asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has taken in the last three months to provide special assistance to inner areas.

The needs of inner city areas have been recognised in the rate support grant settlement and in the allocation of funds for house improvements, for the acquisition of houses by local authorities, and for local authority lending for house purchase.

Are the Government aware that these welcome steps are being partly undone by the London rate equalisation scheme under which this coming year the average inner London domestic ratepayer will be required to pay no less than £14 per family as a straight subsidy to ratepayers in outer London? Are they aware that many of the inner London boroughs which voted for that scheme did so because the ratepayers were unaware of what they were doing, and because they were "conned" into believing that if they did not accept that proposal the Secretary of State would impose an even more penal surcharge on them?

The allocation of resources is always difficult. This was a proposal from the London Boroughs Association on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deliberated. He finally agreed that the concentration of heavy rateable value in parts of London should be shared more evenly throughout London.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government diverted to the inner cities a fraction of the public money which is to be wasted under the Community Land Act they would give the attack on urban deprivation the extra momentum it needs?

The problem of the inner cities is very serious and it is receiving urgent consideration. We are trying to find a way of positively discriminating in favour of the inner cities. It is misleading to suggest for political reasons that there is any easy answer.

How many inner area study reports have been produced? Will the Government consider producing some kind of analysis or commentary on those reports, drawing them together and producing some immediate results?

There have been inner area studies in Liverpool, Birmingham and Lambeth and we hope to have them by the autumn. They will be published as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to transfer traffic from road to rail.

The White Paper on Public Expenditure published last week already shows a large shift in the balance between road investment and rail investment. Comparing 1973–74, the last year of Conservative Government, with the focus year 1978–79, road investment will fall by 24 per cent. while rail investment will rise 41 per cent. The question referred to will be discussed at length in the forthcoming consultative document.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that a shift from road to rail traffic will lead to better standards of safety as well as to better standards of conservation of the environment and of energy? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is inhibited by the regulations and policies of the EEC, which advocate the freeing of road haulage from quantity and tariff licensing restrictions and the reduction of railway systems to try to make them pay their way?

On the first point, I share my right hon Friend's aspiration. The matter will be discussed at length in the consultative document.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the recommendations in the Report of the Expenditure Select Committee dealing with urban transport planning, published in December 1972, were fully implemented, that would go a long way towards dealing with the problem raised by his hon. Friend and it would certainly solve many of our transport problems?

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the consultative document will reflect much of the thinking in the Select Committee's Report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for increasing mobility for council tenants.

My right hon. Friend is considering what further steps are needed as part of the general review of housing management.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the sad collapse of private rented accommodation, there has been a collapse also in the flexibility of housing? Does he not also agree that the regulations applying to council houses constitute a serious barrier to a mobile, or at least more mobile, work force?

We have no evidence to substantiate the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, but we are examining the situation urgently to see whether the system could be made more flexible and people who want to be mobile encouraged.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the mobility of the work force is of prime concern to the Government? Would it not be advisable to list on a central register, either at county or metropolitan level, existing properties where people wish to move so that the process of moving could be effected in that manner?

I take that suggestion on board. We have indicated by circular ways in which we think tenants who want to move can be helped. But we also have to bear in mind the limits on resources and manpower. We are trying to find a solution.

Would it not help the manpower problem if the Minister considered setting up a national system of computer-linked exchange centres so that tenants could take up new job opportunities more easily with benefit not only to themselves but to the economy as a whole?

It is remarkable how the Opposition keep telling us not to interfere and then demand more public expenditure. We are urgently considering this very important matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the inability of local authorities to build to Parker Morris standards within the cost yardstick.

I do not accept the implication of the hon. Member's Question. It is entirely inconsistent with the substantial increase we have achieved in public sector house building over the last two years.

Will the hon. Gentleman encourage local authorities to purchase privately-built houses which are not subject to the Parker Morris standards? Does he realise that local authorities are falling behind in their building programmes because they have to conform to those standards?

