asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish all the papers submitted to his Department by the British Railways Board prior to the publication of the consultation document on transport.

No, Sir. It will be for the board to decide how much it wishes to publish of the information it submits in its response to the consultation document.

Does the Minister agree that the long-suffering commuter is entitled to know rather more about the plans of British Rail to improve its efficiency?

I hope that it will be possible for the commuter and for all of us to know of the plans, proposals and thoughts of British Rail, but we have only recently published the consultation document. I hope very much that I shall soon have the opportunity of discussing it with the British Railways Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are not prepared to see commuters discriminated against? Will he confirm that the Government's policy document says that there is considerable scope for better productivity and manpower savings? Does he agree that a policy that raised fares but did not tackle the question of efficiency would be totally unacceptable?

I am certain that increased efficiency is one of the factors that come into the whole equation of costs and subsidies affecting rail services, but it would be wrong for us to isolate one element. We must look at the whole matter in context. That is what the document has done. It will enable a more rational discussion to take place.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while commuters are not discriminated against, since they are merely asked—as Conservative Members often ask—to pay their way, the commuter services into the cities are very important? They are socially necessary in order to prevent congestion and pollution in the cities.

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the services into London and other major urban centres particularly are essential on social and environmental grounds. It is inconceivable that there could be any serious substitute for them. Therefore, what has been proposed is not any savage reduction in those services but rather the recognition that they are, unhappily, high-cost services and that we must look very carefully at the present relationship between subsidy and charges.

I warmly welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about commuter services and urban areas, but will he comment on the report in this morning's Daily Telegraph that the Government have approached British Rail and that there are strong possibilities of swingeing cuts not only in the commuter services but in the very thin rail network in the rural areas?

I read that account with some surprise. I have issued no instructions to British Rail, and I have no proposals for closure under consideration. Whether there are proposals for them, or whether options have reached the British Railways Board, I cannot say.

Do we take the Minister's original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to mean that he intends to publish considerably more information about British Rail finances—particularly with regard to individual commuter lines, as promised by the Minister for Transport some time ago—and British Rail's intentions?

We had better wait until we see how the consultations go. I have no fixed view on the matter, but it is my intention to give the House and the public as much information as possible, to help them as well as us to come to reasonable conclusions about what options are available.

When my right hon. Friend discusses the matter with the British Railways Board, will he draw its attention to the fact that inordinate fare increases in Scotland will result in savage cuts, loss of employment and the diminution of services essential to maintain productivity in that part of the United Kingdom?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties, but I do not envisage savage cuts. Therefore, the dire consequences which he predicts for Scotland are hypothetical and, I hope, unreal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what survey has been made of council housing left vacant because of administrative and other delays.

The Department's annual relets survey collects information about council housing revenue account dwellings which are vacant and available for letting at the end of each year and those undergoing modernisation, repairs or conversion.

Is the figure for empty council houses still 56,000, and does it include short-life properties? Is the percentage on GLC estates in Essex still 2 per cent., as stated last year? Whatever the precise figures are, do they not argue that what is needed is not requisitioning powers but a proper survey and occupation of council property?

About half of 1 per cent. of local authority housing revenue account dwellings were vacant at our last inquiry and just under three-quarters of 1 per cent. were vacant for modernisation, repair or conversion. The figures that I gave the hon. Member in previous answers are about the percentage at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that in Liverpool the situation in respect of empty council dwellings has now reached scandalous proportions, and that in my constituency and other places there is a great deal of squatting going on, which will greatly increase if this sort of thing continues? People will simply not accept that they should be homeless while properties are empty.

Under the Liberals.

Yes, under the Liberals.

Any dwellings that remain empty longer than necessary are of great concern and are contributing to housing stress, so we are concerned about the situation. It varies from place to place, but the picture for local authority housing is that local housing authorities are very eager to use their stock to the best advantage. If my hon. Friend has any particular examples in mind, we shall do our best to help.

May I go back to the original Question and press the Minister to say whether short-life properties awaiting redevelopment are included in the official figure of 56,000 empty council houses under the annual relet survey—yes or no? In view of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the scandalous number of empty properties, will the Minister oppose requisitioning powers while thousands of council properties remain empty—[Interruption]—and instead ensure that a proper survey of every empty council property, in whatever condition, is made, with reasons given by local councils why they are empty?

rose—

Order. We are letting questions run amok again. Hon. Members—this applies to both sides—are making speeches. I hope that all hon. Members will bear that in mind.

