asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state the number of decisions made to the latest available date by the rent assessment committees; of these, how many increased the rentals fixed by the rent officers, how many reduced them and how many confirmed them; and if he will make a statement.

168 applications for registration of rent had been decided by rent assessment committees in England up to 9th July. The rent officer's determination was reduced in 22, confirmed in 48 and increased in 98 of these. But the original rent was reduced in 133, confirmed in 8 and increased in 27 of these same cases, and it is by this result that the effect of the Rent Act should be measured.

But will the Minister explain why five times as many revisions have been in favour of landlords rather than in the tenants' favour? Second, as the lawyers and valuers on these committees are clearly failing to disregard the housing shortage which causes the high rents, will my right hon. Friend now consider amending the Act and changing the composition of the committees?

No, Sir, I shall not. It is far too early to judge the way the Act is working. In the early days, my hon. Friend staged an enthusiastic Adjournment debate, saying that everything was going ecstatically well from his point of view. I warned him to be a bit careful. Now, he is correspondingly depressed. All I am saying is, "Give it a few months to run". When my hon. Friend asks me why there are differences, the answer is that each makes an independent assessment, each makes up its own mind. I am not in the least surprised that at the beginning, before we settle down, there are marked differences on occasion between them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many cases have been heard by rent assessment panels since the passing of the Rent Act, 1965; and in what percentage of those cases the rent was increased and decreased, respectively.

Up to 9th July, rent assessment committees had determined fair rents in 168 applications for registration. The original rent was increased in 16 per cent., unchanged in 5 per cent. and reduced in 79 per cent. of these cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the committees are working fairly and judiciously? Does he agree with the chairman of the London committee who said recently that the criticisms of some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends below the Gangway showed that they simply did not understand the Act?

The committees are working extremely well. We are having variations, as was inevitable in the early stages, between the judgment of the rent officer and the rent assessment committee, or between this committee and that. I am hoping that after three or four months, after talking it over with the chairmen, we shall be able to issue a general directive to rent officers defining the experience of deciding a fair rent with precision, which will enable us to get the kind of uniformity out of this experience we all desire.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will introduce an Order under Section 35(5) of the Rent Act, 1965, to prevent orders for possession of local authority houses being obtained under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838.

My right hon. Friend will make an Order when he is satisfied that the county courts are able to take on the additional work involved.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, is regarded as most unsatisfactory, particularly by magistrates who have to enforce it, since they are obliged to give possession orders without hearing evidence as to extenuating circumstances? Can the hon. Gentleman hasten the matter so that justice can be seen to be done as well as be done?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman asks, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in spite of the pessimism of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) when the Act was going through the Committee stage, county courts are now able, ready and willing to receive this extra work and my right hon. Friend will be making arrangements for them so to do.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what arrangements have been reached with local authorities regarding the allocation of housing to regular Servicemen on discharge.

The great majority of housing authorities accept the recommendations contained in the circular which my right hon. Friend issued last year and consider applications from Servicemen on the basis of their housing need without regard to length of residence in the locality. He will be pursuing the matter further with those who find difficulty in doing so.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this circular is intended to apply to all local authorities? How many years prior to discharge is a Regular Service man entitled to register for a house?

The circular applied to all local authorities with housing powers. It will interest the hon. Genteman to know that only 74 have replied that they are unable, for one reason or another, to comply. We are taking the matter up further with them. We are determined that Service men shall be given some help in this matter.

Hear, hear.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is now the average rate of interest on mortgages charged by building societies and local authorities, respectively; when it is his intention to bring forward his proposals to give relief to those purchasers in respect of mortgage interest; and to what date he intends to make these proposals retrospective.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made with regard to lowering mortgage interest rates; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he will now take to give relief to house purchasers with mortgages from local authorities against increased interest rates.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement on his discussions with representatives of the Building Societies Association regarding the mortgage option scheme.

The rate of interest currently recommended by the Building Societies Association to its members is 7⅛ per cent. Local authority lending rates vary according to the policy of the individual authority and the powers they operate. I have made good progress in my discussions with representatives of the main mortgage institutions, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his earlier promise to introduce legislation on the subject this Session will not be affected by tomorrow's statement?

