asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to relieve mini-buses and other vehicles run by youth clubs and various charities from licensing requirements under the Road Traffic Acts.

I am considering this matter, but I am not yet convinced that the full implications of such a step have been appreciated by those who are pressing for it.

Is the Minister aware that we agree that this is a complicated matter and that we are grateful for his interest? Is he prepared to receive considered representations from those affected, whether in Essex or elsewhere, for there is much public interest in the matter?

Yes, the National Association of Youth Clubs and the National Council of Social Service have a working party looking at the matter, and I look forward to receiving their report. I shall need to consult the local authorities and both sides of the bus industry.

Apart from the specific uses that have already been mentioned, is my hon. Friend aware that the suggestion by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and others would be strenuously opposed by workers in the transport industry? Does he agree that the idea should be approached with some circumspection by communities who think there might be some advantage in instituting the new system?

My hon. Friend is correct. There is a danger of the existing bus services being affected should this idea be considerably extended.

Order. May I tell the House that hon. Members who remain standing after I have called someone else to speak as an indication to me not to forget them are unlikely to be called ahead of others?

Will the Minister bear in mind in giving the further consideration he has promised that the licensing system is at least primarily based upon the need for safety? Is it not absurd that a licence is unnecessary in these circumstances if no charge is made, whereas it is necessary when a charge is levied?

The licensing system was not based on safety, although safety should be an important factor in our consideration. It arose because of the competitive nature of the bus industry in the past. We are operating under the 1960 Act.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the original intention of the legislation was to meet public need and to provide protection for existing operators? Does he recognise that many Labour Members feel that if large areas of the country had mini-buses, mini-cabs and private operators as their only means of transport, that could result in transport chaos? Will he examine the possibility——

Order. This is the time not for making a case but for asking questions.

I am examining the possibility. I have some idea of what my hon. Friend meant. The unions and the operators are extremely concerned about any relaxation of licensing, and understandably so. As my hon. Friend says, we have to think of the public interest. It might well be that existing bus services would be affected by any great extension of this system.

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

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

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

As hon. Members will already know, I met the Chairman at the beginning of this week, when he advised me that he did not wish to be reappointed when his present term of office expires in September.

Why have the Government allowed Sir Richard Marsh and the British Railways Board recently to increase British Rail fares in such a way that commuters have to pay 17 per cent. extra as against a 10 per cent. increase on inter-city fares so that the quarterly season ticket from Hampton to Waterloo, for example, has doubled from £31 to £62? Is the Minister aware——

Order. That is enough to get on with.

The average commuter gets the same subsidy as any other passenger. The reason for the increase in fares is that the Government have set British Rail certain short-term financial targets and in order to meet those targets it is for British Rail, not the Government, to decide whether fare increases will produce a net increase in revenue.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether in any recent conversations with the Chairman of British Rail any plan has been outlined for the integration of our transport system?

The question of the integration or co-ordination of the different parts of the transport system will play a central part in the consultative document which I hope to issue next month.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the commuters of Essex, and no doubt everywhere else, are as sick and tired of the absence of a proper Government policy for the railways as is Sir Richard Marsh? Will he tell us when we are likely to get a policy which will take proper account of the social and planning consequences of what is happening to commuter services?

I am distressed to hear that the commuters of Essex are sick and tired. If the hon. Gentleman watched the Chairman of British Rail on television on Monday night, he would have observed that his criticisms were directed equally to Governments of both parties, certainly not only to this Government. I hope to issue a very exhaustive consultative document on future transport policy next month.

When appointing the next Chairman of British Rail, will my right hon. Friend choose a man with knowledge of the railway industry who is a long-standing member of the Labour Party and sympathetic to the social content of this sector of public transport?

I have had a lot of offers from hon. Friends who are members of one or other of the various transport unions.

I should like to put a simple and straightforward question to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a simple and straightforward answer. Can he give a categorical assurance that there will be no cut-backs in the railway network in Scotland? The Scottish National Party is extremely concerned about reports that there may be cut-backs.

I have already made it clear on innumerable occasions in this House that the suggestions illustrated in a map of alleged railway cuts are without foundation. I cannot guarantee that every line in the country will remain for eternity, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the major part of our existing railway network will be preserved.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of discounting some of the comments which were made when Sir Richard Marsh resigned and which suggested that one reason for his resignation was that he had a foresight of what the review would say and disliked the fact that the railways were to be knocked to pieces by my right hon. Friend? Will he take this opportunity of either confirming or denying that suggestion?