The collection of information is a great concern of ours, but that is not an answer to all the problems. We believe that local authorities know their own circumstances best. We are not anxious to dictate to them how they should allocate their stock.

Will the Minister accept that one answer to the problem of short-life houses is to pass them on to housing associations, which can do them up far more cheaply than local authorities and which should be encouraged to do just that in places like Liverpool?

Our experience in the country is that, under our municipalisation programme, authorities are buying property that is below standard, improving it and improving the general housing condition of their tenants.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that although some authorities, like Liverpool, may be inefficient, in many cases these delays are caused by councils giving tenants a real choice in the properties available? Should he not therefore turn his attention to dealing with large empty houses, such as, for instance, the one at Totteridge, connected with the Pricerite chain?

The second part of that question is due for answer later in today's Question Time. It is true that extra choice is being given, and many of the houses that are empty are empty for good reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislative proposals he has arising out of the consultative document on transport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he envisages any legislation following his consultation document on transport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislative proposals he has arising out of the consultation document on transport.

A number of proposals discussed in the consultation document would, if adopted, require legislation. I cannot, however, announce legislative proposals on them until I have considered the response to the document.

Does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that the vital thing is efficiency on road, rail, water and all services and the necessary restriction of heavy lorries? Does he equally agree, as my hon. Friends have already said, that there is a real problem with regard to the burden borne by the commuter travelling to work? The Minister has himself said that he is not prepared to subsidise the services, so can he twist the arm of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to get him to allow travel to work as an expense against income tax?

On the first point, of course I agree that one of the aims must be to get the right balance among all the different transport services, including those mentioned by the hon. Member. On the second question, I do not wish to sound unsympathetic, but I believe that an Opposition who are constantly asking the Government to cut down and retrench on public expenditure should show more concern for the broad public expenditure restraints within which we are bound to operate. That does not mean—nor has it been suggested—that subsidies as a whole will be slashed, let alone abolished. We have not said that. What we have asked, however, is that there should be a limit on them and that we should make the best use of them among the different claims upon them.

Can the Secretary of State give any more details of the legislation referred to in the consultation document for modest relaxations of the bus licensing system in rural areas? When will it come before the House? This is a matter of great concern to hon. Members representing rural areas. Will any of the experimental transport schemes referred to in the same paragraph be undertaken in Norfolk?

:I cannot answer the last question without notice. I must repeat that it is not right for me, at the moment, to try to itemise those conclusions arising out of the policy review that would lead to legislation. Of course, one of these proposals is that there could be a reorganisation of the bus industry and changes in the licensing system, and so on, but I would not wish to pronounce upon these things until, as I said, the consultations have proceeded.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the average railway-man, as distinct from railway union leader, may be asking himself why he should support the Government's central economic strategy while the Government have plans, which they could bring into action next year and beyond, to take away his job and those of his comrades?

I hope that the average members of the railway unions, just like the leaders of the unions as a whole, will not put the question to themselves in that form. What I hope they will wish to do is, first, recognise the overall national advantage of the agreement that my right hon. Friend has been negotiating and, second, understand the contribution that today and in the future, just as in the past, an efficient railway industry can make to our national prosperity.

Will the present Secretary of State dissociate himself entirely from the negative comments that his predecessor inserted in page 79 of the document, about the bicycle? Will he, instead, take this oportunity to make it absolutely clear that he and his Government will do all they can to promote this healthy, efficient and non-polluting form of transport?

I reply to that question as an ex-cyclist rather than a practising one. I have always felt that we should make it possible for people who wish to use the cycle to use it to the maximum possible extent, consistent with safety. That is the real problem that faces so many would-be users of bicycles, particularly in our cities. I understand that there are one or two schemes relating to this matter. I am thinking of the one in Portsmouth, which has been tried out by the council, to encourage the use of cycles and to make their use safer. I shall be interested to see what the results are.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the proposals contained in the consultation document will achieve the best use of resources and the best co-ordination of the different forms of transport?

No, Sir, I am not convinced yet. I look upon the consultation document as being—I think this is how we describe it—a well-researched and serious analysis of the total transport situation in Great Britain. These proposals are half proposals and the whole emphasis is that they should be the basis for consultations. I shall not be persuaded of any particular proposal until I have had that consultation and have heard everyone's views.

