asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to allow landlords to offer accommodation to tenants for short periods of up to one year without restrictive power of tenure, for the tenant.

Not unless I was convinced that any proposal which implied that tenants would not have the protection afforded by the Rent Acts had advantages that outweighed the obvious disadvantages to tenants.

Is it not clear that there is a serious shortage of temporary accommodation? Is it not also clear that there are many people who are looking for temporary accommodation and a substantial amount of housing which would be made available if it were not for the very restrictive nature of present legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and see whether he can do something to ease the plight of those many families who are looking for short-term accommodation?

I accept that there is a need for accommodation generally, and within that general need there is a need for particular people to have temporary accommodation. The hon. Gentleman's proposal has, in a sense, a superficial attraction in addressing itself to that need. The real difficulty is that I do not believe that one can easily work out proposals that would not lead to the progressive and rapid undermining of the whole system of security of tenure in the private rented sector.

Is the Secretary of State aware that most authorities seem to be of the opinion that the proposal would be beneficial to the supply of accommodation available to people seeking homes, particularly people seeking their first homes? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what information or what research he requires to be convinced one way or the other? If he can, that would give those who believe that it would be advantageous an opportunity to put the facts before him.

I am certainly not aware of any overwhelming body of evidence in favour of the viewpoint that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed, but I would also say—this is relevant to the supply of and demand for relatively short-term occupation—that to my mind there is today in the private rented sector a high degree of turnover. I was struck by the fact that according to the 1976 general household survey figures an estimated number of more than 400,000 lettings and relettings took place in that year alone in the private rented sector.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposal were adopted every new letting would be on the basis of a one-year letting and rent regulation would totally disappear as a consequence, because no one would dare challenge the rent that had been proposed, for fear that his tenancy would not be renewed?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on the very difficulty. I do not see how one can police such a system without unacceptable repercussions across the whole rented sector to which he referred.

Does the Secretary of State agree that figures have been canvassed which suggest, first, that there is a crude surplus of accommodation over families requiring it, and, secondly, that there are about 750,000 empty properties? If those two figures are correct, if the 750,000 empty properties could be brought into supply, problems of rent control and security of tenure would rapidly disappear. Would not it be right to encourage people with empty properties to bring them into use by telling them that if an empty property is let security of tenure will not apply to that new letting of property at present not being used?

The whole question of which new lettings would be covered by the Rent Acts and which would not would be a very tortuous and difficult business.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

A major survey on empty property is now being undertaken, and it will establish not merely the numbers of properties that are empty but the reasons. I think that this will give us a much firmer basis of fact on which to consider these questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the fact that the Theatres Trust has exhausted its own funds, if he will provide financial aid to enable the Trust to continue to perform its consultative role under the General Development Order 1977.

It was made clear when the Theatres Trust was established that public funds would not be available for it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were as well informed on this subject as he is on so many others he would not have given me that answer? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to receive a deputation consisting of Lord Goodman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the hon. Member for Canterbuy (Mr. Crouch) and myself, who will seek to explain to him the unusual circumstances which have arisen and which cause us to seek his aid in our task?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am reasonably well informed on the background to this matter, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard the request. As for the general position, I am also quite willing to clock again into the facts and consider the matter further, but the position is as I stated it at the outset.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the deficit on housing revenue accounts is now met from rents.

On the latest available information for a full financial year, the proportion of housing revenue account costs of local authorities in England in 1977–78 covered by rents was 56·5 per cent.

Is not that a grossly misleading figure when the official figure produced in Cmnd. 6393, the White Paper on public expenditure, referred to rebated rents and was given as 43 per cent. and is currently 44 per cent.? Are we to understand from the Government that they have now totally abandoned the policy as laid down in that White Paper that after rebates the target should be 50 per cent., as further emphasised by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?

There is nothing misleading about what I have said, any more than it would be misleading to indicate the figures for rent allowances in the private sector. Certainly the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman for the aggregate rent income, following rebate, of about 44 per cent. is correct. I was speaking initially of gross rent income, which is what goes into the housing revenue account. As has been made quite clear many times in the House and elsewhere, the figures referred to in the White Paper on public expenditure were projections. They were not target figures.

Is not Labour in favour of maintaining the subsidies both for owner-occupiers and for council tenants? Is it not a fact, implicit in the question just asked, that Conservative Members and the Conservative Party are in favour of cutting council house subsidies and thereby deliberately raising rents for 6 million families?

