asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much land is now in the ownership or under the control of the Land Commission; and what return on the capital value of the land as assessed by the Commission is now being received.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how long the Land Commission has been fully in operation; and how much land it has acquired.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much land has been supplied by the Land Commission to private builders since its inception.

The Land Commission came into operation on 6th April, 1967. Since then, it has carried out a valuable survey of land availability. It is at present negotiating for the acquisition of some 1,500 acres, 1,200 of which are for disposal to private housebuilders. None of these has yet reached completion.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take it that, while we acknowledge the work which the Land Commission is doing, we feel that it could move a little more quickly; and will he tell the House what the nature of the survey to which he referred is likely to be and to what ends it would be devoted?

The survey has been concentrated primarily on the pressure areas, and it has tended to confirm that most of the available land in these areas is already in the hands of builders. We are, therefore, proceeding to discuss with the local planning authorities, together with the Commission, a programme for the orderly release of more land for development. I hope that hon. Members will realise that it is in this sort of way that the Land Commission can make a constructive contribution to the bringing forward of land for development, and it should not be judged simply on the acreage of its acquisitions.

Does not the negligible quantity of land acquired by this large organisation underline that it is no more than a cross between a white elephant and a sacred cow?

Certainly not. It is evident that the right hon. Gentleman had prepared his supplementary question before he had heard my Answer.

Has not the Minister noted that Question No. 39 asks him to say how much land has been supplied to private builders by the Land Commission, which he has not answered? As it was supposed to be a primary purpose of the Land Commission to furnish land for development, and it has not so furnished any land throughout its first year, is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) perfectly right, and is not the Land Commission a total flop?

I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would be able to draw the inference that land could not be disposed of before it had been acquired. He should not jump to hasty conclusions. There is evidence that the Land Commission's interest in lands which previously have been held back has undoubtedly contributed to those lands being brought forward for sale to private developers.

Is the Minister aware that, since the Land Commission Act was passed, the price of land has risen faster than ever before? Will he agree that, since the passing of the Act, the cost of the land for a 3-bedroomed house has risen, according to the Financial Times, by £200.

No, Sir. Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption is quite mistaken. The rate at which land prices rose last year was rather slower than in recent years.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to introduce legislation to improve the level of compensation available to traders displaced by redevelopment schemes.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to compensate the owners of houses detrimentally affected by new developments undertaken by Her Majesty's Government for the benefit of the community.

As I said on the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill on 31st January, my right hon. Friend has received representations about compensation and these are being studied.

Was not that a particularly timid remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman on Second Reading? Would not it have been better if the matter had been dealt with in the Bill? Although the last Conservative Administration improved the compensation terms, is not there still much hardship to small traders and builders who have maintenance work and are displaced?

I thought that it was the complaint of hon. Members opposite that the present Government tried to put too much into their Bills. Compensation is a very complex matter, and the memoranda raised some very far-reaching issues. It would be wrong for us to try to bring forward legislation before being able to give proper study and thought to it.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the question of fair compensation goes much wider than purely compensation for displaced traders? Will he speed up the process whereby legislation can be brought before the House that will bring a new basis of fair compensation for dispossessed owners?

I accept that some aspects of the problem are more urgent than others, and we are naturally considering those first.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give a general direction, under Section 1(3)(b) of the Land Commission Act 1967, to the Land Commission that it should not seek to collect betterment levy twice in respect of the same piece of land.

No, Sir. Levy is not chargeable twice on the same development value, but is properly chargeable where additional development value is realised in respect of the same land.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that there is a problem of interaction between the proposed time limits of the planning permission and of betterment levy, and that there are cases of this? Could the matter be put right?

I am not aware of any situation in which levy could be charged twice on the same development value. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any such case, I shall gladly consider it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much levy has so far been collected by the Land Commission in the present financial year.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the latest figure of the amount of betterment levy assessed by the Land Commission.

Up to 15th March, 1968, £1,432,107 had been assessed and £303,054 had been collected.

Does not the amount collected amount to only £1 for every £12 that the Commission has administered in expenditure? In the circumstances, would it not be better to hand over revenue collection to the Inland Revenue and redeploy the Commission and staff into the export industry?

As I have argued with the right hon. Gentleman before in debate, I do not think that transferring the function to another Department will reduce the amount of staff that will be required in order to carry out the work. The reason for these low figures in the initial year is that, under the transition provisions, in practice virtually all stocks of land held by builders on the appointed day proved exempt from the levy.

I welcome the beginning of this attack upon the profits of land speculation. Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is any further action to be taken to speed up this matter, and whether it is causing any delay in bringing land forward for development?