Naturally, I do not like to speak on behalf of Sir Richard Marsh, but I do not think that he would object if I said that that was not his reason for resigning. His reason was that he felt that under successive Governments—I think that he directed his criticism more at the previous Government than at this—the railways had not been given sufficiently clear objectives and so he did not want to continue for a further term. I hope that that criticism, which, incidentally, has a lot of force in it, will be met when we publish the consultative document.

It is untrue that Sir Richard Marsh was more critical of the previous Government than of this. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to join in the Secretary of State's thanks to Sir Richard Marsh for his services to British Rail.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Sir Richard Marsh. The answer to the last part of his question is "Yes".

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to make an announcement concerning the raising of the present rateable value limits restricting the availability of improvement grants.

I have already announced increases in the rateable value limits for grants for conversion schemes, and I am considering whether other changes in the rules are needed.

Is the Minister aware that if he could speed up the raising of the limits, that would have the effect of assisting the Government in their stated policy of concentrating on renovation rather than demolition? This matter is causing concern at the moment. This one step would help enormously if he could announce it quickly.

We will do that as soon as we can. I accept the general proposition put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

When considering further developments, will the Minister give particular consideration to the possibility of raising the rateable value limit, as that affects the provision of extra accommodation for the disabled?

I will certainly take that point aboard. I hope in the not too distant future to make a statement on the progress which has been made generally in housing for the disabled during the last 12 months or so.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present levels of improvement grants are approximately half what they were under the Conservative Administration? Does he not think that two years is sufficient time to see that there is a need for some change towards relaxing the rateable value criteria?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is seeking from me. I have already indicated the recent decision by my right hon. Friend to change the rateable values for new conversions. Other ideas are being looked at and we will make an announcement as soon as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to make regional water authorities more democratic and representative of consumers.

The structure of the membership of the water authorities is one of the matters to be raised in the consultative document on the review of the water industry, which will be published tomorrow.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the water authorities dispense a great deal of public money, often frivolously, for instance, on personalised car number plates, money that is raised by precept from local authorities without direct representation on those water authorities? Does he accept that there is a strong case for local authorities being directly represented and for their members being accountable to them?

My hon. Friend has made an interesting series of points. I should like him to wait until tomorrow to read the consultative document. I think that all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, who have views on the subject will be well advised to communicate those views after the document has been published.

Will the document to be published tomorrow provide some way by which the consumer can approach these bodies through the Local Government Commissioners? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a gap at present because neither the Parliamentary Commissioner nor the Local Government Commissioners can take up complaints against these bodies, which seem to be entirely irresponsible in the technical sense of the term?

I do not think that it would serve the interests of public policy to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a sneak preview of the document to be published tomorrow. The general question of liaison between water authorities and those who use the services is discussed in the paper.

Is it not a fact that the regional water authorities have not exercised that restraint in the raising of revenue which was called for by the Secretary of State for local authorities generally because they are not democratically accountable?

The temptations are very great on a day like this, but I suggest that my hon. Friend waits until the consulta- tive document is published. We will then welcome any advice which he or other hon. Members may give us.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in drawing up this document, which is to be published tomorrow, consideration was given to the recommendations of the Daniel Committee on the relationship between the Welsh National Water Development Authority and the regional water authorities in England?

I do not know what the words "sneak preview" are in Welsh, but the hon. Gentleman cannot get round me that way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will pay an official visit to Preston to discuss house building prospects over the next three years.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit Preston. I will, however, be visiting the Northwest Region later this year as part of my programme of visits to discuss housing programmes and policies with local authorities throughout England.

In what way will the public expenditure cuts affect the slum clearance programme of the Preston District Council?

In no way. There is no reason to believe that the recently published White Paper proposals should affect Preston's or any other local authority's plans. There is no ceiling on local authority new building construction. Indeed, the programme about which Preston has informed my Department recently shows a marked increase in housing activities in the next three years over the last three to four years.

How can the hon. Gentleman square that answer with the fact that in the White Paper on Local Government Expenditure in England and Wales there is a figure showing a reduction of £300 million in capital spending on housing in the coming year?

It excludes new house building.

If my hon. Friend finds the time to go to Preston, will he also call into the Garston constituency and have a look at the housing estate at Netherley, where there is blatant evidence of substandard building by private enterprise from which tenants have been suffering since that estate was built?

