asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a further statement on the proposed sale of Thomas Cook & Son.

Not yet, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to demand a valuation of the assets of Thomas Cook? What will be the basis of that valuation? If he has no valuation, how can he say that bids will be high?

I hope that the Chairman of the Transport Holding Company will be able in due course to provide me with a reasonably good assessment of the value of the assets of Thomas Cook. I hope that the eventual sale will yield a price substantially above any valuation that is likely to emerge.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, between 1951 and 1955, the Tory Party dilly-dallied on the denationalisation of heavy road transport, with the result that, in 1956, the rump of such transport was left in public ownership and never denationalised? Will he, therefore, get on with the Thomas Cook operation, selling upon the open market at the highest price and not wasting a moment in the process?

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention in the Government to dilly-dally with the sale of Thomas Cook and Son.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities urging greater use to be made, as short-term housing accommodation, of houses standing empty pending redevelopment.

A circular letter to this effect was sent to all housing authorities in London, where the problem is particularly important, on 4th July, 1969.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the response he has received so far? Have any boroughs in London, in addition to the progressive borough of Camden, taken any action on this?

I think that some have done better than others.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that there is sufficient public access to open moorland in the Peak District National Park; and if he will make a statement.

The Peak Park Planning Board propose shortly to submit to me, and to advertise, a map showing the extent of land in the national park open to public access. It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage on whether there is sufficient public access since I shall have to consider any representations that are made.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I, too, am pleased that this matter is going well. Is he aware that there is concern in the Peak District over the fact that there are many acres of uncultivated land immediately adjacent to the Pennine Way over which the public rarely go on to the Pennine Way because of huge "Private—keep off" signs?

I am aware of those anxieties. The Commission is doing all it can to gain access for the public to national parks.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that members of the public who want to go through the Peak District can do so easily and quickly? Will he give consideration to the construction of a motorway through the Peak District from east to west?

Motorways through national parks are not the most popular thing but I will consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter rather more widely? Will he approach every local authority where the same problem exists and emphasise the need to advertise the possibilities of public access?

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take up with owners and occupiers of land in national parks the question of the rights of the public? There have been some unfortunate incidents. For example, instructors of the C.C.P.R. have been threatened with shotguns by irate farmers in Snowdonia. Very often, the occupiers of such land are not aware of their responsibilities to members of the public in national parks.

Yes, Sir. We are doing all we can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the First Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

I strongly welcome this Report and I look forward to the future contribution the Commission can make to the development of our policy. I particularly welcome their intention to study the pollution of estuaries and inshore seas. I cannot forecast a date for their next report. My right hon. Friends and I are losing no time in studying their recommendations and in preparing to take the action that is needed.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and I associate myself with his welcome to the Report. Is he aware, however, that there is a feeling in some quarters that the Commissioners have perhaps dealt with what I call certain "trendy" aspects of policy and have not paid enough attention to the historical industrial dereliction problems?

Over all, I thought it was a good Report and fairly objective and that perhaps it did not pursue some of the more fashionable lines which the Royal Commission might have been tempted to do. In my talks with Sir Eric Ashby and others, I found that they are fully aware of the problems of the clearance of derelict land.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more people are becoming seriously alarmed at the decay in their environment and that anything he can do to speed up implementation even of parts of this Report will be very welcome to the country at large?

Already in terms of certain planning matters relating to water, air and noise pollution we have taken quite a few measures.

Since the Report is so widely accepted as being enormously important, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to get a debate in the House on it?

I should be happy to have a debate, but that is not a question for me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of the First Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, he will initiate further research into the effects of pollution from road vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

I agree that further research is needed and plan to ensure that it is carried out. I am arranging for up-to-date measurements of lead concentrations to be obtained and will publish the results.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any increase of costs on the consumer or user would be quite intolerable and so unacceptable?

