asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the numbers of town schemes under the Historic Buildings Council now in operation or planned.

Eight schemes are in operation. Arrangements are nearing completion for a further five, and seven, others are under discussion. I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, naming the towns and giving details of the allocation of grant.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on what is being done, but will he say whether the ancient town of Great Yarmouth has a scheme, and also whether there is a scheme for the City of Norwich?

No, neither of those towns is on the list. It is open to any town with a historic area or a number of historic buildings to apply for a town scheme, which will then be considered by the Historic Buildings Council.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many orders designating areas of outstanding natural beauty he has confirmed within the last 12 months; and how many are at present under consideration by the National Parks Commission.

My right hon. Friend has confirmed three, relating to the Hampshire Coast, the Norfolk Coast and the Kent Downs.

My hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on the progress already made in this important matter, but may we hope that the impetus will be stepped up in the future?

Yes, Sir. The Commission is keeping this matter actively under consideration. The statutory provisions are thorough and, in consequence, somewhat lengthy.

Cannot the Minister do something to prevent areas of beauty being covered by gigantic electricity pylons?

That is another question. There are procedures for considering that matter as well.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that developers are continuing to threaten individual property owners with the compulsory purchase powers of the Land Commission; and whether he will take steps to stop this practice

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he will now take to prevent such misuse of the name and powers of compulsory purchase of the Land Commission as are now commonly taking place and resemble the one recently sent to him by the hon. and learned Member for South Buckinghamshire.

A few cases only have been reported. Any owners threatened in this way should report the facts immediately to the regional office of the Commission.

Does not the Minister deplore the use of an Act as an instrument for blackmail? Does not he consider that this strengthens the case against the extension of the Government's powers by the introduction of the second appointed day? Will he defer that day indefinitely?

There is no present intention to introduce the second appointed day. I do not see how that question arises on this matter. I have already deplored the isolated instances of the practice to which the Questions refer, and the Commission will ask professional bodies to make it clear to builders and developers that statements should not be made implying that the Commission's compulsory purchase powers will, or may, be used against particular owners.

Does not the Minister know that the Act, which was intended to be directed against land speculators, is becoming a weapon of oppression in their hands, and that property owners are being bullied even to part with their back gardens by this kind of thing? What remedy will he or the Land Commission have if professional bodies take no notice of the warning he has just described?

I do not agree that the Act is becoming an instrument of oppression. One of the functions of the Land Commission is to prevent land hoarding, and it has compulsory purchase powers which can be used for the assistance of the private builder and to ensure that land is brought forward for development. That is perfectly proper. It is not proper for a builder to suggest that he has some way of inducing the Land Commission to use the powers in a particular case. This is a matter for decision by the Commission.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now take steps to facilitate the co-operation between industry and local government in the development of joint schemes for the disposal of trade effluent.

Many sewerage authorities already consult local industry when they are planning new or extended disposal works to deal with voluminous or difficult trade waste, and I have urged in a recent circular that this should be the general practice.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation, in which industry gets grants for this purpose and local authorities do not, is absurd? Would not a joint scheme prove more economic? Should not that attract some form of grant?

I do not think that a joint scheme is the way to deal with the problem. Ownership of sewage disposal works must be under one body and not a joint undertaking of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggests. But I appreciate the interest he takes in this problem.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what instructions have been given to the Alkali Inspectorate regarding co-operation with local authorities; whether he is satisfied that local authorities are sufficiently aware of the advisory services available to them; and if he will make a statement.

Co-operation between the Alkali Inspectorate and local authorities is most important. Alkali inspectors make two visits annually to each local authority whose area includes works registered under the Alkali Act. They visit on request any authority seeking advice upon an air pollution problem outside the scope of the Act. I have no reason to suppose that local authorities who need the Inspectors' services are unaware of them, but I will glady investigate any cases my hon. Friend has in mind.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he give much greater publicity to these services? Is he aware that, although local authorities might not always complain, residents around places like cement works face great difficulty and discomfort because of the fall-out?

I sympathise with the point put by my hon. Friend. But, of course, residents ought really to bring pressure on their local authorities. In relation to the publicity angle, I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Chief Inspector's Report for 1967 has been laid before the House today. I hope that it will be studied by hon. Members and will receive adequate publicity in the Press.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a good deal of conflict as well as overlapping between the work of these two authorities? Will he consider introducing legislation in the near future to put the work of smoke control and the control of alkali emission under one authority, either the local authority or some other?

