asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the repairs to Tinsley Viaduct on the M1 to be completed.

It is expected that the modifications to the upper deck of Tinsley Viaduct carrying the M1 will be completed in spring 1978.

Does the Minister accept that the expectation in his Department was that the repairs to the whole bridge—not merely the top deck to which he referred—would have been completed by now? Is the delay to be found in the design processes? Does not the Minister think that this delay in restoring the bridge is an undeserved embarrassment to a steel city like Sheffield?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there have been delays. They have been as a result of changes in the design proposals, and I shall be happy to write to him if he wishes to have further information. The savings from the refined design for strengthening the bridge will exceed the congestion costs arising during the process of planning and making the repairs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even when the Tinsley Viaduct work is completed it will still not be possible to go by the M1 or any other motorway system to the north-east of England because of the absence of the Pudsey-Dishforth link? Will the Minister say when the whole network will be completed by the building of this link?

I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend because his area of the North-East is not linked to the national motorway, but he will be aware that because of expenditure constraints it may be some time before we can do all he hopes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the effect on British Rail finances of the proposed cuts in rail services; and if he will make a statement.

British Rail is still discussing the proposals with the rail unions and others, so no firm estimate can yet be made, but the Board tells me that the savings should amount to over £3 million in 1976.

Is it not clear that these proposals will cause major inconvenience to the public and have a minimal effect on British Rail's mounting losses? I recognise the difficulties of British Rail, but is it not enormously unsatisfactory for such proposals to be carried through with little heed being paid to the views of the public, trade unions and Members of Parliament? Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to have these cuts deferred until adequate consultations have taken place on the overall strategy for British Rail?

The Railways Board has discussed these cuts with the unions involved and reached agreement with them on measures designed to avoid the need for compulsory redundancies, at least for the next seven months. British Rail is exercising its best commercial judgment on the way in which to make the reductions in services so as to impose the least inconvenience on its passengers. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an overall review of transport strategy and policy is being prepared in my Department. Any comment on it had better wait until it is published.

My hon. Friend referred to the convenience of passengers. Have studies been made of the proportion of expected travellers by the trains that are being cancelled who will either go by other services or not travel at all? Is it not important that this should be done, so that the effect on the travelling public can be properly gauged before the cuts are confirmed?

I do not believe that the inconvenience to the public will be as great as my hon. Friend may surmise. Most of the cuts fall on services with relatively low usage—and that applies even to peak services. On some of the peak services involved about half the seats are unoccupied. I can say with some confidence that many cuts in service will have little impact on the public's travelling needs.

Will the Minister accept our congratulations that the White Paper on an overall transport policy is still circulating in his Department? We are desperate to have it before us. Will the Minister say when that is likely to be?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, we are not yet committed to publishing a White Paper. [Interruption.] We have always made that clear. We are not yet committed to publishing a White Paper, but we expect to publish the results of the study. Whether that will be in the form of a White Paper or a Green Paper remains for decision. These matters involve the Department in a considerable amount of research and a great deal of consultation—which is only at the initial stage—with the unions, operators and various parts of the transport industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to produce not a rushed study but a fully comprehensive one.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more desirable to develop the railway services than to cut them back? Is he aware that on 16th December thousands of railwaymen will invade the House to tell him so?

I am well aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about the need to preserve as many as possible of the present services and as much as possible of the railway network, but clearly one has to take a view on the size of the deficit. As I have said before at this Box, my concern is that the amount that we are spending on revenue subsidies is approaching the amount which all my hon. Friends and I would like to put into additional investment in the railways.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the effects of public expenditure cuts on rail services in Scotland.

Any cuts in Scottish rail services that may be decided on will be announced by British Rail.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any cuts in rail investment in Scotland would cause great inconvenience to the public and also have a devastating effect on an integrated transport policy, as well as on matters like road safety, employment prospects for workers in the rail industry, and the conservation of energy? In particular, does my hon. Friend know that in some parts of central Scotland some of the multiple-diesel units operating are 15 years old? Will he consider giving grant aid in order to replace or refurbish these units?