It is already coming at an increasing rate, and I expect this pressure to continue as the stocks held at the appointed day are brought forward and that land is replaced by other land transactions.

In relation to the amount collected in betterment levy, would the Minister say how much the Land Commission has been able to collect in land speculation by acquiring and reselling land, when it does not have to pay betterment levy but puts the profit into its pocket?

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to an earlier Question.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on his proposals for extending rate relief.

Provision has already been made in the rate support grant arrangements for an increase in the amount of rate relief given to all householders from 5d. in the pound in 1967–68 to 10d. in the pound in 1968–69. For householders with small incomes, the draft order raising the income limits for full rebate with effect from next October will be laid soon after Easter.

Why cannot the whole rate relief on small incomes be borne centrally? Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair that the burden of those who cannot pay should be borne by those who can hardly pay, especially since devaluation?

The steps already taken in the arrangements to which I have referred—a considerable increase in support was given in an Order which I had the pleasure of moving before Christmas—go a long way to meeting that charge. The further draft Order will be of great benefit to those who are on very small incomes or have very large families.

What steps has my hon. Friend taken to compare the levels of take-up between one authority and another? In introducing the welcome change in October, will he ask the local authorities to remind applicants that this is a heavy subsidised Government service?

My right hon. Friend takes all the steps open to him to make these provisions known and the general overall effect of the central grant is to achieve a very much greater sharing of the burdens throughout the country.

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny the somewhat disturbing rumours that the Government have in mind reducing the domestic element of the rate support grant in 1968–69?

It is always dangerous to try to base positive statements on rumours, but I must say that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said is news to me.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what form the inquiry into the third London airport will take; when it will be set up, and when it is likely to start taking evidence.

Can my hon. and learned Friend give any indication when the inquiry will be ready to start taking evidence, how long it is likely to spend doing so, whether its terms of reference will include areas other than the South-East, and whether the member or members of the inquiry will include people other than aeronautical experts?

I cannot say how soon it will be ready to start. That may depend to some extent on the form that the inquiry is to take. Nor can I predict how long the inquiry will last. As to its terms of reference, it is certainly our intention that they should be wide enough to cover all the relevant factors, planning, surface transport and defence, as well as aviation matters. As to the composition of the Commission, our objective is to get a balanced and authoritative Commission, whose views would be likely to be generally accepted by the public. I am not sure whether I have covered all of the points raised. I hope so

Can the Minister say, apart from the question of where the air port should be, whether the Commission will be able to investigate the position of those people whose homes will be made uninhabitable through noise if the airport is located in their area?

Naturally the effect of noise on the amenity of the areas considered will be one of the primary matters which will have to be taken into account by the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) asked whether the inquiry would range outside the south-east area. As has been indicated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, our view is the need for a third London airport is generally accepted, but the timing of that need will be a most relevant factor in the inquiry.

Will my hon. and learned friend ensure that a census is held in the neighbourhood in respect of traffic and passengers destined for or coming from the industrial areas of Britain, some distance from London?

Yes. All the latest information that is available and collected about traffic patterns will be made available to the Commission.

Would the Minister give a categoric assurance that Stansted has not been ruled out of this inquiry?

That has been made clear from the start.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will send a circular to local authorities advising them not to discriminate politically when letting their premises for use by private individuals.

I am not aware of a need for such a circular, but if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind I should be grateful if he would write to me.

Is the Minister aware that I have been told that some local authorities have refused to let their premises to the Aldermaston marchers this year? If this is the case, is it because of their behaviour or their political views? If the latter, what are his views about that?

I am not aware that some authorities have taken this action, and I should be very glad to have details. Then I can perhaps answer the second part of the question.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date the East Riding County Council complied with his direction to them under Section 37 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, to publish a definitive map of public rights of way by 26th December, 1967.

The East Riding Council completed the preparation of its definitive map by 26th December, 1967. Notice of the preparation of the definitive map with details of the places where copies may be inspected was published on 22nd March.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but, first, would he agree that it is not altogether unconnected with the fact that I tabled a Question on this matter, and, secondly, would he urge on the county council the need to commence a review in order that outstanding issues may be determined?

The desirability of commencing the review has been brought to the notice of the authority concerned. Preparation of the map has taken a very long time, but there were objections to a very large number of paths and many hearings had to take place. This should be understood when considering the background to this matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will publish a table setting out the number of tree preservation orders confirmed by his Department in each year over the period 1962 to 1967, broken down in terms of individual counties and county boroughs.