In spite of what the Minister has just said, the consultative document does include a very firm statement of Government policy. Does he accept that the flavour of that statement is that the massive transfer from road to rail, talked about in both the 1974 manifestos, is no longer possible? Does he propose to stand by the manifesto or the consultative document?

That is an unreal over-simplification. I do not think any serious person on either side of the House would wish other than to see the maximum possible transfer of freight from the roads to the railways. Of course we want to see that. All that the document says, and says repeatedly, is that on the evidence before it a massive transfer may well be impossible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consultations he intends to have on matters arising out of the consultation document on transport.

I have specifically invited comments from over 100 organisations with a direct interest in transport; either I or my hon. Friends intend to meet representatives of those that are principally involved. We would welcome constructive comments from other interested organisations and individuals

Is it not misconceived that strategic long-distance bus services should be allowed to be dependent for their survival on grants from different local authorities operating competing subsidised local services on sections of the same routes? In advance of an agreed and coherent policy on public transport. will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that long-distance services are not run down and dismantled to the detriment, in particular, of those who have no car and who are not likely to have one for some time ahead?

I shall watch out for the problem in the interim period, but in terms of consultation we envisage the sort of considerations that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, which are properly matters for discussion in the framework of the general discussions for which we have asked

Will the consultations on the existing proposed policy include consultations with the unions, hon. Members and others who supported the 1968 Act and the Railways Act 1974. the implementation of which we have not seen and which contradict to some extent the present policy as expressed in the consultation document?

I am not absolutely certain to which groups my hon. Friend is referring. As I have already made clear, we shall be most anxious to hear the views of the railway unions, the unions generally and the various statutory corporations that are operative in the railway and bus industries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have consultations about shipping services, and specifically about the urgent need for a second run at Stranraer Harbour, to cater for the British Rail steamers that ply to Northern Ireland?

I do not promise the hon. Gentleman specifically that I shall turn my mind to the question of Stranraer, but I hope that the shipping services will be included in the consultation.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is causing delay in the publication of the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance.

The size and complexity of the Layfield Report, which runs to 733 pages of typescript, has meant that publication was bound to take some time. However, I hope that, subject to any possible printing delays. the report will be published by the end of this month.

Does the Minister agree that there has been an appalling delay in publishing this very important document? We have been waiting for it for a long time. Is there something in it that needs to be hidden? Are the Government nervous of publishing it before the local elections? When the document is published, will the Minister see that there is the widest possible consultation':

I shall take the most serious part of the question first. Yes, there will be the widest possible consultation. The lion. Member is not being fair to the chairman and members of the panel, including people from his own party as well as mine, and trade unionists, who did an enormous amount of work and put tremendous efforts into this document. From a fairly narrow electoral advantage point of view, I would rather the document had been published already.

Whatever the Layfield Report recommends, it is high time there was a reform of housing finance. It is absolutely stupid that local authorities of the size of Liverpool and Birmingham, for example, should have to pay more than, or as much as, they paid previously in interest charges in order to borrow money now to build houses. This is an absurd situation, and I hope that the Minister will look into it.

In view of the long supplementary questions I propose to call fewer for the rest of Question Time.

I do not know whether this arises directly out of the report, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is continuing the housing finance review. He and I and the Under-Secretary responsible for housing are all very concerned about the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made, and these matters will have to be considered.

Has the Minister any programme in mind for implementing the report—I imagine he will wish to consult local authorities—and bringing it before the House? How long will it be before we see the results in any legislation, if this is needed?

The short answer is "As speedily as possible" The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) occupied my position with distinction, and he is aware that, if there are to be meaningful consultations, the thing has to be done properly, and as much time as possible has to be allowed. When we publish the report which I hope will be by the end of the month, I shall acquaint the House with the arrangements that will follow the consultation period.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a statement about the Greater London Development Plan and any further modifications he intends to make; and if he will announce the future population size he intends to use as a guideline.

It is too early to make a further statement on the Greater London Development Plan. The objection period expired on 10th March 1976 and I cannot yet comment on the plan. But, more generally, any view of the future of London must include a considered assessment of the future population and development of south-eastern England.

My right hon. Friend must be aware that he is merely repeating the views expressed by many Ministers before him. He must be aware of the urgency of this matter and the need to reach a conclusion in order to co-ordinate London authorities and the Government. It is time to state clearly the principle that more industry is needed in the outer areas of London. We need an exchange of people whereby those living in the centre of London can move out to jobs outside the capital, while those living outside can come into London to work.