I take my hon. Friend's point. Some of the considerations that have to be borne in mind in setting investment levels for British Rail have to be determined also in relation to the volume of resources available for investment in transport facilities generally in the country. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, future investment ceilings have already been set for next year, and British Rail has a commitment figure for the year after that. Future ceilings beyond that date will have to await the outcome of the present public expenditure review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the take-up level of rate rebates.

About 2½ million people received considerable help under the rate rebate scheme with their rates in 1974–75, the latest period for which figures are available. On the best estimate that I can make, this represents about 70 per cent. of those eligible. I shall not be satisfied until all those eligible receive a rebate.

Is it not the case that the introduction of the scheme has improved the distribution of the unfair burden of local government expenditure only to a limited extent? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come for a definite commitment by the Government to move towards a system that takes account of people's ability to pay? May we have an assurance that the Lay-field Committee will report before the end of the year, as was originally promised?

I attach a great deal of importance to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially about the Layfield Report. It is eagerly awaited by the end of the year, but I hope that I take the House with me when I say it was our duty in the meantime to see that as many people as possible received adequate rate rebates. I think that a 70 per cent. take-up is reasonably high, although I am not totally satisfied. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that the lowest take-up seems to be among private tenants and ratepayers living in quarters combined with commercial premises. I intend to see that publicity is directed towards assisting them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the House of Lords decision that those householders whose sewerage system is not connected to the main drainage do not have to pay water rates? What does he intend to do about that?

My hon. Friend must be congratulated on being quick off a particular mark, but I need rather more time to consider things than, perhaps, he does.

What does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the appropriate level of increase in rates for the coming year? Does he think it likely that the increase will be constrained within that limit?

That is a rather different question. One-third of the income that local authorities receive is made up from the rates, and the precise rate level must therefore be left to them. Nevertheless, they are aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, of the need for constraint, and I am glad to see how well they are co-operating.

asked the Secretary of State for Environment how many extra civil servants are already being employed both by the national and local governments as a direct result of the Community Land Act.

No extra staff have been engaged by my Department on account of this legislation. Local authorities have been advised not to consider recruiting extra staff until they have agreed land acquisition management schemes.

No extra staff have been recruited so far, but how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that, as a direct result of the Community Land Act, there is bound to be a substantial increase in the number of public servants with the Prime Minister's recent speech castigating local government for being overstaffed?

The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, assuming to himself a rather greater knowledge of the effect of the scheme than I have. I shall give him one or two thoughts which he may put into his general interest in this subject, because he has previously asked me a question about local government staffing.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to past issues of the Estates Times, to see the way in which the industry itself is looking at the effects of this "Communist Land Act"? If he has not, I recommend it as soporific bedtime reading. Is he aware that among local authorities there is concern that the Treasury may not make available sufficient money to implement the scheme in the way envisaged when the Bill was introduced? Can my right hon. Friend deny that the only amount of money to be made available will be £25 million?

I have had the greatest support and encouragement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury and the local authorities stand to gain financial benefit from the Act—£4 million back to the community for every £1 million paid out is not a bad deal. The Estates Times is a periodical which, perforce, these days, I read more than The Times, and I note that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) seems to be at variance with the rest of the development and property industry in his view of the Act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Pilcher Report on the commercial development of land says that the Act must mean greater delay and cost? That report has only just been published, although it was finished by 12th August specifically so that it would be available for consideration of the final stages of the Community Land Bill. Why has the report been suppressed until now?

I had better deal with the more serious part of that supplementary question, although I do not see how it relates to the original Question. The Pilcher Report deals with disposals, as the hon. Gentleman will find out when he reads it. Because it deals with disposals, it was more appropriate when the Community Land Bill became an Act. The hon. Gentleman criticises delay. That was not the argument of the Opposition in Committee or on Report, when we were trying to cut down delays in compulsory purchase procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pre-stressed structures to lodge design introduce regulations requiring builders of information with local authorities on completion.

We are considering this in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive.

I am pleased by that reply, because there is great concern in the building industry that, in 50 or 100 years' time, when some of the great monstrosities which have recently been erected are demolished, the removal of certain lintels without knowledge of the stresses involved could bring the whole lot down like a pack of cards. May we have an early statement on the regulations?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We are examining the situation and will come to a conclusion as soon as we can.

