asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the additional pollution of the Solent which will be created by the Wainsford relief sewerage scheme.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend will be considering the Southern Water Authority's statutory submission for consent to discharge related to the Wainsford scheme. This is expected shortly, and I cannot anticipate the outcome.

The scheme itself is welcome, but does the Minister agree that if it goes ahead at present it will result in the discharge of considerable extra sewage into the Solent? Is it not about time that when sewerage scheme are approved they should include full treatment of the sewage and not allow it still to be pumped into our rivers, estuaries and seas?

The hon. Gentleman's point will be noted, but it would be quite wrong for me, as I said in my original answer, to anticipate the outcome, first, of the submission and, secondly, of my right hon. Friend's reply to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the latest house building figures.

Public sector dwellings started in Great Britain up to the end of May this year are 22 per cent. up on the same period of 1975. Completions were up by 9 per cent. Private sector starts are up 19 per cent. and completions up 1 per cent. These figures show that good progress is being made.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very latest statistics, compared with the previous quarter's, show that a further decline is taking place compared with the figures that he has given? Is that not as a result of insufficient money being allocated to the public sector to assist with house building? Will he resist to the utmost any further public expenditure cuts, as they affect the Department, in order to ensure that sufficient houses will be built and that no more building workers will be thrown on the dole queue as a result of any of these cuts taking place?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is in error in respect of the first few points he made. The figures for the last quarter show a decline over the preceding quarter, which was remarkable because of good weather conditions during the winter, but they are, nevertheless, much higher than last year. There is no question of there having been any reduction in resources being made available for new buildings. As for the future, I cannot guarantee that there will be a continued expansion at the rate there has been so far. But my answer dealt with the position that we have had to date, in which house building is still running at a much higher level than it was last year and, indeed, two or three years ago.

The Minister chooses last year for the purpose of his comparison but does he not agree that that shows that the figures are deplorable compared with 1972–73? Why is he complacent about this 10 per cent. fall in council house starts in the three months preceding, and not subsequent to, the May elections? Will he comment upon the projection recently made by the Building Material Producers Association, which considers that this steady decline will continue right through to 1979?

On the last point, I met representatives of the Building Material Producers Association within a few days of the Press release to which the hon. Gentleman refers. They were making reference to the general position with regard to the construction industry and not on house building as such.

indicated dissent.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he will consult with the representatives of the Association he will find that, as far as house building is concerned, they went away perfectly satisfied with the information I gave them. The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that quarterly figures vary throughout the year, and from one year to another. The important thing is the total throughout the whole of the year. The position is that this year, notwithstanding the quarterly variations, we are running at a much higher rate of house building activity than we were a year ago, or the year before that. Certainly the hon. Gentleman would find the figures much higher than the figures we inherited from the previous Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how the level of private house starts at the latest available date compares with that in 1973.

Private housing starts in 1972 were 227,000; in 1973, 215,000; in 1974, 105,000; in 1975, 148,000; and in the first five months of this year 60,600. The private enterprise housing inquiry in March showed that builders expect to start 160,000 houses in 1976.

Will the Minister explain how he thinks there will ever be any chance of getting back to the 1973 levels while the Government persist with legislation like the Community Land Act and with the excessive rates of development land tax? Will he also renounce categorically the Labour Party statement this year about nationalisation of the major building companies, which would set back the chances of thousands of people owning their own homes?

I do not know about the statement that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I shall have to check up and read it and comment on it then. I would have expected at least a welcome for my statement that there had been a turn-round in house building from the disastrous slump which we inherited in 1974.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a general availability of houses for sale throughout the country, that the real shortage is in houses to let and that in every local authority which is responsible in this sector there is a huge waiting list? Should not attention be focused on those matters?

The situation varies considerably from one area to another. In some localities there is a disproportionate shortage of rented accommodation as against owner-occupied, and the position is reversed elsewhere. The Government are and always have been opposed to indiscriminate policies of one kind or another. We need to consider the local housing market and needs and to provide via local authorities and by other means for meeting the needs which are established as a matter of objective fact and analysis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the increased momentum in the council house building programme is maintained.