I believe that one must draw that conclusion, and a much worse conclusion as well, because, in addition to that, it is the Conservatives' intention to cut back massively on investment in public sector housing. They have been asked their views on this several times and have never made their position clear. The question of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is also to be criticised because it reflects a lack of understanding of what goes into housing revenue accounts. They are not concerned simply with the cost of running existing estates, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Is it not quite clear that the Minister for Housing and Construction has been providing one set of figures in order to avoid giving the figures which the House has been seeking to obtain? Is it not true that the White Paper, Command 6393, about which the Minister has been questioned, set out quite clearly that the percentage of costs covered was 43 per cent., that it was the Government's intention that it should rise to 50 per cent. or over, and that the Government even went so far as to project a saving in public expenditure of £180 million a year to be made by 1978–79? Will the Minister now say that the figures included in the Government's White Paper are no longer to be taken as reliable?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will either constantly not understand or constantly misinterpret answers that he has been given. The figures I have quoted, and which have been exchanged across the Floor of the House, are not new. Both figures, the gross rent income and the net rebated rent income, have been well established for some time. There is no question of not providing that information on the Floor of the House.

I have had a grossly misleading answer from the Minister for Housing and Construction and will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

There is a formula for seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

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

The figures for May were published on 6th July. After seasonal adjustment, there were 9,800 public sector starts and 11,300 completions in Great Britain. For the private sector the figures were 12,100 starts and 12,400 completions. While the public sector figures continue to be disappointing, the improvement in the private sector figures this year is being maintained.

But I think my right hon. Friend will agree that overall, over a fairly extensive period, the figures have been extremely disappointing, assisted by such an example as the Broad Meadows bungle at South Normanton in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend also accept that these policies have been assisted greatly by the inflicted cuts in public expenditure arising out of International Monetary Fund policy?

I am aware, of course, that there were cuts in the housing programme following the IMF negotiations, but I think that the scale of the cuts ought to be borne in mind. Looking at the English public sector figures, I note that the public sector starts that we achieved in the highest year of our period—1976—amounted to 148,800. What we have budgeted and allowed for in 1977 and again in 1978 are figures which are only a very little short of that—137,000 in both years. The problem which is emerging is that what we have budgeted for is being substantially underspent due to many factors, and not least, in my view, to the fact that most of the district housing authorities are no longer in Labour hands.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the Government were to cut the central Government contribution to indiscriminate subsidies in the public sector, that would allow a cut of about 3p in the standard rate of income tax?

I will not verify those figures. We can all, as it were, make our calculations, but the hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether the same people who were paying the increased rents would be gaining from the decreases in taxation.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the legality of the position which now exists in the London borough of Ealing since the Tories have taken over? Housing schemes which had been started, with contracts signed, are now to be stopped and considerable amounts of public money are to be paid in compensation to the private construction company. Will he consider whether that is right and proper and say whether he can do anything about it?

I very much deplore arbitrary and abrupt changes in public housing provisions, which inevitably involve heavy costs for local authorities. If my hon. Friend will send me the details, I shall certainly look into the matter.

When the Secretary of State seeks to put the responsibility for the reduction in public sector housing on Conservative authorities, what excuse has he for the 40 per cent. reduction in the city of Manchester's council house building programme this year as compared with last year, bearing in mind that it is Labour-controlled?

I have been referring to the generality of district housing authorities—district councils, of which the great majority are in Conservative hands. There is no doubt that there are circumstances in Manchester which are entirely explicable. The hon. Gentleman will see a very substantial increase this year in Manchester, but we shall not see any substantial increase in London or in a number of other authorities which are controlled by the hon. Gentleman's party.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the involvement of his Department in protecting the coastal and offshore environment.

I have responsibilities in the fields of amenity, conservation, coast protection, oil and chemicals on beaches and discharges to coastal waters; local authorities, other Government Departments and other bodies such as water authorities also have important functions to fulfil.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people who live on and around our coastline feel that it would be more appropriate if a Department with the title of his Department were not only to have more responsibility but perhaps the overriding responsibility for the increasing pressures on the coastline, particularly as the result of the activities of oil companies? The Minister has read out a long list of other Departments. Is he aware that the fact that there are so many other Departments involved means that anti-social activities, which may be in the minds of companies such as oil companies, can be carried out regardless of the public interest and one Department can be picked off against another? Will he, therefore, consider raising the overall question with the Prime Minister, so that we can get something done about it?

The hon. Gentleman has phrased the point in very general terms, and it is a little difficult for me to comment upon it. He must realise—as I think the House accepts—that there has to be a broad division of responsibility between that for oil which is released at sea, where, of course, the Department of Trade is in the lead, and that for those occasions when oil discharged at sea comes ashore. In this case we are very much in the lead, and we have considerable responsibilities, which we exercise in close consultation with the local authorities.

Will the Minister take the opportunity of paying tribute to the excellent work in coast protection done under the Coast Protection Act, which was introduced in this House many years ago by a Labour Government—it was introduced by me—to safeguard much of the coastline of this country?