Does not the question show some ignorance of the Building Regulations? Should stress designs and calculations not be put in before a building is built and not afterwards? Do local councils throw these things away?

That may be taken as a humorous remark.

It was not meant to be.

It seems to have caused a good deal of humour, but the Question relates precisely to the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make seriously, namely, the desirability of registering the design and make-up of the structures with the local authorities at the time that they are installed or about to be installed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an inquiry into the financial structure and financial targets of the National Bus Company.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the increases in fares which have been made this year by the National Bus Company are quite out of proportion to the general rate of inflation, and that these increases have imposed great hardship on the least-well-off sections of the community, and will inevitably lead to an accelerated decline in public transport? Does my hon. Friend believe that the present financial targets of the National Bus Company are consistent with achieving the pledge, in the Labour Party's manifesto, to expand public transport?

I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. He will recall that the National Bus Company, along with other nationalised industries, has been very active in keeping prices down, as part of successive Governments' counter-inflationary policies. As to where the benefits of the revenue subsidies go, I am sure that my hon. Friend is also aware that more than half of them go to those enjoying more than the average industrial wage, and it is a matter for consideration whether or not that is the best use of what is essentially welfare money.

Does the Minister realise that in many parts of the country crisis point is rapidly being reached over bus services, and that many local authorities, quite rightly, are refusing to increase the level of subsidy because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told them that they must show restraint in local government expenditure? Is it not about time the Minister started to do something about what is becoming a very serious problem indeed, and a deteriorating situation for the National Bus Company?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, after the counties first submitted their transport policies and programmes this year the Department invited the counties to raise their bids for bus revenue support. I cannot give the House the details at the moment, because the transport supplementary grant letters have not yet gone out, but I can tell the House that in virtually every case the bids for increased support have been met.

Is my hon. Friend aware that among the fare increases imposed by the National Bus Company that bear most heavily on people are those in respect of schoolchildren? Will he consider instructing or advising traffic commissioners not to grant such fare increases in the next few months, until his and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has finally made his decision on school transport?

I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion. As he quite rightly says, these are matters that bear rather more immediately on the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

Is the Minister aware that the crisis in the bus system is at its gravest in the rural areas, where the services have been deteriorating steadily as well as the fares going up sharply? What will the Minister do to break the State monopoly of the National Bus Company, to do away with the traffic commissioner system, and to enable private operators of all kinds to try to serve the community better than does the National Bus Company?

Let me say straight away that I think that the National Bus Company does an admirable job in extremely difficult circumstances.

Is the Minister aware of the feeling in the country about concessionary fare schemes and the way in which they operate in different parts of the country? Will he say why the Government cannot introduce a general concessionary fare applying to all people who qualify?

This point has been considered and is still being considered in great detail. There are very considerable difficulties involved. In the first place, some of the concessionary fare schemes are so wide-ranging that people can use them without charge even at peak hours, and to extend a scheme of that sort on a national basis would involve enormous cost to public funds. If one did that, one would face the alternative of cutting back on existing schemes or running two schemes in parallel, either of which courses would lead to severe administrative difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

I meet the Chairman as and when the need arises. My next scheduled meeting with him is on 16th December.

When will the Minister implement the strong recommendation from British Rail that a separate Scottish region of British Rail be established? When will he also announce the granting of £3·3 million to British Rail for the double-tracking of the Perth-Inverness railway line? Is the Minister aware that it is less than half a day's revenue from Scottish oil? Is he further aware that the results of last night's regional council by-elections in Bo'ness and Bishopbriggs indicate that the people of Scotland will not stand for any further cuts in public expenditure?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's calculations of the revenue from British oil are thoroughly up to date, but, in relation to the Perth-Inverness line, we have received an appraisal from the Board of various ways of increasing capacity on that line. The Board's traffic scheme would not yield a satisfactory rate of return, and we are considering whether any special arrangement ought to be made to enable the scheme to go ahead.

