asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps, in advance of the publication of the Maud Report, to reorganise local government into larger units so that housing construction may be more economically organised.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend could not contemplate two general reorganisations of local government within a few years of each other.

But is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities, with the best will in the world, find themselves unable to press ahead with their housing programmes, especially when they want to use industrialised building systems and long runs are absolutely essential for this? Would he look at this again with a view to setting up large regional housing corporations?

My hon. Friend is well known for her efforts, particularly on industrialised building systems. I think that she is aware that the Government have done a great deal in bringing about consortia of local authorities. There is a vast number of them. I shall send her a detailed list. I think that she will be very impressed with what has been done already.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what effects the Rate Support Grant Order will have on rates in the financial year 1967–68; and if he will take steps to prevent rate increases during this period by providing a Government rate subsidy.

The rate support grant fixed by the Order is estimated to provide £40 million more in aid of rates in 1967–68 than would have been paid under the former system. Twenty-three million pounds of the extra grant for 1967–68 will secure for domestic ratepayers a reduction of 5d. in the rate which they would otherwise pay. The Government have already provided a subsidy and I do not have it in mind to propose any additional subsidy.

Would my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in the main, rates will increase in the period 1967–68? Does not he think that this is highly undesirable in a period of prices and incomes standstill or restraint? Would he undertake to consider the possibility of giving a subsidy of this type to local authorities to enable them to expand services without increasing rates?

We are increasing subsidies on houses. The rate support grant gave an additional subsidy. I see no reason at the moment to change the legislation.

While we do not want a subsidy, will the Minister recognise the need of seaside areas with a growing retired population and little industry? What the Minister said to me the last time he answered Questions was not true —that the Government grant considerably covers the local rate; it does not, especially when the county rate is taken into consideration.

We discussed this when the Bill was before the House, in answer to an earlier Question before Christmas. I have nothing to add to what was said on that occasion.

Would the Minister agree that next year the average ratepayer will get the largest rate bill of his life? Will he say when the Government will give effect to their pledge to give early relief to ratepayers?

We have already given help to ratepayers. If there is an increase it will be less than would have been the case if we had not put on the Statute Book the Local Government Bill. It is much too early for the right hon. Gentleman to come to these conclusions. The full figures are not available, but he will have noticed already that five counties have decided not to increase their precept this year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many caravan sites there are in southwest Essex and in the north-eastern quarter of Greater London; whether they are all full; and what steps he is taking to help local authorities get rid of caravans permanently parked on the grass verges of trunk roads in Redbridge.

The Department has no record of private sites. One London borough council in this area has established a residential caravan site, and I understand that it is full. We have asked local authorities to provide sites and in the case of London boroughs reports are expected by 1st March.

Would the hon. Gentleman try to do something to see that the boroughs act in this case? I am afraid it may be a case of each one thinking that it is the other one's business. This is really a case where his Department might bring its influence to bear.

That is precisely the point of the circular, to enable us to see which local authorities need encouragement to do more.

Would the Minister give the House an assurance that this survey is affecting all local authorities which have caravan problems within, say, a 50-mile radius of London?

The survey is covering all local authorities who are involved in the problem.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what decision is being reached on the building of the Dartford flood barrier to protect the London area from possible North Sea surges and flooding, in view of the very small margin of safety now available against surges coincident with a high spring tide.

A decision will be made as soon as possible.

Would the Minister really go into this matter urgently, because London is at risk in case there is a flood, and tens of thousands of acres in the London area could be flooded in the surge? This matter has been hanging about for a year or two. Cannot the Government come to a decision?

It is the very gravity of the problem and the importance of getting the right solution that make it necessary to examine very carefully the various alternatives that are still being canvassed.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has most recently taken to encourage local authorities in the black areas to bring their areas under smoke control.

The Department wrote last year to a number of authorities which had made little progress. Of these, 22 have submitted smoke control Orders since, and a further seven have been amalgamated with authorities carrying out smoke control programmes. The Department has pursued the matter with the others, and some are expected to submit Orders shortly.

Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that the Clean Air Act is having any effect whatsoever in making the air in London less filthy?

London has a very good record in this matter. Last year we published a list of those authorities which were not complying with the request. In fact, we showed up those authorities for being black. It had a remarkable effect.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what returns have so far been received by his Department in reply to Circular 50/66 on town centre renewal; and if he will make a statement.