I believe that the protection of our coastline is a major function and responsibility, and I willingly acknowledge the very important contribution that my hon. Friend has made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his responsibility, and his alone, to co-ordinate all matters relating to environmental safety? I have particularly in mind 33,000 people living on Canvey Island and the possible interaction between an excessive concentration of oil, gas and chemical storage on the one hand, and dangerous and hazardous cargoes in the estuary, on the other? Has the right hon. Gentleman yet grasped the fact that the Health and Safety Executive has just completed a report which proves beyond doubt that Canvey is the most endangered community in the country and yet arrives at the lunatic conclusion that there may be further oil refinery development? Will he arrange to make a statement on this subject before the House rises?

I am not at all sure that I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, although I understand his legitimate concern for the people of Canvey Island. This report is a very thorough one and it is very valuable. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are a number of planning inquiries pending in which consideration of this report will, I have no doubt, be a very relevant factor.

But will the Minister make a statement?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will make a statement of his policy towards prevention of coastal erosion.

My Department examines schemes submitted by the maritime district councils under the Coast Protection Act 1949 to ensure that they satisfy certain requirements before loan consent is given and central Government funds are made available for grant. The most important of these is that the schemes should be technically sound and cost effective.

The sooner we have a General Election the better.

The hon. Gentleman is behaving in a very intemperate way, which I hope no other hon. Gentleman will wish to emulate.

Is it not both astonishing and appalling that in this day and age no central records are kept of the amount of land lost by coastal erosion? Is it not a fact that loss of land in one area may be caused by natural or man-made factors in another area controlled by a different local authority? Is it not high time that some steps were taken to keep a centralised record and to monitor what is happening, bearing in mind the tremendous ravages of the seas over the centuries, which, even today, are making their effect felt, particularly on the east coast in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk?

I certainly acknowledge, as my hon. Friend says, that East Anglia in particular has suffered from coastal erosion. I also accept what he says about the desirability of having a national survey of our whole coastline. I am afraid that I cannot tell him when it would be possible for us to embark upon such a survey, but I shall certainly keep it in mind.

Can the Secretary of State say how the Government will conduct such a national survey when one part of the responsibility for coast protection and sea defences is in the hands of his Department and the other part is in the hands of the regional water authorities responding to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Does he not think that the time has come when the Government should consider that the protection of our coastal areas from erosion from the sea and damage from the sea through storms should be in the hands of one Minister and one Minister alone?

This matter has been looked at previously and the general view has been that there is a distinction between flood control and coastal erosion. That is the basic distinction. I agree that at a certain point there is an overlap between the two. Whether this can be more satisfactorily sorted out in administrative terms or departmental terms is not exactly a matter for me, but, of course, I am quite willing to listen to any suggestion.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in areas such as that of the River Severn, where there are problems of erosion, there is great difficulty in ascertaining responsibility for the problems of erosion? Does he not also acknowledge now that the costs of dealing with the problems of erosion are so enormous that we may have to consider some form of national scheme in order that the burden can be properly shared, as it is frequently beyond the capacity of riparian owners?

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, there is a Government grant scheme, which is on a sliding scale, which can actually rise—depending upon the circumstance of the authority and the demands placed upon its ratepayers—to 79 per cent. of the cost of the work.

Will the Minister pay tribute to the work done by voluntary associations at present, in view of the shortage of funds available for coastal protection? Will he say what the cutback by the Government has been in the last four years in terms of funds available for coast protection?

Yes, as a matter of fact I can help the hon. Gentleman with that figure. The expenditure in the three financial years 1975–76, 1976–77 and 1977–78 was £6·1 million, £5·4 million and £5 million. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that far from there being a cut-back in this current year, it has been increased to £11·9 million.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the leader of the majority group on the Greater London Council to discuss housing policy.

None, Sir.

Could the Minister try a little harder? As the policy of homesteading and council house sales promoted by the GLC under Conservative control is now so manifestly and overwhelmingly popular among the members of the public, should not the Minister be more positive and have a meeting with the GLC and give full encouragement to these two key twin elements of the new GLC housing policy?

From time to time, Ministers, including myself, meet the leader, as we meet leaders and chairmen of other local authorities, on housing and other matters. I have no present plans to do so, and I have no reason to do so on the grounds that have been put to me. I would make only this comment: there has been a lot of huffing and puffing and windy talk about homesteading and other great successes. So far, I understand that about 100 houses have been sold under the homesteading scheme in London.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it would be desirable for him to meet the leader of the GLC, because he would then have the opportunity of pointing out to him the effects of the policy to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred? In the words of an official of the GLC, in response to a request for a transfer for a family in very acute housing need, the GLC replied:

"I very much regret that the position as far as houses"—

Reading.

I am quoting.

Order. It is not in order to quote at Question Time.

