asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of man-days that have been spent by staff in his Department in connection with land acquisition and management schemes submitted by local authorities.

This work has been carried out by my Department's staff as part of their normal duties. No record has been kept of time spent specifically on land acquisition and management schemes.

Will the Minister say how much time would have been saved in his Department if more time had been allowed to local authorities to prepare these schemes or if some local authorities had not had these schemes imposed on them by the Department?

I can say that no Ministry staff are engaged and that if work on the land schemes was not going on the land availability problem bequeathed to us by hon. Gentlemen opposite would not simply have gone away, and no doubt just as much staff effort would have been needed for any other land policy devised to deal with the problem.

Will my hon. Friend say how many staff would have been saved if the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) had not tabled such Questions as this?

Does the Minister not think this is an awful waste of time? However many people have been put on it, only 13,000 acres will be acquired by the local authorities in the next three years, and by that time the Community Land Act will have been repealed.

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to my hon. Friend's question about a waste of time, I tend to agree with him. If he is talking about the Community Land Act, I can say that this is a major part of the Government's policy and I doubt very much whether Members of the party opposite, in three years' time—were they to be in office, which I doubt—would be allowed by their own authorities to sweep it away.

That was a very suitable answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimated cost of the Humber Bridge.

The latest estimated cost of the bridge and its immediate approach roads that has been published by the Humber Bridge Board is £45 million. This estimate was based on the situation obtaining in August 1975. I understand that the Board will soon be announcing an updated estimate.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we shall tremble when that figure is published in his constituency and mine? Can he assure the House that even though this "white elephant" is being proceeded with it will not affect the construction of a decent east-west road system, which we require on the south bank of the Humber?

We never tremble in Grimsby, whatever people may do in Louth. As to the substantive part of the question, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that I am aware of the importance of the east-west roads, which affect both his constituency and mine. I can give him the assurance that despite what the expenditure White Paper announced we shall continue to give priority to roads giving access to ports, and there should be no delay.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us how, in road development schemes, whether bridges or otherwise, one distinguishes between "white elephants" and "non-white elephants"? Is there not a need for cost-benefit schemes for all road building development?

There is certainly a crying need for cost-benefit examination of all roads, whether bridges or not. The methods of my Department have come in for some criticism, and when we publish the consultative document shortly we shall describe our cost-benefit methods and ask for any public comment to be made upon them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations from the Building Societies Association on the subject of the sale of council houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the sale of council houses to tenants; and if he will take account of the recent report of Mr. F. Fields for the Child Poverty Action Group in its formulation.

The Government set out their attitude towards the sale of council houses in paragraph 35 of Circular 70/74. I am keeping the matter under consideration, in parallel with the review of housing finance. I have, of course, noted the views expressed by the Building Societies Association and the Catholic Housing Aid Society's publication.

When such diverse bodies as the Building Societies Association and Mr. Frank Field, President of the CPAG, indicate that the sale of council houses can be advantageous, does the Minister not consider that he might be out of step? Whether it be in the interests of social justice, as the CPAG implies, or of a property-owning democracy, as the building societies imply, is it not time the Minister became less obstinate on the whole matter?

I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's refer- ence to obstinacy. I do not think that he has reread the paragraph from the circular in question, to which I referred recently. If he had, he would realise that far from taking an obstinate line we are taking a far more realistic and flexible line than are the Opposition.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it might be more sensible if the building societies concentrated their attention, and some of their funds, on providing loans to people in search of property at the lower end of the scale, and to people on low incomes?

This area of policy and practice is giving more concern to the Government and, indeed, to a growing number of people in the building societies movement, as well as in local government. Discussions are going on now between local authority association representatives and the BSA on this matter. I look forward to reading a report of the joint working party that has been set up which will be completed towards the end of this month.

Why did the hon. Gentleman make no specific reference to Mr. Frank Field in his original reply? Is this not a cavalier way of treating a fellow Socialist? Is the Minister aware that Mr. Field now holds the view that the sale of council houses acts as a means of redistributing wealth as well as increasing the freedom and mobility of tenants? Is this not an aim that appeals to him? Will he follow my hon. Friends' advice and, just for once, cast aside his politic prejudices in this matter?