Will the Minister state the annual loss in respect of British Rail's Scottish services and give an assurance, bearing in mind the very heavy burden of rates in the west of Scotland, that it is no part of the Government's plan to transfer the loss on the electric trains in the west of Scotland on to the shoulders of the ratepayers in Strathclyde?

I cannot without notice give the hon. Gentleman the detailed statistics for which he asks, but I shall certainly write to him giving the answer, if I can.

Is not my hon. Friend's concern with all this discussion about the future level of services on British Rail taking place in isolation from the discussion about the level of bus services and the level of the motorway programme, and so on? Does he not agree that the Labour Party is pledged to a policy of co-ordination and integration of transport, and not to a policy under which each transport mode is discussed in isolation? When are we to have a co-ordinated and integrated transport policy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that these matters are not discussed in isolation. He is well aware of the need for a great deal of fundamental research before a review can be brought forward, and the group in which he played a distinguished part has in some ways laid the foundation stone for the work now being done by the Government on this matter. It is difficult to give a precise date when the results of the review will be published, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are just as impatient as he is to get it published.

As the Minister is meeting the Chairman of British Rail 10 days before Boxing Day, will he ask the Chairman to reconsider the retrograde decision to cut all rail services on Boxing Day, even if it means charging a premium rate for those who really want to travel on that day?

May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one minor inexactitude? All services are not being cut on that day. Services are being maintained in Scotland, where Boxing Day is not a public holiday.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association.

As I have previously indicated, I and my Department maintain regular contact with the Building Societies Association over a wide range of subjects.

What practical help can the Minister offer to those on low incomes or those wishing to buy older properties who now find that the requirements of the building societies for advancing money to them are too stringent? Now that local authority sources of finance for this purpose have virtually evaporated, does not the hon. Gentleman realise that unless he can induce building societies to relax their lending requirements there will be almost a complete blockage in the purchase of older properties?

I do not accept that there will be a complete blockage, but this is a matter of considerable concern to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are considering this aspect of policy and practice very seriously.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable evidence that building societies are imposing restrictions in specific urban areas, in refusing to lend to those proposing to purchase properties in areas which they do not consider sufficiently attractive to provide adequate security?

I am aware that this is one facet of the problem to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) referred, in certain situations. However, there is a considerable area of overlap between building society lending as a whole and that for which local authorities have been responsible. We estimate that about 20 per cent. of building society lending is on pre-1919 properties. That does not obviate the problem. But there is an overlap here, because we also find the reverse position. In the past there was considerable lending by local authorities in areas and in respect of properties also covered by the building societies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty council houses are not included in his Department's annual relets survey.

It does not include dwellings outside the housing revenue account; but these form only a very small proportion of the total council stock, and many of them are occupied.

Will the hon. Gentleman take action to prevent councils buying privately-rented houses when so much of their own property is lying empty?

It seems that some Opposition Members will not accept the facts even when they are repeated constantly. Despite the wild stories to the contrary, the percentage of local authority-owned property standing empty at any one time is very small indeed. On the basis of the surveys which have been made, it is a much smaller quantity than that in the private sector. We are concerned to see that in terms of purchasing property under the municipalisation programme there shall be a concentration on priority housing, such as property requiring renovation and property standing empty on the market which could be used for homeless families and similar categories. We are examining with the local authorities ways in which, even now, they can tighten up procedures to ensure that properties do not stand empty for any undue length of time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he held with the architects' profession before making his statement of 12th November about the report of Mr. George Dobry, QC, on the development control system.

My right hon. Friend took account of the views of five organisations representing architects.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that more and more architects and individual citizens are fed up with the negative and niggling way in which our planning control system so often works? Will he re-examine the problem and reconsider the decision of his Department—taken without proper discussion in this House—to smother the main recommendation of Mr. Dobry's report?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has it right. On the contrary, we gave considerable thought to much of Mr. Dobry's recommendations, and we have given him full credit for what was a remarkable piece of work. We have fully considered all his recommendations. We have differed from him much more on the administrative way in which we carry this out.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the one body whose views have never been sought on this matter is the House of Commons? Will he accept that there is a great deal of resentment about the way in which he has handled this report, and will he take my hon. Friend's views very seriously?