An official of the GLC pointed out that the position in terms of houses has become very much more difficult as a direct consequence of the GLC's homesteading scheme and the fact that 50 per cent. of the houses that became vacant had to be sold, so that transfers became infinitely more difficult.

I do not think that the point with which my hon. Friend is justifiably concerned arises from the homesteading scheme, for the reason of the figure that I quoted. Certainly there is growing concern about the number of properties that are standing empty in London and in some other local authority areas where indiscriminate policies are being pursued. It is estimated that there are now several hundred such properties in London and in other authorities as a result of indiscriminate policies.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the figures that he gave to the House a few minutes ago in respect of homesteading are misleading, to the extent that 500 applications are now being processed, and this is a very different impression from the 100 completions to which he referred? When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the housing committee, will he congratulate him on being able to achieve the sale of 1,000 council houses since the Conservatives took control of the GLC, and will he also congratulate him on reducing the figure of 1,800 squatters who were involved in GLC properties when the Conservatives took power to a figure, now, of only 450?

I cannot comment much on the last figure because I do not know the details, except to say that I believe that a good many of the so-called squatters—as, indeed, is the case with a number of other local authorities in London—were in fact licensees, using the terms "squatter" rather incorrectly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now approve the proposed scheme of improve- ment of Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation.

As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 14th June, I hope to announce my decision on this scheme shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that yet another month has passed and that this delay is now becoming a disgraceful example of insensitive hesitation? Since the environmental prospects and economic future of South Yorkshire are being treated in a quite unacceptable manner, does he understand that the patience of South Yorkshire and its hon. Members is not inexhaustible?

I do not accept from my hon. Friend that it is either disgraceful or insensitive. On the contrary, I consider it to be careful and responsible. We are hoping to come to a decision very shortly.

Does the Secretary of State accept that this is a very imaginative scheme? Surely by this time the Government should have a positive policy on this matter, which is important to the whole future of inland waterways in this country.

I am very much aware that it is a very long time indeed since there was an investment in Britain's canal system. Therefore, it is important—I attach great importance to this—that we should back a scheme which really has a reasonable chance of success.

Will my right hon. Friend, with his usual sensitivity, examine very carefully the effects of such a development upon the ports of the Humber and, in particular, the port of Hull, and what it might mean in terms of loss of jobs and the consequent loss of use of important public investment over the years? Will he bear in mind very carefully the effects upon the development area?

In thinking through the case for such a canal scheme, we shall have to consider all the relevant factors, including the generation of new traffic and the possibility, of course, of a switch of traffic from other facilities. But all these matters—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising one of the many complexities—must really be thoroughly worked out.

rose—

I shall call one more hon. Member on this Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous amount of support among members of the general public for this scheme in South Yorkshire? Does he accept that we understand the difficulties that have been created by the very sharp attack made upon our right hon. Friend the Minister of State by the Select Committee? Is it not now time to let bygones be bygones and get on with the scheme, which is manifestly in the interests of the economy of South Yorkshire?

I am very much aware of the support that exists for the project in the South Yorkshire area and, indeed, more generally on the part of those who are interested in the development and better use of inland waterways. However, my hon. Friend must not assume in any way that we are bringing to bear anything other than an honest consideration of all the facts. We want to establish the best possible judgment on this project.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that all regional water authorities encourage their consumers to pay their water rates by monthly instalments.

As the hon. Member will appreciate, we have no powers to direct the water authorities in this way. However, when I met the water authority chairmen on 9th May, I urged them to accept payment by instalments where there would otherwise be hardship. I am glad to say that they assured me they are all prepared to operate such a charging policy.

When the Minister has a further meeting with the chairmen of water authorities, will he talk to them about the possibility of using the Post Office as a method of payment of water charges? This would help a number of old-age pensioners. Accepting that direct billing is a good thing, will he discuss with the chairmen the formula that they have now worked out, in which I think the standing charge is far too high and works against the small household, the old-age pensioner and that type of person?

I have already discussed with the chairmen the question of using the Post Office. Indeed, I am glad to report that a pilot scheme along those lines by the north-west authority is working very well. I assure the hon. Member that it is being watched by the other regions, too.

Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to point out that the reorganisation of the water authorities by the Conservative Party has been one of the greatest disasters of all time? Is he aware that, as a result of the reorganisation, my constituents and many others are suffering considerable consequences in the form of higher charges and direct billing? Will he do something to ensure that these water authorities, many of which are highly inefficient, are brought under some sort of democratic control?

I shall go further than my hon. Friend in saying that the reorganisation of local government, the reorganisation of local authority health services and the reorganisation of water services, taken together, have proved to be catastrophic and an absolute disaster for the country.