I think that the hon. Gentleman found great difficulty in associating what he wanted to ask with the original Question. Public sector building has seen a substantial increase. Far from local authorities falling behind, we are encouraged by their response.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the people in charge of the local authority building programmes during the lifetime of the Conservative Government spent three years trying to get them to lift the yardstick, and that it took the present Government to do so, thus allowing local authorities to get building contracts into the pipeline?

Yes, and that statement is substantiated by the figures we have. All public sector housing schemes have to meet the yardstick discipline, and virtually all are built to Parker Morris standards.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, because of the yardstick, Newcastle City Council's direct labour force lost no less than £85,000 last month, while six contracts are running at an estimated 18 per cent. above the council's basic estimate? Will he bear in mind that there is a lot of spare capacity in the private building sector and use the maximum encouragement to local authorities to put out tenders to private contract?

We are always anxious to consider anything which will help in the provision of suitable housing, but I do not see what the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has to do with the Parker Morris standards.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the report of the inspector into the public inquiry into the Denton Bypass (M67).

As yet I can add nothing to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 4th February.—[Vol. 904; c. 646–7.]

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the concern of people in the area about the delay in announcing the results? Does he also appreciate the very great concern in Manchester that there should be completion of the east ring road continuation of the M63 rather than a start on the M67, a second crossing of the Pennines?

I am aware of the concern in Manchester about the need to complete the ring road round the eastern side of the city. As far as the M67 is concerned, successive Ministers, including myself, have made it clear that the Denton and Hyde schemes stand on their own feet, independent of any proposals for a trans-Pennine scheme. I have given the Peak Park Authority my personal assurance that I shall visit the area before any final decision is made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the building societies.

My Department maintains regular contacts with the Building Societies Association.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has had with the building societies about the high level of funds which they hold? Is there any chance of a reduction in the mortgage rate of interest? If not, will he reconsider asking the building societies to make loans to local authorities so that the local authorities can lend on some of the older properties, since, without this extra help, there would not be enough money available from the local authorities themselves to lend to those who need to buy these older properties?

There is a later Question about the mortgage interest rate. My hon. Friend asked about lending on older properties—down market generally. Now that the private and public sector house building figures are on a healthy trend and we have an extra £50 million for Section 105, this is my top priority. The building societies and the local authority associations have met to discuss the problem and have set up a joint working party of officials, instructing it to reach conclusions as soon as possible. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall follow the results of that initiative with the closest possible attention.

Is not the time approaching when the right hon. Gentleman should consider admitting that the building societies are either unwilling or unable to take over from local authorities as lenders on old property? Will not he consider speaking again to the Building Societies Association with a view to causing the societies to modify their lending terms, because it that is not done he will be accused of misleading thousands of people who want to buy just that type of property?

We should bear in mind that the provision in the White Paper on Public Expenditure for local authority mortgage lending, which will in the main be directed to this kind of property, will be between £250 million and £350 million, which is a high figure by historical standards. I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but this matter is in play between the local authorities and the building societies, and until I see the outcome of that initiative I do not propose to take a further initiative myself. But this is my first priority.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the building societies, will he raise with them the subject of making mortgages available in what apparently are now black areas—Liverpool 8, for example—where people are finding it very difficult, in fact almost impossible, to get mortgages?

That is another question on the same general theme, but I should emphasise that local authority mortgage funds last year ran out after two or three months because it was thought that a quota might be imposed, as it was. But funds will become available again at the start of the next financial year, and by historical standards will be at a very reasonable level. Nevertheless, what my hon. Friend has mentioned is at the top of my list of housing priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further meetings he plans to hold with the Chairman of British Rail.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the Chairman of British Rail.

I shall be meeting the chairman when the need arises.

When the hon. Gentleman sees the Chairman of British Rail, will he say to him that what is needed in Scotland is the immediate double-tracking of the Perth-Inverness railway line, which is now carrying double the number of passengers that it was carrying in 1963, before it was made a single track? Will he also press for the immediate electrification of the rapid transit systems in Tayside, Edinburgh and Aberdeen? Will he also ask for a clear and unequivocal statement that there will be no cut-backs and rationalisation in the railway lines north of Glasgow and Edinburgh? Will the Minister accept that we on the SNP Benches will brook no flannelling and equivocation on this issue?