At 31st January, 255 local authorities had submitted proposals relating to 432 town centre redevelopment schemes. 89 are known to be on the point of submitting returns involving a further 166 schemes.

May I assure my hon. Friend that considerable urgency is attached to this matter? Can he assure me that his Department will take very quick action as soon as the inquiry is completed?

As I have said, the urgency is being met by the existing commitment, which will keep us occupied. I quite agree, however, that we want to get a decision on this matter as soon as we can.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he will consult with local authorities with a view to ensuring that low-income families applying for the benefit of provisions administered by various Departments are not required to submit to more than one inquiry into means;

Of the services for which my right hon. Friend is directly responsible, rate rebates are already on a uniform basis; the qualifications are laid down in the Act. In the case of rent rebates for council houses, local authorities have deliberately been given a discretion so that they can take account of local circumstances.

Is my hon. Friend aware that from area to area and from service to service, some families are submitting to as many as 10 separate means tests and that one research worker has found 56 different definitions of the word "income"? Is it beyond the wit of man to devise some sort of order?

It may not be beyond the wit of man, but other benefits are payable by other Government Departments. In the case of my own Department, I have already given the information that there is uniformity, but there are a number of other benefits which are given to small-income families—for example, school meals, university awards and home helps. To a large extent, this is a matter for local authority initiative.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his policy so far as planning is concerned for the reception of North Sea gas.

I am very concerned about the amenity and other planning considerations involved in the reception of North Sea gas and I shall balance them against the need to bring the gas ashore cheaply and efficiently.

The question of cheapness does not come into the question of where the supplies are brought ashore. Does not the Minister consider it necessary to keep the reception arrangements away from the coastline, which could easily be done? Will he not come clean on this matter and make a decision soon so that arrangements for the reception of the gas can be made at places where the least possible damage is done to amenity?

I have said that I am very concerned about the amenity aspects of this matter, but I must be careful not to prejudge the issue which will be raised at the public inquiry which is starting at Bacton, on the Norfolk coast, in the very near future. I am well aware of the points that the hon. Member has made.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the average sum paid in rates by a domestic ratepayer in 1951–52, in 1964–65 and in 1966–67; and what was the annual average percentage increase at compound interest between 1951–52 and 1964–65, and between 1964–65 and 1966–67.

The average sum paid by a domestic ratepayer was £16 8s. 0d. in 1951–52, £25 5s. 10d. in 1961–62, £32 8s. 5d. in 1964–65 and £39 5s. 10d. in 1966–67, allowing for rate rebates. The average annual increase was 4·3 per cent. between 1951–52 and 1961–62, 8·7 per cent. between 1961–62 and 1964–65 and 11·3 per cent. between 1964–65 and 1966–67.

If this is the Minister's idea of bringing early relief to ratepayers, will the Parliamentary Secretary persuade him to do the opposite?

The hon. Member might like to know that the biggest single increase in any one year was in 1957, under a Conservative Government, when it was 15 per cent. The current year's increase is proportionately less than for last year, which seems to indicate that we are moving in the right direction.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we took steps to reduce the figure after 1957–58? What are the Government doing to deal with the present situation?

We have taken steps to relieve the ratepayer and my right hon. Friend has made it clear in the Rate Support Grant Report that he wishes local authorities to practice all economy on the public sector.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the likely average increase in rate poundage in England and Wales in 1967–68.

My right hon. Friend can make no estimate of the likely average rate poundage for 1967–68, which will depend on decisions taken by local authorities in the coming weeks.

In view of the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to Question No. 16, if that is a fact, is it not quite possible, and indeed probable, that since the Labour Government came into power the average rise in rates in poundage has been 3s.?

I think we must wait to see the final decisions of the local authorities before we jump to a conclusion.

Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that already the average rise has been 2s. in the £ since the Labour Party came to office? What are they going to do about that?

We have seen a tremendous improvement in local services since the Labour Government came into power and, as my right hon. Friend said, we are anxious to keep up the standards within the limits the country can afford, but that must be under control.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Liverpool has been able to announce it can hold the rate poundage this year solely because of the subsidy being supplied by the Government?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government upon what criteria he fixed the domestic element of the rate support grant for 1967–68; and whether he will make a statement.

The domestic element for 1967–68, amounting to £23 million, represents the estimated product of a rate of 5d. in the pound on domestic here-ditaments in England and Wales. A rate of 5d. in the pound, as explained in the White Paper on Local Government Finance published last year, is equivalent to nearly half the average increase in rates since the revaluation which came into effect on 1st April, 1963.