I think that my hon. Friend is—unusually—being a little unfair. A number of objections have been made to the plan and these need to be studied. Because there is a necessary process to be gone through, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to consider matters that need to be studied and then commented on. I share his concern—I am a Member for a London constituency, as he is—and what he has said is. in broad terms, absolutely right.

Does the Minister agree that much of the planning assumption that went into the plan is inaccurate, because no one has yet any assumption of population figures? This is the most important thing for the Government to decide on.

While I understand the question that the hon. Member is putting, I think it is rather an attempt to get me to make an unsuitable reply when a reply should be given in the proper form. The best thing I can do is refer to a statement made by the previous Secretary of State—who is now the Foreign Secretary—in October 1975, and say that the matter is being adequately dealt with.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with his review of the present arrangements for preventive research into the causes of failures of design, components or construction work; and whether he will make a statement.

The review is not yet complete. We shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Does the Minister share the uneasy view that there have been far too many such failures in recent years? Is he satisfied that the Building Research Establishment devotes sufficient time to exploring new technologies before they are used, instead of finding out why they failed afterwards?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about failures. Construction methods are changing and new materials are being used all the time, so there are bound to be potential hazards. I am satisfied that everything is being done to remove the potential hazards and to make sure that failures do not occur.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many draft orders for waiting restrictions on car parking on trunk roads have been withdrawn during the last year as the result of objections.

In the year ending 13th April 1976, two such orders have been with-drawn as the result of objections, one completely and the other to be amended and republished.

In order to avoid that sort of thing happening—as happened in Woodstock in my constituency—may I suggest that more consultation takes place with organisations such as chambers of commerce and local shopkeepers, so that everyone of importance is consulted before an crder is finally made?

I am aware of the difficulties that existed in the hon. Member's constituency. However, the fact that it has been necessary to withdraw only two orders in a year is pretty good evidence that we are doing a reasonable job on consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from the public concerning his transport policy review; and what have been the main themes of these representations.

I have so far received about 50 representations, mostly from the public, related specifically to the consultation document. The main theme has been concern over the future and cost of public transport.

Will the Secretary of State accept that there is very great concern, especially among young married couples who were encouraged to move out of London and now find that they are in a vice—a money trap—with rising commuter fares? Will he further accept that there is a general feeling that the policy for commuter fares has not been properly related to social and planning considerations in the whole area around London? Will he take another look at that?

I promise to give serious thought to the whole connection between —as the hon. Member puts it—broad social environmental policy and the allocation of subsidies that are available for passenger transport.

How many members of my right hon. Friend's Department who are involved in preparing the consultation document have first-hand knowledge of running a railway system or, for that matter, any other transport industry?

I cannot help my hon. Friend on that point. In producing a review of this kind we have to strike a balance between those who have professional experience in running a transport service and those who have the advantage of being able to take a broader and overall view of all the different kinds of transport services.

Does the Minister agree that the emphasis in the consultation document is on transferring from rail to road? Will he bear in mind the article in the Daily Telegraph concerning possible closure of those lines which are receiving a social subsidy? Will he give an undertaking that he will put before the House, before they are implemented, any proposals by British Rail concerning possible closures of these services?

The hon. Member is entering into hypothetical questions, beginning with his opening remarks about action to transfer from rail to road, which he says we envisage. I do not necessarily agree with that at all.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet leaders of the rail unions to discuss the conclusions of the transport policy review.

My right hon. Friend and I hope soon to meet the leaders of the railway trade unions to discuss the consultation document.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite a reduction of over half of the manpower of British Rail, many rail workers remain anxious to achieve even greater productivity in the railway system, but they find it difficult to reconcile the greater output that that would require with the policy of higher fares, reduced frequencies, lower investment in electrification and advanced passenger trains and other aspects of the policy?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the investment level for British Rail under the Public Expenditure Survey Committee is at a higher level than it has been since 1962, in real terms, after allowing for inflation. We are intending to continue that level of investment throughout the PESC period. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is really for British Rail to decide how it meets the financial disciplines that we are imposing upon it. As the consultation document says, to the extent that one solution is forsworn, the burden will fall that much more heavily on the other possible options.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the rail union leaders clearly whether he agrees with the commitment in the October 1974 manifesto that there should be a major transfer of freight from road to rail, or with the consultation document that his Department has produced, which describes this as a pipe dream? Surely the rail union leaders deserve to know where he stands on this issue.