Again, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to reread the policy statement on this matter, contained in the circular to which I referred. There is no question of obstinacy or anything like that.

Will the Minister think again about his answers to this Question? It may be his last pronouncement from that Dispatch Box. Does he accept that my hon. Friends have made an overwhelming case for permitting and, indeed, encouraging the sale of council houses'? Is it not high time that the ban on the sale of new town houses was also brought to an end?

The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening as carefully as he normally does to his hon. Friends. They were not making out a case at all; they were saying that, because a certain publication by Mr. Frank Field had advocated a particular line of development to be thought through, it should therefore be adopted by the Government. That was not an argument. In their policy circular the Government have clearly put on record the fact that they continue to reject the rather gimmicky policy of indiscriminate disposal of these assets. There are situations in which, for a variety of reasons which I am prepared to discuss at length on another occasion, there could be an argument for doing what has been proposed. That is the Government's policy. What we object to is the stupid attitude that we should seek indiscriminately to get rid of 5 million dwellings from the rented market, which the Opposition complain has been reducing and declining for many years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that all planning applications for public buildings are approved by social service departments so as to provide access and facilities for disabled and handicapped people.

No, Sir. The development control system is not appropriate to secure the provision of access and facilities suitable for physically disabled persons. Local planning authorities have, however, been asked to draw the attention of developers to the provisions of Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

Is it not a disgrace in this day and age that modern public buildings, such as the National Theatre, are being constructed without adequate access and facilities for disabled people? Would not a simple statutory provision for the involvement of social service directors at the planning stage show that we were not just paying lip service to the integration of the disabled?

Planning is concerned with the purposes for which land is to be used, and not the people who use it. Indeed, the planning system does not control internal fittings.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities desire to conform to the Act and wish to make access to public offices available to the disabled, but that, despite their endeavours, they are restricted by financial considerations in the changes which have to be made? Will he look sympathetically at applications that are made and perhaps devise a priority list to assist well-meaning local authorities who wish to carry out the provisions of the Act?

There should be no doubt in the House about the desirability of carrying out the aims of the Act. This is a matter for local authorities to decide. It is not a planning matter that requires us to issue further directives to them. However, pressure will and should arise from the authorities concerned to ensure that all public buildings are adapted for the disabled.

In addition to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), would it not be a good thing to encourage the disabled to get on to local councils to ensure that their interests are watched there?

It would, indeed. The social services departments of local authorities usually contain a number of people specifically nominated by the disabled groups.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is much cheaper and more effective to provide these facilities at the planning and design stage than later? Could the Government not give clear advice and guidance to the Property Services Agency, nationalised industries and local authorities to have these facilities built in at an early stage, rather than have too many adaptations afterwards?

A circular issued by the Conservative Government on 17th August 1970 drew to the attention of all developers the need to conform to the 1970 Act and to the high desirability of access for disabled people to all premises to be considered at that stage. It is cheaper at that stage. It is not necessary to send out another circular. The planning system, as such, should not be the means of control.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he is having with the Building Societies Association.

My Department maintains regular contacts with the Building Societies Association covering all matters affecting the housing market.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many owner-occupiers are hoping that this week the Building Societies Association will decide to reduce the mortgage interest rate? Has he discussed this matter with the BSA, and is it aware of the present position?

As my hon. Friend implied, the Council of the Building Societies Association is meeting on Friday this week. We have been keeping in close touch with the BSA on this crucial issue. I have no doubt that when it meets it will bear closely in mind the views exchanged in discussions, though at the end of the day the decision is for the BSA.

What matters more to the Government now—reducing the mortgage rate or increasing private housing output?

There is no simple alternative. The hon. Gentleman must know, having been involved in the industry before coming to this House, that there are no simple alternatives to choose between, such as the two that he put forward.

Is it the Government's wish that the interest rate on mortgage loans should now be reduced?

The Government have made their views known to the Building Societies Association. That was done in the course of the confidential discussions that we had within the joint advisory council. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I prefer to leave the matter there.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the relatively low level of building society mortgage lending in Scotland, compared with deposits and repayments? What steps is he taking to encourage building societies to lend specifically in Scotland, especially to low income groups?