Order. This is a time not for debate but for asking questions.

I am not sure that I should comment on the catalogue of additional public expenditure in which the hon. Gentleman would like us to engage. I am considering the scheme for the upgrading of the Perth-Inverness line in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and in the light of the decisions on public expenditure announced on 19th February.

rose—

rose—

Mr. Bagier.

Will my hon. Friend—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I have noticed the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and I shall call him. I hope that he will forgive my temporary absent-mindedness.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, when he meets Sir Richard Marsh, ask him whether he believes his fare policy is in accordance with the Government's policy? Even more important, will my hon. Friend ask him whether the Government's policy at the moment is seriously affecting the transfer of freight from road to rail?

A great many questions about the distribution of freight traffic as between road and rail will be covered in the consultative document. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient for a little longer.

Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's policy to make the railways less of a social service and more a body which pays its way through fares? Will he also repeat to the House what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told hon. Members at a Labour Party meeting upstairs yesterday, that there is a great need for internal economies in the running and manning of British Rail?

There is no dispute whatever that there is a need for further economies in the internal manning and running of British Rail. I pay tribute to the statesmanship of the leaders of the railway unions when they have seen great reductions in manpower over many years. However, it is difficult to take seriously comments from Members of the Opposition about problems of commuter fares when the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) only a week ago said that the Government were not taking the public expenditure problem seriously and the subsidy area could have yielded much more.

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to you for calling me. Will my hon. Friend agree that one saving that could be effected by British Rail is in the use of private saloons, which are maintained at some expense, in which the management of British Rail go out and inspect their empire? Will not the Minister agree that that practice is outdated and that the management should ride on the somewhat tatty diesel multiple units which many of their customers have to use? Will he not also agree that the Chairman of British Rail should initiate discussions with the trade unions about industrial democracy? Is not that the sort of policy that the Labour Government should initiate?

The subject of industrial democracy is being given close attention, as my hon. Friend will know, not only by British Rail, but by all nationalised industries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the method by which complaints can be made to local ombudsmen.

Yes, Sir. I believe the present method of referring complaints is working satisfactorily.

Is the Minister aware that it is often difficult for members of the public to make complaints to the local ombudsman through local councillors, especially when they want to complain about water authorities? Will the Minister therefore initiate a change in the system so that a member of the public may make a complaint through an officer of the local authority or the water authority concerned, as that would simplify matters and make things easier for the public?

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. A member of the public would go to a councillor at first, because normally that local authority would be aware of the complaint. However, a member of the public is entitled to approach the commissioner direct.

Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which complaints are handled by his Department? When will he respond to my several requests for him to make a personal investigation into the gross misuse of public funds—£1¼ million—in respect of Trinity Park House in Edinburgh?

I am very satisfied with the way in which my Department deals with complaints.

In view of recent comments made by the Parliamentary Commissioner about the enormous interest shown by individuals in the service that he provides, will the Minister consider the possibility of complaints being made direct to the Parliamentary Commissioner rather than having to be processed through Members of Parliament?

That question relates to the local commissioners. It is preferable for questions to be routed via a councillor so that the local authority is aware of the problem. However, the commissioner will have to issue an annual report. I take on board what my hon. Friend has said and what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) said about water authorities, which are now in a different position from when the Act was passed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the methods of traffic forecasting adopted by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory accurately reflect future trends of traffic density.

No forecasts can claim complete accuracy, but the present methods and the forecasts which they produce appear to be the best currently available. However, I greatly welcome any constructive criticism of our methods.

No doubt the Secretary of State will be aware that the vehicle registration figures published for January this year show a drop on those published in January 1975. Does not that indicate that it is time to reconsider the position of traffic forecasting? Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the view that traffic is liable to double in the next 35 years? That is a forecast of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. When can this subject be debated, because it is not possible to debate it at highway inquiries? Will it be mentioned in the consultative document?

I am aware that recently many criticisms have been made of the TRRL forecasts. Therefore, I propose to publish a thorough annex to the consultative document which will set out in the greatest possible detail the basis on which forecasts are made. I hope that that will be the subject of intense public discussion. If I can be convinced that our forecasts are wrongly based, I shall be only too happy to change them.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that recent forecasts of likely traffic have shown that they are likely to be substantially under those made two or three years ago? Will he comment on the implications of that on the current motorway building programme?