The improved level of new house building by local authorities and housing associations is being sustained by the financial support given under our interim Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 and under the Housing Act 1974. Other measures have been taken to encourage councils and associations to maintain, modernise and convert existing houses and to widen the range of tenures.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but in view of answers by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which he said that the Government could give no guarantee about the level of financial support for new council house building under the impending cuts, will my hon. Friend restate the Government's policy that housing will remain the priority? My hon. Friend said that the level of council house building was being maintained. Is he aware that the city held up by the Opposition during the local government debate as a wonderful example of Conservative control—I am talking about Leeds, the city I represent—

Order. This is not fair. I could have called another Question if the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question had not gone on for so long. Will he come to a conclusion now?

Leeds is cutting its building programme though it has an ever-growing waiting list. Can my hon. Friend do anything about that?

The latest information I have about Leeds—and this is true of other local authorities—is that there have been no proopsals to cut house building programmes. But if my hon. Friend has further information that he would care to give me, I shall be glad to consider it.

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

I last met the chairman on 14th June. I expect to have further meetings as the need arises.

Can the Secretary of State say whether British Rail plans and expenditure will be affected by the forthcoming cuts in public expenditure? If not, can he tell us when he will be announcing his strategy for British Railways.

I am glad to notice the note of hesitancy in respect of the question that the hon. Gentleman puts to me. Obviously any speculation about future public expenditure cuts is, at this stage, hypothetical. On the second part of the question, we are proceeding with the transport policy review. All written submissions will be in by the end of the month, and as soon after that as possible I hope to come to conclusions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over the past three months I have had 15 times as many letters from pigeon fanciers concerned about transporting their pigeons by British Rail as I have had about a Scottish Assembly? Will he get his priorities right? What will he do about this grave matter?

I take due note of the importance of this subject, but I understand that the board has decided not to implement the original proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] No, wait a minute—to impose restrictions, pending further consideration of the matter by the Central Transport Consultative Committee

When the Minister gets round to seeing the chairman in, I hope, the near future, will he point out to him the great hardship that has befallen the town of Carnforth, which in the past was a magnificent railway town and which still depends to a large extent on railways, and where the number of jobs has decreased from 702 in 1966 to 358 today? The jobs are still disappearing. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the chairman to have mercy on these people and keep them in work?

I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail will always give careful consideration to the effects of employment and services in areas that are serviced by British Rail. Beyond that, I can only say that I am sure that the chairman will have noted what the hon. Lady said.

Will my right hon. Friend convey congratulations to British Rail's Chairman, if he meets him, on the decision to defer the end of pigeon traffic? Will he also impress on him the desirability of British Rail's not discarding freight traffic, but grabbing all it can? Will he tell the chairman that sometimes British Rail's attitude to freight traffic is so indifferent that it seems to be helping the British Road Federation? Will he explain to the chairman that, as a matter of policy, we want to get as much traffic as possible off the roads and on to the railways?

I concur with my hon. Friend's sentiments. However, I would find it extraordinary if any Chairman of British Rail did not have much the same interests in mind.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman, will he inform him of the persistent anxiety felt in western Wales about the future of the line from Swansea to Fishguard, running through Carmarthen and employing 500 people, and will he confirm that this anxiety is understandable, in view of the extensive closures in the 'sixties, in an area that was the most prosperous in the whole of the British Railways region? Will he ask the chairman to make a categorical statement that there is no danger of closure to this line?

I would hesitate to begin by asking the Chairman of British Rail to make categorical statements about every line in the country. However, as I have said, I hope at the end of our general consideration of transport policy to be able to make a much more general and also a more specific statement about the future of rail services in the United Kingdom.

Getting back to the subject of freight, is not the first aim of Government policy the elimination of British Rail's freight deficit? Will the Government give an assurance, first, that they see no justification for subsidising freight operations and, secondly, that that subsidy will be eliminated, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor would have eliminated it, by the end of next year?

What we are concerned with is the total subsidy bill of British Rail. As we have made clear, and as the last public expenditure White Paper made clear, we have to envisage not merely a no-growth situation in subsidies, but a reduction. In that document we did not allocate in any precise detail particular sums to particular activities, and for good reason—because we needed to have further discussions. I would treat this with some reserve, but my information is that there has been an improvement in the freight services this year, reflecting both some increase in charges and some pick-up in traffic. I hope that this will be a success.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for converting road speed limits and distance signs to metric units.

None at present, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer only adds to the confusion about the Government's metrication policy? If plans are formulated to carry this policy through, will they at least look once more at the business of restriction or derestriction of speed limits? At present, this seems to be a question of passing the buck from the Department of the Environment to the police and to the local authorities, and no one appears to take into account representations such as I and many other hon. Members are making on these matters.