I cannot accept any of those points. As a matter of fact, at various times we have had quite interesting discussions on Mr. Dobry's views. In saying that, I am looking straight at the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my distinguished predecessor. He will recall many hours during the Committee stage of the Community Land Bill, in that happy environment of Standing Committee G, when Mr. Dobry's views were considered. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) cares to refer to Hansard he will see that during the past year the subject has come up again and again. As for the question whether there is time for further debates, I have no doubt that occasions will arise, even from the Opposition point of view, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there should be further debate.

As the right hon. Gentleman has discarded the main recommendations of the Dobry Report without debate in this House, will he review planning schemes between districts and counties to see whether there is any overlap of functions? Will he consider again the single planning staff which might avoid some of the duplication about which the Prime Minister has complained?

On the latter point, I hope that, without any party difference, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, immediately, under the Community Land Act—though I agree that it is an uncovenanted benefit—we have given an opportunity for counties and districts to work together in land acquisition management schemes to see whether something like a unified staff can arise. I know that it was dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart, as it was to mine.

No.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a final decision about the extension of the M23 motorway.

This will depend upon the outcome of the discussions with the Greater London Council, to which my right hon. Friend referred in his recent statement on the Greater London Development Plan.

Is not it time that my hon. Friend acknowledged that the urban motorway is as obsolete as high-rise flats? Since Westway was pushed through North Kensington, the environmental standards required to build over motorways have made them impossibly expensive, even when we do not have financial stringency. The final extension of the M23 makes sense only if we are to have orbital roads, which clearly we are not. Surely my hon. Friend could now announce that this final extension is not to be built. Will he consider some form of intermediate road—a Ringway 2½—to link up round the south-west and south-east of London, rather than the motorway programme?

I have no difficulty in accepting my hon. Friend's general remarks about urban motorways, but he will be aware that the Greater London Development Plan mentions the need for better orbital movement in outer London, and certainly in South London. He is right in saying that the decision where the M23 shall terminate must depend on considerations of that kind and also on decisions about the way in which non-orbital traffic shall disperse more easily on to the secondary road network in the area in which the M23 terminates.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the conclusions arising out of the decision of the Secretary of State on the development plan leave an untidy gap, and that people are still wondering whether, in the end, this Government will press ahead with more motorways in spite of their public protestations to the contrary?

I am aware of the public concern. This is one unsatisfactory feature of the planning requirements which surrounds the Greater London Development Plan. It is a situation that we hope never to have to struggle with again. I again give the assurance that our policy on urban motorways has not changed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling in South London about the uncertainty caused by this indecision, and that in this case he could both save a great deal of public money and please a great many people if he cancelled this extension altogether?

I am, indeed, well aware of the public concern that has existed for many years in South London. I have already had informal discussions with the Chairman of the Transport Committee of the GLC about precisely where the M23 will terminate. I hope that we shall have further detailed discussions shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further guidance he intends to issue to local authorities regarding tenancy conditions for council tenants.

This is one of the questions which the housing management adviser, whom I am appointing, will be asked to examine.

I do not suppose that the Minister will be asking that adviser to consider the commonsense and popular step of resuming council house sales. However, I should like to put forward two specific points for his consideration. First, will he consider advising local authorities to issue all tenancies in the joint names of husband and wife, so that wives who suffer violence in marriage will have some protection in terms of the council tenancy? Second, will he urge local authorities to encourage those who are under-using their council accommodation to take in lodgers, rather than discouraging them from doing so?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we issued policy advice on this matter in our "Housing Needs and Action" circular some months ago. I am concerned that in connection with the management of council properties and, indeed, in the handling of mortgage facilities for local authority home loans, sufficient awareness is taken of this policy. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have some sympathy with him. I would point out that the housing adviser will be asked to examine the idea of joint tenancies. However, there is no reason why local authorities cannot proceed with this policy in the meanwhile, if they wish to do so. We must bear in mind that whatever work we do in housing management, covering this and many other matters, it will be for the local authorities, within their own jurisdiction, ultimately to decide.