Presumably, however, the Minister's intention in the White Paper, and this further reorganisation that he now proposes to improve the previous reorganisation, is to produce a reduction in the rate bills. Will he undertake, therefore, that there will actually be a reduction as a result of the further reorganisation, which was the point raised by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart)? Also, in respect of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), can the Minister advise us whether the instalments that he has been asking the chairmen of water authorities to introduce will be, as my hon. Friend asked, monthly instalments?

The Post Office scheme can be based on weekly payments, which I think all of us would agree would be a very good thing indeed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the difficulty about any further reorganisation is that it is impossible to calculate its total effect, but I am quite certain that in practical terms it will produce much more efficient control of the water industry than there is at the present time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the working of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act; and if he will make a statement.

The Act has helped many homeless people, and that is satisfactory. Our main guide to its detailed working is the statistical information to be published shortly and to be discussed with local authorities and voluntary bodies.

When my right hon. Friend discusses this with local authorities, will he pay particular attention to the Slough Tory authority which has by resolution decided to put as restrictive an interpretation as possible upon the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, and has already been censured by the local ombudsman for the way in which it is failing to deal with homeless families in my area?

I shall certainly take account of that and will take the opportunity, as soon as I can, of reading the local ombudsman's report on this matter. I am aware of the concern expressed about this local authority's conduct in certain respects. I can only hope that it will reflect further and ensure it is basing its conduct on a civilised approach to the use of the Act.

Will the Minister also get officials in his Department to look into the quality of some of the buildings and hostels used for homeless people on temporary stay? Some of them are of a dreadfully poor quality and have a most depressing effect on the people who have to go to them.

I certainly take note of the point, but no inspectorate system is available to us to use in such matters. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about particular matters that he has in mind, I shall certainly consider them further.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the procedures in cases where there is a dispute between authorities over responsibility for homeless people? Is he aware that in my constituency there is one family which has now been in temporary accommodation for over 10 months because local authorities are unable to agree who is responsible for the rehousing?

The Act has now been operating for about seven months. I am generally satisfied that the scheme that was agreed in the context of that Act, for joint arrangements between local authorities, is working reasonably well. We are due to review the matter, and if there are a sufficient number of cases of difficulty which show a common pattern, requiring further thought about the way the Act is operating, I should like to consider them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will also write to me with details so that I can take these matters into account.

Is the Minister aware that a number of local authorities that have a relatively high proportion of employment to offer as compared with other areas, or authorities that are particularly attractive areas in which to live, are complaining that mobile homelessness is causing problems with regard to their general waiting lists? Will he consider giving a reallocation of resources to local authorities which have those problems, one of which is Slough?

Judging from the hon. Gentleman's rather defensive observations, I am afraid that he cannot be aware of the procedure that is already adopted. The answer is that this factor is already taken into account when we do the housing investment allocations. It is a matter for the local authority to include the data in its submission to us, against the background of whatever policy it is pursuing. We certainly take it into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the series of local public inquiries into the footpaths of the old county of Herefordshire will be completed.

Although it has taken a long time to get the programme of inquiries under way, the Department and Hereford and Worcester county council have recently agreed on a timetable which will result in an inquiry being held every 12 weeks. Even so, with 11 inquiries to go, this means that it will be early 1981 before the exercise is complete.

I am grateful to the Minister for that considered reply. Is he aware that it is now over a year since the first of these local public inquiries took place, at Ross-on-Wye? Will he undertake to keep behind this programme all the way along the line so that long-standing sore points, such as the public footpath HB1, at Hampton Bishop parish, can be resolved for good and all?

This is an excellent example of the value of Questions. When I saw the hon. Gentleman's Question I asked why it was that we had not yet had the inspector's reply on Ross-on-Wye and Whitchurch. I am assured that the delay is exceptional and that we shall now get it in a matter of weeks. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall personally ensure that there is an immediate decision as soon as possible after that. The Hampton Bishop inquiry arises from a dispute between the parish council and the landowner concerned. I do not think that the county council or the Department come into the matter until that dispute has been resolved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this problem goes much wider than Herefordshire and that, for instance, the Ramblers' Association is deeply concerned about the loss of old footpaths, many of which go out of use due to farmers putting wires across them, and so on? Does his Department give any guidance to associations such as the Ramblers' Association on how they can best consult local authorities in order to preserve these footpaths?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this problem. In the White Paper on recreation, which we recently issued, we made it quite clear that the Government regard access to the countryside and the maintenance of rights of way on pathways as being of tremendous importance. I can assure the House that if it draws our attention to any cases of malpractice we shall look into them immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further policy initiatives his Department proposes to take progressively to reduce the levels of air pollution in urban areas, especially London.