We have to make a proper estimate of the dangers which may or may not exist and that is why I am seeking the most up-to-date information, and I will make an assessment on that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor promised the House that he would look into the possibility of appointing engineers to the Royal Commission, other than the Chairman who was already there and who is a chemical engineer? Will he now promise to do that? Secondly, will he ask the Royal Commission to look into the dangers of pollution posed by the introduction into this country of the Wankel rotary engine and ask the Commission to give priority to a study of this engine, because it is believed by many leading engineers in this country and elsewhere that the Wankel rotary engine has a greater effect on pollution than the orthodox, traditional engine now used in this country?

I take note of the hon. Member's suggestion and I will certainly convey it to the Chairman, but this is the sort of work which is in the hands of the Commission and is not directed by me. However, I will bring the hon. Member's remarks to the attention of the Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take, in the light of the First Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, further to reduce traffic noise.

I have already published proposals to reduce as from 1st October, 1973, the maximum permitted noise levels for most types of new vehicles.

In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that the previous Government announced steps in this direction, and that to get the desirable results we need enforcement?

Yes, I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said, and we shall look for enforcement by realistic regulations. There has been some disappointment in this field in the past. I certainly do not intend to relax the pressure.

On the subject of traffic noise, would the Minister take power to provide financial compensation—for example, to my constituents in New Bank Street, Longsight, whose homes are being made almost uninhabitable by noise from freight liner traffic passing by, and who need to double-glaze their homes to rid themselves of this intolerable noise?

No, I could not promise compensation of the kind the hon. Member suggests. That is not to say that I am not well aware of this nuisance. I am certain that long-term plans have to be made to disperse heavy traffic out of heavily populated centres.

Will my hon. Friend not agree that enforcement is for the police and that they need a hand-held noise meter? Will my hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken by his Department to produce such a meter?

There are quite a number of successful prosecutions every year—about 12,000. I should like my hon. Friend to put down a Question on this subject and I will certainly conduct further researches into it, but my present prospects of producing a satisfactory hand-held noise meter are, I am bound to say, slightly remote.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to announce his decision on the application by the Greater London Council for a grant for the construction of the Fleet Line in South-East London.

My right hon. Friend is considering the application.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, by this year, London Trans- port Executive will probably have powers to construct a tube to New Cross and that by next year we hope to have powers to construct a line to Lewisham? What is required is a decision by the Government to provide money to allow London Transport to go ahead with construction.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us a chance on this. It is a complex matter of transport. We are considering it with the utmost urgency. My right hon. Friend will give his decision as soon as possible.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if a grant is given it will be no less than the 75 per cent. grant given on equivalent sums for roads?

I could not give such an undertaking. At the moment we are discussing the whole problem of transport and the contribution of the central Government to London Transport with the G.L.C.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the cost of housebuilding.

The abolition of the Land Commission and the betterment levy; our policy on firm price tendering; the halving of S.E.T.; the easing of bank credit; and the reduction of corporation tax, as announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

If the right hon. Gentleman believes that he will believe anything. None of those things will help either the building industry or the building of new homes. Is he aware that there has been a catastrophic fall in the construction industry of about 7 per cent. and that his right hon. Friend's Budget yesterday did nothing to help the building industry? Is he aware that the major requirement is a reduction in Bank Rate? Does he appreciate that that is what will bring down house prices but that nothing was done about it in the Budget? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend to deal with this now?

In reply to the hon. Lady's speech I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in 1964:

"We shall cheapen the cost of housing by our interest rates policy."

Will the Minister completely ignore the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short)? Does he realise that the facts he has announced will reduce the cost of house building? Why is he so modest? Why does he not take credit for his own mortgage proposals, which also help in this matter?

I hope that I shall never be guilty of the discourtesy of ignoring the hon. Lady's remarks, but I am bound to say that I pay a good deal more attention to what my hon. Friend has just said.

We much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's humorous answer, as we always enjoy his aptitude for totally irrelevant quotations. Would he be good enough to tell the House by how much the halving of S.E.T. will reduce the cost of a house, and, secondly, will he be so good as to tell the House what measures he proposes to take to persuade house builders to pass on the reduction?

The cost of S.E.T. on a council house has been estimated by the previous Administration and by this Administration at £120. This would be half of that—£60—and that is already very substantial.