Yes, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 29th April last year he said—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot quote at Question Time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he said that his reputation would be ruined if he did not lower mortgage interest rates? Will he undertake either to implement the scheme announced during the election or resign?

I do not think that that unfortunate dichotomy of choice presents itself to me. Neither is true. We have settled on a scheme that we have worked out with the building societies completely to their satisfaction. It is a variant on ours. It will be included as part of the Housing (Subsidies) Bill which I shall introduce after the summer Recess.

Will the right hon. Member undertake to make a statement on the position before the House rises? Can he also tell us when he expects the building societies to announce the next increase in mortgage rates? Does not he agree that, whatever he does, the average person who gets a mortgage will pay a higher interest rate than ever before?

The second question put by the right hon. Gentleman seems different in kind from the third. If he asks me about the building societies, I can tell him that I have completed arrangements with them and am hoping to make a statement before the Recess.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one earning less than £25 a week is now able to obtain a mortgage for even the most modest house? Does he realise that young couples caught in the spiral of rising prices are seeing their prospects of houses disappearing? Is he satisfied with the way in which resources are being distributed by building societies and local authorities?

It is too early to judge the effect of the local authorities coming back into the field with the classifications I have given them. Nearly all the classifications by which I have invited them to give mortgages would meet my hon. Friend's request for people earning £25 a week or under, but I am a little incredulous when I am told that local authorities are giving mortgages to no one with an income of under £25 a week.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what new plans he has for encouraging local authorities to build more houses, especially in the Greater London area.

The Government have already announced a target of 250,000 houses to be built by public authorities in 1970 and proposals for greatly increased subsidies. Continuing discussions will take place within that framework on the best methods of achieving that target. For London, in particular, approval for larger programmes has recently been given to all housing authorities who have submitted plans to increase their house-building.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the diffidence displayed by Redbridge in building council houses in areas they regard as being highly desirable?

I know about Redbridge. Tenders for 86 dwellings were sent as against the programme of 620. As a consequence, Redbridge has put its programme up this year. I intend to increase the programme from 375 to 720, and it is one of the boroughs I shall visit to find out what it is all about.

Whatever may happen tomorrow, will the hon. Gentleman retract the statement made on 1st March that this year more than 400,000 houses will be built?

I was asked a Question about public authorities and their targets, and I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance—I hope that he will be pleased —that 250,000 houses a year—probably more—will be built by public authorities by 1970.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the latest housing returns.

The total number of houses completed in Great Britain in May was up on April and also on May last year. Completions during the first five months of the year were down on the same months of 1965, mainly because of a shortfall in the private sector.

In order to reach the housing target, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a publicly-owned housing corporation, similar to that which exists in Scotland, in order to erect system-built houses in different parts of the country where both local authorities and private enterprise are unwilling to do their job?

I am glad to say that I do not know of local authorities whom we have asked to do it who are unwilling to do it, although some are more efficient than others. As for a national building corporation, what we are doing is to use the N.B.A., set up by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the job of training and guiding local authorities in the modern techniques required for system-building, and I think that by advising local authorities the N.B.A. will do better than by trying to compete with them in house building.

While rejecting at once the imputation that private builders have failed, is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell the House how he reconciles falling output of houses, public or private, with 900 million bricks lying on the floor?

There is no need to reconcile the rising output of publicly-built houses with that, for the public sector is doing well and this year will increase on last year and will increase on this year's target. The weakness is in the private sector where, for economic reasons, the builders are finding very great difficulty.

Will the Minister now retract—I put the question to him—the categorical statement which he made at the Dispatch Box before the election, on 1st March, that we should build more than 400,000 houses this year? Will he also explain why he has postponed the extremely important meeting which he needs to have with the private builders?

Yes, Sir. I have postponed the meeting simply because I thought that it should take place after the announcement of new Government policy and when I had had time to put housing into the framework of that policy. The builders, although irritated, saw that there would not have been much point in meeting me before the new announcements were made.

What about the target?