In conjunction with the Clean Air Council, we are constantly looking at ways of progressively reducing the levels of air pollution, with the needs of urban areas particularly in mind. We are considering the proposals of the fifth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, including those for air quality guidelines, and for new powers for local authority control of industry. A thorough review of monitoring is in hand and we have a continuing programme of research into air pollution problems.

Is the Minister aware that that answer does not go far enough in relation to this serious problem? Is his Department aware of the report from the GLC some time ago which showed that air pollution levels on many London streets are now at least double the recommended levels of the World Health Organisation? In view of the fact that the Clean Air Act 1956 covers only air pollution from fixed sources, such as factories and domestic premises, will the Minister consider legislation to see that it is extended to motor vehicles, which are the real source of the problem?

I am well aware that this problem is associated with the intake of lead into the system—

And smoke.

Yes, I know, but it also involves lead. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a staged programme, in partnership with the EEC, to bring down the lead content in petrol. I can tell the House that we have just agreed to finance three further research projects on atmospheric pollution, at a cost of £150,000. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the matter as seriously as he does. Furthermore, the Control of Pollution Act, when fully implemented, will enable local authorities to have further control of the whole range of these problems.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about these new research projects and their funding, but does he agree that it is well established that the lead level in petrol is a serious air pollutant and a serious contributor to the hazards of lead poisoning? Why cannot we speed up the process of coming into line with our European neighbours, who have long accepted a lower level of lead in petrol than we are prepared to accept?

That is not quite true. We have fully accepted—this has been debated in the House—the EEC programme. I think that there have been two reductions in the content of lead in petrol during the life of this Government, and we are committed to at least one or two more, certainly to be in line with our European partners. But we cannot do it overnight. We have to serve adequate notice on industry, and there are also balance of payments considerations to be borne in mind.

Is the Minister aware that in recent years the Royal Commission has not had the impact upon public opinion which perhaps it should have? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when considering the future membership of that Commission, to try to find people from outside who are good at communicating the views of the Royal Commission, instead of just experts?

I do not accept that at all. I think that the Flowers Commission has had an enormous impact on public opinion generally over a whole range of problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further discussions he proposes to have with representatives of building and construction industry employers regarding the nationalisation of the building industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet leaders of the building industry in the near future.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I have regular meetings with representatives of the construction industry and I shall be seeing leaders of the organisations in the group of eight on 28th July. Since I have no proposals to nationalise the building and construction industry, I see no reason why this item should feature on our agenda.

Can the Secretary of State explain why his hon. Friends are so upset at the prominence given by the current poster campaign about the Labour Party's plans to nationalise the building industry? As the General Election approaches, would not he and they wish for that policy to be given as much publicity as possible, including such details as the likely initial costs of up to £2¾ billion and subsequent annual costs of £½ billion—or is it that since the recent national survey has shown that four people out of five do not want any more nationalisation, the Government at least have changed their mind?

I have no comment to make on the rather extraordinary arithmetic which the hon. Member has put before the House, but, quite naturally, all responsible persons, including virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends. deeply resent tendentious advertising in constituencies—advertising which seeks, as it were, to upset and disturb people about proposals which are certainly not in the programme of this Government and which are being discussed in the NEC of the Labour Party. If we were to retaliate in kind and take up all over the country, for example, the proposals put to the Conservative Shadow Cabinet by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), in which he proposed the denationalisation of half a dozen of our industries, including selling off the BNOC, dismantling the NEB and turning our pits into miners' co-operatives, the Tories, too, would feel slightly upset.

In a genuine attempt to seek information on behalf of my constituents, may I ask the Secretary of State why, as a Socialist, he is clearly in favour of public ownership of the construction industry while as a member of the Cabinet he is either non-committal or, dare one assume, opposed to it? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, further, whether he attended the Labour Party conference when it was decided that this should become Labour Party policy and, if so, whether on that occasion he voted for or against the proposal?

My major concern—and it is the major concern of Government supporters—is with the efficiency of the construction industry, as it is with many of our other industries. It is with the security of its employees. It is also with maintaining as high a level of employment in the industry as we possibly can. We shall always be prepared to consider measures which promote those ends. I think that that is probably sufficient answer to the hon. Member.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party has never called for the nationalisation of the construction industry? The policy statement approved by the Labour Party conference called for a measure of public ownership by the establishment of a national building corporation, by the development and extension of direct labour organisations, and by the encouragement of co-operatives at the lowest level. It is an absolute lie that the Conservative Party and the employers, through their campaign CABIN, are trying to put about the country, which will in fact have a reverse effect, because the people are not stupid and will recognise when lies are being told by the Opposition.

My hon. Friend is right, of course. It is an absurd propaganda activity which is being engaged in by the Opposition. I might add to what my hon. Friend said about what was in the proposal that, as it was presented to the Labour Party conference last year, it said specifically, at the end, that

"The present statement and the background document which accompanies it represent only an interim report to the party."