Don't forget, Albert; £60 off.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further requests he has now received from the Southern Region of British Rail for him to reconsider the withdrawal of grant-aid for commuter services.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very sharp fare increases which followed the withdrawal of these subsidies caused widespread shock in my constituency? Is he satisfied that Southern Region has fully explored alternative sources of revenue, such as the more effective use of its sites for hotels, office and housing development, before increasing fares to the commuter once again?

I can only remind my hon. Friend that where costs go up, prices must follow. I appreciate the disturbance that this has caused to many people. As to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, this is a matter for the Railways Board, not for me.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Conservative candidates in the last election, including those at Bexley and Mitcham, made it clear to commuters that the first result of their Government's railway policy would be a substantial increase in fares?

I very much doubt whether any of my hon. Friends would have felt called on to do that since the previous Administration had already announced that they would achieve viability for the London commuter network by the end of 1972.

Was not the withdrawal of grant aid a decision taken by the previous Government? Does the Minister realise that what so many people are anxious about is that this is the first burden that commuters will have to face and that the next will follow the wage increases? Will he make a statement as early as possible, since these wage increases are likely to lead to further increases in rail fares?

Wage increases are a matter for the Railways Board and not for me. What my hon. Friend says is perfectly correct; if railway costs go up, so will the fares. The Governmen's policy is to ensure that the railways achieve viability in the London commuter network by 1973. The previous Administration had committed themselves in the 1968 White Paper to a date of 1972.

Is the Minister aware that the Railways Board is under the impression that it is being asked by the Government to make each separate service and route stand on its own feet and that the G.L.C. is now having some idea about a separate fares structure for each route or service in the underground system? Before this idea catches on with either the Railways Board or the G.L.C., will the Minister say that the Government would want to discourage any such idea creeping into a new fares structure for the underground and London commuters?

Any idea that may be in the mind of the Greater London Council is not my responsibility. What I am concerned with is the amount of aid which the Government are called upon to give to a commercial operation. We have made it clear that we intend that the London commuter network should be viable by 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he is now able to estimate the number of tenants in private accommodation in the borough of Islington to whom rebates will be payable under the Government's proposed rebate scheme;

The value of rent allowances and the number of tenants eligible for them will depend on the details of the national scheme of rent rebates and allowances. My right hon. Friend is still discussing these with the local authority associations.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is exactly what he has been saying for months and that it is patently obvious that when he goes to the local authorities to discuss this idea of a scheme, the first question they must put to him is, "How much have you in mind?". Since he must have given some indication to the local authorities, will he tell the House whether he is thinking in terms of £10 million, £50 million or £100 million for the scheme?

I can understand the hon. Member, whose Government signally failed to introduce a system to help tenants, being sore about our success in so doing. These matters are still under discussion with the local authorities and it would be quite improper to give any indication at all at this stage.

The hon. Gentleman is under an obligation to give the House a little more information than that. Will he tell the House whether the additional funds, whatever they may be, are to be arrived at by a re-allocation of the existing amounts available, which are inadequate, or whether the Government are prepared to make additional funds available?

My right hon. Friend has already answered an earlier Question this afternoon and promised a very full statement as soon as these consultations have taken place. It would be in the interests of the House to await that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his consultations with London boroughs and the Greater London Council regarding their future housebuilding programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a statement on the consultations which he has had with London boroughs concerning their housebuilding programmes.

Consultation with London housing authorities on housing matters in Greater London is a continuing process.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would have been much wiser to have started these continuing negotiations rather earlier? Is he further aware that it is extremely important that they should result in a speed-up of council building and bring to an end the scandalous waiting lists in such areas as Waltham Forest and many other London boroughs?

As I said, this is a continuing process which has been going on all the time. The conference is a further step. The housing situation is complicated, but the indications are that more tenders will be approved this year than last. The right hon. Gentleman, who served his political apprenticeship under Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will, I am sure, be glad to hear that Lambeth is doing extremely well under a Conservative-controlled council.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if in the three decades prior to 1964 the G.L.C. and the majority of the Labour-controlled inner London boroughs had done their job there would not have been this inheritance today?