That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not aware of the ratio of building societies in Scotland as compared with England. It is bound to be different, because the proportion of owner-occupiers in Scotland is lower than in England or Wales.

Are not the building societies bursting with funds today? Will the Secretary of State ask the societies to lend 10 per cent. of their annual advances—now totalling £6 billion a year—to the local authorities so that they can grant mortgages to those needing them? Could not that be done at 10½ per cent., particularly as the present £100 million scheme is a flop and as, on average, only one in eight applications by the local authorities is being granted by the societies?

I think that the scheme is going better than that. On the primary point mentioned by my hon. Friend, on which he has introduced a Bill, he will know from past exchanges that I have great sympathy with what he seeks to achieve in this matter. I made it clear at Question Time three weeks ago that the question of the building societies lending at the lower end of the market is now No. 1 priority in housing policy. As the House knows, the Building Societies Association and the local authority associations are in discussion on this matter. They have had three meetings on the subject already and are due to have another this month. I do not propose to take a new initiative until I know the results of that meeting. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I share his anxiety.

There is no doubt a very strong case for reducing the mortgage lending rate, but does not the Minister agree that all the predictions are that general interest rates will begin to rise again in the autumn? To that extent, would it not be better if he could recommend to the societies that any reduction should be restricted to ½ per cent., so that we shall not have the rate put down now only to have it put up again in the autumn?

These are all interesting reflections and speculations, on which we may all have our own views, but on the question of what the Government have or have not said to the societies I am afraid that I must rest where I stood in previous replies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty council houses there are in England and Wales in whatever condition, including those classified as empty and unavailable for reletting.

The latest relets survey recorded about 22,000 of the 5 million council housing stock in England as vacant and available for letting and about 34,500 undergoing modernisation, repair or conversion. These figures represent about ½ per cent. and ¾ per cent., respectively, of the total local authority stock. This compares with an overall vacancy rate of 4 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that many of these empty council houses could be made habitable for homeless families at a far cheaper price than housing them in inadequate and expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support. Indeed, a very high proportion of the 34,500 properties to which I referred are properties which have been municipalised in a substandard condition and are having works done on them and modernisation undertaken for precisely the purpose to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that in certain large cities, such as Liverpool, we find that council houses are too often left lying empty for long periods and become vandalised, and that this means a loss of revenue to the city, when there are long lists of people waiting for those empty houses? Will not my hon. Friend send out a circular, particularly to the Liverpool City Council, drawing attention to this fact and demanding that new methods of letting should be applied so that people can be got off the housing list and these houses can be let more quickly?

I do not think that there is a need for a general circular on the matter. However, there are certainly problems in particular localities. Liverpool has its share of those problems, such as those described by my hon. Friend. At this stage I shall just say that I have been in touch with Liverpool and other Merseyside authorities on various housing matters, including the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I hope that we shall make progress in this matter in the near future.

In view of the long waiting lists for council houses in many areas, will the Minister consider the possibility of giving grants of up to, say, £500 for those on low incomes who want to buy their own houses for the first time, thereby lifting the pressure of those who are on the council waiting list? Perhaps such a scheme could be offered to all those already in the occupation of council houses, who could thereby perhaps find other homes.

That idea has been put forward to the Department by the NHBC in the context of the housing finance review. We are looking at a whole range of ideas and problems relating to first-time buyers. I would not wish to opt for one particular way of assisting them at this stage.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread disbelief that the figures that he has given to the House are a comprehensive total of properties in council ownership that are empty today? Will he try to dispel that widespread disbelief by carrying out an urgent inquiry as to the manner in which the figures are calculated, to see whether they include all the empty properties? One is told that in London alone there are 100,000 empty properties in council ownership. That is from checks made by independent organisations. Instead of smiling and grinning in the way that the Minister does, will he satisfy himself by undertaking a survey and investigate the way in which these figures are produced?

I certainly accept that the figures that I have quoted must be treated with some caution. They have been collected in the same way that figures were collected when similar relet surveys were undertaken by the hon. Gentleman's Government a few years ago. But if we are expected to act on the basis of the kind of wild allegations that we get constantly from the hon. Gentleman—of which we have just had another—it makes life a little difficult in establishing the facts for policy making. To suggest, even most faintly, that 100,000 council-owned properties in London are empty is ludicrous. That kind of nonsense really should be stopped.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are in existence for monitoring the effects of the Rent Act.