We always made it clear that the transfer of freight from road to rail was our objective where it made economic and environmental sense. That is still the formula in the consultation document.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses in Lincolnshire have been sold to sitting tenants since January 1974.

Five dwellings, not built specifically for sale, have been reported sold.

Does the Minister agree that that is a disgracefully low figure? Will he press his right hon. Friend to reverse the Government's policy and to make sure that sitting tenants in council houses who wish to purchase their properties may do so?

I do not agree with the hon. Member. It is for the local authority concerned, which knows the circumstances, to make such decisions. As for the general policy, I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend in Hansard on 28th April, at column 416.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the earlier remarks by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) about young couples being caught in a trap demonstrate that owner-occupation has been forced down the throats of some young people, and that it is important to keep a pool of rented accommodation for those who need it?

I agree that there are those living in intolerable circumstances who are completely dependent upon local authority housing. A doctrinaire approach to this matter does not help them.

Is the Minister aware of the survey carried out by the British Market Research Bureau, which showed that nearly 80 per cent. of those in the 20 to 24 age group wished to buy a house if they could? Will he encourage local councils to build in partnership with private builders and sell council houses, so that the desire of these young people may be satisfied?

In a recent debate my right hon. Friend outlined very fully and clearly the Government's policy on the sale of council houses. Many of those who are living in the most difficult circumstances are completely dependent on local authorities for decent dwellings, and we have to pay regard to that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current proportion of owner-occupied properties to the total of the housing stock.

It is estimated that about 55 per cent. of the total stock of dwellings in England were owner-occupied at the end of 1975.

That is a reasonable advance towards what I would call a property-owning democracy, but has the Minister any further suggestions about how we may advance to the 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. levels of Australia and the United States? Will he consider, in spite of his last answer, the controlled sale of council houses on the one hand and the restoration of tax relief on mortgages over £25,000 on the other?

The hon. Member should bear in mind that when the Government came to office in February 1974 we inherited a mortgage famine, and house prices had gone through the roof. Our policy to stabilise building society funds has enabled many more families to own their own homes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the most important and influential action ever taken to assist more people to own their own homes was the introduction of the option mortgage scheme—and that was introduced by a Labour Government?

I have pleasure in reaffirming that that excellent advance was made by a Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for supporting the development of skiing among young people in Great Britain; and if he will make a grant towards the costs of the first English Junior Ski Championships.

I welcome the excellent work being done by the National Ski Federation of Great Britain to promote skiing among young people. The Sports Council is responsible for allocating grants to sport from the Government's annual grant in aid, but I understand that the federation has not applied for grant aid for the First English Junior Ski Championships as it has found a commercial sponsor for this event.

The achievements of the National Ski Federation, the local authorities and the Government have been impressive in this respect, but is my right hon. Friend aware that although a great many working-class children are interested in skiing the great majority of those who participate, particularly in championship events, are upper-class children? Does he not accept that there is a great deal to be done if we are to move towards the old Socialist doctrine that we should all live at the Ritz?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has paid full and fair tribute to the work of the Ski Federation of Great Britain. I am very impressed that it is starting children off very young, with competitions for the under-elevens. I believe that it has managed to train about 60,000 children and that on this May Day—or very near it—high in our ideals must be the provision of ski facilities for the whole community.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the ridiculous suggestion that there should be a subsidy for skiing is indicative of the philosophy which gives us a public sector borrowing requirement of £12 billion and puts us on the slippery slopes not of skiing but of hyper-inflation?

I doubt whether even my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put inflation down totally to the increase in skiing in Great Britain. I cannot help thinking that in the use of his mixed metaphor the hon. Gentleman was a bit ambivalent. Skiing is a splendid sport, which I like to watch on television.

Is the Minister confident that the resources available to the Sports Council to encourage skiing, particularly in international competitions abroad, are adequate, in view of our performance at the Olympic Games?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is leading me into paths in which I have an invincible ignorance, but I know that the work that the federation has been putting in hand has greatly increased the interest in skiing in this country. Therefore, one hopes for better results in future. As regards subsidies, I said in my original answer that, rather fortunately, there was a commercial sponsor for this event, and hope that there will be many more.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has had from the residents of Beddington and Wallington, in Surrey, about the proposed route for the M23 north of Hooley.