Is the Minister aware that the effect of the Government's policies is that the rise in rates will more than cancel out the relief which they have given in legislation so far? Is he aware of the rising anger, certainly in my constituency, about the increase in rates? What is he going to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman has some very odd people in his constituency. All that I can say is that, from all the evidence that I have received, there is very great satisfaction with the working of the domestic element among all constituencies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the fact that the Government have reversed the policy of previous Conservative Administrations and are now shifting the burden from the ratepaper to the taxpayer is likely to result in my return in Harrow with an advanced majority and in the political extinction of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant)?

Could the hon. Gentle. man say how far the 5d. which the Government are giving towards rate support will go to pay for the 159,000 or so extra employees in local government which there have been since 1964?

That is another question.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the objections of the East Sussex County Council and the Lewes Borough Council to the joint proposal of the Railways Board and the National Coal Board to establish a large coal concentration depôt in Lewes, he will give an assurance that he will only grant planning permission if both authorities agree or after there has been a public inquiry.

The Railways Board are statutory undertakers and could probably carry out this development on railway land without specific planning permission. I am informed, however that the Board have not finally decided on this particular site and are considering the possibilities of an alternative.

While not questioning the need for a coal concentration depôt in the general neighbourhood, or even that Lewes might make sense geographically, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there are so many serious snags attaching to this proposal, which is hotly opposed by all the local authorities concerned, that the only thing to say is, "Please think again"?

That is precisely what, I think, the Railways Board are doing. They have not taken a final decision and I understand that they are continuing their discussions with the local authorities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has now received from all local authorities the replies requested within six months by his June circular on the provision of camp sites for gypsies; and if he will now make a statement about legislation to ensure that the sites are used when provided.

Not all the replies have been received. We are pressing the others to complete their investigations in order that my right hon. Friend can judge what further action is needed.

Does my hon. Friend really intend that my constituency, where the problem is vitally urgent, has to wait until every leisurely local authority has replied before the Minister can act?

No, but we have to wait, as I said in a previous Answer, until all the other neighbouring authorities which are involved in the problem have explained what they will do.

Will the Minister confirm that when his circular was issued in June last year, replies were requested from local authorities by the middle of December, 1966? Why has he now granted them an extension of time until 1st March, 1967? Is not this another example of the delaying action which local authorities always exercise over any attempt to deal with this problem?

1st March was the date for the London boroughs, which were not covered by the circular. The date for the circular remains the end of December and we are taking steps to get replies from the authorities which have not yet furnished them.

Is the Minister aware of the handicap that this policy imposes upon counties such as Kent which are trying to reach a sensible solution but find it impossible unless other counties coordinate their arrangements?

It is because the difficulty which faces counties like Kent makes it necessary to get the other authorities to participate that my right hon. Friend is taking steps by means of the circular to do just that.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date the reorganisation of the valuation panels in the London area will take effect.

1st April, 1967.

Is the Minister aware that these panels are appointed on a party proportional basis, and in these circumstances would it not be fairer to postpone the date till after the next G.L.C. elections, when there will be considerable changes in the political complexion?

Without attempting any anticipation of what may happen and what larger Labour majorities may increase the proportions, I think most people want these panels to get started with their very important work, and we have been pressed to speed up the appointments.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will institute discussions with the local authority associations, the Association of Education Committees and other interested bodies to examine the feasibility of transferring the larger part of the rate-borne expenditure on teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer.

No, Sir. Any major reform of local government finance must await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England.

Is the Minister not aware that the rate-borne expenditure for teachers' salaries for the year 1965–66 amounted to £230 million, for which the Local Government Act 1966, did absolutely nothing? Does he not regard the Answer that he has just given as a betrayal of the Labour Party's promise in its 1964 manifesto to transfer the greater part of this burden to the Exchequer? Furthermore—

Order. I think that that is long enough for the hon. Gentleman to answer.

The Local Government Act pays an increasing proportion of educational expenditure each year. In addition, the new formula of education units provides more sensitive assistance to education.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that is an entirely cynical and irresponsible reply? Does he not recognise that the whole basis of the Labour Party's pledge to give early relief to ratepayers was that the greater part of the rate-borne cost of teachers' salaries would be transferred to the Exchequer? Why do not the Government do that?