As the Answer is in tabular form, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I very much regret that my hon. Friend is not in a position to provide me with this information. Would he agree that, if it were provided, it would show that there were still many counties and county boroughs which did not apply for tree preservation orders? What further steps will he take to bring the provisions of the Civic Amenities Act to the attention of such local authorities?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been a considerable increase in the numbers of orders. They are now running at nearly twice the number of a few years back. There was a slight drop in 1967, but I think that this was due to the fact that temporary orders under the 1967 Act now last for a much longer period. The number of orders for the first part of this year is considerably up. We are taking every opportunity to bring to the notice of some local authorities which have not exercised their powers the vital need for them to do so.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider making a tree preservation order for Grosvenor Square?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he has given to local planning authorities regarding the use of conditions attached to the grant of planning permissions; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has recently given advice to local planning authorities in a circular on the use of conditions in planning permissions. Copies of the circular—No. 5/68 dated 6th February, 1968—are available in the Library.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the circular refers to things which are legally unenforceable? How does he account for the fact that a circular is being sent out by his Department which it is necessary to correct by introducing a new Act? Is not this superseding the work of Parliament?

So far as I understood the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think that that is the case. But I should be grateful if he would draw my attention to any provisions in the circular which have the effect to which he refers, and I will discuss the matter with him.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what assistance he now offers to applicants for rehousing to achieve registration outside the area of their own local housing authority.

My right hon. Friend has asked authorities, except in Greater London, to abolish or curtail their residential qualifications for the sake of incoming workers.

That is an unsatisfactory Answer. Will my hon. Friend accept that what is required for the better rehousing of the people of this country, associated with improved mobility of labour, is a greater uniformity in housing requirements among local authorities and the establishment on a simple basis of some sort of central register?

On the general point my hon. Friend makes, I agree that this is a very important matter. My right hon. Friend is asking the Central Housing Advisory Committee to have another look at it in the light of what has happened since its previous report.

Would the Minister consider setting up a location of homes and jobs bureau, similar to the Location of Offices Bureau, because the two need to go together?

Before we consider doing that, the best thing is to get local authorities to keep down their residential qualifications to an absolute minimum. My right hon. Friend is very anxious that they should do that.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further action he is taking on the council rent increases referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to ensure that all proposed increases in the rents of local authority houses should be deferred until after the National Board for Prices and Incomes has reported on this matter.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on council rent increases, following the reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I have no statement to make at this stage on the reference to the Board, but my hon. Friends will be aware of the Government's intention to introduce legislation to enable Ministers to direct local authorities to moderate or phase increases which the Government regard as unduly high in present circumstances.

Do I understand from that reply that the very substantial G.L.C. rent increases will not now be allowed regardless of what the Prices and Incomes Board has said? Does my right hon. Friend agree that to allow such increases to be implemented would be wrong and highly provocative at a time of income restraint?

The increases are among those which have been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. It would be quite improper for me to comment on any individual increases at this stage.

Will my right hon. Friend adopt one effective measure to keep rents down, that is, to stop councils from removing the existing subsidy from the rates which, unfortunately, many councils which have recently come under Conservative control, such as the G.L.C., are now doing?

That is a matter within the jurisdiction of every local authority, but it is certainly one of the factors responsible for increasing rents more severely than would otherwise have been necessary, and I appreciate my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Minister aware that any interference with the statutory responsibilities of local authorities will be bitterly opposed? Will he explain how he reconciles proposals to control local authority rents with the exhortation he delivered to local authorities on 15th December, asking them to keep rate increases to the minimum?

Any interference with the rights of local authorities must be a matter for regret, but, I am absolutely certain, more than justified, in the present exceptional circumstances. I have had discussions with local authority associations and I shall continue to have them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in assuming that this action must mean an increase in rates. It may well mean a contribution from the rate subsidy in some cases, but every case will have to be judged on its merits. There are other ways of meeting increases. Local authorities may well have reserves or be able to make the kind of economies the right hon. and learned Gentleman is always urging on them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to receive the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on council house rents.

I expect to receive the report before the end of April.

Is it the intention to formulate the legislation before or after receiving the report?

The legislation affecting rents will be included in the prices and incomes legislation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has in contemplation. But I very much hope that the information from the Board will be available to us in drafting the legislation or at any rate in deciding how we shall use the powers the legislation gives us.

When does my right hon. Friend hope that we shall have a report from the Board on the rent increases made by the County Borough of Yarmouth which he referred to the Board?

That was one of over 20 authorities referred to the Board at the same time as being a cross-section of local authorities throughout the country. The period of reference to the Board has been extended by six weeks at the Board's request, and I now hope that the report will be completed by 22nd April.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he proposes to introduce legislation requiring councils to notify him of proposed increases in council house rents, and enabling him to standstill any proposed increase in rents.

The Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation enabling Ministers to direct local authorities to moderate or phase increases which the Government regard as unduly high in present circumstances. Local authorities will also be required to give early warning of proposed rent increases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question gives him a unique opportunity to clear up the deplorable confusion left by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs? In particular, can he say whether it is the Government's intention that the proposed legislation shall apply to those many instances where council house rent increases are planned from 1st April and where the rates have been calculated on a budget taking that into account?

I do not accept that my right hon. Friend left any confusion. As I have said, we are having discussions with the local authority associations, and exactly how the legislation will apply to the kind of case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is one of the subjects I am having discussions about.

What view does my right hon. Friend's Ministry intend to take of councils which introduce unfair rent rebate schemes which bear no relationship to the circular sent round by the Ministry on rent rebate guidance?

Perhaps we can consider that interesting question in the context of the Report by the Prices and Incomes Board.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to announce further proposals for the modernisation and improvement of older houses.

I intend to make known my proposals during the spring.

Will my right hon. Friend put high on his proposals the problem of multiple occupation, and recognise the great contribution that municipal ownership and owner-occupation can make to improving old houses, as was outlined in Labour's "Plan for Old Houses"?

Multiple occupation is one of the subjects we shall consider in the context of the statement I hope to make. I have made a note of the further points my hon. Friend made.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to initiate, after consultation with those interested, a rolling programme of construction of houses for sale and to rent other than local authority houses.

Regular discussions are held with representatives of the builders, building material producers, building societies and local authorities at the Housing Programme Working Party about the future of the housing programme, both public and private. One of the working party's foremost aims is the achievement of a steady and substantial output of private housing.

Do the Government have a policy of ensuring that there is a regular supply o both land and money to enable houses for owner-occupation to be supplied at a regular rate?

My right hon. Friend's officials are associated with the Land Commission in discussions with local authorities in the main pressure areas about the supply of land. The building societies have made clear their intention of continuing to lend as much as they can to finance private housing.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will consider introducing legislation to provide for the compulsory surveying of houses before sales are finalised.

Those who buy houses built under the National House Builders Registration Council's scheme will have the safeguard of inspections during construction and guarantees backed by insurance. My right hon. Friend hopes to see this scheme cover virtually all new houses before long. I understand that the Law Commission are considering the question of liability on sales of older houses. At this stage my right hon. Friend does not see a need for legislation on the lines suggested.

Whilst with qualifications I welcome that encouraging reply, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would agree that for the mass of ordinary people the decision to buy a house, whether a new or second-hand one, is of major importance, and will he consider the possibility of perhaps advertising that these facilities exist and reconsider the possibility of introducing legislation?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of new house buying. That is why there is great value in house-buyers using members of the National House Builders Registration Council's scheme.

Is the Minister completely satisfied that there are enough qualified surveyors to back up the sort of scheme he outlined?

There is always a shortage of skilled professional and technical men amongst surveyors, as in other activities. The evidence is that the Council can get adequate staff, although there are difficulties of recruitment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has to improve the working of the Rent Act, 1965.

There will be additional publicity with a view to bringing the Rent Act to the notice of those who can most benefit from it; statutory rules of procedure are being prepared for rent assessment committees; and I am having meetings with representatives of the rent officers and the rent panels for an informal discussion of their work.

Would not my right hon. Friend accept that it is a pity that his concern for publicity about the work of the rent officers and the Rent Act did not come earlier, since then we would not have had to lose some of our rent officers in the Midlands? In this regard, will he reconsider his decision not to allow rent officers to advertise locally in their own areas?

I do not accept the suggestion that there was not adequate publicity earlier, although the case for referring rents to rent officers or panels did not seem to have the impact it should have had. But I think that one of the factors in that situation also was that some of my hon. Friends tended to exaggerate the effects of the working of the machinery and thus discouraged a lot of tenants in lower-rated properties from making full use of the Act.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the undertaking given by his predecessor to apply the fair rent by regulation procedure to the totally inadequate rents of controlled properties? When will the right hon. Gentleman carry out that undertaking?

The Question on the Order Paper referred to proposals for improving the working of the Rent Act. At the moment, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would not improve it.

Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to giving publicity to the very high proportion of low-rated properties where rent reductions are being obtained?

We are giving further publicity. It is important to note that decreases were commoner among lower rateable values. On the whole, the Act is working well.

Does the right hon. Gentleman now repudiate the undertaking given by his predecessor?