The question of speed limits—what I might call the energy speed limits—will be discussed later this year when they come up for renewal or for dropping. As for metrication, we feel that the matter needs careful consideration. It is not urgent. We hope to make proposals as a basis for discussion later this year.

While one welcomes the lack of precipitancy by my hon. Friend in going for metrication through discussion, may I ask him to look carefully at the whole problem of achieving more flexibility in laying down speed limits? At the moment they appear to be rather rigidly enforced—not by the police, but in the way in which they are set up—in some parts of the country.

The general question of speed limits is a matter for consultation between my Department, local authorities and the police, and it is not as inflexible as my hon. Friend suggests.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that there is no EEC obligation to carry out this conversion and that Ministers have undertaken to oppose the suggestion of any such obligation?

There is a draft directive on weights and measures which commits us to phase out certain units by the end of 1979. They include the yard and the ton but not the mile.

Although the Minister has no plans, it has obviously crossed his mind that at some time it may be necessary to change the signs to metric units. Has any estimate been made of the cost of doing so?

Yes; nearly every country which has not yet gone metric has decided to change. It will scarcely be possible for us to stand out against all that permanently. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The change of the speed limit signs, would have to be done fairly quickly and the cost would be about £4 million.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received the report of his housing finance review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now give a date when he expects to publish the findings of his Department's review of housing finance.

The review is still in progress. I expect to have the conclusions later in the year.

In view of the cautious reply that was given by the Minister for Housing and Construction to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on housing expenditure, it is clear that significant public expenditure reductions are imminent. Am I right in thinking that those cuts will be implemented irrespective of any recommendations that there may be in the housing finance review?

The housing finance review, as I have indicated, is not yet complete. Therefore, it is not possible for me to take that fully into consideration in any discussions that may be going on at present in the context of the forward public expenditure survey figures for 1977–78 onwards.

In the review, and in the context of the threatened public expenditure cuts, will my right hon. Friend reject any proposals for slashing council house subsidies? Does he agree that that would inevitably mean further rises in rents, thereby so discouraging council house building as to bring it almost to a halt?

I agree that in any proposals for subsidies we have to strike a balance to avoid the deleterious effect on new house building that my hon. Friend rightly fears. I think it would be unwise for me at this time of the year to try to anticipate the outcome of present discussions. However, my hon. Friend will recall that there were proposals in the last public expenditure survey that affected housing subsidies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will cause some distress in many circles? Those of us who are interested in getting on with the housing finance review look forward, when the review is finally published, to a change in Government policy and greater flexibility. As the right hon. Gentleman's Department has had evidence from all quarters of the building industry and others involved for many months, it is surely time that the review was published, and that we had dates fixed for its publication and debate in the House.

I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to get on with it. I very much wish to complete the study at the earliest moment, and to report to the House and others on its contents, with a view to getting the reactions of the House and other interested parties. I agree that one of the purposes of the review is to achieve a greater flexibility in the provision of housing, in the broadest sense, throughout the country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether it is still his policy that there should be no limit on public sector building, or has it now been brought within the restrictions imposed on local authority spending?

The policy on public sector building remains as it has been stated in the previous Government, PESC and other policy statements. The House will appreciate that I am not at liberty to say what the future will bring.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to take the chair at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

On Tuesday 27th July, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House with complete frankness exactly what demands, when he meets the council, he will make upon local authorities to make cuts in their expenditure.

I am always tempted to respond to invitations to be completely frank. However, I find it impossible to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request on this occasion. I still have not received the returns for which I asked from the local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the deadline is rapidly approaching. I hope to have the returns soon.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that sewerage charges are considered at the meeting, so that local authorities may be given an assurance that the Government will legislate at an early stage to relieve the anxiety and muddle that was inherited from the previous Administration?

That question is somewhat different from the one that is likely to arise at my next meeting with the consultative council. However, I promise closely to examine what my hon. Friend has said.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the present situation does not allow him to curb those local authorities, such as Haringey, which are deliberately defying him on public expenditure, and does not allow him to encourage the many local authorities that are trying to economise? Will these matters be discussed at the end of this month? Has the right hon. Gentleman plans for changing the present situation?

I think it is dangerous to select particular authorities for attack. I must inform the House that one of the remarkable features of the preliminary returns for 1976–77 that we had in April of this year was the near-uniformity of authority increases throughout the country, including Conservative-controlled authorities just as much as Labour-controlled authorities. It is foolish to try to single out particular authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish any evidence he has as to the relationships between local government spending and levels of employment directly in local goverment and employment in industries supplying local government, respectively.