My Department has commissioned a small-scale survey into the effects of the Rent Act 1974 in London. Further and broader-based research into the private rented sector as a whole is being undertaken as part of the review of the Rent Acts.

Does the Minister agree that there should be a countrywide review of the effects of the Rent Acts in drying up the supply of private rented accommodation before more of the taxpayers' money is wasted on other sectors of the housing market?

Certainly the idea of reviewing the operation of the Rent Act 1974 is accepted. As I have indicated, it will be undertaken as part of the general review of rent legislation.

Has the Minister noticed the account of the case in the courts in which permanent residents in a hostel were held to be tenants and not licensees? Will he ensure that that aspect is examined urgently, so that legislation may be passed if that is necessary?

I shall certainly take aboard the case to which my hon. Friend refers and check the papers on the matter. If there is a general problem here, or even the implications of a problem in law, I shall take it aboard in the review.

Does the Minister realise that there are certain areas, of which my constituency is an example, in which the private rented sector is of well above average importance? Will he consider implementing a review of those areas much more urgently than the general review?

I do not think that there is a particular need to select areas for the purpose of reviewing rent legislation. We are aware of the pattern of tenure, by and large, throughout the country. It varies from town to town and from one region to another, according to letting privately, owner-occupation, and the like. We can base our review of the legislation on the known information.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his best estimate of the numbers of dwellings connected to no sewerage system at all, to septic tanks and to cesspit type systems, respectively.

The water authorities estimate that about 900,000 domestic properties in England and Wales are not connected to main sewers. I have no information about what alternative systems these properties might have.

Is the Minister aware that these unconnected properties cause a general health hazard to the entire population and that, therefore, the emptying and related services that are provided by councils ought to be borne equally on the rates as a service to the whole community, that individual householders should not be penalised and, furthermore, that the anomalies between one local authority and another should be ironed out?

I doubt very much whether there are many properties that are not connected up to sewers, cesspits or septic tanks. The purpose of the Housing Act 1974 was, indeed, to offer grants for that purpose for houses that were not connected. If there is any danger to public health, clearly that involves a duty for the local health authority to discharge.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a statement on the Layfield Committee's Report.

No, Sir. I shall make a statement when the Report is published.

Is the long delay due to the tardiness—with one notable and noble exception—of the members of the Committee, or to the Minister? Will the Minister give an undertaking that as we are to have no more than 3 per cent. pay rises there will be no increase in the rates? That would be intolerable next year.

That supplementary question appears to go a little beyond the original Question. However, when the Report is published, no doubt the hon. Gentleman, along with other hon. Members, will have the goodness to make known to us their views on all the important matters which will no doubt have been discussed.

Although my right hon. Friend has not yet published the Report he is no doubt thinking about it. Does he agree that, in a considerable period of slow or even nil growth in some services, it is important that we should have a more delicate instrument than the block grant to ensure that the Labour Government's priority policies are carried out by local authorities? Does he agree that this is the general object to be achieved when he is considering the Layfield Report?

I seem to recognise the origins of my hon. Friend's question on this subject. He is concerned that when education targets are set for local authorities the amounts of money involved should always be spent. Whilst we want to carry out our policies, we must always search for the maximum degree of local authority freedom, and it is this balance which is difficult to discover.

Am I correct in thinking, from what the Secretary of State has said, that he does not intend to publish his own conclusions at the same time as the Report? If that is so, how long will it take for him to come to his conclusions, and when does he expect to do something about the rating system, which has been under consideration for so long?

I cannot answer the second part of this question until the publication of the Report. The hon. Member is correct on the first part of his question. The matter is of critical importance for local government and the subject has been debated for the past 20 years. For the Government to announce hard and fast conclusions on publication would be foolish and irresponsible, and I have no intention of doing that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Council of Building Materials Producers.

I, and my Department, have frequent and continuing discussions with the National Council of Building Material Producers.