The forecasts have not been greatly adjusted as compared with three years ago, partly because the view is taken that the rise in petrol prices will have less effect on car ownership and car traffic than many commentators suppose, and partly because we assume that economic growth will be resumed by 1990 or 2000—[Laughter.] We hope that economic growth will be resumed substantially before then and at a pace which I do not doubt will make the rate of growth under the Conservatives look utterly contemptible.

Even if the lowest forecasts of the Laboratory are true, the recently announced cuts in public expenditure, especially on new road building and maintenance, will only mean much increased congestion and much increased use and waste of energy. If the fore-casts happen to be wrong, why is the right hon. Gentleman a Member of a Cabinet which has agreed to pour millions of pounds into the British motor industry?

I do not conceal that the cuts in road expenditure which were announced in the White Paper last week will be severe. Comparing 1973–74 with 1978–79, the cuts in total road expenditure will amount to about 24 per cent. in real terms. There will be an environmental cost involved in these cuts because a number of places badly need bypasses which they will not get. Nevertheless, we believe that this is the right balance of transport spending.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm pledge that in the course of his transport review any attempt to cut back on the road programme and to transfer traffic from road to rail will not be at the expense of the economic efficiency of British industry?

We shall make it clear in the consultation document that the economic efficiency of British industry is an objective of the first importance, but not the sole objective of transport policy. We must also take into account the social effects of transport policy, for example, on those who do not own cars, and the environmental effects. The consultation document will discuss all these separate and not always easily reconcilable objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the proposed dates for starting and finishing the M56 and M531 extension.

Subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and to the availability of funds, it is hoped to start work on the M56 extension in the financial year 1977–78 with completion about two and a half years later. The programming of the extensions to the M531 is a matter for Cheshire County Council.

What effect will the proposed cuts in public expenditure have on the completion dates of these extensions?

The cuts to which the hon. Gentleman refers relate to the financial year 1978–79 and should not affect this scheme.

Can the Minister give any assurance as to whether there is to be an extension of the M56 to the Welsh border, or, if not the M56, at least a dualling of the carriageway?

I am not aware of any present plans for extension of the M56.

Will the Minister be prepared to consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some tax concession could be given to commuters for their fares, par- ticularly people who of necessity have to live outside London?

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mistaken the Question. The matter that he raises does not arise on this Question. It arose on the last.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question in relation to the Minister's responsibilities, and that covers a very wide field.

At present, however, we are dealing with the starting dates for road extensions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the arrangements for public inquiries into the circumstances of the siting and building of new factories, roads, etc.; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me that there are, despite his monosyllabic reply, very grave misgivings among the general public about the machinery for conducting public inquiries? Will he further accept, for instance, that I took part in an inquiry recently in my constituency about the siting of a factory, to which there was great opposition, at which a group of non-union workers, paid for two days, came down and set up a claque of such abuse that the inspector who chaired the meeting had grave difficulty in presiding? Will the Minister also accept that those men were paid off in the foyer their wages for the week, which caused a certain disquiet? Does he think that there is some—

Order. This is a very interesting story, but it should be briefer and to the point.

I accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker. However, does not the Minister consider that there is room for some inquiry into the way in which public inquiries generally are conducted?

As the inspector's report in that particular case is now being considered, I cannot comment on the merits of the case or on the conduct of that inquiry. The inspector has discretion to allow anyone to make representations at planning inquiries, but it is the planning merits of the case that are important. As my hon. Friend will know, we have had certain difficulties elsewhere in Yorkshire with an inquiry, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government gave my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) an answer on 9th February about our proposals there.

Is the Minister aware that many people are very far from satisfied with the proposals for public inquiries under the Community Land Act, and in particular the fact that people can have their property taken away under that Act without any inquiry at all?

The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, and he knows perfectly well that that is not correct.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what calculations he bases his view that the major proportion of the rail subsidies goes to the better-off sections of the community; and if he will make a statement.

