.

Will the Minister take note of the fact that Conservative Front Bench spokesmen seem to be implying that they would agree to some form of increased public expenditure on public transport? Will he ensure that, whatever the Treasury's view on this matter, any action taken will not be the thin edge of the wedge towards any further cutback in British Rail services leading to the placing of more and more traffic on our already overcrowded roads?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier comments. On the question of the funds available to British Rail, part of the problem is that so much is going out in subsidies on current account to freight and passenger services that less money is available for investment—which is where we should like that money to go.

Will the Minister have a word with the Chairman of British Rail to ensure that transport users' consultative committees and local authorities are consulted about the cuts, of which we read daily in the Press? Will he say whether these consultations will take place before cuts are imposed?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been around long enough to know that he should not believe everything he reads in the Press. There is a great deal of speculation about what is involved. The Chairman of British Rail is well aware of the need to keep in touch with the transport users' consulta- tive committees, and I recently met their central committee.

Will the Minister assure the people in the Highlands of Scotland that the cuts will not extend to the closing of railways in Oban, the Kyle of Lochalsh, Thurso and Wick?

I have received no such proposals.

Will the Minister confirm that British Rail has already sent to many local trade union officials proposals to close railway stations on Sundays? Does he accept that this is the beginning of a policy that will inevitably lead to no services at all for the majority of rural areas outside peak hours? Will he, while we still have a public transport system, abandon the targets he has set?

The service cuts to which my hon. Friend refers are a matter of management responsibility for the British Rail Board [HON. MEMBERS: 'Oh."] My hon. Friends may not like it, but it is a fact. In view of the continuing deficit, which last year reached a figure on passenger account of £330 million, the choice we have to make is between some retrenchment and some economies in services and fares.

Will the Minister explain why the proposed peak hour cuts in the Southern Region will save a meagre £760,000, according to proposals put to the unions, whereas next year British Rail will cost public funds £500 million, including support for pension schemes? Therefore, will he stop tinkering with the problem and consider a major shake-up of the British Rail Board and institute a full inquiry into the whole operation of British Rail?

I cannot see any need for a full inquiry into the operations of British Rail. The facts of the situation are well appreciated. It is for the board to manage the railway system within the constraints set by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now lift the ban on the sale of new town houses to sitting tenants.

No, Sir.

That is a tragic answer. Why does the Minister persist in pursuing in Northampton and other development corporation areas a policy that is against the wishes of his own chairmen appointed by him, against his own general managers, and indeed against the desires of my tenants and my constituents? [HON. MEMBERS: "My tenants?"] Will the Minister just for once put aside party policy and bear in mind the wishes of the tenants in new towns who wish to buy their own homes?

The problem that faced us in March last year was that under the previous Conservative administration the waiting list periods in all the new towns had reached intolerable proportions. To some extent this was a result of the sale of rented houses to sitting tenants under the doctrinaire policies of the Conservative Government. Up to 30 per cent. of the rented stock had been so sold. I shall be prepared to lift the ban when I know that the waiting list period has gone down sufficiently to enable those who are on waiting lists to benefit.

Will the Minister confirm the date when legislation will be introduced to ensure the transfer of housing assets from the development corporations to local authorities—which has been Labour Party policy for many years and which has been given recent support by a Select Committee?

The traditional answer is that I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish me to anticipate anything that may or may not be in the Queen's Speech.

Will the Minister confirm that all the chairmen of the new town development corporations have jointly asked him to remove this ban on the sale of council houses? If that is the case surely it is a matter that he should bear in mind. Furthermore, will he explain how, if a person remains in a new town house as an owner rather than a tenant, that makes any difference to the length of waiting list?

Conversations between a Minister and the chairmen are confidential. I cannot confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, because it is not strictly true. In regard to his second point, can he explain to me—although I appreciate that he is not allowed to do so now, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to explain on some other occasion—how it is possible to increase the stock when one is selling off rented accommodation?

Will the Minister continue to reject suggestions from Opposition spokesmen that will do nothing to add to the stock of rented accommodation which is needed in new towns? Instead, will he concentrate on making sure that the Bill to transfer housing assets and housing-related assets from the Commission to democratically-responsible local authorities will take priority next Session?

I am grateful for the support my hon. Friend has given, and I shall bear her second suggestion strongly in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on which areas of housing expenditure the cuts of £50 million in subsidies and £65 million in capital expenditure will fall.