I have no present plans so to do, but if my hon. Friend cares to put any particular points to me on which he thinks I might be able to assist, he is welcome to write to me about them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to visit the new sewerage installations in the Wisbech district.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can hardly wait, but prior engagements make it unlikely that it will be for some time.

My constituents will be sorry to hear that. They would like to have complained to the right hon. Gentleman about the appalling state in which the roads were left by the contractors; the total disregard they showed for pedestrians by neglect of the footpaths while doing the work; and the lack of help or advice given to traders who claimed compensation for lost turnover due to these works.

So far as that is a question or a series of questions, I have a great deal of sympathy with the local traders. As the hon. Member knows, we have been in correspondence about this matter. I have asked the Anglia Water Authority to look into the question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to keep me posted on the views of the traders in the light of that, I will of course be ready, able and willing to discuss the matter with him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what surveys he has conducted to ascertain the degree of publicity given to planning applications by local authorities in accordance with the guidance given in Circular 71/73.

A sample survey, undertaken in 1974, showed that the guidance given in Circular 71/73 was being generally followed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that the publicity given to planning applications varies enormously among different local authorities? Will he consider laying down minimum mandatory requirements?

The result of the sample survey is interesting in this connection. It showed that over a third of district councils used site notices over and above the statutory requirements and that more than four-fifths of all the councils concerned gave neighbour notification. I agree that it can be a bit patchy and that some authorities are much better than others, but the discretionary suggestions made by the Department in paragraph 7 of Circular 71/73, if observed, would get rid of all the difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with representatives of the House-Builders Federation in the last month regarding the supply of of land for private house building; and with what results.

There has been the usual regular contact between my Department and the House-Builders Federation on a wide range of matters including the supply of land for private house building.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take some notice of that contact by at least meeting the federation's publicly expressed view that there will be a grave shortage of building land in three years unless the rate of DLT is reduced to a more sensible level?

This, of course, is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General. I was interested to see that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) himself lent his eloquent voice to the requirements of the federation on Monday. But I would remind him that in the October memorandum which the House-Builders Federation gave to the Department, to my right hon. Friend and myself, it said that it thought that development land tax should be graded and that only on sales of over £100,000 should there be a rate of 80 per cent. If that were done, it said, it would make a significant difference to the supply of land. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has graded it up to £150,000.

Is not the truth of the matter that for many years we have heard constant cries from the Opposition about the supply of land drying up, and that whether we have had a Land Commission or a tax rate of 40 per cent. that has always been their bleat? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the only answer is the compulsory purchase of land where there seems to be a shortage, if indeed there is a shortage, and to take away the speculation from land——

Order——

as was recently done in a case——

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should resume his seat when I rise in my place?

I was not taking too long.

I know that I should have selective hearing, but I do not propose to put up with any remarks of that sort addressed to me.

I think that my hon. Friend was making a valid point when he drew attention to the fact, perhaps at rather too great length, that the question of tax or lack of tax is not a decisive factor in the availability of land. Some of us remember that, when there was virtually no tax on land in the free market days of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the Conservative Government had to provide £80 million for the purchase of land for private housing, because there was a land shortage.

Since the right hon. Gentleman apparently is prepared to listen a little to representations by those involved in producing homes or facilities for industry and commerce, why will he not make representations to his Treasury colleagues to extend indefinitely the concession for the first £150,000 of development gains?

I do not think that it is for me to make representations to the Treasury. I think that the Treasury is well aware of this situation anyway. But I think that the hon. Gentleman will come with me this far: if he really believes that a concession of this sort for three years will supply the land, it will do so much more quickly than if it were a concession for all time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations from the TUC concerning the appointment of trade unionists to sit as councillors on local authorities.

My right hon. Friend received representations from the TUC last year proposing that representatives of employees should sit on all local authority committees. In this connection I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the statement of the Government's views on industrial democracy in the public sector, contained in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department on 11th February 1976.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that a dangerous and important principle is at stake here and that the notion that nominated representatives should serve on elected bodies in local government, if carried through, would mean that he was likely to face nominated gauleiters sitting in his own Ministry and the Cabinet?