My hon. Friend's comments are very much on the ball.

Has the London Borough of Havering, which has a waiting list of more than 4,000 families, given any assurance about whether it intends to increase its present derisory programme of housing starts?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would table a Question on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of municipally-owned dwellings, for which he has given loan sanction, likely to be completed in the London Borough of Ealing in 1971.

The hon. Member should apply to the Council for this information, since the day-to-day management of the house-building programme, on which the rate of completion of dwellings depends, is in their hands.

I am mystified by that reply because according to returns by the hon. Gentleman's own Department there were 774 starts in the London Borough of Ealing in 1968 and only 22 last year. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, because of this, priority medical cases in the London Borough of Ealing cannot be rehoused? Would he not agree that it is a typical example of Conservative Government?

On the contrary. What the hon. Member fails to take into account is that last year nearly 800 dwellings were completed, and I am glad to tell the House that there is a programme for approximately 1,000 dwellings in each year, 1971 and 1972.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received from the London Borough of Hackney as to the number of houses to be built in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received to requests made by him to the London Borough of Hackney for an accelerated housing programme.

The future level of local building by the borough has already been discussed at two meetings with the council and is still under discussion.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a deliberate run-down in the housing programme prepared by the Labour council in 1961 for a period of 10 years and that no provision has been made for the years following 1973, although there is a very large housing list? Would he not regard that as scandalous conduct on the part of the borough council?

On the contrary, I can tell the hon. Member that in the three years of Conservative control on the council there were 3,000 completions compared with 1,400 when the Labour Party was in power.

Is the hon. Member aware that next year completions will be 800, the following year 600, and that there is no adequate programme for the years to follow, and nothing like a 10-year plan? Is he aware that there has been a deliberate refusal on the part of the local Conservative authority to implement compulsory purchase orders—in fact there is almost a conspiracy by Hackney? Is he also aware of the fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that the Conservative council is engaged in the disposal of land which has been earmarked for municipal development and that this is adding to the burdens upon a long-suffering public?

I can well understand the hon. Member seeking to clutch at straws in this matter. The facts are these. I have already given the number of completions. I will now give the figures for starts. In 1965 during the Labour administration there were promised to be 1,800 a year. Under the Conservatives, in three years, to 1970, they are over 3,000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state those London boroughs with whom he or his officials have had consultations regarding their future house-building programmes, and those with whom consultations have yet to be held.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment with which London boroughs he has had consultations regarding their house-building programmes.

Consultations about the house-building programme are a regular and continuing feature of the Department's relationship with the London boroughs. In the current round consultations have been held with all boroughs except Wandsworth, with whom a meeting has been arranged to take place shortly, and Richmond.

Now that the Minister's right hon. Friend has announced that he is to convene a meeting after 13th May, will he accept that on 13th May the majority of the London boroughs will return a majority of Labour councillors and that then the total commitment of London boroughs will be to build not fewer than 250,000 houses during the next 10 years? Will he now tell the House on behalf of the Conservative Party that it will give a guarantee to Londoners that in the next 10 years it will build not fewer than 250,000 houses for Londoners?

What I can tell the House is that for more than 30 years the Labour Party was in control of London and we can see the ghastly results.

Is it not very unsatisfactory to have borough elections taking place, especially in London, which is very important, with the uncertainty about what the house-building programme will be, according to how the right hon, Gentleman defines stress areas or how he does not, and with tenants having no idea of how large the housing list may be as a result of Government policy?

I can see that it is very unsatisfactory to the hon. Member's party to note from the tenders that there are likely to be more completions this year than last year.

The hon. Gentleman must know that that answer is no great encouragement. Will he recall that in London the rate of housing reached a level of about 30,000 about three years ago in one year but has now dropped over these last years—[Interruption.] That is right. Since the Conservatives won control of the town halls in May, 1968, the number has dropped. [Interruption.] The hon. Member should act like a Minister. I assure hon. Members opposite that I know the subject a little better than the Minister does.

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put a supplementary question?