As I said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) on 4th February, the information was derived from the National Travel Survey of 1973 and the Family Expenditure Survey of 1974.—[Vol. 904, c. 638.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that widespread resentment has been caused by these remarks, particularly when very considerable hardship is being caused to many families by these very large increases in rail fares? If it is not to be thought that the Minister is merely indulging in a new form of class warfare, will he please publish full statistics to show exactly where rail subsidies go?

I am very happy indeed to give the hon. Gentleman as much detail as possible in the consultative document as to precisely where the rail subsidies go. However, the hon. Gentleman's remarks ought to be directed towards his own Front Bench as much as to the Gov- ernment Front Bench, because the Opposition's spokesman on the environment has just remarked that he wants a lot more cut off rail subsidies. The Government have doubled the amount going on rail subsidies in 1975–76 over 1973–74.

Is it not a fact that the major proportion per capita of all the expenditure on the services provided to individuals goes to the better-off members of the community?

If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, the answer is "Yes".

Is it not a fact, however, that commuters are paying not only above-average fare increases but higher taxes to pay for the rail deficit? Does not the commuter's position show the overriding need for greater efficiency within British Rail and demonstrate that a new effort must be made to tackle the problem of ever-escalating fares?

My right hon. Friend and I have made it perfectly clear that we regard the improvement of efficiency and manning procedures in British Rail as a prime priority. What we should like to know from Opposition Members is how they pretend that they would keep fare increases down and yet at the same time reduce subsidies.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, particularly in new towns such as that which I represent, Hemel Hempstead, not all constituents are rich and many must travel into London for their work? Will he therefore consider approaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seek tax relief on commuter fares, which, if organised properly, would give the greatest relief to those in greatest need?

I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, I have to say to my hon. Friend, with a little recollection of my days at the Treasury, that it does not follow that tax relief gives the greatest benefit to those in greatest need. It gives the greatest benefit to those with the greatest income. However, I take my hon. Friend's point about his constituents who have to travel into London. We have never said that the benefit of the subsidy went exclusively to the better-off members of the community. We have merely said that in certain parts of the country and particularly in respect of certain types of travel the benefit goes predominantly to the better-off.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a date for the announcement of a final decision on the Warminster outer bypass.

I hope to announce the route chosen for further development in the summer.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that. Will he bear in mind that there is considerable local uncertainty about the route and that, as the Warminster bypass has been under discussion for many years, the sooner he can make an announcement the better?

I am certainly anxious to be as helpful as possible to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, but he will be the first to recognise that the consultation exercise was completed only about a week ago and that not even all the local authorities, as I understand it, have yet submitted their views. Therefore, it will be a little time yet before we can announce a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the new duties added to the responsibilities of local authorities since February 1974.

A comprehensive answer to the hon. Member's Question would involve disproportionate cost and effort, but I can assure him that no major changes are introduced which directly affect local government functions without full consideration of the expenditure and manpower repercussions.

Will the Minister give an assurance that any new duties that may be placed on local authorities during the next two years have already been taken fully into account in the public expenditure review?

Yes, indeed. We look very carefully at all legislation in respect of both its cost and its manpower implications for local authorities.

As the Community Land Act will increase net public expenditure by the staggering amount of £312 million over the next four years, how will that make it easier to provide investment and to help exports, as the White Paper on public expenditure predicates?

For two reasons: first, because of the Community Land Act it will be possible for local authorities, for their own purposes, to purchase land more cheaply; secondly, because of the Act local authorities can invest in land, and that is not a waste of public money but of great benefit to local authorities.

As greater traffic management powers are already part of the new duties of local authorities, is the Minister satisfied that the local authorities are getting on successfully with preparations under the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act for controlling the movement of heavy lorries?

I think they are, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not fully understand the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make additional resources available for the improvement of council houses.

As indicated in the statement of 12th February by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an additional £50 million is being made available for public sector house improvement during 1976–77 as one of a number of measures designed to alleviate unemployment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I wish that the Chancellor would always respond so quickly to such sensible suggestions? Is he aware that I should be even more grateful if this measure had been achieved by curtailing wasteful expenditure on municipalisation and if there were any sign of an immediate review of a housing policy which seems to result in the misspending of more and more money and the creation of a bigger and bigger problem?