In the past six months the Department has received five letters from local residents or associations representing their interests.

Is the Minister aware that, although he may have received only five representations, I have received a much larger number from residents in Beddington and Wallington who are worried not so much about the possibility of traffic congestion resulting from the M23 ending at Hooley as about property blight that continues because of the uncertainty that still exists? Will he take an early and unambiguous decision not to extend the motorway north of Hooley?

I am aware of the degree of public concern that has persisted over many years. I have had discussions with hon. Members who represent constituencies bordering on the hon. Gentleman's division. Property blight is a very serious matter. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, as a result of the decision that I took on the northern terminal, we recently lifted blight from 1,400 houses. Unfortunately, I shall not be in a position to make an unambiguous statement until the GLC has reported to us and we have had final discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he proposes to take to improve rural transport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he proposes to take to improve rural transport.

I refer the hon. Members to chapter 6 of the consultation document on transport policy, and in particular to paragraphs 1, 7 and 8 of that chapter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the financial difficulties now facing bus companies, county councils and car owners make the problem of rural bus services extremely urgent, especially for the elderly? A month ago the hon. Gentleman said that he intended to promote a number of experiments. What are those experiments to be, where are they to be held, and when does he intend to promote them?

I cannot answer the specific questions that the hon. Gentleman puts to me. However, I can tell him that we are already arranging a first meeting of the commission, on which will be represented local authorities, trade unions and the operators of rural bus services. The commission will consider the terms of the Bill, which we are hoping to introduce as soon as may be. The intention is to have three or four areas in which experiments will take place. That will relate to the relaxation of present licensing arrangements, but there is a need for safeguards for those who work in the industry and for public safety.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there are many retired people and low-wage earners living in rural areas where no public transport exists? Is he further aware that they find it difficult to continue to run their cars? Will he introduce legislation to relax the public service licensing laws in rural areas?

I do not think there is anything I can add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The relaxation of public service licensing is a sensitive and delicate matter. The system exists for the protection of those who work in the industry and for the protection of the general public. We must proceed cautiously before moving to relax the arrangements. Clearly there is a fundamental need to consider the problem of rural transport, including the sort of problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers and from which his constituents suffer. Part of the difficulty has been the explosion of private car ownership, which has made it difficult to run public services in rural areas.

Is not the problem far more urgent than the Government have so far recognised? Do they think that a modest relaxation of licensing and a couple of experiments amount to an adequate response to this urgent situation? Do they not recognise the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend? Will they not make speedier progress?

I have no intention of dismantling the public service licensing system overnight merely to suit some of the doctrinaire prejudices of the hon. Gentleman. The matter is much more serious than that. Nothing whatever was done by the hon. Gentlemen's party when in power, although its members are now claiming that they want dramatic changes overnight. This is a matter that must be approached with considerable caution. The advantages and disadvantages must be weighed very carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to take to investigate the causes of earth tremors in Stoke-on-Trent.

Monitoring and analysis of these tremors have been conducted and funded locally since they began in 1975, and work will continue on this basis until October. Arrangements are now being discussed with the Institute of Geological Sciences for the further continuance of work in the Stoke area directed towards establishing causation in the context of broader analysis of earth movements in sensitive areas in and around the Midlands.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an Adjournment debate, following unsatisfactory answers, the Minister of State gave me a categorical assurance that the experts and equipment would remain in Stoke-on-Trent until the cause of these earth tremors had been found? The Secretary of State is now talking about October and discussions. I appreciate the way in which he has handled the matter so far, but if there is to be any dilution of the categorical assurance that the equipment and experts will remain in Stoke-on-Trent until the cause is found my right hon. Friend is due for a very interesting time.

I understand my hon. Friend's proper and legitimate concern. I am happy to repeat the assurance that the equipment will remain in the Stoke-on-Trent area until the cause of the tremors has been established. Further, we are working out proposals with the IGS for a broader coverage of the Midlands area, including Stoke, to see whether we can throw further light on the causes of these occurrences.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clearer response to his hon. Friend, because his first response appeared to mean that the equipment was to be withdrawn. Will he ensure that something is published by the end of the year to reassure people living in that part of the West Midlands?

I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I am most anxious, as I am sure that both he and the whole House are, to get to the bottom of this problem and to find out the causes. As soon as we can reach a point where we feel reasonably confident that we have the answer, I shall arrange for an appropriate statement or publication to be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what the latest housing statistics are in the public and private sectors; and if he will make a statement.