I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rebuke with respect, coming as it does from a master of what is irresponsible.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to publicise the work of the Agrément Board among local authorities.

A circular was issued to local authorities yesterday. I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

I thank my hon. Friend for beating my Question by one day. Is he aware that the work of the Agrément Board is somewhat retarded because of the lack of an insurance system similar to the one which the French are using? Would he consider again whether it is possible to introduce it?

I take my hon. Friend's advice. Incidentally, she will be glad to know that the first certificate was issued by the Board on 17th January.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he plans to take about those owners and agents who offer leases over 21 years to tenants in order to avoid the Rent Act, 1965, regulations.

I have given publicity to the need for prospective tenants to take expert, independent advice before signing leases of more than 21 years; and, as my hon. Friend said in answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 20th January, provision to bring long leases of dwellings at full market rents within the Rent Act, 1965, will be included in the forthcoming Bill on leasehold reform.

While I am grateful for that Answer—I am sure that all my hon. Friends are grateful for it—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a number of bright boys in the property world are exploiting the loophole in the Rent Act, 1965? Would he ensure that there is the maximum amount of publicity in order to warn off these property sharks?

I am well aware of that, and I have already taken steps through the issue of Press notices and guidance to local authorities and citizens advice bureaux. We hope that any existing loophole will be filled by the forthcoming legislation.

Is there any justification for depriving a tenant of the security of a 21-year lease and the right to sell something—because he has a property right—and perhaps the right to enfranchise if the Government's legisla- tion is introduced? Is there any justification for depriving the tenant of all that?

The hon. Gentleman must await the Bill to see how wrong he is.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now completed his review of the conditions governing general consent for the sale of council houses; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the modifications he proposes to make to the conditions of general consent for the sale of council houses outlined in Circular 5/60.

I hope to issue fresh guidance shortly to local authorities as to the considerations which they should bear in mind in deciding whether or not to sell. In general, however, I think that local authorities ought not to sell their houses where there is still an unsatisfied demand for houses to let at moderate rents and where they intend to continue a substantial programme of building houses to let.

Does not the Minister realise that an attempt to curtail the general consent which now exists will be received with great resentment by the potential owner-occupiers who are already tenants of these council houses which might be sold?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better await the circular.

Would the Minister agree that a house does not disappear from use simply because it changes ownership from a local authority to an owner-occupier, and that there is a very great desire in this country for owner-occupation?

Yes. We want to avoid houses going out of council possession which are made available for people who can pay only moderate rents. We want to encourage home ownership, but this is primarily a matter for the private sector of industry to deal with.

Will the Minister bear in mind that his statement will be welcomed by the large numbers of people on the registers whose applications will be held up if there is any considerable sale of council houses?

Will the Minister say when he expects to issue this new circular? Will he also give an undertaking that the considerations which local authorities are expected to bear in mind will include the consideration that a recent survey showed that 80 per cent. of the people of this country want to own their own house?

In reply to the first part of the question, I hope to issue this guidance very shortly. In reply to the second half of the question, that is why we are doing everything possible to encourage the private sector of industry to meet the need for home ownership.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has now prepared to accelerate the installing of baths, hot water and inside lavatories in houses lacking them, following the publication of "Our Older Houses" by his Department.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to implement the provisions of the Older Houses Order.

My right hon. Friend has asked the local authority interests concerned for their views on this report. He will make a statement after he has had an opportunity to study what they say.

Whilst welcoming that Answer, may I ask whether, in order to overcome the feet-dragging by most private landlords, the Parliamentary Secretary will consider cutting the unduly long procedure required of local authorities, and secondly, providing loans for the small landlords?

We are expecting the preliminary reactions of local authorities by the end of February. I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend's decision will be, but some will no doubt require legislation. I assure my hon. Friend that we are as keen as he is to ensure that the whole procedure should be speeded up. Many private landlords are, however, taking advantage of existing legislation, and I wish that some of these other authorities would follow this lead.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that although there have been experiments in this field and improvements over the past few years, neither side of the House thinks that we have the satisfactory solution yet? Can the Minister give any assurance as to when he will bring in new legislation in this matter, because new legislation is necessary?

I accept this, but in matters of this kind we must carry the local authorities with us. That is why this report has gone out. We are hoping for the preliminary reactions some time in February. I hope that in a very short time after that my right hon. Friend will be ready to discuss with them the sort of permanent legislation that he would like to introduce.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to make an Order bringing controlled rents into the rent regulation system.