No doubt municipalisation is not a major issue in Braintree, but if the hon. Gentleman represented a borough in an inner city centre in any of our great cities he would know that it is often the only way of saving property in bad repair and bringing empty houses back to the housing market.

Will my right hon. Friend get in touch with local authorities in conurbations such as Liverpool and tell them to get on with the job of housing improvements? In particular, will he point out to them that it is a scandal that council houses can be left standing empty up to eight or nine months after the previous tenants have moved out? The excuse made by the council is that it does not have the people to deal with the repairs. In an area such as Liverpool that is an absolute disgrace. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Liverpool Council to get on with the job of getting new tenants into council houses?

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend. However, the problem of council houses standing empty is not anything like as serious as the problem in the private sector.

Oh!

The national figures indicate that the proportion of the council housing stock that is empty is very much smaller than the proportion of empty houses in the private housing stock. In Liverpool and Merseyside the problem goes wider than my hon. Friend has suggested. New house building in Mersey-side, alone among the conurbations, fell last year as compared with the year before. The total housing situation on Merseyside is a matter of great urgency.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands upon thousands of empty properties that have been municipalised by local authorities? Would it not be much more sensible if authorities spent their money on repairing and improving those properties before buying further properties?

Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the object of Section 105 expenditure is precisely to redirect local authority spending towards the housing that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I must make that plain. I shall give the House the information in one form or another, but I insist that the problem of empty housing is not solely or primarily a problem of empty houses in the public sector. It is more a problem in the private sector.

Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that in distributing the additional £50 million between local authorities, the principal criterion will be to distribute it roughly in proportion to the stock of properties bought from the private sector, properties which are often empty and awaiting rehabilitation by the local authority?

That cannot be the principal criterion. The money was provided partly, as my hon. Friend knows, as an anti-unemployment measure. There will have to be two criteria. The first must be the housing criterion, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The second must be the level of unemployment in the construction industry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in my constituency, as opposed to Liverpool, some local authority houses have been empty for as long as two years? It is said that these properties have been standing empty because very often there has been delay on the part of the Department of the Environment in approving schemes for modernisation.

It is a Liberal council.

It is not a Liberal council. Will the Secretary of State remember that the Isle of Wight has an unemployment rate in excess of 8·3 per cent. and that it could do with some of the £50 million?

All of us in all parts of the House look to the Isle of Wight for guidance in our housing policies. The suggestion that the Isle of Wight has a prior claim in terms of unemployment or housing problems must cause some dispute.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one reason for the appalling housing situation in many inner city areas is the present absurd system of Rent Acts? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the need for an urgent reform of the system? Will he tell the House that he will look much more kindly than his hon. Friend on the sort of proposals put forward in a Private Member's Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane)?

I have already announced that we shall be reviewing the complex Rent Acts in the course of the housing finance review. I must correct the hon. Gentleman and point out that the decline in the private rented sector, contrary to what is constantly said by his right hon. and hon. Friends, proceeded at just as rapid a rate under the Conservative Government as during the past two years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what losses have been incurred by British Rail from the transfer of Post Office traffic from rail to road.

The reorganisation of the Post Office parcels service is still in progress. The final effects on British Rail's business will therefore depend on the outcome of the commercial negotiations between the British Railways Board, Freightliners Limited and the Post Office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no point in this exercise if it results in a net loss to the Exchequer? Does he agree that there is no evidence of the alleged savings from the Post Office or from the Minister because of the unaccountability on day-to-day management—a cocoon in which mismanagers can live happily, safe from criticism from Ministers, Members of Parliament or electors?

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It seemed that he was addressing his criticism to the management of the Post Office, for which I have no responsibility.

Is the Post Office in Scotland any more likely to transfer its traffic from rail to road in view of the reports this week that Scottish rolling stock on British Rail is of very poor quality, often being cast-offs from the Southern Region, reports highlighted by the NUR, ASLEF and TSSA?

Again I am being asked a supplementary question about the Scottish Post Office, for which I have no responsibility.