The £65 million cut in housing subsidies announced in the April Budget has been restored as part of the counter-inflation policy announced in Cmnd 6151. I have not yet decided the capital expenditure programmes for 1976–77.

How does the Minister explain the increase of subsidies of some £80 million under the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act to hold down housing rents? Does not that mean that, far from there being a cut, there is an increase of £30 million? How will the hon. Gentleman explain that to those who are expecting home loans and who are now suffering from a cut of £100 million and half of whom will be disappointed?

The latter point does not relate to the first. The £80 million is the total national figure. The figure for subsidies in England and Wales is £65 million, which is not an increase. It maintains the figure that was in this year's Estimates. It was to have been cut in the figures for 1976 but will now be retained.

Will my hon. Friend state once again that there is no reason why local authorities in areas requiring local authority housing should hold up the local authority programme and that they can get on with the job and build the houses required? In this matter the Government are doing a first-class job.

I thank my hon. Friend. I am happy to confirm that that is Government policy. We have introduced a whole series of measures during the past 18 months to enable the house-building programme to improve, and it has done so by about one-third during that time. We wish to see local authorities, particularly in stress areas, such as the one I know my hon. Friend represents, go ahead with a much bigger building programme than there has been over a number of years in the recent past.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to establish the appropriate level of public investment in expanded towns in South-East England in the next three years.

No, Sir. The Government have no special control over the development programmes of expanding towns. Like other local authorities, each decides its own priorities.

Although the Government may not have the responsibility, surely it is public money. As my right hon. Friend has said that he will publish a Green Paper on the future of the South-East Regional Plan, an announcement that is widely welcomed, it is necessary to know the amount of public expenditure already committed in the South-East, so that those areas from which people and jobs have gone, such as the docklands of London, can get their fair share of future investment.

The major point that my hon. Friend makes is important. We must ensure that there is the right balance between the amount of money going to expanding towns and new towns and the amount preserved in the conurbations from which these people come. I accept that part of what my hon. Friend says. The difficulty about expanding towns is twofold. First, resources coming to them come not only for their development but for their general purposes. Secondly, the expanding towns are rather larger than they were two or three years ago, because of the local government reorganisation, which has totally altered the administrative districts of some of them. But I agree that what we need is a proper assessment of whether we are using resources wisely in the inner cities as against the new towns, which I take to be my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Minister saying that expenditure within the overall limits is open-ended for the new towns? If not, how do the Government control the expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the balance between public and private expenditure in new towns and the use of those joint resources? Will he have in mind what was said earlier about the sales of council houses and development corporation houses in new towns, sales which produced not less than £199 million? That had a considerable beneficial effect on the funding of the operations of new towns as a whole.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about new towns. My hon. Friend's Question was about expanded towns, which are financed somewhat differently.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements exist within his Department to ensure that major housing developments are accompanied by an adequate expansion of health, education and other public services.

The regulation of development is the statutory responsibility of local planning authorities. Proposals for development, including housing, are considered by these authorities on their individual merits. Authorities take into account the availability of the necessary infrastructure.

Is the Minister aware that, however well the plans are supposed to work, there is no evidence on the ground that they do, and that these problems are likely to grow steadily worse with the growing financial crisis throughout public services? Will he consult his right hon. and hon. Friends to make sure that future plans at least give proper priority to the areas where the population has already expanded—for example, in Essex?

I am not aware that there is any particular difficulty in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but if there is perhaps he would care to write to me, when I shall certainly look into it. This is a question which has been previously dealt with. Circular 122/73 gave advice to local authorities about infrastructure. But the wider problem is how local authorities deal with needs and priorities in their areas, and it is with precisely this that the Community Land Bill is designed to deal. Therefore, I sincerely hope that in a day or two we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support in the Lobbies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science recently sent a circular to local authorities advising them where cuts and savings could be made in their building programmes and including a paragraph—paragraph 12, I think—advising them to cut back on their nursery education plans? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that advice has caused enormous concern throughout the country? Does he not think that in order to keep architects' teams together and architects employed it would be a jolly good idea if he were to do as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) suggests?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would be delighted if my hon. Friend were to ask him an appropriate Question on the matter.

That is dodging the question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent steps he has taken to encourage the public and private building programme.