I think that the hon. Member has gone a little way from his original Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I should read the words. He asked me about the appointment of trade unionists to sit as councillors. In my reply I said that the TUC had asked that they should sit on local authority committees, and there is a difference. It was important to get that clear.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that for many years local authorities with educational responsibilities have included teachers' union representatives and representatives of the Church in some of their deliberations and that this has been a valuable addition to local government work?

I think that it has. Again, I would ask my hon. Friend to look at the reply to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and the distinction that I first drew, which, surprisingly, Conservative Members did not seem to understand.

We are in agreement on one thing at least, I think. Can the Minister make it clear that there is no question, so far as the Government or the Opposition are concerned, of people being nominated directly to main councils, since everyone in the country is represented by a councillor?

Yes, I do not think that there is any question about that. I thought that I had made it clear.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on railway policy.

My right hon. Friend will be making a further statement at the conclusion of the transport policy review.

Is the Minister aware that continued uncertainty over transport policy is having a pretty savage effect on railwaymen's morale, which is already at an all-time low? As the railways are being starved of adequate investment, will not the Minister and his colleagues agree that it would be in the nation's interest to abandon the present and future nationalisation programme so that sufficient investment is made available for industries which are already nationalised?

Investment in the railways this year is greater than it has been in any year since 1965. I am aware that railwaymen are awaiting the transport policy review. There has not been a review since 1968. The purpose of the review is to do away with doubt.

Is my hon. Friend aware that account must be taken of the loss of freight traffic to the railways and that a thorough investigation should be held into why that has occurred? We should bear in mind that the inter-city service is now faster and in real terms cheaper than at any time in the last 30 years.

I have seen the figures to which my hon. Friend refers. At one time a journey from Aberdeen to London cost approximately 80 per cent. of a man's weekly wage. Now it costs about 45 per cent. We are very concerned about the future of the railways. I am sure that when the review is published and the consultations take place, it will prove to be a valuable addition to our knowledge of the railways and to the future of railways and transport generally.

The Minister has said that investment in the railways this year is greater than it has been in any year since 1965. Is that in real terms? To what extent does it fall below British Rail's requirements for the year?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". I cannot say exactly how it compares with British Rail's requirements. It is below the programme destined for the years ahead.

Will this review cover the method of estimating future road traffic volumes? Some of us have doubts about the practice of basing the case for extensive road-building schemes on guesses about road traffic 20 years hence.

Yes.

Does the Minister concur with Sir Richard Marsh's statement yesterday that British Rail's prime objective should be to make the maximum amount of money without regard to the effect on the travelling public?

If that was what Sir Richard said, I should not agree with it. I had not realised that he said that. We appreciate that public transport generally needs some assistance if it is to cater for those who do not have access to cars.

Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that when the transport policy review is published some attempt will be made to make it available to Members of Parliament at least at the same time as it is made available to people in other professions outside the House?

The consultative paper will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Does not the Minister agree that the kind of unofficial action that we saw last week is sadly counter-productive? Will he confirm that such action can only reduce revenue, force passengers to make alternative arrangements and, therefore, make new cuts in services more rather than less likely?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealt with this matter fully in his statement on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the provision of additional authorised gipsy sites by local authorities is likely to be affected by cuts in public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

All expenditure by authorities on locally determined schemes is likely to be affected by current and proposed restraints. In this situation it is for local authorities themselves to determine the priority to be accorded to any particular project.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation in which there are insufficient authorised sites to accommodate the existing gipsy population is quite appalling and that those sites should not be affected by cuts? Is it not a fact that gipsies are discriminated against, harassed and continually moved on? This is bad not only for them but for those authorities which have shown responsibility and provided sites for this section of our community who are, after all, citizens.

The priority given to the use of locally determined schemes is a matter for the local authorities concerned. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is not the most popular expen- diture for local authorities. In view of the difficulties of dealing with the gipsy question at present, I asked Mr. John Cripps, as I announced on 26th February, to initiate an inquiry into the working of the Act. Mr. Cripps will also examine the financial arrangements.

When can we expect a report? I realise that the inquiry has only just commenced, but this is a most urgent matter, particularly in the county of Kent. Kent leads the field and neighbouring counties, which do not perform so well, are very unpleasant neighbours for us. I hope that the Minister, as one of my constituents, will do his best for us.

Much as I love Kent, I am the Minister for Planning and Local Government and there are other local authorities that are doing quite well in this area. Mr. Cripps hopes to have completed his inquiries relatively soon. That was why I asked for an inquiry rather than a working party or commission to be set up.