In view of that Council's generally good record for forecasting, how does the Minister react to its forecast the other day that the level of council house starts will begin to fall steadily from October this year?

I do not accept that prognostication.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving rural transport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce legislation to assist the provision of transport in rural areas.

County Councils have the prime responsibility for public transport in their areas, but the Government intend to promote a number of experiments to explore with all the parties concerned, on the ground, what can be done to improve rural transport. Legislation relating to some features of the experiments will be introduced when an opportunity presents itself.

Will the Minister recognise that there is a substantial degree of urgency in this matter now? Every month that goes by leads to a further migration of people from the countryside, leaving the elderly more exposed and more incapable of travel. Does he recognise that although transport costs are not much different in rural and urban areas they have also to be compared with costs in London? People in rural areas do not enjoy the benefits of London weighting allowances, and they are therefore put at a disadvantage——

Order. That is enough for an afternoon.

The Government help the county councils—particularly, this year, the non-metropolitan county councils—with their transport responsibilities through bus revenue support. The experiments which are guaranteed will first be within existing laws, and the need for changes in the law will be examined.

Does the Minister share my surprise at the claimed inability of the West Yorkshire bus authority to provide a bus service in a part of my constituency because the hill involved is too steep to take such a service? Will he consider setting up liaison machinery between bus authorities and bus manufacturers, to ensure that the authorities buy British buses and that the manufacturers produce buses that can go up steep hills?

I am sure that the steering committee will examine that matter. I was in the West Yorkshire area at the weekend, looking at the various aspects of public transport, and nobody mentioned the hill to me.

Will the Minister accept that as rural transport deteriorates a serious social problem is created in the villages? Instead of tinkering with the problem with local experiments, will he introduce modest legislation to relax public service licensing laws in rural areas?

The problem would be the degree of modesty. Wholesale delicensing is not necessary, and it might result in a reduction in existing services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to examine the problem. He recognised the importance of not ruining what is left of the existing system in rural areas when he asked leave to bring in his Bill.

While experiments are all very well, is it not the case that the Minister has given the impression that the Government are not fully seized of the urgency of the matter in rural areas? Is legislation to be introduced this Session, or next?

No legislation is to be introduced at the moment, but in any case that is not a matter for me. We are aware of the urgency. A number of schemes operate, particularly in Scotland, where post buses are used more often than in England.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome what he said about wholesale delicensing? Does he agree that the answer to the problem might be more flexibility in the scope and operation of the National Bus Company?

It is a subject that we must examine. Although we have to consider the views of trade unions and others about the maintenance of jobs, safety standards, and the proper maintenance of vehicles, we must recognise that there are many people who have access to neither bus services nor cars in such areas. We have to do our best for them.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, which is only 30 or 40 miles from London, rural transport is at the point of breakdown? Will he consider the possibility of allowing Post Office vans to carry passengers as well as mail, as they do successfully in other countries?

They also operate successfully in this country, and I hope for an extension in those services. Post vans are used most in Scotland and Wales with a few in England. There is nothing against them, except that the routes and the times of Post Office vans do not necessarily coincide with the times and routes of people who want to travel on local journeys.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds he decided to approve construction of the bypass at Wilstead, on the A6.

The bypass has been constructed on road safety and environmental grounds, as part of the general improvement of the A6 trunk road between Bedford and Luton.

Is the Minister aware that there is no comparison between the need for this bypass, which was in my view minimal, and the need for a bypass of Silsoe, which is five miles down the A6—where conditions are appalling—and a bypass of Ampthill, for which there is a crying need? Does he not agree that there is something seriously wrong with priorities when £330,000 can be so misapplied? Will the Minister please look into it?

I am not aware of any objections to the bypass. It will bring benefits to the area. The question whether the Wilstead bypass should take precedence over bypasses at Silsoe and Ampthill is not a matter for the Government. The Silsoe scheme is taking longer to reach construction stage because of the Wrest Park ancient monument. The Ampthill scheme is the responsibility of the Bedfordshire County Council, within the framework of its transport policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the average increase in council rents caused by the cuts in housing subsidies announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Command Paper No. 6393 for 1976–77, 1977–78 and 1978–79, assuming no corresponding increase in rate fund contribution.