Certainly not. I never repudiate an undertaking. The Question related to what proposals I have to improve the working of the Act. I said that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) did not come within that category.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many determinations of fair rent have been made under the Rent Act of 1965 in Greater London, and England and Wales, respectively, up to the latest convenient date; and if, in each case, he will estimate the percentage of all dwellings subject to regulation which these figures represent.

Up to and including 1st March, 1968, the numbers of applications for registration of fair rents determined by rent officers in Greater London and in England and Wales were 29,881 and 64,981 respectively. These numbers represent, in relation to each area, about 10 per cent. of the estimated number of regulated tenancies.

Is this not an absolutely deplorable rate of progress? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, unless we can speed matters up, it will take about 25 years before all regulated properties in England and Wales have had their rents registered? When considering amendment of the machinery, will he think of the possibility of amending the Act so as to provide that registration must be effected within a certain time?

My right hon. Friend's reply to Question No. 11 indicated that we are concerned and anxious to use publicity to bring more cases before the rent officers. On the other hand, I would not agree that, in every case where there is no reference to rent officers, there is necessarily an unsatisfied landlord or tenant.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what effect he estimates that the proposals in the Transport Bill will have on the time taken to build houses.

None, Sir.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the inflexibility the Bill will produce—for example, through the periods of several weeks required by Clause 67 for certain applications for the carrying by road of building materials?

There are provisions in the Bill for flexibility in dealing with urgent cases.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, when he proposes to make a statement about the confirmation of the green belt to the south of Birmingham.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28th November. 1967.—[Vol. 755, c. 43.]

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the delay in coming to a decision has gone on for a long time and is causing much confusion, particularly among local authorities when considering planning permission for in-filling?

The local authorities have full powers for the control of development in the areas proposed by them as green belt land. It would not be right for the Minister to confirm the green belt before he has received the results of the study being undertaken by the Planning Conference.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will refer the increase of an average of £1 a week being charged by the Greater London Council to residents in their hostels to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

These charges include the provision of meals and services and I understand involve a substantial loss to the Council. My right hon. Friend does not consider it would be appropriate in present circumstances to refer the charges to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the loss to the Council is £70,000 a year, a small sum in comparison with its total budget? This increase will fall most harshly on a section of the community least able to afford it. Will he at least ask the G.L.C. to amend the rules whereby no rebates can he granted unless the charge exceeds 45 per cent. of the gross income?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should not be any unnecessary increases. I have no evidence of hardship caused but if the hon. Gentleman has some and would let me have it, I should be grateful.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the New Towns Commission is granting leases of houses subject to a condition that rental shall be paid to a firm, British Relay Television Limited regardless of whether or not the service is required; and whether he will forbid this practice.

I understand that the New Towns Commission has arranged for a television relay service by this firm to all the houses on one of its new estates at Hemel Hempstead so that individual aerials are not required. The annual charge is paid by the Commission, and recouped out of the rents of all the houses on the estate. This is a matter of local housing management which is properly left to the Commission to settle.

Is it not quite wrong, in recouping this money, to charge those who do not wish to accept the service? I quite accept that it is all right for those who want the service to pay for it, but why should it be a condition of tenancy that one has to pay £4 a year when one does not require the service?

I understand that the individual tenants are not obliged to rent a receiver from the particular firm.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary hold an inquiry into this business of radio relays? Is he aware that in my constituency, at Thamesmead, the Greater London Council has given an exclusive radio relay to Rediffusion, and that this is causing considerable concern, as a lot of people feel that this is the payoff for the substantial contributions that this company has made to Tory Party funds?

I do not think that aplies to the New Towns Commission. I do not think that it has been contributing to the Tory Party funds.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that those tenants of the New Towns Commission at Hemel Hempstead whose rent is based on no element of subsidy are being charged an increase in rent to contribute a subsidy for council housing; and whether he will draw the attention of the New Towns Commission to the unfairness of this charge.

I see no unfairness, for the reason given my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question on 20th February. [Vol. 759, c. 49.]

While the whole House no doubt accepts the idea of balancing Commission and council house rents for some purposes, and thereby necessitating a payment from the Commission to the council, surely it is wrong that unsubsidised house tenants, who are paying a far higher rent, should also have to pay an additional subsidy to the Commission and hence to the council?

This is a reasonable arrangement. Subsidy is paid on all these houses, but what particular rents are charged is a matter for the Commission, under its powers, to decide.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now take steps to allow the New Towns Commission for Crawley the same arrangements for subsidies for houses that it builds for letting as are allowed to the Crawley Urban District Council for the same purpose.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that the Commission for the New Towns should build subsidised houses for general purposes. This is the job of the local housing authority. I am sending the hon. Mem ber a copy of a letter that my right hon. Friend recently wrote to the Chairman of the Commission on this point.