Will my right hon. Friend write to Solihull District Council asking it to provide the site that it should have provided under the 1968 Act, which would obviate the need for Birmingham to provide additional sites?

It is not for me to do anything about the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The onus rests upon the local authorities to carry out their duties. For that reason there is no possibility of my interfering unless I am asked for my advice.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, against the advice given to him by local authorities, he has not given certain parts of London exemption? Is that not an interference with local democracy?

One of the troubles is that although the word "exemption" appears in the 1968 Act, no one has defined the circumstances in which exemption rather than designation can be given. The result is that neither I nor my predecessors, going right back to 1968, have been able to find a case where we could give unequivocal exemption.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his future policy towards the 50 mph and 60 mph speed limit.

We shall review the speed limits before the present Order expires on 30th November next.

Will the Minister tell the House what estimates his Department has made of the fuel savings resulting from the speed limits? If there is no such estimate, or if it is very small, how can he justify the continuation of the limits?

The estimate was a saving of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of motor spirit during the year. It is difficult to say that that saving was entirely due to the imposition of speed limits, but that was not an entirely negligible factor. It means a saving of about £40 million a year.

Will my hon. Friend not only consider the savings in fuel but tell the House if these speed limits have reduced the number of accidents? Will he also consider introducing a limit on the speed at which heavy transporters travel on motorways, because they rush along with dangerous loads and are becoming more and more of a problem?

Heavy transporters will be dealt with in the policy review. The figures for accidents are difficult to define because of other factors. In the first few months of 1975, the accidents rate per vehicle-mile compared with the corresponding period in 1973 was 15 per cent. lower on motorways and 16 per cent. lower on all-purpose roads subject to the reduced limits.

Surely it is quite wrong to continue using an emergency fuel-saving device in this way. Does not the Minister recognise that the plethora of speed limits causes confusion to the motorist, makes police enforcement even more difficult, and is, all told, a bad law?

Our last survey showed that about 80 per cent. of drivers were observing the limits before November. Before any future order is brought to the House we shall have a further check on these figures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new council houses he expects to be built in 1976 and 1977.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present local authority housing figures; and if he will make a statement.

134,000 new local authority dwellings were started and 130,000 completed in Great Britain in 1975. Starts were therefore up by 10 per cent., on 1974 and 54 per cent. on 1973, and completions by 26 per cent. and 47 per cent. respectively. I hope to maintain this encouraging revival.

I wish that the Minister had actually answered my Question, particularly as Table 2.7 of the Public Expenditure White Paper shows quite clearly that the gross investment in new council housing is scheduled to fall in the coming year by about 3 per cent. However, now for my supplementary question: what is the average percentage of the current cost of a new council house that is covered by rent?

I cannot give an exact percentage off the cuff, but I shall certainly check the figures and write to the hon. Gentleman in detail.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the great need at present is for houses to rent? Will he do something about those local authorities which at present are reticent to build more houses for rent, and will he see that they are made aware that people need houses to live in?

Yes. I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's support in seeking to get more houses built. I hear echoes which suggest that quite a number of Opposition Members would oppose any further expansion in house building by local authorities and would, indeed, seek a reduction. I ask my hon. Friend to let me have details of the particular local authority or authorities to which he is referring, and I shall do my best to contact them with a view to checking what is going on and encouraging a bigger expansion of building in order to meet needs.

Is the Minister aware that if he knocked together the fat heads of the London dockland councils thousands of acres of land could be developed for housing without wasting public money by buying houses at Harrow and other outer London suburbs?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate municipalisation and social ownership, I am quite prepared to do so. The Question relates to new building. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he was a member of the Government who set up the present structure for the future of dockland.

Does the Minister accept that the further and desperately needed growth in council housing is inhibited by high rents, resulting mainly from heavy loan interest charges? Therefore, will he resist the cut of £310 million a year in the housing subsidy included in the public expenditure survey, because, contrary to what he said a few minutes ago, it is bound to affect the rate of house building?

The answer to the question about the White Paper is "No". On the general point that my hon. Friend makes, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a slow-down in local authority building for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. In fact, in the course of the very detailed discussions that I have been having month by month with local authority representatives—I shall have met practically every chairman and housing officer throughout England by the time these visits are completed—it has become clear that there is plenty of evidence to show the contrary.