I apologise to the right hon. arid learned Gentleman. Let me put it this way: I would now make that statement with a slightly less categorical flavour than I used in March of this year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to make special arrangements whereby charitable housing associations would be enabled to borrow money for the purchase and improvement of properties at an effective rate of interest of 4 per cent.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider there is a strong enough case to justify such an arrangement. But he is considering in general the need for further measures to encourage the improvement of older houses.

Are not housing associations beginning to make a considerable impact, especially in the large cities where people are most in need of decent housing? Would not this step enable them to make a still greater impact in a very short time?

Some housing associations are doing a first-class job. My right hon. Friend intends to look at the whole subject of legislation for improvement grants as soon as possible, and we shall not forget housing associations.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to ensure that professional witnesses in Rent Act appeal cases are in future called by the panel and not by parties.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether arrangements will be made for tenants to have the assistance of qualified surveyors when appearing before rent assessment committees.

I am at present considering this problem, but I cannot yet say anything further.

Would my right hon. Friend consider, in the alternative, granting legal aid to those tenants who are at present severely handicapped by their inability to afford the professional assistance open to the landlords and property companies?

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting this to me, because this is one of the deficiencies of the operation of the Act: the apparently one-sided representation now going on before the rent assessment committees. I am in communication with the R.I.C.S. to see if we can arrange a "poor man's surveyor service." It is such a service one needs when appearing before the rent assessment committees and not a "poor man's lawyer".

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this may tend to take away the judicial aspect and substitute an inquisitorial one?

On the contrary, the problem we face is that in a very large number of cases the landlord is represented by a lawyer and a surveyor, or a surveyor, and the tenant is not. It is most important not only to make it look right but to have it right so that the tenants should be able to get adequate representation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of the inflationary effect on the price of building land in the conurbations of the tightly drawn green belt boundaries surrounding them.

The price of building land is affected by many factors. The presence of a green belt may affect it by making houses adjoining the green belt more desirable or by reducing the amount of land available for building. It would however be impossible to isolate these factors, and no estimate of the effect on the price of building land of green belts has therefore been made.

Since this tight girdle around some of the conurbations is creating an entirely false scarcity of building land and thereby grossly inflating the prices of such land, will not the Minister give the most urgent consideration to a revision of existing green belt boundaries?

My right hon. Friend has asked the county authorities to review their existing green belts and is waiting for a report from most of them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will send a circular to local authorities to persuade them to provide play space for the pre-school child in high blocks of flats under their control.

The Department has issued advise on how this facility can best be provided. Most local authorities are following this advice and my right hon. Friend sees no need at present for a further circular on this subject.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to consider the possibility of advising local authorities further upon the possibility of adapting the roofs of high flats as play space for young children? Would he also bear in mind, and urge local authorities to consider, the sad state which we are reaching, when young children living in high blocks of flats are deprived of play space and the company of pets because pets are banned in such flats?

My hon. Friend is quite right in what she says, and I can give her the assurance that my right hon. Friend is looking to see what further advice can be given to local authorities to deal with the matter she has raised.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many applications for rent adjustment have been made in Liverpool; and what were the results to date.

258 applications for registration of rent had been made to rent officers in Liverpool up to 9th July, of which 76 had been determined. The rent was reduced in 55, unchanged in 10 and increased in 11 cases. Objections to 11 determinations had been referred to a rent assessment committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the reductions are more apparent than real, in that a deliberately high artificial rent is created so that a reduction to the previous decontrolled rent might be established and that is established as the rent for all the properties in the area?

The Liverpool situation will take some time to settle down. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should wait a few weeks longer before we draw any conclusion about the level of rents there.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that the chairman of the rent assessment committee in Liverpool has stated that he is not prepared to allow a member of the city council to represent a constituent before him, contrary to Schedule 3, paragraph 11, of the Rent Act; and what action he is taking under Schedule 2 to the Act.

I understand that the councillor in question is a member of the Liverpool Rent Assessment Panel, and I agree with the president's view that members of the panel should not also take part in proceedings before either rent officers or rent assessment committees. Councillors who are not members of the panel may of course do so.

Is not my right hon Friend aware that a precedent has been created for this in assessment panels and tribunals set up under the National Insurance Act, and the precedent which is observed in these cases is that the person involved shall not take part in an assessment in which he or she is personally interested?