No cut is proposed for 1976–77, and subsidy provided should enable local authorities to contain rent increases within a national average of about 60p a week. I am glad to see that this guideline figure is being generally observed. The savings forecast for each of the subsequent two years would be equivalent in England, in current conditions and at constant prices, to an average rent increase of roughly 35p a week net of rebates.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on 28th July last year, the Government announced their aim, as stated in Cmnd. 6115—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If it is a quotation, how can I be expected to do other than read?

Order. It is not customary to quote during Questions. That has been long established.

Thank you for that advice, Mr. Speaker.

I have a great deal in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), who has just resigned as Prime Minister, but I do not have in common with him the faintest recollection of what I said on 28th July last year, I regret to say. The position is precisely as I stated it in my answer this afternoon, namely, that we expect that with the subsidies provided the average rent increase in 1976–77 will be 60p and that thereafter the effect of the cuts will be as announced this afternoon.

Is it not a fact that Government subsidies to council house tenants are greatly exceeded by Government subsidies to owner-occupiers, in the form of tax relief? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend resist the proposed cut in council house subsidies, which will add seriously to the cost of living of millions of working people?

We must remember that the owner-occupier was clobbered by the Conservative Government during the years 1971–73, when the mortgage rate went up from 8½ per cent. to 11 per cent. and house prices doubled, and the period ended with a total famine of mortgages. We must not give the impression that over the past few years the owner-occupier has been unduly favourably treated when it comes to comparisons between him and the council tenant. As we discovered in the housing finance review, one can reach 10 different answers according to what one brings into the comparisons. When we publish a document on the subject, I hope that there will be widespread public debate.

Will the Secretary of State make absolutely clear what the 35p to which he referred is? Am I right in thinking that it represents an increase of 35p on top of the increase projected for next year? If so, what will be the expected total increase in rents for the next financial year?

I think that the hon. Gentleman means in the next financial year——

Next year.

It depends when it starts. I can never remember whether it is 4th April or 6th April. If it is today, it is the next financial year. The 35p refers to an increase bigger than it would otherwise have been. The cuts in consequence of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement make it impossible to say what it will be until we know what the rate of inflation is. No Government have ever projected likely rent increases more than 12 months ahead.

The White Paper projected a figure which, if inflation rose at a certain rate, would be adjusted. The White Paper, before the current figure was projected, gave a figure from which one can deduce rent increases for next year. Is it one to which we can add the 35p?

The White Paper projected no figure for rent increases; it projected a figure for subsidies. The effect of a given level of subsidies on rents depends centrally on the rate of inflation, and that the Government have not projected.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange for his Department to compile an estimate of the fuel saving effected by the 50 mph and 60 mph limits.

We estimate that lower speeds, together with other changes in driving behaviour since the oil crisis, are reducing consumption of motor spirit by 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. It is, however, impossible to isolate the effect of the speed limits from other factors.

How can the Minister justify the continuation of these speed limits when he does not know exactly how much fuel, if any, is saved by them?

I was not aware that exact knowledge was necessary for Governments of either side before they made their decisions. The last survey showed that the proportion of drivers observing the limit was about 80 per cent. It is clear that most drivers appreciate the need for those limits.

Is it not a fact that there is no evidence of substantial fuel saving? Given that the limits cause confusion to the motorist and enforcement difficulties for the police, why not just drop them?

We shall examine all the available evidence when the present Order expires on 30th November. As for the criticisms of the difficulties of enforcement, I am aware that the complaints which reach hon. Members are in the main from people who have exceeded the limits and had their licences endorsed as a result.

Has my hon. Friend taken note of recent observations by the Assistant Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that speed limits should be increased?

I think that the Assistant Commissioner was referring to the 30 mph and 40 mph limits rather than the overall limit of 50 mph on ordinary rural roads and 60 mph on dual carriageways.

Has not the Minister been advised that regular checking of points, plugs and tyres makes a bigger contribution to fuel economy than a variety of complicated, unenforceable speed limits?