Will the Minister now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)? With reference to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and my earlier question, will he explain how the figure of £1,942 million on local government capital expenditure in the current year can possibly exclude any new building?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware, as he has been told many times, that there is no restraint whatsoever——

Answer the question.

on new building. The figures quoted in the White Paper for investment in new building—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to listen to the answer to his question. The figures quoted in the White Paper for investment in new construction are forecast. They are not cash limits I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman in due course whether it is his wish to see a reduction in new council house building or a further increase. I should like to make it perfectly clear to him and to his hon. Friends that I expect the figures for 1976 to be in line with those for 1975.

In his earlier reply to me the hon. Gentleman said that the figures for local government capital expenditure excluded all new council building. He was obviously wrong. Will he now withdraw?

As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that while we have been pursuing this question——

Answer the question.

I have had the point checked. The reference in the White Paper does not touch the point that the hon. Gentleman was putting to me. I suggest that he reads the table again.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will send out a circular to local authorities asking them to compile a comprehensive list of all empty properties in whatever condition which are in their ownership.

No, Sir; but we will be issuing a circular on the better use of housing stock soon and this will cover matters concerning empty properties, in both the public and private sectors.

Does the Minister agree that the right thing to do would be to stop taking more previously privately-owned houses into what he calls "social ownership" and to allow landlords to be freer of the suffocating restrictions of the Rent Acts?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that is to follow. However, the answer to his question in the meantime is "No". We do not intend to close down our municipalisation programme or the programme for the purchase of houses by housing associations to bring them into the public sector.

In spite of his reply to the original Question, will my hon. Friend consider including columns in the statistics regularly returned by local authorities to his Department to show vacant properties in both the public and private sectors to enable local authorities to plan their programmes of acquisition according to current statistics? My hon. Friend may not be aware that at present only 15 of the 32 London boroughs—this is in the greatest stress area of the country—are keeping regular records in this respect.

I am not sure that I shall be seeking to get the kind of statistics to which my hon. Friend has referred in precisely the form that she seems to be suggesting, but the possibility of getting a methodical follow-through of empty properties—techniques are being developed by a number of authorities—is in our minds, and we are considering it in the preparation of the circular to which I have just referred.

May I speak in support of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) and ask that the Minister does as the hon. Lady has asked? Further, may I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]. I apologise. I shall start again.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough: I know that he will ask a question.

May I ask the Minister whether these figures can be published? Many of us are under the impression that local authorities are sitting on a great many empty properties and it is time that they put their own house in order.

I propose to touch on this question if the matter is pursued further in the debate to follow later this afternoon. Meanwhile, I repeat what my right hon. Friend and I have said on a number of occasions in the past: it is quite incorrect to say that local authorities in general—although there are exceptions—are sitting on a large and undue number of empty properties. The biggest problem in this matter lies, if anywhere, in the private sector, not the public.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a more serious problem is the large number of empty privately-owned houses, most of them in terraced blocks, which are deteriorating either because there are no mortgages available for that type of property or because they need to be taken over by local authorities?

In areas where that is the position and properties are standing empty for a long time and therefore deteriorating, I should welcome initiatives by local authorities to bring such properties into public ownership. They could then be repaired, brought up to a decent state and occupied by families in need. This is the basic reason for our municipalisation policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he now expects to be the loss of the National Freight Corporation for 1975–76.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) on 21st January 1976.

That does not answer the Question. Is the Secretary of State aware that it is estimated by some to be in the region of £30 million? Why is it that public enterprise always loses money, and what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

The figure has not been estimated. It has already been announced that the loss for 1975 will be about £30 million. As the Minister for Transport has already told the House, a firm of Consultants has been appointed to report by the end of April on the National Freight Corporation. In addition, the transport policy review document, to be published next month, will suggest a number of options for the future of the NFC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the losses could be cut considerably if the NFC were integrated with the railway network to create an integrated freight transport system? Does he not agree that this would be ideal if such an organisation came under a chairman elected by the workers in the NFC rather than under an appointed political whiz kid or retired general?

I have no intention of appointing retired generals to manage any part of the transport system. The question of whether the NFC should come back into British Rail has been much discussed over recent months. It will be raised in detail in the consultative document and we shall seek opinions on the matter. Whether we should revert to the situation which existed a few years ago is an open question.