The point which I was making was that it is wiser that a person who is to appear before a panel should not be a member of it. On the whole, we think that these two positions should be kept separate. One could appear before somebody else's panel in another town, but not in one's own town.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will initiate investigations into the cost of maintenance and repair of dwellings built by industrialised methods compared to the cost in regard to traditional type dwellings; and if he will advise local authorities embarking on large schemes of housing by industrialised methods of the findings.

Appraisal certificates for individual systems issued by the National Building Agency include assessments of likely maintenance costs compared with traditional construction. These are available to local authorities.

Would my hon. Friend agree that this is a very important matter when local authorities are embarking on very large building schemes of this kind?

I entirely agree. As we get more experience of industrialised building methods, we shall be able to estimate far more accurately how much is involved in maintenance costs.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date the Kingston-upon-Thames Town Centre Redevelopment Plan was submitted to his predecessor; and when he expects to come to a decision on it.

The scheme was submitted on 8th May, 1963. My right hon. Friend's proposed modifications were published on 15th July, 1966, and how soon he can come to a decision depends on whether he receives any objections to those modifications.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware—I am sure that he is—that the considerable period of time which has elapsed is causing uncertainty and loss? Can he do what he can to expedite a decision?

Yes, Sir. I promise to do that. I expressed some concern to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency last week. This is a massive development, including a bridge across the Thames. There were 228 objections to the scheme at the public inquiry. The time factor has bothered us, but we will do what we can to assist.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will grant loan sanction for the provision of slipper baths at the new Fulwell Cross Swimming Pool, Ilford, in the borough of Redbridge.

My right hon. Friend has told the council that loan sanction for this scheme will be issued as soon as it is in a position to make a formal application for the precise amount required.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the promise was originally given that loan sanction would be forthcoming but that when it was applied for the borough was told that it could not have it? Then, very shortly after this Question was put down, the Ministry changed its mind. Will the hon. Gentleman see in future that it is registered in his Department that this borough is not to be pushed around?

There was a hold-up when there was a restriction on loan sanctions, but it was one of the first to be approved when the list was opened again.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why the amenity area of Blackheath, S.E.3, was not included in the list of those towns and cities which are to be the subjects of pilot studies, with a view to resolving the best way of combining preservation of existing amenities and architecture with future development.

The five towns that have been chosen are in my view more suitable for this purpose than Blackheath.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the towns selected are very similar to each other, being rather small semi-rural districts? Is he aware that not one of them is an amenity area within a large urban conurbation? Would not the studies be strengthened by the addition of such an area?

I think that the great city of York would be rather upset by my hon. Friend's description of it. I selected these towns carefully, grading them down in size from York to King's Lynn and Chichester. I do not think that Blackheath would be suitable, since only one row of houses on the edge of the heath could possibly be classified as worthy of consideration.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now recommend the appointment to the Royal Commission on Local Government in England of a member particularly familiar with the views of rural district councils.

The Royal Commission as constituted is, I believe, well fitted for its task. I do not think further appointments are necessary or desirable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Reply will give acute disappointment to all rural district councils, including those of Meriden and Atherstone in my constituency? Is this ommission by accident or design? How far does he feel that acceptance of the Commission's findings will be affected by this omission, which has caused a good deal of puzzlement and concern?

I think my hon. Friend misunderstands the way in which Royal Commissions are selected. They are not bodies on which representatives of all the associations concerned sit; otherwise we would not get independent reports. No representatives of any association are on the Commission, although some members of the Commission are also members of various associations. I am convinced that those I have selected are independent. Five out of the 12 live in the country and have worked there, so they know the work of the rural areas extremely well.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for reform waned since 1st April? When can we expect the report of the Royal Commission?

There is no waning of my enthusiasm. We have done our job in setting up the Commission. It is at work now, and I hope to get its report, as I said in April, in the winter in 1968.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when his attention was first officially drawn to the fact that the prospective rent officer for Lowestoft was standing as a party political candidate in the local municipal election; and who drew his attention to this fact.

The Secretary of the Pakefield Ward Labour Party wrote on 13th April drawing my attention to this fact.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that before standing as a local candidate this man sought the advice of the county council, which told him to go ahead, and that for the Minister to intervene in this sort of local affair is much below what ought to be the dignity of his office?