But my hon. Friend has responsibility for the integration of transport. Does he agree that when the Post Office produced its parcels rationalisation scheme it was the deliberate policy of the corporation to site certain of its concentration depots away from rail access? If that is so, will my hon. Friend make representations to the Post Office to change its policy?

I must repeat to my hon. Friend that this is a matter of Post Office management and its decisions on what is best for the industry. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of other hon. Members. The representations that my hon. Friend makes should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further allocation of funds available to local authorities in areas of high unemployment for house building and repair.

As my hon. Friend knows, local authorities are not subject to expenditure allocations for new house building. So far as the improvement of public sector housing is concerned, an extra £50 million allocation was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th February. This will be directed mainly to areas of high unemployment in the construction industry.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, welcome though the £50 million is, it could be gobbled up in a day by the housing improvement needs on Merseyside, even by those of Kirkby? Does he accept that, given the abnormally high level of unemployment on Merseyside among building workers—14,000 are now unemployed—and the strong need for the improvement of public sector housing in the area of Knowsley Borough Council, there is a case for additional sums to be allocated to that area? Will he take steps to allocate those funds?

I am conscious that my hon. Friend has quite an exceptional housing problem in at any rate one part of his constituency. The detailed allocation to individual councils will be announced very shortly. I hope that Merseyside will be treated sympathetically as it has exceptional problems. Everyone would like more of the total allocation. The extra £50 million means that there will be a considerably higher allocation than last year and an allocation incomparably higher than the level which was running in the early 1970s.

What progress has been made with the RIBA moving shelf concept? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that resources are made available for these purposes?

There was, perhaps, a certain ambiguity in that question. The moving shelf concept, as I understand it, has practically nothing to do with public sector house improvement. It is directed to a wider problem in the construction industry, which wants a moving shelf system for reasons going far beyond local authority housing improvement. I am happy to be reminded of the problem by the hon. Gentleman. We are in constant discussion about it with everybody under the sun.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to be a little flexible about adopting criteria for what constitutes an area of high unemployment when dealing with the allocation of the £50 million? Will he take into consideration the fact that in London a large increase in unemployment has coincided with urban aid problems? Will he take such factors into consideration as well as the total number of unemployed?

I am always prepared to be flexible, at any rate with moving shelves. The answer to the substance of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes." As I said earlier this afternoon, there will be two criteria for the distribution of this money. One is the level of unemployment in the construction industry and the other is the need of a particular local authority for this kind of public sector improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his estimates of the losses to be made by the National Bus Company for the year 1975–76.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on 19th February 1976.—[Vol. 905. c. 795–6.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer showed that a heavy loss was about to be made this year, heavier than last year? Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate why it is that the bus industry, which is now in heavy deficit, should have been self-sufficient until the passing of the 1968 Transport Act, which created a virtual State monopoly? Do not the Government think it time that we allowed the private operators a greate rôle and made it easier for them to re-enter the business?

It ought to be set on the record that the National Bus Company's target of breaking even has been met in four out of the six years of the company's existence. It is open to anyone to apply for a licence. The traffic commissioners judge such applications on statutory criteria. The more common complaint that I hear is not that private operators have difficulty in getting licences but that they cream away the profitable traffic, making it difficult for the National Bus Company to meet its obligation to break even.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, apart from London and the South-East, where the situation is more rail-dominated, there is throughout the country far more concern about the level of bus fares than there is about the level of rail fares? Will he accept that the Family Expenditure Survey showed that the average level of income of bus travellers was lower than that of rail travellers? Is he aware that consequently there is a good case for continuing the current level of bus revenue support? Will my hon. Friend also accept that the solution to many of these problems is not to relax the licensing laws for buses?

I agree with my hon. Friend that outside of London and the South-East the future of bus services is probably giving greater cause for public concern than is the future of the rail service. It is in that context that my hon. Friend should bear in mind that the Government have raised bus subsidies to three times their level in 1973–74 when the Conservatives were in power. My hon. Friend will have seen in the White Paper on public expenditure that the Government have not finally decided how much should be spent under each of the transport heads. This is always open to review and to representations of the sort my hon. Friend has made, which will no doubt be urged upon us—and borne in mind—during the consultative period.