The public expenditure provision for local autho- rity housing has been sharply increased, the levels of the cost yardstick raised substantially and guidance given to local authorities on ways of speeding up the house-building process. The measures taken to stabilise mortgage lending are restoring confidence in the private housing sector. As a result, private starts, public starts, private completions and public completions are all significantly higher than a year ago.

Does my right hon. Friend support the TUC call for a massive housing programme, and does he agree that it would not be inflationary? How could it be, with 180,000 unemployed building workers, who, with their families, cost £2,000 a year each to keep in social security benefits and in loss of income tax to the Treasury, when they could be fully employed for very little more turning out the houses that the people need?

If what my hon. Friend is suggesting is a crash housing programme, I am not in agreement with him, for two reasons. First, it would mean imposing an even greater element of stop-go on the house-building industry. Secondly, a massive crash programme, given present demographic trends, would imply the demolition of existing houses on a massive scale, something that I and many other hon. Members think has already gone too far. I want to see a sustainable increase in the programme, and I think that we are in sight of achieving that.

Will the Minister explain why, when the Question referred to the building programme, he answered it only in terms of the house-building programme? Can it be that he did so as there are great difficulties in the rest of the building programme? Will he say whether he will extend his action and give close attention to the private rented sector, which is languishing as a result of the Rent Act 1974?

I answered the Question in terms of house building, as I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to that. Indeed, he nods affirmatively and confirms that understanding. I shall be happy to discuss the private rented sector, the decline of which long predates this Labour administration. Indeed, it proceeded with exceptional rapidity in periods of Conservative Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there has been a commendable increase in housing starts, there is considerable danger, under the take-over by the housing authorities in the spring, that his efforts will be stultified by their sabotaging activities? Will he ensure that the ban on the sale of council houses, which applies in the new towns, is extended universally to all local authorities so as to stop the Conservatives in Birmingham, for example, from wrecking the programme?

The Conservatives are not in power in Birmingham. As I informed the House three weeks ago, the sale of council houses is under close review. I have not taken a decision. I am watching the situation. My hon. Friend is right. If there were any considerable change—which I think and hope there will not be—in the political control of housing authorities, that would constitute the biggest imaginable threat to the council house-building programme.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that the question concerned all building, not just house-building, why has there been a drop of 47 per cent. in private industrial building over the past three months? Could that be a clear indication of the lack of confidence by industry in the Government's economic policies?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has not repeated the grossly misleading statement that he made when he last asked a supplementary question.

I did not.

I thought that he did. He stated, contrary to the facts, that new orders for council house building were falling. In fact, they are rising.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to amend the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by adding a requirement before a licence is given to a caravan site that the electrical installation must be of such a standard that it will create no hazard to life.

One of the aims of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 is to ensure that caravan sites are properly equipped and run. Accordingly, local authorities have the power to attach wide-ranging conditions to site licences. When they are deciding what conditions to impose they must have regard to the model standards specified by my right hon. Friend. A model standard with respect to the electrical installation on caravan sites is being prepared as a matter of urgency.

Is the Minister aware of a tragedy in my constituency when an eight-year-old girl was electrocuted on such a site? Is he further aware that the Rother District Council was advised by his Department that it would be exceeding its powers if it took steps to attach conditions of electrical safety to a licence? Will he therefore speed up the steps that he is taking so that this matter can be dealt with?

I promise that I shall do my best to speed this matter. There must be discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I understand that there are two fatalities a year as a result of faulty electrical installations on caravan sites. I shall see that we get a move on.

Is my right hon. constituent aware, from knowledge of conditions in his village, that he is talking utter nonsense? The entire problem, as the Minister will know from his personal experience, is that the nomadic population is rising much more sharply than the house-dwelling population. Far more sites of a lower and simple standard are required. That is what the bona fide nomad wants. He wants a water pipe, clean water, and not much else Does the Minister agree that this discussion of electricity is rubbish? Will the Minister amend the regulations and provide more sites?

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I regret I did not vote on two occasions, should get together with his hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), whose Question referred mainly to holiday sites.

Is the Minister aware of the difficulties encountered by many local authorities in monitoring small sites, especially those on farms of over five acres that operate for 28 days per year? Would it be helpful if owners of such sites had to state for which 28 days of the year they were applying so that at least some measuring rod could be applied to the sites when in operation?

That is an interesting suggestion. I shall consider it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

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

I have no immediate plans to do so, although I am frequently in that area.