I do not at present propose to make such an Order.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that there is either justice or equity in denying to any property owner the right to appeal to a tribunal to fix a rent which will enable him to keep his property in proper repair, and to enjoy a reasonable return on his investment?

There are difficulties on both sides. It would not be right at the moment to upset the whole machinery of the Rent Act, which in many areas has been in operation for only seven months so far.

Would my hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of tenancies which are still under rent control? The number has been diminishing rapidly in recent years.

I understand that the number is about 2 million.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm his predecessor's pledge to take this step as soon as the rent officers were able to cope with the necessary work?

I do not believe seven months is long enough to decide whether or not that is the case. I believe there are possibilities of reorganising the burden falling upon rent officers in order to make quite sure that the burden is more fairly spread than it is at the moment.

Recognising that there are certain problems connected with this matter, may I ask whether the Minister would encourage local authorities to purchase properties of this sort where the landlord is willing to sell? Would the Minister agree that where a landlord has been able to charge any sort of rent in the past as under the 1957 Rent Act, there has been great reluctance on the part of landlords and property companies to carry out repairs?

That is a different Question.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses were completed in England and Wales in the calendar year 1966; and how many he expects will be completed in the calendar year 1967.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the total number of new permanent dwellings completed in Great Britain in 1966.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the progress of Her Majesty's Government's housing programme.

385,509 houses were completed in Great Britain in 1966, of which 349,480 were in England and Wales. No specific targets have been set for 1967. I expect a further rise in public sector completions in 1967. The main need is to increase the output of houses for sale.

Is not the rate of increase for 1966 over 1965 something like three-quarters of 1 per cent.? Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke about treating housing like an operation of war? At this rate of increase, how far shall we be into the next century before the Government's target of 500,000 houses a year is achieved?

The right hon. Gentleman's capacity for gloom is unlimited. I have not done the calculations that the right hon. Gentleman has done, but the fact remains that over three-quarters of a million families have moved into new homes since the present Government took office.

As the Minister's predecessor stated in the House on 1st March last that this year the country would build 400,000 houses, will the right Gentleman please state, on his current figure, what has happened to the missing 15,000 houses?

My right hon. Friend on that occasion made a forecast, which failed because of the economic situation of the country. What happened last year was that the number of completions by public authorities went up by 11,500 and those in the private sector fell by 8,400. That is not something for which I blame the private sector of the industry. It really stemmed from the country's economic situation in July.

Is not the Minister aware that a great many Cathys who are rather anxious to come home will not be very satisfied with that reply and that a great many of them put their hope and faith in the Government to carry out an election pledge, which they have failed to do?

It may have escaped the hon. Lady's notice, but it will not have escaped the notice of many thousands of Cathys throughout the country, that last year we built a bigger number of houses than ever before in the history of the country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the party opposite, when they were in power, had shown any signs of decency and understanding to local authorities—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this because they do not like the truth—

Order. The hon. Member must not interrupt himself.

Mr. Speaker, I think that you must have been unaware of the cacophony amongst hon. Members opposite resulting from the confusion of the Conservatives. The question I am asking is, is my right hon. Friend aware that during the 13 years when the party opposite was in power that party showed no help to the local authorities which were trying to tackle the housing problem, and that if that party had been more decent in its attitude the problem of housing would not be pressing as it is now?

Yes, and I think the local authorities and the private sector are to be congratulated on having survived 13 years of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Is the Minister aware that if the Government had carried forward Conservative policies and programmes which they inherited 70,000 more families would have been in new homes by the end of last year? Will he agree that, for what it is worth, the Chancellor's statement yesterday, which he could not make in this House, proves that what we have been saying over the last year is perfectly correct about private house building?

The Chancellor's statement was made yesterday in reply to a Question in this House. It was a Written Reply and it was the logical outcome of the policy which we have been pursuing over the last two years.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the statement made by the Chancellor yesterday, and also his letters to the building societies—welcome, at least to us on this side—will go a long way towards meeting the increased demand for houses? Does he not feel it is up to the builders now to meet this demand?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, and I believe these statements, whatever dismay they struck in the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, will be a great encouragement to the industry.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek your per- mission, Mr. Speaker, to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government for what reasons the total number of completed houses in Great Britain in 1966 fell below the target announced by his predecessor on 1st March 1966.