I shall be very glad to do so if the Minister will stop interrupting. Is the Minister aware that since the Conservatives returned to power and took over control at the town halls in May, 1968, in so many London boroughs and at the G.L.C. there has been a drop from 30,000 housing starts in 1967 to 18,000 currently? What does the Minister intend to do to get the housing starts up to at least 30,000 a year as soon as possible?

I can well understand the Labour Party's sense of guilt about the situation which London housing is in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] I will indeed answer the question. The facts are that in 1970 completions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Starts."] I notice that hon. Members opposite are very sensitive about completions. I can well understand that. In 1970 completions were nearly 4,000 more than they were in 1968 and they very much look like being more this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will design and make available a metal plaque to be affixed to all trees that are the subjects of a preservation order.

No, Sir.

As thousands of specimen trees are needlessly cut down every year, why must we have an almost inane "No" to a perfectly reasonable proposition to make people more conscious of the need to preserve trees?

I do not think that the fixing of plaques to tree preservation order trees would help to preserve any trees. There are adequate powers to deal with anybody molesting trees on which there are preservation orders.

If the hon. Gentleman should by any chance take his hon. Friend's advice, will he ensure that the plaques are fixed in such a way that the nail does not affect the ultimate cutting down of the tree when the wood is destroyed?

I agree that the fixing of plaques and signs to public property in no way guarantees protection of public property.

Having rejected the idea of hanging labels on trees, will my hon. Friend encourage the planting of more trees for future generations to enjoy—and I do not mean the proliferation of Christmas trees across the landscape by the Forestry Commission?

A very large number of trees are planted every year for amenity reasons as part of the Department's road building programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to prevent or reduce prices increases within the transport system for which he has responsibility.

I encourage those operators for whom I have responsibilities to improve their efficiency and hold down costs, but prices are bound to follow costs upwards, particularly when wages rise faster than productivity.

Which is the more serious problem—increasing commuters' fares, to which the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) referred, increased living standards for railwaymen, or the elimination of subsidies for the commuters? Since the transport system is a public sector element, is not this one of the fields in which the Prime Minister promised to reduce prices at a stroke?

The Prime Minister's promises are the more difficult of performance because of the obstacles left in the way by the last Administration.

While thoroughly endorsing what my right hon. Friend said in his answer, will he bear in mind that, as the Worcestershire countryside and other rural areas are now nearly denuded of public road transport save only for an occasional heavy, empty, lumbering vehicle polluting the atmosphere, the answer is for him to reform the system of traffic commissioners to enable tidy, compact, speedy, mini-buses with cheap fares to run everywhere?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but the bus industry is not the only industry which poses very severe problems for me. The legacy left by the last Administration—

Rub it in to them, John!

—was one of considerable losses and mounting costs due to legislation, the intentions of which were pious but the reality of which was absent.

I should like mini supplementary questions and mini-answers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to make sports facilities at present in the exclusive use of particular sections of the community more widely available for public recreation.

It is our policy to ensure that existing and future sports facilities, whether at schools and colleges, at industrial plants or at governmental, including Armed Services, establishments, should be available, wherever possible, to the general public.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that his very welcome reply is brought to the attention particularly of local authorities? Is he aware that many ratepayers, having paid very large sums of money for the provision of recreational and sports facilities in schools and colleges, resent the fact that those facilities are denied them for long periods during the evenings and school holidays?

Yes, Sir. This policy is being brought to the attention of all local authorities, including local education authorities. However, there are more than 100 dual-use projects in co-operation with local education authorities in the pipeline.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this problem more practically than he has done in the past? Will he take note of the joint schemes between local authorities and education authorities, which abound throughout the country, wanting financial help from his Department? Will he ensure that a greater contribution is made by his Department towards the provision of swimming pools and playing fields?

The question of the provision of local facilities is, in the first instance, for the local authorities. Where it is possible to help them, they will be helped. But I am glad that the present Government have been able to make available to the public Armed Services facilities as a result of improving the insurance arrangements, thereby helping many people at local level.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both sides of the House agree with his policy and that it is monstrous that schools costing about £750,000 are open for only 35 weeks of the year and about five hours a day? Is he further aware that not a little progress has been made since we issued the circular, which I know the Minister supports? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his Regional Sports Council to carry out a detailed survey of school buildings and similar community buildings not yet fully available to the public for sports use?