I am not aware of that. What happened was that the clerk allowed him at first. The matter was then referred to me and I drew the attention of the clerk to the undesirability of this happening. I suggest that that undesirability was best expressed in the words of the right hon. Member for Kingston -upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who in Committee remarked that it would plainly be an unhappy state of affairs if one of these rent officers ever engaged in political activities for any party in his area

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to improve methods of sewage disposal by authorising the extension of plant at the Cheadle Heath Sewage Works, Stockport; what proposals he has made in consultations with the county borough of Stockport; what reply he has given to representations made by interested local organisations and residents, submitted to him by the hon. Member for Stockport, North; and if he will make a statement.

It is for Stockport to take steps to improve their sewage disposal, and I believe they are doing so. My right hon. Friend is keeping in close touch with them. His advice to them has been that they should recruit extra technical staff, the lack of which has been the chief obstacle to progress. The reply he has sent to the local organisations has been on these same lines.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is still a matter of great concern to many of my constituents? The sewage plant in question is now totally inadequate to serve the needs of the town and gives obnoxious smells to a very large residential area in the town. Can he say what he can possibly do to help the local authority to overcome this very difficult problem?

The matter is now in the hands of the local authority to get on with the job.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to provide for compensation to owners of land which, whilst it has not been actually designated for compulsory purchase is suffering from planning blight.

No, Sir. Existing legislation enables an owner-occupier of blighted land to require its purchase by a public authority in certain other cases as well as when it is designated for compulsory purchase, and it would be unwise to confer the right of compensation rather than the right to require purchase.

Is it not clear that these legislative provisions are quite insufficient and that great hardship is caused particularly to the elderly and small home owners" If the hon. Gentleman will not introduce legislation, what other remedy does he suggest?

Any land use planning is bound to have some blight effect, but in cases where that can be defined the matter can be dealt with by purchase notices.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many householders in this position are unable to move house when they change jobs? Will he give loan sanction to local authorities when house owners ask local authorities to purchase their houses?

That goes rather beyond this Question.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give an estimate of the total value of land and buildings within Great Britain now suffering in one way or another from planning blight.

No such estimate can be given, because there is no way of knowing whether or not a property is suffering from planning blight until the owner actually tries to sell it and finds that he cannot do so except at a price substantially lower than it would otherwise have been.

If the hon. Gentleman's Ministry cannot give an estimate, will he accept my estimate? Is it not tens of millions of £s per year, and is not this causing continuing hardship?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will seek power to ascertain how many county borough and urban councils are now operating closed shop policies in one or more of their departments and if he will publish the details;

There is a well established tradition that local authorities should be left to manage their staff employment matters without interference from me, and I am not inclined to break it by instituting the kind of inquiry the hon. Member suggests. I would remind him, however, that the operation of closed shop policies by employers generally, including local authorities, comes within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to say what information he has about the operation of closed shop policies in local government? Is it right that trade union members who are also councillors should sit on a committee and decide whether an individual should get the sack? Is it also right that the decision of such a committee should result in an individual having without justification to hand back payments to a benevolent society as an alternative to a union subscription? I have handed the Minister full details of the situation in Sheffield.

Having said that I will not interfere, I shall not do so by commenting on the hon. Gentleman's question. In my view, trade unionists have an equal right with employers to sit on a committee, and I shall not discourage them from doing so. As for what happened in Sheffield, I know all the details and I have decided that it would not be proper for me to interfere.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will issue a circular to local planning authorities recommending them not to make the granting of planning permission conditional upon the payment of a sum of money by the applicant towards a municipal car park; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Planning Bulletin No. 7 on Parking, issued to all planning authorities in 1965, stressed the well-known general principle that no payment of money, or other consideration, can be required as a condition of granting planning permission.

Is the Minister not aware that this happens and that some county councils grant planning permission only on condition of payment of sums of about £1,000 for car parking? Is this not absolute extortion? Would he look at this again and make those county councils which have demanded this extortionate blackmail hand back their ill-gotten gains?

If the hon. Member will send me information of any cases about which he knows, I will certainly look into this.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of the sum that will be payable by the local authorities in Selective Employment Tax in the first six months following the date when this tax becomes payable.