May I be of slight assistance to the right hon. Gentleman now, even if I can be of no use to him next week? Would he like to tell his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that one of the reasons the NFC has made severe losses was the original commitment to British Rail, and that it is having to divert resources to road to reach even the present deplorable figures? There is criticism because freight is being transferred from road transport to the railways.

I am distressed to hear that the hon. Gentleman will give me no help next week. For all I know, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) may not give me any help either—it seems unlikely. The difficulties of the NFC and British Rail freight as a whole in the last 12 months have deep-seated causes, including that of the economic recession. I am extremely dissatisfied with the present state of rail freight, but I strongly believe that neither rail nor road freight should be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many workers in the NFC are worried about its rôle? Is he satisfied that it is still playing its rôle as an agent of co-ordination or integration, or does he want it to go on being the sponsor of competition?

I am not satisfied with the position as a whole. My hon. Friend was chairman of the Socialist Commentary Group which produced an authoritative report and he will agree with me, having written part of that report, that the question of how NFC should operate is difficult and complicated. It is a matter on which I want to have the greatest possible consultation in the months ahead.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take urgent steps to provide for equality of treatment between one class of ratepayer and another in the matter of sewage disposal by cesspool, septic tank or main drainage and in paying for general amenities such as flood and coast protection.

Cesspool emptying is the responsibility of local authorities; sewerage and sewage disposal are the responsibility of water authorities. Any change in the allocation of responsibilities between authorities needs the most careful consideration. The issues will be raised in the forthcoming consultation paper on the review of the water industry. Flood and coast protection are part of land drainage, which is financed by a precept on the rates.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of a recent case in the House of Lords, many people with septic tanks and cesspools are currently paying little towards flood relief? Is he also aware that such people are now being asked for exorbitant emptying charges by many local authorities? Does he not agree that equity should be achieved between one class and another? It is the poorest people who frequently have sealed tanks, which will overflow if they are not emptied and will cause a health hazard. It is the less-well-off families where there are many in a household and more water flowing through the system, which caused——

That is an inordinately long question.

The emptying of cesspools is often more expensive than installing main drainage and it is therefore natural that local authorities should seek to make up the difference, otherwise they would be subsidising the service. The general question is important. We could not deal with it in the Water Charges Bill, which was concerned with the House of Lords decision in the Daymond case. The issue will figure strongly in the consultation document to be issued tomorrow and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us many pages of recommendations about it.

The Water Act gives powers for the compulsory metering of domestic water supplies. Does the document to be published tomorrow confirm that, or are the Government proposing to eliminate that provision from the Act?

The House appears to be anxious to have a sneak preview of the document. It would be better to wait until we get the document tomorrow so that everyone can look at it calmly and carefully and give the benefit of his advice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those living in small cottages are worried because they think that they may have to pay £250 a year to have their cesspools emptied? That could lead to very serious pollution.

I am sure that we shall welcome, as always, the hon. Gentleman's observations on the document when it is published tomorrow. I agree that it is an expensive matter. It is much more expensive to empty cesspools than to deal with main drainage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the completion of the Beverley South-West bypass.

An interim decision letter was issued on 23rd February. This gave statutory objectors a period of 21 days in which to make written representations or to ask for the inquiry to be reopened.

Is the Minister aware that this road was planned over 30 years ago and that therefore this last-minute delay is particularly exasperating? Does he agree that there is a need to provide for the extra traffic generated by the Humber Bridge? Can he say when the work is likely to start?

We have to deal with the objections and the information we have received. Construction will proceed as planned within the financial constraints obtaining at the time when the scheme is due to begin. It is hoped that work will start at the end of 1977.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to make any changes in respect of the remuneration of members of principal local authorities.

Matters relating to members' allowances are under consideration and my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since local government reorganisation it has become clear that for members of county councils and metropolitan district councils to perform their duties effectively they need to be full-time representatives and should be remunerated on that basis?

The difficulties are such—my hon. Friend has mentioned one—that we need to take quite a long look. I believe that we are right to take that view. I should not want to come up with a quick answer, bearing in mind the various difficulties. In many cases councillors are overworked and the allowances are inadequate. I accept that there are a few examples where perhaps the allowances are rather too high.

Will the right Gentleman confirm that for some time his right hon. Friend has had a report in his possession following an investigation of this subject? When will that report be allowed to see the light of day?

As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, a survey was made. We hope to be able to make an announcement as soon as possible. However, the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in local government that this is a terribly complicated matter. It is as well to come up with the right answer rather than a hurried answer.