I will look into that point. But considerable progress is being achieved, particularly when new schools are being constructed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of testing work for the Agrément Board on materials or components submitted for appraisal was carried out by the Building Research Station in 1970.

About 85 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I tabled this Question to draw his attention to the anomaly of having two organisations doing similar work? Will he look into this question and see what savings can be made as a result of coordination or amalgamation?

I will bear in mind and carefully study what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inquiries have been dealt with by the Building Research Station since the setting up of its technical inquiry service in 1970; what fee income has been received by the station; and to what purpose that income has been devoted.

The B.R.S. Advisory Service dealt with nearly 17,000 inquiries in its first nine months, to the end of January last. The fee income so far has been £26,000, which has passed to the Exchequer.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that this organisation is a commercially viable entity and that the work it is doing is benefiting the building industry?

It is certainly benefiting the building industry. As yet it is not a commercial concern since it has only just started operations and has had all the initial expenditure of being set up. The matter is under review and I have appointed a new director-general of research who will investigate all the research facilities of the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now authorised the Joint Tyneside Sewerage Treatment and Disposal Scheme.

As the hon. Member will now be aware, on 9th March I agreed to a capital spending programme of some £30 million to clean up the Tyne, and to an immediate start on the scheme for the south western part of the Tyneside Joint Sewerage Board's area. Since then, with a view to approval of other works, my Department has begun discussions with the Board on technical questions arising from the investigation of the Board's scheme—including the question of the method of disposal to be adopted for the rest of the Board's area.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, after a considerable delay, a start is to be made on this major scheme. Why has the long-term technical investigation been set aside for what we regard as a retrograde proposal that great masses of untreated sewage should be pumped out to sea on the north side of the river?

It will not be completely untreated sewage. I am advised that technically, from the point of view of pollution of the river and the coast, the suggestion which we have made is the best. The sewerage board thinks otherwise. Therefore, I thought that the best thing to do was to enable the experts of both sides to get together quickly and to come to a conclusion. They got together on 25th March, and as soon as they decide the best scheme to deal with pollution I shall approve it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his last statement and for receiving the representations which I made on behalf of my constituents who were frightened about the flow-back on the beaches. Can he say how long he thinks the experts on both sides will take to resolve this question, which is very important for the whole of Tyneside and all our beaches?

I have instructed the officials in my Department to be as speedy as possible. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I can assure her that the final decision will be taken on the basis of which system causes the least pollution to her constituency.

I am grateful for the original reply and for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has committed his Department to look at the secondary problem, but would he now give an undertaking that the best solution is the solution which has been arrived at after many years of filth on Tyneside and that the best solution, not the cheapest, will be the one for which he goes?

Certainly the best, not necessarily the cheapest.

Hon. Members should congratulate the Minister.

May I also thank the Minister for his initiative in this regard? This is a problem which has been with us for far too long. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable professional support for the Howden disposal scheme?

I am anxious to make the best technical assessment I can and then to get on with the job.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to establish a central housing authority for Greater London.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that cheap cracks from the Government Front Bench do not help the housing programme and that the number of starts bears no relationship to the housing need in London? Will he announce his intention to step in—in place of failing authorities in London, no matter which they may be—to ensure that houses get built, because housing lists are already far too long?

The hon. Gentleman is a good judge of cheap cracks. The record of his own borough, which has built more than 4,000 houses in the last five years and which plans to build nearly 6,000 more by 1974, does not suggest that the boroughs are unable to tackle the problem successfully.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year the G.L.C. will have over 16,000 new lettings, which is an increase of 36 per cent. over the last year in which Labour controlled the G.L.C.?

My hon. Friend is right. I am satisfied that the G.L.C., the boroughs, private enterprise and the housing associations between them form the best combination for tackling this serious problem.