The original Question relates to employers. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether UCATT is as yet on record in regard to this matter and, if so, to what effect?

Yes. It supports the NEC.

I cannot deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question in detail—

I can. I am a member.

but I know very well that the unions concerned would subscribe to my general definition of purpose in the construction industry, that we should take all measures to deal with the uncertainties of employment, that we should promote decasualisation, that we should try to maintain a more even work load, and that we should do all in our power to bring down the level of unemployment. The House may be interested and even pleased to know that this month, for the first time in two or three years, unemployment figures have fallen well below 200,000, to about 177,000.

Why should the big building employers be so upset about the proposals to permit corporation direct labour departments to tender for building contracts in neighbouring authorities? Is it the fear that this will put their own quotations in danger and also draw attention to the 133 price rings now operated by private firms in the building industry?

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to what has long been the policy of this Government, which is to seek to put an end to the unnecessary restrictions placed upon direct labour organisations and also to put them upon a manifestly fair and competitive basis.

Is the Secretary of State aware that when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) introduced the proposals contained in this document "Building Britain's Future", he spoke of the "step by step public ownership of the construction industry"? Therefore, when the Secretary of State meets representatives of this industry, will he assure them that he would never allow these proposals to become the policy of any Government of which he was a Minister?

I thought that there was a consensus in all parts of the House that we never used the word "never". If the Opposition had used the word "never", they would have been in great difficulties when they had to nationalise Rolls-Royce and UCS a few years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfield with the programme for land reclamation in Birmingham.

Since the order on 8th June specifying the Birmingham inner city area as a derelict land clearance area, the Department has asked Birmingham city and West Midlands county councils to extend their programme of sites eligible for grant. So far 18 schemes have been approved this financial year, costing £63,000.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he accept that, in view of the total lack of water-based recreational activities in the north Birmingham area, the Department ought to give speedy consideration to any proposals from the West Midlands county council's planning department to convert the disused quarry at Queslett—150 acres in my constituency—for recreational purposes rather than allow it to be used as a dump for 3 million cubic yards of rubbish, and thereby use it to the public advantage?

I well understand my hon. Friend's concern about this, and certainly the idea of the recreational facilities and plans to which he has referred sounds attractive. However, the future use of this site as part of the reclamation scheme is, in the first instance, a matter for the local authorities concerned, and we have not yet had any proposals submited to us. Naturally we shall consider them very carefully when they are received.

Is the Minister aware that a good start has been made on this programme in Birmingham but that ultimately the question of the ownership of land is extremely relevant? Is he aware, further, that the leader of the Birmingham city council has written in robust terms to the chairmen of nationalised industries requiring them to bring forward their land for use? This is an extremely important matter in Birmingham. Will the Minister support the leader of the council by including a letter personally to them—perhaps enclosed with the notification of their increased pay—asking them to respond vigorously in this respect?

I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. Member referred, but I think that he has rather truncated the history of this matter. Some months ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in touch with the chairmen of all the nationalised industries about getting surplus land, especially in partnership authorities, listed and made available to local authorities as part of our efforts in the inner city programmes. When this exercise has been completed we shall consider the position with regard to the programme authorities.

Could the Minister tell the House the extent to which the Tory council of Birmingham has underspent the financial allocations made to it for land acquisition, while at the same time blaming the Government for the fact that areas of the city outside the centre are being deprived of resources by that council?

That is a very wide-ranging question. The position on land acquisition for housing purposes cannot be separated from the investment programme activity of the local authority as a whole in housing generally. In 1977–78 the Birmingham city council underspent its housing investment allocation by about £5·5 million. That might not necessarily relate to land acquisition. Under the rules of procedure laid down, it is open to the council to add that figure to the 1978 allocation under what we call the 10 per cent tolerance.

It is now some months since the Secretary of State wrote to the chairmen of the nationalised industries about the release of land in the inner cities. What has happened in the meantime?

We have had a good response from most of the chairmen. There is one outstanding nationalised industry which is still doing a listing of land available in these areas and is probing the possibility of negotiation on disposal of those sites. If the hon. Member writes to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he will be provided with more details in correspondence.

I beg to move amendment no. 44, in page 8, line 10, leave out "£8,500" and insert "£9,500".

The Scottish National Party has always sought in this House to raise the basic threshold at which VAT becomes payable. When it stood at £5,000 we sought to increase it to £7,500. When it was £7,500 we sought to raise it to £10,000. Now it is £10,000 we would wish to raise it further. As usual on most matters connected with these Bills, we were opposed by the Government, and the Conservatives abstained. I am delighted that the Conservatives are apparently prepared to press this matter to a vote.