House building figures for the first quarter of 1976 were published on 27th April. They show that in the public sector starts were up by 25 per cent. on the first quarter of 1975, and completions by 12 per cent. On the same comparison in the private sector, starts and completions were up by 28 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively. These are encouraging figures and show that the improvement we achieved last year is being maintained.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the figures for public sector dwellings would have been even better had it not been for the fact that the 60-year loan period for borrowing the money is reduced? For instance, does he agree that more than 80 per cent. of the total cost of any new council dwelling goes to the moneylenders, and that we ought to do something about that? Will he take up the suggestion that I made to his predecessor of trying to find ways of reducing the 60-year loan period and, in the process, making the necessary compensatory payments to local authorities because of the extra payments that will be incurred over the shorter repayment period?

I certainly note what my hon. Friend said about the 60-year loan period. Indeed, that point was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) in an earlier supplementary question. I think that I should be well advised—as it were, advising myself—to say no more than that I am happy to look into that suggestion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in practicaly every area in the country there is an abundance of private houses available for sale? In those circumstances, and as every local authority responsible for housing has a huge waiting list, should not greater attention be concentrated on the provision of houses in the public sector?

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is satisfactory information of a growing provision of houses in the public sector. In addition, there are the municipalisation proposals on which we are concentrating in respect of areas of great housing stress.

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

I shall be meeting the Chairman and members of the British Railways Board towards the end of this month.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the British Railways Board, will he ensure that he understands that British Rail should enter into the fullest possible consultations when withdrawing freight traffic? In particular, will my right hon. Friend ask him to review his decision to withdraw the carriage of pigeons, which provides revenue of up to £2 million per year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain Rail seems too easily disposed to get rid of freight traffic? Does he also agree that legislation similar to the TUCC system regarding passenger service withdrawals should be brought in to deal with freight?

I shall consider what my hon. Friend said about consultation procedures. I think that what he has in mind—at least, this is what I have in mind, listening to his supplementary question—is that passenger services are subject to statutory consultative procedures whereas freight services are not. It does not necessarily mean that there are no informal consultative procedures affecting particular freight services. I promise to look into the matter further. I shall also give most anxious thought to the question of the carriage of pigeons.

When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the fact that the consultation document states that the railways could not at present cope with a substantial increase in peak traffic? In view of that statement, is it not nonsense for bodies such as the GLC to talk of imposing penal charges on motorists? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that if the GLC imposes a £3 parking charge that charge will apply also to those who use the GLC's car park?

I cannot accept that suggestion. We must consider charging not only for public car parks but for private parking facilities. This subject is dealt with in the consultation document.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The House should welcome a little colour.

When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he tell him that the staff in Scotland are aggrieved at the fact that Scotland is the dumping ground for old rolling stock? Will he also tell him that the Scots noticed that, when the flow of North Sea oil was opened, Scotland suddenly got marvellous rolling stock from England for that special occasion, so that English passengers would not know about the rotten old rolling stock that it normally gets?

I am delighted to hear evidence of an improvement in the quality of the rolling stock that has appeared on Scottish rail track in recent years. I shall ensure that the attention of the Chairman of British Rail is drawn to what the hon. Lady said about the age and type of stock in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional costs are being borne in the public building and construction sector due to the necessity of having to advertise all contracts above £450,000 in the EEC in accordance with the terms of membership of that organisation.

The additional cost of advertising contracts above £415,000 is not known, but it is likely to be extremely small in relation to the expenses necessarily incurred in designing projects and placing contracts for their construction.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I do not accept that answer? I have reason to believe that substantial costs, of between £40 million and £50 million, are being incurred in public sector house building contracts by having to comply with that nonsensical condition of membership of the EEC. If my hon. Friend wishes it, I can furnish him with the details on which I base that calculation—

Order. That is enough.

The British Government have tried to raise the threshold. If my hon. Friend has any such evidence, I shall be very glad to have it and consider it very carefully.

Is the Minister aware that since January 1973 2,500 British public works contracts have been put out to tender in the Common Market and that not one has been taken up or accepted? If we cannot raise the thres-hold, is not the answer really to ignore this useless, fussy and time-wasting procedure?

I am aware of the information that the hon. Gentleman has given. We are making representations.