Is the Minister aware that the fall in the number of housing starts is not confined to Greater London but is being experienced in every large town and city? Will he consider the recommendation contained in the 1968 Report of the Estimates Committee for the setting up of a house building corporation or association to build houses in all parts of the country where the local authorities are either unwilling or unable to do so for whatever reason? Further, may I remind the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Hon. Members opposite are very impatient today. I remind the Minister that that was an all-party Committee and not a Committee composed only of Labour Members.

I take the hon. Lady's point. The Question is about London. I will gladly receive any representations from her about any other areas which she thinks should be considered separately.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage an increase in the slum clearance programme in London.

Our proposals for the reform of housing finance will provide greater incentives for local authorities to tackle slum clearance and increased resources with which to do so. In London the rate of progress in slum clearance is of course very dependent on the overall rate at which new housing can be provided. Here I look to local authorities, overspill arrangements, and the private sector to play their part.

In the light of his previous reply, can the Minister say why in Lambeth no houses were demolished in slum- clearance areas in the first nine months of 1970, why in five other London boroughs no houses were demolished in slum-clearance areas, and why there are derisory totals in many parts of London?

The housing shortage is so pressing in Lambeth that the Lambeth authority has rightly been concentrating on overspill arrangements. When I visited Lambeth three days ago I was impressed by the arrangements it was making with Peterborough to get people from Lambeth rehoused in Peterborough, often in much better houses and much more cheaply than they were in Lambeth.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this urgent and important matter will be much more likely to receive urgent and successful treatment from a Conservative Government because of the economic policies which are being pursued and which have recently been announced? Would my right hon. Friend care to spell them out in detail for the sake of hon. Members opposite?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I find it hard to think of any problem which would not be better solved by a Conservative than by a Labour Government.

Is not the greatest problem the lack of land in London? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that local authorities acquire such land, particularly public utility land, as does become available and do not refuse land in rich areas as the Kensington Borough Council did in neglecting the Campden Hill Water Works site?

As I have tried to explain in answer to earlier Questions, I have one meeting this week and another after the local elections with the London authorities to discuss all these problems and I hope that these will lead to action to solve a problem which has been left unsolved for far too long.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the latest proposals concerning the North Cross route motorway, in particular its effect on the London Borough of Camden.

No, Sir. Proposals for this route are the responsibility of the Greater London Council as highway authority.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is considerable unrest and anxiety among thousands of residents and traders all along this route about the proposals? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been estimated that, if these proposals are accepted, together with council building programmes, at least 30,000 jobs will disappear in the London borough of Camden alone? Will the Minister take this into consideration and advise his friends on the G.L.C. of these facts?

It is not for my right hon. Friend to take this matter into consideration at this stage. It is part of the G.L.C.'s proposed primary road network and is therefore being examined at the current inquiry into the Greater London development plan.

Will my hon. Friend accept that on this matter at least both political parties in the London Borough of Camden are united in not wanting this montrous route?

It has to be considered by the inquiry and it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to say anything on the merits of the proposal at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in rented accommodation there was in the London Borough of Camden in the period 1964 to 1970, year by year.

I regret that this information is not available. Table 9, pages 48 and 49 in the 1966 Sample Census, Greater London volume, gives the number of dwellings by tenure for each London borough.

I thank the Under-Secretary for that scant information. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that rented accommodation in inner London, and certainly in the London Borough of Camden, is seriously declining and that this is causing extreme hardship to many people, especially young married couples, who have to move further and further from London to find somewhere they can afford to live and then pay grossly exaggerated fares to get to work in the London area? Will the hon. Gentleman take account of all these factors and come up with a suggestion for improving the situation?

I agree that the reduction of privately rented accommodation is a serious matter, not only in Camden. I therefore hope to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the announcement that my right hon Friend has made about the implementation of the Report of the Francis Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to the London Borough of Hackney.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a grotesquely inadequate public transport system in Hackney, that bus routes are being taken off, and that the proposed underground railway system is unlikely to be implemented for about 20 years? Should not the Ministry institute an inquiry having regard to the needs of this very large London borough?

On all these matters my Department is in close liaison with the borough concerned.