Information on expenditure and employment in local government in past years is given in Tables 21, 22 and 30 in Annex 10 of the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance. Information about the effects of local authority expenditure on the levels of employment in supplying industries is not available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that cuts so far in local government spending have had odd effects on employment prospects in local government? Is he aware that many planning departments have managed to maintain staff levels with little chance of carrying out their plans, whereas many social work departments have had severe cuts in staff, although they face continuing problems?

It is difficult for me to comment on my hon. Friend's question, because he has not given any specific examples, but, even if he had done so, local authority employment is very much a matter for the authorities and not for us.

May I make a helpful suggestion? If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to save money painlessly, will he take another look at the Dobry Report? Is he aware that it has been estimated that needless planning delays are now costing up to £1,000 million a year? That is money that could be saved and devoted to building houses.

I shall consider the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised without making any commitment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in local government spending since February 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the progress of his efforts to restrain local government spending.

In 1974–75 local authority current expenditure increased by 9·3 per cent. over 1973–74 and in 1975–76 is estimated to be 6·1 per cent. over the level reached in 1974–75. The April forecasts for 1976–77 indicated a level of expenditure for that year some 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. over the latest estimate for 1975–76. Following the issue of my Circular 45/76, we expect revised returns from local authorities by 16th July. These returns will be discussed at the consultative council on 27th July.

Does the Minister agree that local government expenditure is still not fully under control? How does he reconcile the circular—mentioned in The Times today—from his Department to the Camden finance officer saying that he does not have to pay so much attention to financial control? Does not the Secretary of State agree that local government expenditure is leaking like a sieve?

No, Sir, I do not accept that. There has been a marked improvement in the overall control by local authorities over their expenditure in the past two years, particularly since we have been able to develop the relationship with them that my predecessor established in the consultative council, which is a valuable innovation. All the signs are that from an admittedly high and accelerating rate of expenditure—of which I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would accuse us of being the principal authors, because local authorities were encouraged to budget forward at the rate of 8 per cent. a year by the right hon. Gentleman who held high office in the previous Administration local authorities have had to decelerate, and it is not easy to do that. I do not accept that local government expenditure is out of control. As to the alleged laxity reported in The Times, this was an attempt to clear up the relevance of the housing revenue account to the general figures of overspend which we identified in the circular.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have had practical experience of leading local authorities accept the need for sensible pruning of local government aspirations in present circumstances? That is very different from the wholesale cuts that are being considered by local authorities such as Surrey. In trying to keep local government expenditure to the levels voluntarily agreed, will my right hon. Friend try to avoid giving aid and comfort to those who have never accepted the necessity for a high level of local government services and who take the earliest opportunity of cutting services painstakingly built up over many years?

My hon. Friend speaks with practical experience in local government and he will be the first to recognise the tightrope that we walk. I do not wish to encourage local authorities to engage in a massive attack on their expenditure on services that they render to the people in their communities. I would deplore it as strongly as would my hon. Friend if my words were misused by politically-motivated councils to attack standards of services which their people have a right to expect. On the other hand, I think it right to ask, in the context of the general difficulties we face, that local authorities should live up to the agreement that they entered into only a few months ago, which involves public expenditure pruning.

The Secretary of State referred to the article that appeared in The Times this morning. Does he accept the argument of the London authorities that rate spending on housing revenue account should fall outside the limits on local authority spending? Does he accept that the present grant system discriminates against under-spenders in favour of over-spenders, and has he any plans to do something about that?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I stick to what I said earlier. The circular states that the housing revenue account is not included in the £350 million to £450 million potential overspend which is identified there. As to whether the grant formula discriminates in favour of those who over-spend as distinct from those who under-spend, I am studying that question very closely. The evidence tends to suggests that that is so, and that causes me considerable concern.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to extend the limit on local councils' lending to enable them to play a major part in helping house purchasers.

No, Sir. It would be inconsistent with present public expenditure constraints to raise the limit. We must continue to look to the building societies to help house purchasers who, as a result, cannot obtain a local authority loan.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wording of the Question is taken straight from the Labour Party manifesto of October 1974? In view of the proven failure of the building societies to come to the Government's rescue, is it not a scandalous betrayal of many people? Surely the Government could solve the problem by the shelving of the Community Land Act and of the municipalisation programme without any net additional public expenditure.