Does not the Minister appreciate that the only effect of this policy of withdrawing subsidies from the New Towns Commission in Crawley has been to increase the level of rents of Commission houses by 17½ per cent. and that a further 17½ per cent. is in the offing? Does this not make a complete nonsense of the Government's prices and incomes policy?

No, the point is that we would be very happy if these were sold or cost-rented. The Commission, again in the exercise of its discretion, is being pressed very strongly to be allowed to reduce the rents. That is a matter for it to decide, but my right hon. Friend's policy is quite clear.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he has given to the City Council of Liverpool regarding a fair rents and rates policy at this time; and what reply has he received.

I have not offered the Council any advice on these subjects, other than that contained in circulars addressed to all local authorities. I understand that through the working of the rate support grant introduced by this Government, domestic rates for next year will remain unchanged.

Was not the circular of my right hon. Friend addressed to the City of Liverpool, and has it not ignored the advice in that circular? Is it not to increase council house rents from 1st April? Would he write to the authority, saying that he proposes to introduce legislation which will be back-dated from the date of the increase?

It would be wrong for me to try to threaten local authorities with powers which I do not yet possess. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Corporation of the City of Liverpool asked to see me and I shall be meeting it on Thursday.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in attempting to balance its housing revenue account and in introducing its present rate rebate scheme, the Corporation of the City of Liverpool is acting exactly in accordance with the advice of his Ministry?

In fairness to myself, I should say that I have not given any corporation advice that it should completely abolish its rate fund contribution. I would rather not prejudge the discussions which I am to have with the Liverpool Corporation on Thursday.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now introduce legislation to relieve local authorities of the responsibility of balancing their housing revenue account over a fixed period of time.

No, Sir. This would increase the eventual rent burden, whereas at present authorities are obliged to make a rate land contribution to offset a deficit on the account in any financial year.

Is it correct that the Government have no legal powers to intervene in the decision of an authority on rents or rates? Would he assure us that such a provision will be included in the White Paper and that we shall speedily have legislation to make this intervention possible?

My hon. Friend should wait for the White Paper.

On a point of order. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek to amend the law whereby local authorities can, by withholding a formal declaration of unfitness far habitation, prevent a householder from challenging a report by a medical officer of health, which artificially lowers the value of the property causing financial hardship to the owner, and is to the ultimate advantage of a local authority which proceeds with a compulsory purchase order.

My right hon. Friend has no evidence that authorities unreasonably delay their formal declaration of unfitness. However, he is engaged upon a comprehensive review of the legislation affecting older housing areas and he will make known his proposals during the spring.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Act allows a local authority to work a racket on the private householder? Will he pay immediate attention to the case which I have sent to him regarding a property known as the Piece of Cheese, in Hastings?

That case was a very special case which involved other considerations. In general, there is no evidence that local authorities work a racket.

asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are responsible for improving the wages of the lower-paid workers.

As the House knows, the coordination of the productivity, prices and incomes policy is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Sir.

But is it not a matter of great concern to the Government that so many adult workers take home less than £15 a week—less than many rich people spend on one evening out? How will the new incomes Bill affect these workers, who are so desperately in need of more money?

I have not gone into dining out habits, but certainly the question of the lower-paid workers—and, as my hon. Friend says, there are very many below that figure—has been one of the most important things which my right hon. Friends and I have been discussing with the T.U.C.

But did not the Prime Minister yesterday tell the T.U.C. when, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was with that body that unless the incomes policy succeeded there would be 1½ million unemployed?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two and a half million."]—How can we expect the lower-paid worker to get a higher standard of living if that is a possibility?

From the greater productivity of British industry. I told the T.U.C., as I have said many times publicly recently, that if we do not have a satisfactory and effective prices and incomes policy the only alternative, which sometimes I think has been proposed from the benches opposite, is a resumption of deflation, which could have the sort of effect which the hon. Gentleman has described.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has to coordinate the work of all Ministers involved in the problems of racial integration; and what additional financial help is to be made available for those towns and cities with a large immigrant population.

My right hon. Friends already work closely together on this as on other matters and both the arrangements for co-ordination and the policy are kept under continuous review. As to assistance, my hon. Friend will know of the provision of Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1966.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the help given to local authorities like mine is completely inadequate to deal with the very severe problems which exist? Is he further aware that there are hundreds of families in my constituency living in disgusting old ghettoes and that we have almost 400 children who cannot be found school places? The money which the Government give does not provide the houses and schools which we need. Will my right hon. Friend consider the amount which the Government are prepared to give to towns like these, and appoint one Minister to be responsible for channelling the money to local authorities? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter.