I have not had such advice. I hope that hon. Members who have evidence, which the Transport and Road Research Laboratory says that it cannot separate from all the other information, will let me or the Laboratory have it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his two senior officials, who act as assessors on the governing body of the Centre for Environmental Studies, represented the Government's views about the facilities provided by the Centre for a four-month visit by Mr. Mundey, ex-general secretary of the Australian Builders' Labour Federation, to instruct British building workers in techniques to ensure the blacking by building workers of any development of which they do not approve.

I do not think it right to disclose details of the proceedings of this governing body, or of any others of a largely autonomous nature, but I understand the purpose of the visit referred to was not as set out in the Question.

Nevertheless, does it not strike the Minister as somewhat bizarre that taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise somebody who is apparently dedicated to disruption and anarchy?

Who said so?

The Centre does not receive more than a proportion of its expenditure from Government sources. I can add nothing to my answer, that the purpose of the visit was not as the hon. Gentleman described it in his Question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Jack Mundey and Australian trade unions might have much to contribute to the British trade union movement? Does he also agree that architects and town planners do not have sole knowledge in environmental design? Is it not true that many building workers and many people on the shop floor have just as much knowledge? For example, they might have warned the architects who designed Ronan Point that there were certain structural defects. Is it not important to get trade unionists involved more in design and development, in all walks of life?

I certainly agree that it is desirable to get trade union and other groups involved in environmental and planning decisions. In an indirect way, that was the purpose of the visit. It was to consider urban and environmental planning in Britain, with particular reference to the parts played by trade unions and residential and citizen groups.

Why could not the Minister have given that straightforward answer, saying what the purpose of the visit was, when my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) asked him? Why did he have to be so arrogant and uninformative until one of his hon. Friends asked a question?

Hear, hear.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman and his near-hearing hon. Friends had read the Question, which did not ask me for the purpose of the visit but told me, inaccurately, what it was.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Jack Mundey, far from being the drug on the market that Conservative Members have suggested, has had a major influence on environmental matters, in particular, in and around Sydney which is my home town, and—this I find somewhat incongruous—has become the darling of Conservative interests in Sydney?

That may derive from the fact—a fact of which Mr. Mundey may not have been aware—that the environmental network pressures and influences in this country on that score are somewhat more developed than in my hon. Friend's home territory.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on his progress in negotiations with his European counterparts on the tachograph, drivers' hours, Community operators' permits and gross vehicle weights.

On drivers' hours, we are examining new proposals from the EEC Commission, with which we are continuing to discuss the position on tachographs. There have been no recent negotiations on Community permits and gross vehicle weights.

Will the Minister bear in mind that many of us would not mind if the gross vehicle weights were increased slightly, because it would not make any difference? Will he also recognise that many of us feel that the British quota in regard to international operating permits should be increased and that progress on the tachograph and drivers' hours should be as slow as possible?

I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Indeed, that is what we are doing. As for Community operators' permits, at present the United Kingdom receives 272 out of a total of 2,363 permits in the Community as a whole. The figure of 272 represents less than 5 per cent. of our international road haulage activity.

Is the Minister aware that there is one area in which we lag behind our Community partners, namely, in our failure to allow heavy goods vehicle licences to be given to drivers who wear contact lenses? There is surely no defence for that retrograde attitude by the Government.

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and shall write to him on the subject.

On the wider question, will the Minister recognise that in Britain the regulations on drivers' hours will add massively to the costs of the road haulage industry and will knock out many road and bus services in Britain? Will he confirm that the aim is to achieve not a deferment of the Regulations but a change?

The Regulations were accepted when the Conservative Government brought in the European Communities Bill. They comprise part of the Regulations brought forward in 1969, accepted by the original Six in 1972 and due to be brought into force. We have fought for deferment and we have achieved it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to introduce legislation abolishing the agricultural tied cottage.

Next week.

What day next week—and, indeed, at what time? Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be broadly welcomed by agricultural workers throughout the country? Will he confirm that the Bill will contain provisions giving to those workers the full protection of the Rent Acts and will not be a shoddy compromise with agricultural interests?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his congratulations to us on, I hope, solving a problem that has bedevilled the agriculture industry, not for years but for decades.

Rubbish.

In reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I must inform him that my Department never under any circumstances introduces shoddy compromises.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the agricultural tied house has been part of the rural scene for many years and has contributed tremendously to the success of British agriculture? What is the NFU's attitude to the Government's proposals? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that restrictions on agricultural tied houses will be particularly damaging to the dairy and livestock industries?