With due respect, the hon. Gentleman's last point is redundant in relation to the Question before me. I am aware of the paraphrasing of the manifesto. That is an issue to which we shall have to return when we are in a position to do so. In the meantime, the ever-increasing close contact that we have with the building societies is having an effect that is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. We estimate that about £1,000 million a year out of the total that is made available by the building societies is loaned on pre-1919 houses, and that a similar figure, about £1,000 million a year from a total of between £5,000 million and £6,000 million, is going to borrowers on below-average incomes. That is an increase.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Liverpool is building houses for sale although about 6,500 people are on the register waiting for houses to rent indicates that the Government's policies and attitudes should be directed towards the provision of houses for rent rather than for sale?

The Government's public expenditure policy is, and has been, primarily directed towards getting more houses built for rent by local authorities, housing associations and other forms of association that we have been stimulating, for example, co-operatives. We have been successful in that policy during the past two years. In saying that, and in reinforcing that policy, I am not saying that there is not a rôle for local authorities in providing houses for sale by building for owner-occupation. There is nothing either in law or in Socialist policy against that. On the contrary, Socialist policy should be aimed at getting public enterprise involved in the provision of all kinds of tenure, according to local need. What I say is not a judgment of the position in Liverpool; I have insufficient detail to be able to comment on that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects proceeds from disposals of land to exceed the cost of acquisition and administration under the Community Land Act 1975.

It is too soon yet to say.

Will the Minister confirm that the expected receipts from the sale of land during the period between 1976–77 and 1979–80 will be £300 million less under the Community Land Scheme than the cost of acquisition and management of that land under that scheme? Would not that £300 million be better spent, for instance, on honouring the Labour Party's commitment to a child credit scheme?

I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures. I do not know how it is possible to arrive at such figures, as so many variables are involved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme is bound to be highly profitable. One direct consequence of the scheme and the land tax is that many areas of public expenditure by local authorities, which include the use of land, will be a lot cheaper, because local authorities will be able to get the land.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the considerable benefits that will flow from the Community Land Act will come all the quicker with the full co-operation of the local authorities concerned, including those which have recently changed their composition?

I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that bids are coming into the Department fast, just as much from Conservative as from Labour authorities.

If the Minister does not know how my hon. Friend arrived at the net figure of £300 million, will he say why the Government put it into the White Paper, and on what calculations they based it?

I may have misunderstood the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I am aware of the estimate that appears in the PESC report. If that is the estimate that the hon. Gentleman gave, I accept it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from voluntary organisations regarding the law relating to the provision of minibuses.

A number of voluntary organisations have written to hon. Members, to Ministers and to the Department suggesting changes in the law to put their use of minibuses outside the scope of public service vehicle licensing.

Does the Minister realise that there is widespread support from schools and voluntary organisations for my Transport (Amendment) Bill, which is designed to facilitate the provision of transport for such bodies? How can the Government justify objecting to, and therefore sabotaging, a Bill that is designed to help those in need?

I have sympathy with Clause 3 of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which deals with minibuses run by voluntary organisations and schools, but to seek to proceed with the Bill before we have had the necessary consultations would be wrong. At the moment the National Council of Social Service and the national youth organisations have a working party that is investigating the matter. We expect it to report in September. We shall be meeting the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the rôle of the county councils in the matter, particularly on the subject of registration and safety. We must also consult the Charity Commission.

Is it not clear that school buses are operating illegally?

I have no knowledge of any schools doing anything that is illegal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that today I met representatives of the National Union of Teachers, who are deeply disturbed about the matter? Is he further aware that they pointed out that schools all over the country are in real trouble over the issue of minibuses? Will he expedite action?

There has been no recent change in the law. It has been the same for the past 16 or 17 years, when the law of the 1930s dealing with safety was replaced. I declare an interest, as a member of the same trade union as that which my hon. Friend mentioned. We have consulted carefully with organisations such as that and the National Council of Social Service, as well as representatives of the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. They will have a lot of work to do, because they have recently been given much work by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is the Minister aware that the issue is causing concern on both sides of the House? Does he accept that the present position of minibuses is also causing anxiety to voluntary organisations and schools throughout the country? Such organisations have heard many words from the Minister; when will they get some action?