That reply will be received with regret in Immingham. Does the Minister realise that in the ports of Immingham and Grimsby there is great concern about the constant increase in port and dock charges? Will he use his influence with the British Transport Docks Board to explain that raising charges in profitable ports such as Immingham, which may thereby become non-competitive, is a foolish policy? Does he agree that it is not for the profitable ports such as Immingham and Grimsby to subsidise ports such as Hull, on the north bank of the Humber, which make losses?

I am sorry to hear that I should not be welcome in Immingham.

No. The right hon. Gentleman would be welcome.

The hon. Gentleman is extremely welcome in Grimsby, where we like to catch a glimpse of so eminent an eccentric.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has held with representatives of the construction industry regarding workload, output and employment; and what action he has taken in the light of those discussions.

These topics have been discussed recently in the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries and in the Construction Industry Liaison Group. The industry will benefit from the measures recently announced by the Government, in particular the additional expenditure for public sector construction programmes, for factory building and for the encouragement of industrial investment.

Is the Minister aware that the NFBTE will report tomorrow that two-thirds of all building firms axe now operating at less than three-quarters capacity and that two-thirds have already substantially shed labour? How much longer will the Government continue to waste on municipalisation and land nationalisation resources that could be put to more constructive use?

I hoped that we should receive a slightly deeper comment from the hon. Gentleman, who should know better about these matters.

Is the Minister aware that in some places where the industry is working and achieving a good rate of progress there are already shortages of key materials such as bricks? Is he investigating this situation?

I am aware of the existence of difficulties about supplies. We are probing the problems put to us about the situation in different parts of the country. If my hon. Friend will give me further information on these matters, about which I know he is concerned, I shall probe it further.

Is the Minister aware that in Westminster the building industry could do useful work and ease the housing shortage by converting office accommodation to residential accommodation, as the Westminster City Council wishes? Why does the Minister's Department overrule the Westminster City Council's appeals when that council wishes to convert office accommodation to residential accommodation?

If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the cases he has in mind, I shall examine them. As a general proposition, I wish to see the clawing back of appropriate office accommodation. I refer to accommodation designed and built originally for housing purposes. However, zoning planning matters are not directly my concern. There are economic issues involved in such clawing back and reconversion. That is a matter in which I am interested. I shall be glad to hear further from the hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend refrain from chastising those Opposition Members who have seen the light with regard to public expenditure? Does not he agree that the main reasons for the increase in the borrowing requirement are the continuing recession, the fall in productive employment and therefore revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the increase in the unemployment benefit that has to be paid? In the light of that, will my hon. Friend do everything he can to encourage further building, both in the public and private sectors, and so reduce the level of unemployment?

My hon. Friend's supplementary question ranges much further afield than my direct responsibilities. I do not accept as correct the reasons my hon. Friend gives for the increased public sector borrowing requirement. Within the budgetary limits imposed upon me by the present economic situation, I shall seek to get as wide an expansion of housing construction and other construction activities as I possibly can. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we have achieved a great deal in that direction in very difficult circumstances during the past 18 months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the system whereby water authorities can refuse to carry out a sewerage scheme unless "requisitioned" by the local authority concerned.

This is one of the matters which will be considered in the full review of the water industry which my right hon. Friend expects to initiate in the New Year.

I do not urge greater expenditure on sewerage when already expenditure by the Department of the Environment is far too high, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is undesirable that responsibility should be passed from the water authority to the council and back again? Should not there be one authority responsible for the provision of sewerage schemes and one authority only?

If the hon. Gentleman is not urging additional expenditure, he is certainly urging a switch in existing priorities.

No.

With great respect, he must be. He is urging that when water authorities find it impossible to carry out certain sewerage schemes, the decision should not be left to the requisitioning arrangements in the Water Act 1973, for which he voted. That must mean a switch in existing priorities, which at the moment are new housing, industrial development and the maintenance of public health standards. Those priorities must remain for the time being. By the Water Act local authorities were enabled to requisition sewerage schemes, as had always been the case with water schemes, and the two systems were brought into line.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that an improvement in representation on water authorities will not await a full review of the water industry? Is he aware that water authorities are subject to criticism because they wield extensive powers without representation from the local authorities that impose rates decided by the water authorities? Will my hon. Friend take drastic and urgent action to ensure that large local authorities are properly and adequately represented on water authorities?