There have been full consultations with all interested parties. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the text of the Bill. I hope that in the meantime he will not make alarmist statements.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Bill will dissociate a farm worker's employment from his home? Does he agree that it is quite unacceptable that any man's home should depend on his job? Finally, does he agree that farm workers are particularly vulnerable when that kind of situation exists, as was demonstrated only two days ago by the eviction of a man, his wife and family?

I agree with my lion. Friend's sentiments. I assure her that the Bill has been drawn up in the closest consultation with the NFU and with the union of which my hon. Friend is so distinguished an ornament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue instructions to his Department to ensure that any steel structures which are designed or approved by them are designed or approved by it are designed to incorporate British Steel sections.

No, Sir. This would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome and would generally invite retaliation against British Steel, which exports over five times as much steel sections as are imported. However, steel structures designed or approved by my Department already incorporate steel of British origin to a very substantial extent.

I am grateful for that answer. Is the Minister able to give the percentage of British steel involved? Is he aware that in certain buildings that are being erected, designed by his Department, British steel cannot be used? That surely cannot be in the interests of the nation.

I cannot quote the figures offhand, but I shall check the situation. If I can establish such detailed information, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make an announcement about the chairmanship of British Rail.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the name of the new Chairman of British Rail.

I am glad to be able to inform the House that Mr. Peter Parker has accepted my invitation to serve as Chairman of the British Railways Board for a term of five years, when Sir Richard Marsh's appointment comes to an end in September. With the agreement of Sir Richard Marsh, I am in the meantime appointing Mr. Parker as a part-time member of the Board.

I congratulate Mr. Parker on his appointment. Will my right hon. Friend point out to him the need for more co-ordinated Socialist planning in running an essential public service such as British Rail? Will he express the hope that Mr. Parker will not turn out to be a butcher, like Lord Beeching, or a simple careerist, like Richard Marsh?

I very much resent the last remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Whatever one may think about Sir Richard Marsh, whom I have known for many years, it is intolerable to call him a simple careerist. I greatly resent that suggestion. I do no think it is for me to lecture Mr. Peter Parker. He has been a member of the Labour Party for at least as long as has my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire. Mr. Parker has long been associated with the nationalised industries. Therefore, I would regard it as an impertinence on my part to lecture him on the principles of running a nationalised industry.

I should like to add the congratulations of the Opposition to Mr. Parker and wish him good luck in the job—luck that he no doubt will need. At least he knows about profits. Has the Secretary of State told Mr. Parker about reports that the Government are proposing, as part of their new transport policy, to transfer subsidies from rail to bus services?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to contain himself until next Tuesday, when we shall publish our consultative document on transport.

Will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically any representations that Mr. Parker might make to ensure that British Rail is given a much greater proportion of freight traffic? Is he aware that in West Yorkshire British Rail has suggested that it could carry many more passengers and much more freight on the existing network, at a fraction of the cost of improving the motorway system?

I shall consider very sympathetically any points that Mr. Peter Parker may wish to put to me. However, I ask the House to await publication of the consultative document next week, which will give, in broad outline, the Government's transport strategy.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on confirming one of the worst-kept Government secrets by announcing Mr. Parker's appointment? Will he instruct the new Chairman of British Rail to publish full statistics regarding losses on individual routes, so that accurate assessments may be made of where subsidies are going?

I hope that the consultative document will give the most detailed breakdown yet made in this country of where subsidy—not only for railways, but for transport as a whole—is going. As for this being one of the worst-kept secrets, I can think of far worse-kept secrets than this. I must remind the House that we believe in open government.

May I, on behalf of the railway trade unions, congratulate my right hon. Friend on making this appointment? Will he suggest to the new Chairman that he takes the railway unions into his confidence a little more than has been the case hitherto?

My hon. Friend probably knows that Mr. Parker has specialised very strongly in industrial relations. Throughout his life, his relations with trade unions have been excellent. I am glad to say that Mr. Sidney Weighell the general secretary of my hon. Friend's union, issued a statement today welcoming the appointment.