I have specified three different things that we are doing. We are consulting county councils of both kinds, the Charity Commission and the various bodies that have expressed support for Clause 3 of the hon. Member's Bill. We must be extremely careful before giving wide powers not just to voluntary organisations but to those people who might look for loopholes in the law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will postpone the start of new road building projects where widespread local opposition has been expressed until the independent assessment into the method of appraising road schemes proposed in the consultation document has been completed.

No, Sir. The schemes due to start in the coming year have already undergone rigorous appraisal by current methods and we have no reason to suppose that the outcome of the independent appraisal would alter their justification substantially.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government criticised the present method of appraisal in line 22 of the consultative document by accepting the need for an independent assessment to recommend changes in the appraisal of road building schemes? Bearing in mind the present situation of cuts in expenditure, would it not be reasonable to delay those criticisms until we have had recommendations for the changes needed in appraisals?

It would be disastrous to stop all building to wait for an independent assessment. It is not criticism by the Department if we say that we shall open the matter to independent investigation; it is a sign of confidence.

Does the Minister agree that the current antics in Winchester are designed to give the impression that the 1971 inquiry never took place? Will he condemn the disgraceful attempts to disrupt the inquiry proceedings? Does he agree with the regional organiser of the TGWU, who said that if that kind of fuss was made outside, let alone inside, a factory, the loudest possible complaints would have come from just the sort of people who are currently performing in Winchester?

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman said. The purpose of such inquiries is to give people the opportunity to state their objection or their support for a particular project.

Is the Minister aware that in Uxbridge people are anxious about the route of the M25 motorway? Can he say whether there is likely to be any delay in the programme for that important project?

I cannot say at the moment. There is full consultation about the choice of routes and side roads orders on all such roads. In the past, the Government have attached the highest priority to the completion of the M25.

Will the Minister accept that where road schemes have been long delayed there are grounds for establishing further inquiries and that in the case of the Winchester bypass there should he a further examination? Does he agree that, after a long interim period of five or six years, issues, attitudes and grounds change? Is there not a case for a re-examination?

That would be an enormous task. The M3 and the Winchester bypass are not the only roads that are proposed at present. Investment in transport, whether in road, rail or any other form, is an important part of our total industrial investment, and hon. Members should recognise that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government propose to introduce the higher vehicle excise duty for heavy lorries proposed in paragraph 5.7 of Volume 1 of the Consultation Document "Transport Policy".

The Budget increase of 7½p per gallon on fuel duty has already imposed substantial extra tax on heavy lorries. Powers to obtain the information needed to restructure vehicle excise duty on lorries have been taken in the current Finance Bill.

As the Government's own document says that the lorries are not covering their full cost to the community, would not a further increase in duty be a good way of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement? Does he agree that we should not wait until next April to do that?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment have expressed their view on the matter.

If the Minister wants heavy commercial vehicles to pay their full contribution to track costs, will he specify how he intends to make British Rail get its freight loss back into the black, because it is more heavily subsidised?

Our consultations are taking place with the object of seeing that freight is not subsidised.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with London borough councils and the Greater London Council concerning loss of London's theatres as a result of redevelopment.

My right hon. Friend has had no requests from the councils for such discussions.

If the Government put theatres into a separate use class on their own under the Town and Country Planning Act, would not that be a practical way of safeguarding London's theatres?

I do not think that it would. The hon. Gentleman should first bear in mind that there are no fewer theatres in London now than there were at the end of the war. I think the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) will have noted the support that the Government have given to the Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). We have undertaken to put words into the general development order which will ensure that the Act has full force, in the sense that any proposals for demolition or alteration of use of a theatre are referred to the local authortiy concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on behalf of residents in King's Newton, Derbyshire, requesting a meeting with him to discuss land use and development of land at Trent Lane; and what action he is taking.

Two letters from the Melbourne Civic Society and several from the hon. Member. As has been explained in the replies sent, my right hon. Friend has no further jurisdiction on the matters that he decided on appeal in 1974.

Why did the Department allow land designated for agricultural use to be sold by the Ministry of Defence without protecting local residents against change of land use? Is the Minister aware that over the past three years the land has gradually become a dumping ground and mobile home site? Is it not disgraceful that the Minister has repeatedly refused to meet a deputation of my constituents who wish to air their grievance?

I well understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and the anxieties of those residents who are directly affected, but I repeat that my right hon. Friend has no further jurisdiction. It was decided, on the basis of evidence at the inquiry in August 1974, that the land had been used for storage since before 1964 and that the use had continued since then, so that for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 the land had an established use for that purpose. That decision is final, and no useful purpose could be served by arranging a discussion on it.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a summary of the discussions held with the Countryside Commission on the proposed network of heavy lorry routes.