More than 50 per cent. of the representation on all regional water authorities is made up of local authority nominees directly elected by the local authorities involved. To change that system would require legislation. I cannot undertake to produce legislation in advance of the full inquiry that we are conducting and our study of the results. A consultative document—either a Green Paper or a White Paper—will be published early in the New Year. Like my hon. Friend, we are anxious to have the considered view of everyone about what arrangements should apply in future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one objection to the Water Act is in respect of the smaller number of members of each regional water authority? Would not a modest change in the numbers meet the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and accord with the wishes of most people?

That is one reason why we opposed the Water Act. The management of water on a water basin principle involves very large areas, much larger than any previously known units of local government. The difficulty is to equate the principle of managing the water cycle in that way with any form of local government democracy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether restrictions on spending are adversely affecting local authority slum clearance programmes for 1975–76–77.

No restrictions have been imposed on local authority capital spending on slum clearance, nor on their house-building programmes.

Will the Minister tell me why my local authority constantly offers the explanation that it is prevented from new house building by Government restrictions on this sphere of spending?

I am not aware of any district representations from the local authority concerned. The point having been put to me, I shall make it my business to find out the grounds for any such statements. As far as as I am concerned, there are no such grounds.

Does the Minister agree that it might make good financial sense at this time to issue advice to local authorities not to tie up any more land in inner city areas until the land they already own is utilised for house building? Is the Minister aware that vast tracts of land have ben standing vacant and useless for many years?

I wish to see the reverse. I wish to see local authorities continuing to maintain a steady policy of the assembly of land and sites for construction purposes. However, if the hon. Lady will give me details of the sites causing her concern, I shall make it my business to probe the matter.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's house-building programme. Will he now turn his attention to the difficulties of Merseyside, where 10,000 building workers are unemployed, 3,000 of them skilled workers? Is my hon. Friend aware that local authority modernisation programmes are being held back for various reasons, although they have had generous support? Will my hon. Friend re-examine this matter, help our local people to find employment and, at the same time, give decent homes to those who live in local authority houses built well before the war?

The joint working party looking into social ownership and improvement policy is about to report. On the basis of that report we shall consider how best to allocate resources around the country. In the meantime, we are making available an additional £12 million over and above the budgeted figure for improvement work. I shall make it my business to get that money allocated to areas most in need of improvement works and capable of undertaking the use of the resources. As my hon. Friend knows from previous conversations, I am a little anxious about the position in Liverpool where there is a risk of underspending the present allocation. We are in touch with the local authority about that.

Will the Minister ensure that local authorities that have suffered a cutback in their programmes for improvements to pre-war council houses make proper use of houses standing empty—for example, for short-stay accommodation? I welcomed the Minister's visit to my constituency last Friday. If the local authorities will not use the many empty houses in my constituency, cannot they be passed on to housing associations?

I see no reason why there should be large numbers of houses standing empty. There will always be a few properties standing empty at any one time, but if many houses are standing empty because it has been impossible to programme works over a period, there is something questionable about the management policies and practice leading to that. Those policies and practices need to be reviewed, and we shall do our best to encourage such a review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress in repairing the M1 between Luton and Hemel Hempstead; what lessons his Department has learnt as a result of this work; and how long it will be before further repairs on this section of the M1 are necessary.

Yes, Sir. Weather permitting, it is expected that the resurfacing between Junctions 8 and 10 will be completed by mid-November. That is earlier than originally expected. There will be consequential alterations to the central reserve and safety barrier.

In view of the number of accidents that have occurred during this work and the huge traffic jams that have built up, will the Minister see to it that when future major work is needed, it will be done at night during the spring and summer months? Will he also look again at the contra-flow system, because it has caused great chaos and has added to the burden of the Hertfordshire police in sorting out the traffic?

The hon. Gentleman has asked several supplementaries in one. First, traffic control arrangements were made with the full agreement of the police. Secondly, we are sorry for the delays, of course—I have suffered from them myself—but this problem always arises when a motorway is already saturated with traffic, as in the case of the Ml, and when necessary repairs of this sort occur. If the repairs were to be undertaken only at night, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I am advised that in this case that would have added about £500,000 to the cost of what was expected to be 12 weeks' work and will now, it appears, be only 11 weeks' work.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to congratulate both the management and the men involved in this dangerous and difficult work, which has been done under appalling conditions?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and hope that the general public will take note of them.