Does the Minister agree that councils should enforce tenancy conditions with common sense and humanity? Is he aware that the council of the London borough of Bexley is threatening pet-owning tenants with eviction, causing great distress to children and elderly tenants? That council has refused the repeated pleas made by members of the community that it should operate a phasing-out system for pets rather than taking this hard-hearted and hard-faced attitude of evicting tenants and causing the destruction of their pets?

Although I certainly would advocate a humane and common-sense view about housing management, I should hesitate very much before I commented on a local, individual situation. I accept the general approach that my hon. Friend has expressed, namely, that in handling problems such as pet-keeping there should be phasing-out wherever practicable. I do not wish to comment in more detail on a particular situation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to make non-elected statutory authorities more answerable to their relevant county councils.

The accountability of non-elected statutory authorities will be a matter for consideration in the light of the forthcoming consultations on devolution in England.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but I fear that this matter may take a long time to get off the ground. Is the Minister aware of the considerable frustration that is felt, at both district and county level, about the activities of some regional bodies? Does he not think that the time is now due to increase the ratio of elected members on those bodies, as opposed to those who are directly centrally appointed, as was originally envisaged under the Local Government Act 1972?

I have a great deal of sympathy with much of the philosophy underlying what the hon. Gentleman said. However, the issues which he has raised seem to be very wide, and I am sure that they will receive close attention in the consultation paper on devolution in England, when that comes out. I have no doubt that both he and many local authorities will not be slow in giving their views on that matter.

Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to consider what might be done to bring regional economic advisory councils rather more up to date and make them rather more effectively democratic?

I should have thought that the regional economic planning councils were part of the general look which will be required when the question of devolution in England is considered. I have no doubt that this matter will be raised at that time.

Will the Minister respond to the widespread and very natural concern that in many areas decisions about the fluoridation of water supplies are being taken by entirely nominated bodies, without any reference to elected representatives?

We shall be issuing a consultation document on the water industry early next year. I have no doubt that there will be many representations at that time, along the lines which the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, many other hon. Members have put forward.

Will my right hon. Friend also consider making non- elected statutory bodies more accountable to the Minister, bearing in mind that the Central Lancashire Development Corporation operates largely as an independent cabal, although it affects the lives of half a million people?

I know of my hon. Friend's great interest and very strong views about this matter, but there is always a balance to be considered. There is the balance between accountability of development corporations to the Minister, who, in turn, of course, is accountable to the House, and, at the same time, the natural desire and, indeed, the advantage in local development corporations "ganging their ain gait" and providing the necessary answers—[Interruption.] I thought that was a North Country expression, but it means going their own way—and coming to decisions which closely relate to the individual area. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the decisions which they make must also strongly reflect the feelings, the desires, the ambitions, and so on, of the people who live in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of his working party which is looking at the operation of direct labour departments.

It is too early to say when the working party will report.

The Minister's reply was most disappointing. Is he aware that an increasing number of these departments provide very unfair competition with small builders and the self-employed, and cost the ratepayers money? What is the Government's attitude to the proposed West Midlands Bill which is to extend the scope of local authorities in tendering?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be disappointed with my reply. The working party was announced only about four weeks ago. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wanted to have a go anyway, and I suppose that is a good practice in the House. On the matter which the hon. Gentleman raised, I merely say that at this stage we should wait for the working party's report. Let us see what results come from it in terms of further developments in this area. However, in the meanwhile, let us not assume that efficiency in the building industry is to be found in only the private sector. Let us consider the need for efficiency wherever it is required, and not knock the concept of public enterprise in this area just for the sake of doing so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the direct works department in Sheffield has run into rather serious legal difficulties in tendering for an important public project which the Yorkshire Water Authority wishes to carry out? Will he examine urgently the legal constraints on that department, which may cause serious unemployment if it is not allowed to go on tendering for projects which, from its experience and skill, it is well able to do?

This area generally is already the subject of some examination by the Department, although until now I had not taken on board the point that my hon. Friend raised. I certainly undertake to consider this matter and bear it in mind when looking generally at the relationship of direct works departments to tendering for work in their areas, not necessarily confined to the services of the local authorities which run the departments.