For local authorities in England, about £42 million.

Would the Minister not agree that this is a very large amount of money? Will he please assure this House that no important local authority schemes are going to be held up because money that had been made available for them will have to be used to pay the S.E.T.?

Yes, I can give that assurance. The refunds will be made in the month following.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of the loan charges to local authorites to meet the cost of Selective Employment Tax where this cannot be done out of their revenue.

There are many unknown factors, but for England the figure is likely to be between £250,000 and £500,000.

Will the Minister not agree that because of the machinery of the tax the Government are likely to fall into arrears in reimbursing the local authorities and, bearing in mind the present interest rates, will not local authorities be forced to put up their rates? How does he equate this with the Labour Party's election promise to ease the burden of rates?

They have done it.

The hon. Lady will be aware that an attempt has been made by this Government to ensure that relief is given on rates to those who are in the greatest need.

Bearing in mind the Chancellor's assurances about fixed price contracts, will he confirm or deny that Government recommendations have been made for public and local authorities to increase the price of contracts by only 1 per cent. when the actual cost of S.E.T. may be 2½ per cent. to 4½ per cent., due to Government action?

The hon. Gentleman will know that such a Question cannot be answered in this Question, which deals purely with loan charges.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what were the average rate payments for a domestic hereditament in England and Wales in 1951–52, 1956–57, 1961–62, 1964–65, and 1966–67.

I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the figures confirm my impression that there was a flat increase of approximately 5½ per cent. per year under the Tory Government and approximately 14 per cent. a year under the Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman would do well to study the figures.

At any rate, will the Minister correct the false impression of his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich. West (Mr. Hamling), who intervened on an earlier Question to say that there had been relief for ratepayers as a result of Government policies? Will he agree that next year the ratepayer will receive the largest bill in his life?

The ratepayer will receive the best services and the largest grants.

Irvine asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he has taken no action to protect the interests of shareholders in the distribution of assets of water companies where the distributions are contrary to the conditions of sale of the respective stocks, to the decisions of the High Court and to Section 302 of the Companies Act, 1948.

No such action is called for. I am not aware of any instances in which assets have been distributed otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the shareholders.

Would the hon. Gentleman look at this matter, because he must he aware of the correspondence which I have placed before him in recent months? Is he not further aware that I have in my hand the prospectuses for two water companies, in both of which the distribution has taken place contrary to the original prospectus? Has he not read the two opinion of distinguished counsel which say that there are very real reasons for assuming that they have acted contrary to the conditions, and is it not time for him to look at this again?

When my right hon. Friend makes a compulsory order he inserts no conditions about compensation in it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation so that in a case of compulsory purchase full compensation be paid in an assessment by independent assessors, irrespective of whether the property is owner-occupied or not.

Existing legislation already provides for full compensation to be paid when property is compulsorily acquired, whether or not it is owner-occupied. Any disputes about compensation are settled by the Lands Tribunal which is entirely independent of the parties.

Would the Minister accept that members of the public complain because owner-occupied property is sometimes unfairly treated and that the district valuer's assessment would be aided if he had the help of independent assessors to give him the local conditions?

I am not convinced that we ought to change the present system. In any case the value of the owner-occupier's freehold will obviously be greater than if it is subject to a tenancy for which compensation is paid to the tenant.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in the 17 years of its existence the Lands Tribunal has built up a very high reputation for the way in which it discharges its difficult jurisdiction?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when work will begin on the West Shropshire Water Board's scheme to provide water to Vennington, Shropshire.

This is now a matter for the board. It says that contract documents will be completed shortly and that the work is expected to begin within the next two months.

Would the hon. Gentleman make sure that no further delay occurs? He will be aware that this matter has been both urgent and pending for about two years and that as yet nothing has started.

I know the hon. Gentleman's concern about it, but it is now well within the board's competence to get on with the matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the shortage of day nursery accommodation he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to empower local authorities to grant mortgages on properties being acquired for this purpose.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter, because there is a real need for something to do done about it? Will he look at a constituency case the details of which

Of course, I will do that. But we have had no representations from the Minister of Health and one would have thought that such an inquiry would have come from his Department.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now give his decision on the proposed Meldon Dam at Okehampton.