Although I recognise the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred, is it necessary to have, particularly at weekends, either one lane or two lanes coned off for mile after mile? Would not it be possible, for example, to put the cones off the roads at the weekends so that we do not have these traffic jams for no reason at all on Friday nights and Sunday nights?

I am advised that it is not practicable for work to be suspended at peak hours, as my hon. Friend suggests. The traffic arrangements are organised to take peaks into account on a weekly but not a daily basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the results of the departmental survey into the effects of the Rent Act 1974.

Research has been commissioned into the detailed effects of the Act, but this will take some time to be completed.

Is the Minister aware that there is a very great deal of dissatisfaction about the operation of this Act, and that, far from contributing in any way to security of tenure—I speak from personal experience of looking for a flat—it is impossible to obtain any furnished flat, except for a very limited period, and that the supply is extraordinarily limited directly as a result of the Act?

The question related to research, and I answered that.

Will my hon. Friend accept that a great many tenants will be deeply grateful to the Government for passing the Rent Act 1974? Will he tell the House whether he has yet received the missing file from the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is still seeking evidence of the destructive effects of the Act in relation to the private landlord? Will my hon. Friend also accept that many of us here are not interested in the protests of the landlords' apologists on the Opposition side?

I received the missing file, which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) had been promising me for a year, a month or two back. It consisted of a little over 400 letters, which are still in process of being examined closely. However, on first analysis it is clear that more than 200 of them relate to matters that have nothing to do with the Rent Act 1974, and that most of the other 200 relate to matters on which people have been misinformed, partly due to the activities of the hon. Member for Hornsey.

I cannot possibly accept that. Is the Minister aware that the letters he has received were sent as a result of advertisements in a limited number of newspapers in the Greater London area, that they were passed on to the hon. Gentleman within a short period of the replies to those advertisements being received by me, and that therefore what he has said is misleading, to say the least?

The survey does not relate to any specific group occupying furnished accommodation, though no doubt students and other single people will be involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is any limit on the number of consecutive provisional driving licences which can be held by a person who has not passed a driving test.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that on Tyneside recently a motorist who was convicted of a number of motoring offences was found to have driven for over 20 years continuously on provisional licences? Is there not, therefore, a case for requiring such people to show reasonable cause before the issue of further provisional licences when it appears that they are deliberately evading the test regulations? Is not the present situation making a farce of those regulations?

I am not aware of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but prior to 1970 it was possible for a licensing authority to refuse a third successive provisional licence if the holder had not taken a test, or booked for one in the next six months. Those provisions were virtually never invoked. On the basis of the experience of the limit before 1970, it is very unlikely that there would be any significant gain in road safety, but I shall look at the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to assist in maintaining established design teams of consulting engineers and architects during the present period of declining contracts in the private and public sector.

We have recently announced action to alleviate the problems of the construction industry, and are setting up a construction exports advisory board to promote overseas work. These steps will help to maintain established design teams. We are also considering suggestions put forward by the RIBA at a meeting I held with it on 30th June.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the export potential of consulting engineers and architects depends on a firm home base and that they cannot operate without a steady home market? Will he consider drawing up a list of major civil and structural engineering projects required over the next 10 or 15 years and arrange feasibility studies in order to keep teams together and provide jobs for the offices?

I do not think that I can accept the suggestion in the form in which it is put to me by my hon. Friend. However, the underlying proposition is accepted, and we are examining the possibility of what is loosely described as "a moving shelf" of jobs. For this to be effective in any gradual upturn of the construction industry or the economy that would allow it, we should have to concentrate, at least initially, not on major but on small schemes, which could be quickly brought off the shelf and put into the pipeline of work. We discussed this and a number of other matters with the RIBA, and we are pursuing the matter further.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee, published in June, making it clear that a number of public contracts have been grossly overspent because of the lack of available drawings? Is not this an excellent opportunity, during the recession, to prepare proper drawings, so that when the recession is over we can get more buildings more cheaply?

Without going into the hon. Gentleman's comment about the PAC Report, I think that it can be said that he has just endorsed what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short).

Ought not it to be Government policy to ensure that the position of consultants with teams should not be undermined by an unreasonable build-up of design teams in the regional water authorities and the regional road construction units?

I am not aware of any unreasonable build-up of that kind.