Will the Minister examine the complaint of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors against the South Yorkshire County Council? Although, in theory, the council believes in tendering for major contracts, the Sheffield-Rotherham link road was given to direct labour without there being a tender.

That decision was entirely for the county authorities. It was not a Ministry road scheme. In any case, I understand that two other projects are coming forward from the same authority which will be open for tender.

Does my hon. Friend accept that direct works departments have a very honourable and successful record of social enterprise over the past few years? Does he also accept that if it were not for those departments the number of trained building employees would have virtually dried up, because at least 50 per cent. of all apprentices in the building industry are employed by direct works departments, and private enterprise has signally failed because of the perpetration of the "lump" which has led to shoddy work and low standards?

As I said before, although briefly, one should look for quality and efficiency wherever it is required. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which is too often overlooked by those who, in this area, are concerned simply to attack public sector activity for the sake of it. Direct works organisations throughout the country have been largely responsible for maintaining good employment and training practices in the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the system whereby double-decker works buses may be driven by PSV untested drivers, while hire firms need PSV licensed drivers even for minibuses.

Under the Road Traffic Acts a public service vehicle driver's licence is required only to drive a vehicle used for hire or reward, and works buses are often not in this category. I am, however, prepared to consider whether there should be extra requirements for drivers of large private passenger vehicles.

Does the Minister agree that his answer smacks of bureaucratic bloody-mindedness rather than road safety?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government intend to introduce legislation concerning the use of seat belts in cars.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory.

Yes, the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill will be reintroduced as soon as practicable in the present Session.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us will be glad to hear that? Is he aware that when we began to discuss the Bill 12 months ago his predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, said that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would save about 1,000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year? Is he further aware that these figures are borne out by experience in Australia, where the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars has been in operation for four years? The rates of both fatalities and serious injuries have been reduced by about 15 per cent. there. Every week's delay now costs about 20 lives and 200 serious injuries. Will the Government act quickly to bring the Bill before the House?

I am in complete sympathy with everything said by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend recall one of his colleagues telling me, a few weeks ago, that nearly 20,000 people need not have died or been seriously disabled last year had they been wearing safety belts, and that the total number killed and injured over a period of years would dwarf the number of people killed or maimed in the last war? Will he treat this as a matter of urgency and ignore the rather silly announcements and pressures from organisations like the RAC?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I certainly endorse the views and the statistics which he has put before us. It certainly will be my objective to reintroduce the Bill as quickly as possible, subject to consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with current home-building figures; and if he will make a statement.

Not yet, but the latest figures published last week show further progress in our efforts to get a recovery in new housebuilding. In the first 10 months of 1975 there were already 145,000 starts and 133,000 completions in the public sector, compared with 147,000 starts and 129,000 completions in the whole of 1974, and, similarly, private sector starts and completions were 124,000 and 122,000 compared with 105,000 and 140,000. The figures show 23 per cent. and 15 per cent. increases in starts and completions so far this year, compared with 1974.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome as they are, those figures are compared with a very poor base in the previous year and that we need to go much further if we are to get anywhere near the figures of the mid-1960s, when we completed about 1¼ million houses in three successive years? Does he also agree that we must have a fresh look at the way in which local authorities finance their housing, and consider whether it should continue on the 60-year basis, whether loans should be at the same level as for financing motorways, and so on, and whether the Department should consider even the possibility of writing off some of the capital debt of local authorities, as has been done for the National Coal Board, British Rail and, indeed, some private sector companies, recently?

The financial points mentioned by my hon. Friend fall to be and are being considered as part of the general housing finance review on which the Department is still engaged. I certainly accept, as I indicated in my original reply, that the progress we have made is not yet satisfactory. However, it is considerable. Compared with 1973, in the public sector there is an increase of activity of between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. and a considerable improvement on the mortgage famine and the collapse of house-building for owner-occupation which we inherited at the beginning of 1974.

Does the Minister accept that the economic situation will inevitably limit the amount of new building which can be carried out? In these circumstances, is there not a great need to review the improvement programme and to consider ways of bringing vacant property into use? In that connection, will the hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to reviewing the reasons why property stays unused and to finding means to bring that property into use for homes?