The hon. Lady must appreciate that other hon. Members have Questions, too.

I am aware of the very serious conditions in the town, part of which my hon. Friend represents. Indeed, in a meeting elsewhere, I have heard her deploy this argument much more fully. I agree that this is a serious matter, but she will be aware of the very generous help being given. Also, I have been discussing with the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants what more might be done through the medium of that Committee.

Is not part of the solution of this problem the dispersal of the great concentration of these people? Is it not true that past Governments have not approached this problem really forcefully? As we are the head of a multiracial Commonwealth in which we take great pride, would the right hon. Gentleman look at this aspect of the matter again?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about dispersal, although he will recognise the great difficulties about doing anything effective to redistribute Commonwealth immigrants more evenly over the country. Certainly some cities and towns in the Midlands, and parts of London and Yorkshire and elsewhere, have had a very heavy concentration of them. Anything that we can do to encourage dispersal we shall be glad to do.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, while the answer is dispersal, for many boroughs in London, particularly the Ealing Borough which is very near Heathrow Airport, many problems have been created? The council and its officers are responding magnificently in an endeavour to solve them, but they are in urgent need of financial assistance. Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider this?

I am aware of the special problems of areas such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend. But I am sure that he recognises the need for exercising due economy in the provision, which is still rapidly expanding despite the cut-back, for housing, for education, and for matters of that kind. We are trying to see if it can be more fairly distributed.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the decision of the House of Lords in Conway v. Rimmer and another; and whether instructions have been issued to Government Departments regarding claims to Crown privilege in the light of it.

Careful consideration is being given to the implications of this decision. No fresh instructions have yet been issued to Government Departments regarding claims to Crown privilege but this will be done as soon as possible. Should any questions of claiming privilege arise before fresh instructions are issued it will be dealt with on its merits in the light of the House of Lords decision.

When the directions come to be made, will the Prime Minister have in mind the desirability, now that this has become a justiciable issue, instead of going on the ipse dixit of an individual Minister, of ensuring that Government Departments keep their claims to Crown privilege to a minimum in the interests of the administration of justice?

Some years ago I sought to make it clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends that these should be kept to an absolute minimum. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Law Reform Committee had already been examining the law relating to Crown privilege as part of its general examination of the law of evidence in relation to civil proceedings, but that it held up its draft report when it became clear that the Conway v. Rimmer case was going to the House of Lords. As soon as the House of Lords has disposed of the matter—and it has now got the documents in the case—it will be for the Law Reform Committee to give us its advice.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now initiate a study in regard to the feasibility and advantage of British participation in an Atlantic Free Trade Area.

I would refer the right hon. and learned Member to the Answer I gave on 21st March 1968, to Questions by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).—[Vol. 761, c. 596.]

Was it not the Prime Minister who said that, in politics, a week is a long time? Has not a week been long enough to show him the inadequacy of his previous answers, and will he not now come to a decision to give serious and sympathetic consideration and research in depth, without commitment, to this project, or are we to take it that his mind is closed to an extension of industrial free trade?

in fact, it is not a week, but five days since I gave these answers, and too rigid an application of that rule in relation to Parliamentary Questions would ensure that our proceedings at Question Time would become highly repetitive, not to say tedious. On the particular issues, I have nothing to add to what I said last week.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the extraordinary events of 10 days ago have shown the complete interdependence of the dollar and the British £ and, therefore, the need for the country to orientate itself much more, both politically and economically, towards the United States rather than towards Europe?

I do not always hear these sorts of proposals made from behind me. But certainly it is a fact that the events of 10 days ago showed the total interdependence not only of the dollar and sterling but of all countries who are concerned with the operation of the world monetary system, particularly those in Europe, but others as well. I do not think that, of itself, it has any particular lessons for economic or political groupings outside that.

In view of the United States Administration's acceptance of the latest Kennedy Round proposals, and the fact that it is unlikely that they will accept a further extension of these proposals, would the Prime Minister, therefore, look at this narrower suggestion?

I would have thought that an acceleration of the Kennedy Round was a much better thing to get all the nations concerned to agree to than the much wider and so far undefined proposition contained in this Question. Even so, the announcement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the House about an acceleration of the Kennedy Round has run into pretty stormy weather in the last 24 hours, so I should not want to raise hopes unduly of pursuing it in that direction.