I have decided to allow the North Devon Water Board to carry out this scheme subject to certain modifications. The letter conveying my decision was sent yesterday.

While thanking the Minister for this decision, which I am sure will be very welcome in that part of the world, may I ask him whether he will give every help and facility to the North Devon Water Board to get on with the task of supplying water in this area?

Yes. I am aware that the delay in making a decision was unduly long and we will certainly give all the help we can to implement it as fast as possible.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many representations, and from whom, he has had about planning for the proposed Meldon Dam at Okehampton.

There were 26 objectors to the planning application for the Meldon scheme. I will let the hon. Member have a list of them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek powers to control Press advertising by local authorities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, with a view to limiting the expenditure of local authorities on Press advertising, he will introduce legislation to curb Press advertisements relating to intended projects.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation enabling him to control the expenditure of local authorities on Press advertising in respect of new projects.

Local authorities have varied powers and duties to advertise new and intended projects which are contained both in general and local legislation. If an hon. Member knows of any particular abuse perhaps he would let me have details.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that thousands of £s are being spent on advertising the Portbury scheme at a time when the scheme awaits the final decision of the Minister of Transport?

I am aware of that fact. I suggest to my hon. Friend that if Newport had run an advertising campaign relating to a similar problem he would have given it his warm support.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consult with the United States Government with a view to organising Anglo-American productivity teams similar to those organised by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, to ascertain why the United States industrial worker's production two to three times greater than that of the British worker, to ascertain where the fault lies and to make recommendations to remedy this; and if he will make a statement.

Work of this kind is already in hand or in prospect, mainly through the Economic Development Committees. In these circumstances I do not think there would be any advantage in a new approach to the United States Government.

Since our economic troubles are mainly due to a small minority of employers who will not adopt the most modern methods of production, and the backwoodsmen of the trade union movement whose mule-like obstinacy will not allow them to be used, as in the case of the liner trains, what steps will the Prime Minister take to solve this problem?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the importance of productivity. The Anglo-American productivity teams after the war did a very good job. But the kind of problems which the hon. Gentleman describes could not be solved by setting up Anglo-American productivity teams.

How can any free enterprise economy be made to work efficiently and production increased by all classes under a Government who do not believe in the profit motive?

That raises some very wide questions which might be more suitable for debate than trying to cross swords, or rapiers, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman across the Floor of the House.

Would the Prime Minister agree that there is no great mystery about why productivity is higher in America? Incentives are greater and restrictive practices are fewer, and every worker has far more capital at his disposal. While the right hon. Gentleman is drawing up the measures for tomorrow, he might bear these points in mind and bring our economy more in line with the American economy in these respects.

I did not think that that was a question, but I will certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, on 27th June, concerning the nationalisation of the docks, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister give a categorical repudiation of this mischievous and improper statement of the First Secretary, and will he achieve a double by repudiating at the same time the confiscatory plan for the nationalisation of steel which has done so much to undermine investment confidence in Britain abroad?

My answer to the Question was "Yes, Sir" and not "No, Sir". That is what I said the first time, and that is what I am saying now. Proposals about the future of the docks have been very carefully considered. This matter was put before the country in the General Election, but we made it plain then that we were not proposing to legislate in this Session on this problem because the most urgent thing on which the House has been asked to legislate is the fulfilment of the Devlin Report, which did not deal with wider questions of ownership of the industry.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress of the talks on Rhodesia.

I have as yet nothing to add to the statement I made in the House on 5th July.

In the circumstances, does not the Prime Minister think that two weeks is adequate time for reflection? When will these talks start again? Secondly, can he confirm what I understand to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government, that in no circumstances whatever will the Rhodesian problem be handed over to either the United Nations or any other international or foreign power or body?

Both sides, I think, need time for reflection in the light of the detailed discussions that have been held so far. As to future policy, I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 5th July. I have, however, made clear time and time again—and this is the purpose of the discussions—that we believe that this is a problem that, if we can, we ourselves should settle direct with the Rhodesian people as a whole. That is what we are seeking to do by the talks.