On the last point, we are already ahead of the hon. Gentleman. We have been in detailed discussion with local authority associations for some time now on a number of ideas for making better use of housing stock and bringing empty property into use. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, a week or so ago, indicating half a dozen major points of policy on this issue. Concerning new building, I see these other initiatives not as alternatives to the level of new building, but as additional to it.

Will the Minister remove the restrictions on the improvement of older houses, particularly the installation of baths, hot water and inside lavatories? This could be done quickly, without involving the delay necessary in planning new housing, and would also relieve growing unemployment in the building trade.

Concerning public expenditure budgeting for improvement, and, indeed, municipalisation, which is often closely associated with it, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the results of the public expenditure review, which is always current at this time of the year. I regret that I cannot undertake, if that is what my hon. Friend is suggesting, that no ceiling will be imposed on the budgets. Regrettably, the economic situation has pushed us in this direction. There will be budgeting, and not a no ceiling situation.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome much of the change of heart shown by the Secretary of State in his speech at Eastbourne recently? When can we expect the review of the Rent Act to be completed? Shall we have legislation, as a result, this Session?

I shall be in a better position to say when such a review will be completed when it has started. It will follow in the wake of the housing finance review, as stated by the Secretary of State a week or so ago. The hon. Gentleman knows that his remarks are inaccurate and misleading to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now announce the preferred route for the proposed Long Sutton bypass (A17 road).

I hope to make an announcement on the preferred route for the A17 Wigtoft Sutterton and Long Sutton/Sutton Bridge Bypasses early in the new year.

The hon. Gentleman has been hoping for a long time to make that decision. This matter is causing a great deal of hardship. Does he not appreciate that it is very hard on many people to make these proposals and then for months to go by before a firm decision is taken?

I certainly accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Part of the difficulty in this case is that the route crosses good agricultural land. We are having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we hope to reach agreement shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report the last six salary increases awarded to those employed in local government, together with the date of each salary increase and the percentage increase in basic pay on each occasion.

My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the negotiation of local government wages and salaries. but I am sure that details of salary increases would be supplied on request to the hon. and learned Member by the Local Authorities' Conditions of Service Advisory Board.

Is it not correct that a high proportion of the enormous increase in local government expenditure over the last few years has been due to salary increases, whereas the Government's economy drive is directed towards cutting down local government services? Does not this result in a much higher salaried service, providing a much more restricted service for the country? What comfort does the right hon. Gentleman derive from that situation?

The whole question of the actual staff and its use, which is implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, needs watching and reviewing. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has instituted, with local authorities, the joint watch on staff. When one examines the general increase in staff over the past few years—even forgetting local government reorganisation—one finds that a certain amount of it, if not a great deal, is part-time staff.

Given, however, that central Government meet about two-thirds of the cost of local authority salaries and that the cost of those salaries now constitutes a very large part of total public expenditure, is it bearable, in the long run, that central Government should continue to be detached from the process of settling salary levels in local government? Will the Minister give an undertaking that that question will be reviewed?

Central Government have their interest in local authority matters, as my hon. Friend quite rightly says. I do not complain about that. One of the points of contact is the Government's counter-inflation policy, and this is something which local authorities have been loyally observing. But I again emphasise the importance, to my mind, of the joint staff watch and, indeed, of the consultative council—a newer and, I hope, additional relationship between central Government and local government which seems to me to be in the process of emerging.

Would not the Prime Minister's remarks about chiefs and Indians in local government be more credible if the national Civil Service had not expanded by more than 11,000 in the last thre months?

The Prime Minister's remarks about chiefs and Indians no doubt have a very much wider implication, even beyond local government. They may even go into private enterprise at times.

When the Minister undertakes the review in question, will he be kind enough to tell the House the amount of money spent in relation to the early retirement of those employed by local authorities?

I do not think that I have the figures, but I feel that probably a deal of time could be spent, and perhaps wasted, on this exercise—with great respect to my hon. Friend. What we do know is that a large number of golden handshakes and early retirements took place as a result of the reorganisation of local government by the Conservative Government.