I, too, support the amendment. It is relevant to an argument that I advanced in Standing Committee on the general issue of qualification for deregistration from VAT. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) has concentrated on the annual figure for deregistration—the fact that turnover has to fall to £1,500 below the £10,000 registration figure. As I explained in Standing Committee, to the surprise of some hon. Members, a more complicated situation could arise because of the difference between the annual deregistration limit of £8,500, and the quarterly deregistration limit which is £2,500—exactly a quarter of the annual registration limit.

I wish to support the amendent and to associate myself with the arguments whicht have been advanced, particularly that put forward by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). I shall offer the Minister an example from my constituency which is similar to the horrors described by the hon. Member for Braintree. My constituent was a taxi proprietor. He was an honest man and, being uncertain whether he would exceed the £10,000 limit and not wishing to break the law, he registered. He did not achieve the amount of turnover for which he had hoped and he has since encountered difficulties. He has had to reduce his car fleet from two vehicles to one, and now he finds that the one advantage he had anticipated of shedding the complexities of VAT will not be achieved.

In supporting the amendment, I think that we should initially consider it in a slightly broader context. At first sight, it does not seem overwhelmingly important, but if we consider it as a strand of the rope which ties the hands of our small and middle-sized businesses, we can see that it is vital to slacken the strand or to break it altogether.

I support everything said by my hon. Friends and by the two Scottish National Party members. It is clear to all of us that even now the VAT threshold is too low. The public are ant to forget that the threshold relates not to profitability or to personal income but to turnover. Average male industrial earnings are £80 a week or £4,000 a year. If one makes a net profit on turnover of 10 per cent., one needs about £40,000 turnover to get the same personal income. That is worth remembering.

We have had a useful debate, but many of the points made—valid though they are so far as they relate to hon. Members' knowledge of their constituents—have been concerned with the registration limit, which is not before us today. That limit has been raised in this Finance Bill to practically the highest level permitted under the Community rules.

The Minister mentioned a figure of 90,000 as being entitled to derigister. As I understand it, that is on the basis of the £8,500 derigistration limit. If this amendment were to be agreed and the deregistration limit were to be raised to £9,500, how many more would be entitled to deregister?

These are only rough estimates and I do not wish to be held to them precisely. However, the figures could amount to 20,000 more deregistrations, out of a total of 1,400,000 trades registered for VAT.

The Minister is correct to say that the gap in proportional terms has been narrowed, but has been vastly increased in financial terms. In cash terms it has been doubled since 1972.

That argument would not commend itself to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). In indexation terms it is probably best to talk in percentages so that we can obtain a more direct comparison. In real money terms, as well as in percentage terms the gap has been narrowed. The deregistration limit gives an option to certain traders. Some may wish to deregister, and some may have the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) who referred to the yo-yo traders who go in and out of VAT registration. But there are problems involved in narrowing the gap. As one increases the deregistration limit, there will be people who feel that it is an advantage to deregister but who subsequently find they have to come into registration.

The argument is not about the gap, but whether there needs to be a gap and whether the arguments for the gap are valid. It may be that they were valid in 1972, but are they still valid today? Since the Minister made such a point about the fact that so few of those who can go in and out actually do so and the fact that they stay in and register, is it not likely that few traders will go in and out even if there is no gap at all? What estimate has he made to that end?

I shall be coming to that point. I agree with many of the hon. Member's comments. Our assessment is that under the arrangements we have proposed, about 10 per cent. of all traders who are able to deregister will reregister at a subsequent date. Therefore, 10 per cent. of those traders will be bridging that gap. The purposes of the gap is to prevent large numbers of traders going in and out of registration. The larger the gap the more one stops people going in and out. On the other hand, the smaller the gap the more one allows people to deregister.

We have had a useful and brief debate. It is a debate about the very smallest business men of all. We are referring to one-man business—the single trader. The fact that they are in that category entitles them to no less care and attention from the House of Commons than we give to any other category of business man. Therefore, it was encouraging that my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), Braintree (Mr. Newton), Workington (Mr. Page) and Eastleigh (Mr. Price), and no fewer than two Members of the SNP, took part in this debate.

At no point in any of his speeches on this matter have I ever heard the hon. Gentleman ask how many extra bureaucrats would have had to be hired last year to raise the threshold to £10,000. Since I was given that specific reason, I settled for £7,500 and did so in two steps. Is the hon. Gentleman interested in reducing or increasing the numbers of bureaucrats?

Perhaps the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will explain—preferably on some other occasion—why the numbers of bureaucrats required for the £10,000 threshold one year should be different from the numbers required for the £10,000 threshold the next year. The truth is that the more people who are out of VAT, the fewer bureaucrats are needed and the smaller the compliance costs. If fewer traders are registered for VAT, clearly we need fewer people to collect the VAT from those traders. I should have thought that was clear, even to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.