Will the Prime Minister undertake to make a further statement in time to enable the House to debate it, if necessary, before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Yes, I have given that assurance to the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, I cannot give any pledge about finding time, but what I understood that the right hon. Gentle- man wanted was that it should be early enough so that if time is to be found, by the Opposition or in any other way, there should be time for debate.

asked the Prime Minister how far it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as set forth in the White Paper on the economic situation of 26th October, 1964, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th November, 1964, that in order to pay for its economic and social policies defence expenditure must be cut below the then current (1964) level of £2,000 million a year, even on the assumption of a regular 4 per cent. per year rate of growth of the gross national product.

My hon. Friend appears to have misunderstood the statements to which he refers. Our policy is, and has been, to keep defence expenditure by 1969–70 within a level of £2,000 million a year at 1964 prices.

As the increase in the gross national product has barely topped 2 per cent., is it not now necessary to go far below £2,000 million a year at 1964 prices to meet the present crisis? Will the Prime Minister rest assured that he will have massive support on this side of the House and in the country for really drastic cuts in defence expenditure?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend's deep concern in this question is as much with the growth rate as with the defence expenditure. On all these matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend, I ask him to await the statement which I hope to make tomorrow.

Do I understand from the Prime Minister's first reply that he confirms that there is no intention to reduce defence expenditure below the budgeted figure of £2,000 million, as at 1964 prices, in 1969–70?

I said that our policy is, and has been, to keep defence expenditure within a level of £2,000 million a year at 1964 prices, not to increase it by £300 million or £400 million a year, which is the right hon. Gentleman's policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if this expenditure is not reduced and, at the same time, there are proposals for massive deflation leading to unemployment, this will meet with very great opposition on this side of the House?

I can only note what my hon. Friend says without accepting any of the implications of his question.

Will the Prime Minister make it quite clear whether the figure of £2,000 million for 1969–70 is a budgetary figure, an intended figure of expenditure or a ceiling below which the Government intend to fall?

This was explained in the defence debate. It is set out in the defence review that we intend to bring it down ,to £2,000 million, which is a formidable undertaking in view of the rate of escalation that was going on before. Of course, if we find effective savings without weakening our defence posture, we would reduce it still further.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the United States Government's policy, expressed by President Johnson, not to allow a neutral Vietnam, he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the people of South Vietnam should be enabled to elect a government of their free choice.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 30th June to Questions by my hon, Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner).

Notwithstanding that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side welcome him back from Moscow most warmly and are appreciative of his endeavours to strive for a new Anglo-Soviet initiative on Vietnam? Is he further aware that we can succeed in arriving at a new Anglo-Soviet initiative only by completely dissociating ourselves from American policy in North Vietnam? Is he further aware—

Order. That is enough to answer.

I have said a number of times, and I think that this is the right answer to give, that the negotiations that all of us would like to see with a view to ending the war in Vietnam provide the right forum for settling the future of Vietnam in accordance with the wishes of the people of Vietnam.

With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, this has been fully debated in the House on past occasions. I should, perhaps, tell him that although I saw large Soviet crowds and, indeed, got some friendly waves and cheers, I did not see any placards about peace in Vietnam while I was there.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether he was able to discuss with the Soviet leaders the de-escalation of the war in Vietnam and proposals for reducing the military operations by the United States and others in Vietnam? Will he make representations to the United States Government when he goes there that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that these operations should be reduced to enable peace initiatives to be taken by people in Moscow, Peking, Hanoi, this country and elsewhere?

If I receive permission at the end of Questions, I hope to answer some Questions on the Order Paper about my visit to Moscow. It is certainly the fact that while I was there I had lengthy discussions with Mr. Kosygin about all matters affecting Vietnam. With regard to the suggestion that there should be a reduction, or, indeed, an ending, of the bombing, on the one hand, and infiltration, on the other hand. this has always been the policy both of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and Her Majesty's Government.

Has the Prime Minister had any official information from President Johnson that his policy is not to allow a neutral Vietnam? That is not the position as I understand it.

No. When I answered the Question before, I said that I had certainly not had any suggestion from President Johnson that that was his policy. On the past occasion I described what I understood to be his policy. What I said on that occasion is correct.