It is not proposed to publish any of the representations made on this subject. There would of course be no objection to any of the bodies consulted making its views public.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is a matter of great public concern that this network of heavy lorry routes would cut through national parks? Many bodies, apart from the Countryside Commission, would like to know exactly what the consequences of these proposals are and to have a full discussion on them.

The consequences will not be known until we have completed the consultations and issued a report. The Countryside Commission was consulted, and I understand that it is prepared to publish what it said. Until the consultations are finished, we shall not know how many lorry routes there will be in the country as a whole, and particularly in the national parks. Lorries are travelling through national parks now.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be transport lunacy and the creation of potential road hazards to create heavy lorry routes on roads such as the A646, through the Calder Valley of West Yorkshire—a road that is close to the M62? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that any heavy lorry routes will avoid roads of that sort?

The lorry routes are a matter for discussion between the local authorities and ourselves. I should be surprised if lorries travelling from Lancashire to Yorkshire used the road that my hon. Friend mentioned rather than the M62.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to publish the working party's report on the control of dogs.

There have been representations in favour of publication from several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, as well as from local authorities, organisations interested in dogs and members of the public. These were all taken fully into account by my right hon. Friend in deciding to publish the report.

Will my hon. Friend accept congratulations on deciding to publish the report? Does he agree that it is important to undertake a widespread debate about the efficient control of the dog population, including a comprehensive scheme of licensing, with licences being obtained before dogs are purchased? Does he agree that stray dogs are a menace in many towns and that, with rabies as an additional potential danger, now is the time to ensure that there is a proper control of dogs, with a proper licensing system?

I am well aware of the anxieties that my hon. Friend has expressed. Stray dogs are undoubtedly a major part of the problem. But it would not be right for me to anticipate the report or the recommendations that the Government may make as a result of it. I accept the need for full public discussion of the issues.

Will the Minister confirm that the law already provides that every dog over the age of six months, I think, must have an identity tag, but that there are no prosecutions of people whose dogs do not have such tags and no effort is made to enforce the law?

Not being a dog owner, I do not know the answer to that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his discussions with local authorities over permitting council direct labour departments to build houses for neighbouring local authorities.

I accept the need for greater flexibility for local authority direct labour organisations to undertake work for other authorities, and I propose to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

May I warmly congratulate the Government—[Interruption.] I know that it is a bit of a change for me to do that—on accepting this vital point? Could the legislation be introduced in the autumn, to start in January—

The Government will never get it through.

as many local authorities and MPs have been pressing for it, particularly as it would save some highly efficient direct labour departments—

There are no efficient direct labour departments.

such as Manchester and Sheffield, having to cut back on the numbers they employ?

I seemed to detect from some of the interruptions a somewhat doctrinaire and ideological approach to the matter. I am well aware of the anomalies that have been created, largely as a result of the 1972 local government reorganisation. We have introduced temporary Orders, which will cover the period until March 1977, and we shall have to deal with the situation that follows. It will not be necessary for us to act now to change the situation, but we shall bear in mind the time-lag problem.

I understand that the Minister has never been prepared to accept the CIPFA recommendations because he has always said that he must wait for the report of the working party that has been set up, yet he is prepared to introduce legislation in advance of the working party's report. That is being doctrinal and ideological.

The hon. Gentleman could not have listened with his usual care to previous answers that I have given when I have tried to explain the position. We are dealing with legal powers for the local authorities to use direct labour organisations. What the working party and the CIPFA report are concerned with is the method of operating the direct works departments concerned. There is no pre-emption of any recommendations that will come from the working party or any consideration of the CIPFA report, which I shall be taking into account as far as I can when we introduce legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress made by local authorities with traffic responsibilities in England and Wales on preparing the implementation of heavy vehicle controls under the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act 1973.

My Department will be reviewing the progress made by local authorities over the next few months. Available evidence indicates that authorities are aware of their responsibilities and have made some progress.

Is the Minister satisfied with the progress, and does he accept that financial stringency and economic recession is not a fundamental excuse for delaying progress on these measures that need to be implemented by 1st January next year?

Yes, I am aware of my duties should local authorities not carry out the provisions of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act, which has become known as the "Dykes Act". The councils need to produce at least one draft notice by 1st January 1977, and I am keeping a close eye on what they are doing.