Does the hon. Gentleman expect that the loss made by the National Bus Company in the next financial year will be greater or smaller than the loss estimated for the current financial year?

It is impossible to say.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now received the report of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance.

My right hon. Friend expects to receive the Layfield Report very shortly. It will then be published as soon as practicable, but the date of publication will depend on the size and complexity of the Report.

May we have an assurance from the Minister that the Layfield Report will be published before the district council elections in May? Or is this to be another example of inspired and engineered delay?

I cannot give a specific undertaking but certainly the date of the district council elections does not enter into it. We shall publish the Report as soon as practical when we have received it.

Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that when the Report is received the Government will deal with it as urgently and expeditiously as possible, with a view to early legislative proposals being made?

That depends on what is in the Report. We will certainly deal with the matter urgently.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that in considering the Report he will take into account the fact that the rates are a tax burden that bears particularly hard upon elderly people and single-person households? Will he further take into account the fact that the redistribution of rate support grant this year also adversely affects areas with large concentrations of elderly people? Will the Minister take urgent action to alleviate this problem?

I am well aware of the burden created by the rates. One of the reasons why the Layfield Committee was set up was to advise the Government on this subject. I remind the hon. Gentleman that some areas with high concentrations of old people benefited from the shift of resources in the rate support grant.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the statutory procedures relevant to local authorities in dealing with planning applications in England and Wales.

Yes, Sir. It is the way in which the procedures are operated that both central and local government must keep under continuous review.

More important than that, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that the rates of individual householders are not always protected by the decisions of planning authorities? Has he any plans to change the procedures as they affect individual householders?

We have already recommended to local authorities in Circular 9/76 that they should improve their procedures in a variety of ways. The notifying of neighbours is also recommended to local authorities and is the practice adopted by a great many of them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable degree of anxiety created when a borough council is the applicant and the planning authority at the same time? Will he tighten up the procedures in such cases, when the public feel that the council is both the applicant and the judge in its own case? Could all of these cases be called in, 01 else could some new and special procedure be introduced?

There are already provisions to cover the case when the planning authority is the applicant. It would be an enormous and unnecessary burden ii every application submitted by a council had to be called in by the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made over a northern approach road to the Humber Bridge.

This is a matter for the Humberside County Council as highway authority for the scheme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the completion of the Humber Bridge will generate a great deal more traffic in my constituency? In view of the recently announced delay in the completion of the Beverley south-west bypass, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a northern approach road is essential to prevent Beverley from being overwhelmed and damage being caused to the famous Minster?

I understand that traffic predictions indicate that traffic flows will be heaviest in an east-west direction rather than a north-south direction. Be that as it may, it is for the Humberside County Council to accord priorities in this matter.

While I do not support any plea in any quarter regarding the opening of the Humber Bridge, may I ask my hon. Friend what is happening to South Docks Road, which traverses the whole length of my constituency—

Order. Does it go to the bridge?

Yes. It begins just east of the Humber Bridge. It is essential that action be taken to relieve congestion in Hull.

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for coming to my aid. Now I know where the road is. I have had muttered information to the effect that the road is already receiving an extremely high priority.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that traffic coming from the industrial area—whether it will use the proposed bridge or not—is finding during this transitional period that the signposts are extremely difficult to follow? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that there is adequate signposting to the other ports of the United Kingdom?

If the hon. Gentleman has any difficulties with local signposting, I should be grateful if he would write to me about them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints under the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act have been made to the Health and Safety Commission in respect of the activities of British Rail.

None, as far as I know.

Is my hon. Friend aware that only recently a train from Glasgow to London arrived four hours late and that toilets, refreshments, water and other facilities were not available on it? Is it not time that British Rail was instructed to implement the provisions of this very important Act?

If I judge correctly the incident to which my hon. Friend refers, it was an occasion when transport arrangements over virtually the whole country were in severe difficulties because of very heavy and unprecedented storms. If there are other circumstances of which I am not aware, or other occasions when complaints have been made, I shall be happy to make inquiries if my hon. Friend will supply the details.