In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government's policy is still to seek, in the long term, British entry into Europe, is not the time ripe to see whether it would be possible to get an intermediate form of relationship with Europe, perhaps under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome, as a prelude to full entry?

I do not think that anything that has happened in the last three or four months has affected the validity of the arguments against second-class membership of the Article 238 kind.

Is it not clear that the hold-up over the acceleration of the Kennedy Round is coming again from the Government of France? Would not the Prime Minister, therefore, consider how he is to liberalise trade, either by an industrial free trade area or otherwise, or is he wedded to the idea of a common external tariff?

The right hon. Gentleman's reading of Press reports of yesterday's discussions on this question leads him to conclusions very close to those that I have myself reached in this matter. But I am not sure that that would suggest that we would be more likely to secure agreement on the much wider area contained in the Question that he put down last week. We have very great difficulties in getting the Six to work together on matters such as the Kennedy Round and financial questions before we can consider appropriate action, even in the monetary sphere, on a wider scale.

asked the Prime Minister why he gave an assurance to the Trades Union Congress that the Government would not seek compulsory powers to enforce a prices and incomes policy at the time of devaluation; and if he will make a statement.

As I made clear in the answer I gave on 5th March to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), no such assurance was given.—[Vol. 760, c. 224.]

Then what was the point of allowing the T.U.C. to go on with the charade of trying to get an agreed voluntary incomes policy if, in any case, the Government meant to legislate to enforce it? Why was it that the trade union leaders thought that the Prime Minister had given such an assurance?

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. What has been tried and done is of enormous importance. We have seen a great revolution in industrial affairs. To describe it as a charade was quite unworthy. As for talks with the trade union leaders, as I have made clear in the House, on the night of devaluation I informed Mr. Woodcock, whom I saw, as I did Mr. Davies of the C.B.I., that we were not contemplating further legislation in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We were not at that time. I have said this. But, as I have already told the House, when I met the T.U.C. to discuss its voluntary vetting scheme—the one which the hon. Gentleman called a charade—I stated our full position about what might be needed and the dangers that its scheme might break down or might not be fully effective. I said that, if that occurred, there would be increased taxation, restraint on growth and higher unemployment. It would also reopen the question of a tougher incomes policy backed by statutory powers. That statement was made to the T.U.C. Economic Committee on 5th January.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the Government's change of policy in relation to introducing legislation is meeting widespread opposition throughout the trade union movement? In the interests of getting the economic growth that he wants, would he not withdraw the legislation and remove one of the main barriers between his Government and the trade union movement?

No, Sir. I recognise, however, the very, very great difficulties this presents for trade unions and their members. That is why, as my hon. Friend knows, I appealed to him recently to use his great influence with so many on the shop floor to bring home to them the fact that he must recognise—the need for an effective incomes policy.

Mr. Heath.

rose—

Welcome back, Ted.

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has told the House that, when the Government ask for powers over prices and incomes, they will ask for them in a form which can be easily renewable. Is the Prime Minister aware that we believe that, if the Government want such powers, they ought to try to take them on each occasion by a separate Bill? If the Government are to ask for them to be renewable, will he assure the House that it will be done in a form which will allow a separate debate and vote, and not just be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill allows not only a separate debate, but a form of amendment in that certain parts of an Act can be dropped for all time. If we have what we had before—a simple provision that after a debate and a Division the whole of the scheme either goes on or does not—that gives the House less control over the future of the situation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many on this side who do not share the views expressed earlier by one hon. Member? All that is required of this Government is that they should get this country out of an economic mess.

Yes; and one essential part in this is that the Government must succeed where our predecessors failed in getting an incomes policy. They totally failed in their incomes policy because they were not prepared to take action over prices or over dividends or to deal with the various fiscal reforms that were needed. They were not prepared to do any of these things. Their idea of an incomes policy was a very tight and unfair grip over the public sector with no control over profits in the private sector, both combined for short periods at a time with chronic deflation.

Does the Prime Miniter really think that he can make compulsory powers work against the bitter opposition of the trade unions?

I do not for a moment under-rate the very great difficulties of making this work. It has never been wholly satisfactorily carried through. I have given the reasons why it failed before 1964, but I do not under-rate the extreme difficulties. That is why we want to rely as far as we can, even now, on the voluntary system for which the T.U.C. were given powers, though it has very grave doubts whether those powers will be allowed to work. We want to supplement them, and we feel they must be supplemented in this way. As we said to the T.U.C. yesterday, when the grim alternatives are fully realised, particularly concerning further industrial growth and unemployment, I think that, bitter and repugnant though this is, a large number of trade unionists will realise how necessary it is.