On 1st March, 1966, my right hon. Friend the Lord President made a forecast: he did not set a target. As a result of our economic difficulties we completed 15,000 fewer houses in 1966 than the forecast, but it was still an all-time record.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously trying.—[Interruption.]

Order. We are wasting time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously drawing a distinction between a forecast and a target? What sort of double-talk is that?

It is not double-talk at all. My right hon. Friend the Lord President made the forecast. Then, later in the year, in the face of economic difficulties, it was found not possible to do that. But the fact remains that we completed during the year, for most of which my right hon. Friend was responsible for our housing programme, more houses than right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever completed in a single year.

How does the Minister square his conscience with the promise given at the election that more houses would be built for purchase, when there are far less available for private purchase now than before?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman has noticed the discussions which we have been having on this matter. I believe that they will bear fruit. I believe that we have the confidence of the industry.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, because of their practical knowledge of housing, repair and improvement questions, he will consider including at least one public health inspector in the staff of his Department.

The recent secondment of a public health inspector to the Department for a year proved most useful and my right hon. Friend will keep in mind the possibility of a similar arrangement for the future, but he is not satisfied that a full-time appointment would be justified at present.

But is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that these devoted men made more than 20,000 house visits a day, which gives them exceptional personal understanding of the problems involved, and that the Ministry of Health has two on its staff?

Oh, yes, I accept that and the local authorities have made available some 25 of their inspectors to carry out field work on a national survey of housing conditions. It will last another month. We recognise the ability and the integrity of these people. My hon. Friend asked for a permanent appointment. I will look into that. We use these people when we can.

In view of that rather disappointing reply, may I ask my hon. Friend to look at this again to see if he can use the contribution these men can make, not only at the Ministry of Health but in other Departments as well?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consultation he has had in the course of his official discussions with the National House Builders' Registration Council, concerning publication by the Council of the names of builders who are expelled from the registration scheme because of shoddy building; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has discussed this with the Council as part of the wider question of information to the public and I will inform my hon. Friend of the outcome in due course.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the secrecy about faulty builders who have been excluded from the scheme is causing widespread concern; and will he agree that if there were not secrecy there would be a demand to legislate to deal with this matter?

Yes, we understand that, and are in consultation about this, and one of the first and most important things to do in this matter is to publish the names of all builders on the Register so that, by implication, those whose names are not on will join and get on quickly.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he decided to postpone indefinitely the introduction of a Government sponsored 100 per cent. mortgage guarantee; and whether he will now reconsider his decision.

The option mortgage scheme must come first and this will add to the demand for finance for house purcase. When this need has been met, we shall decide, with knowledge of the amount of money then available, when to bring the guarantee scheme into operation.

The Minister has not told us why he postponed it. Does he not agree that the postponing of the 100 per cent. scheme will render the option scheme largely useless, because the very people who want the option scheme will not have the 100 per cent. mortgages?

I have dealt with this question on previous occasions. We have to have the money available for the building societies to meet the additional commitments into which they will enter this year. We can then proceed to the next stage of the scheme, but it would be quite wrong, I think, to anticipate the successful completion of the period between now and the end of the year.

If the Minister cannot carry out yet another promise of the Government, would he kindly consider introducing the Conservative proposal for supplementing the savings of those who have saved up for their deposits—by a grant, not by loan?

There is certainly no question here of breaking a promise. Building society funds this year will be considerably greater than last year, and I think they must have those funds to meet the demands which will be made on them. We can then go ahead with the option scheme to meet the demand, and I am quite satisfied that the demand can be met and we can bring the scheme into operation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many companies taking advantage of the present situation, and providing second mortgages at enormous interest rates? Will my right hon. Friend consider guaranteeing second mortgages so as to alleviate the problems of people buying houses?

I will look into that.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government in which year he anticipates that the total of houses completed in the private sector will rise to the level achieved in 1964.

I am discussing with the builders and the building societies what needs to be done to stimulate private housebuilding in addition to the steps announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday and it would not be useful to make a forecast at the present time.

Yes, in view of the fact that some 51,000 families who would otherwise have enjoyed new homes have been let down in the last two years by the Labour Government, if the Minister will not give a pledge, can he give at least a light promise?

Building Societies advanced a record amount last year and they expect to increase it this year, and the proposals made yesterday about building finance and bridging finance will give great help to the private sector.