My hon. Friend has wide experience of these matters. If he will give me information about the overlapping to which he refers and the difficulties to which he believes this gives rise, I will gladly look into the point.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage garaging associations by means of which house-owners in cities can co-operate in the provision of multi-storey garages for their own use.

None, Sir. Perhaps the hon. Member would care to let me have fuller details of what he has in mind.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply and I will take him up on it. Is he aware that there is great advantage to be gained by off-street parking? Will the Department do what it can to help?

If, by that, the hon. Gentleman means financial assistance for private parking, then I foresee difficulties. But, of course, we realise the importance of trying to use planning and other procedures to facilitate parking arrangements.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the few land acquisitions and attenuated operations of the Midlands Division of the Land Commission, he will state what economies and operational advantages are to be achieved by amalgamating the division with the adjoining divisions with a view to abolition by 1970.

No operational advantages would be gained by amalgamation of the West Midlands with other regions.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Midlands Division is a quiescent, slumbering body grossly under-employed? In the interests of Government policy for increasing productivity at every level, notably in bureaucracy, would not amalgamation as a precursor to extinction be the proper recourse?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's description is quite inaccurate. Perhaps he would like to visit the offices some time and see for himself.

In order to bring some sense into this discussion, will my hon. and learned Friend tell us how much land the Commission has acquired?

So far, 28 sites totallying over 1,100 acres have been acquired or are subject to exchange contract or draft or confirmed compulsory purchase orders.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the present position regarding Birmingham Corporation's applications to develop land in North Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that Birmingham City Council and Worcestershire County Council have recently agreed on sites to take 11,000 houses on the Worcestershire boundaries of Birmingham in the Frankley-Rubery and Hawkesley-Moundsley areas: and that applications for these will shortly be made by the Birmingham City Council.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he give me an assurance that the cost of the services resulting from this development will be borne by the City of Birmingham and not by the ratepayers of Worcestershire?

We had better await the application and what is said about it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek to amend Schedule 5 of the Land Commission Act during the current Session of Parliament.

No, Sir. It was not found possible to include an amendment in this year's Finance Bill.

As the Minister has already had to make two extra-statutory concessions to people of small means who have suffered hardship, why cannot this matter be rectified by legislation without delay?

The fact that the original concession has been extended, as is reported in this morning's Press, shows that there has been no disadvantage in the slight delay in legislation. No one suffers from it. The fact that the concession is in operation as an extra-statutory concession has been reported to the Public Accounts Committee.

Is the Minister of State aware that there is great anxiety on this point and that we should like to have amending legislation as soon as possible, at any rate before we repeal the Act altogether? For the avoidance of all doubt, will he confirm that the concession announced yesterday contradicts and overrides his reply of 7th May, which indicated that the concession would not apply to non-residential land?

I do not know about contradicting it. The original reply was correct. The original concession did not apply to non-residential land. The extension is that it now applies to non-residential land to the extent indicated.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he estimates the redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot forecast a completion date. The proposals are still in their formative stage and have been published now to obtain public reaction to them.

Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the present condition of the hub of the Commonwealth is a disgrace? Will he do his best to see that this is the last of a long series of plans and that redevelopment starts as soon as possible?

If I were to affirm that, I should be giving a blessing to a plan which had not even been submitted to the Ministry, and obviously I cannot do so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first comment.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made during the last year with the major schemes for new and expanded towns under the New Towns Act.

Since last July my right hon. Friend has designated three new towns, Peterborough, Northampton and Warring-ton. Public inquiries into objections to the Dawley-Wellington-Oaken-gates and Ipswich new town proposals have been held, and my right hon. Friend awaits the inspectors' report. He is considering the consultants' study of the proposed Central Lancashire new town and its impact on North-East Lancashire. In addition, Milton Keynes new town was designated in January, 1967.

As so many local authorities can look only to new and expanded towns for the solution of their housing problems, may I ask my hon. Friend to endeavour to improve on the splendid record of the Government in respect of new towns?

We have started a whole new generation of new towns, with new and varied ideas of how to use the machinery. This is a very valuable experiment with which we want to push ahead as quickly as possible.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he has taken recently to help local authorities to deal with oil pollution.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement giving details of his recent circular issued to local authorities concerning grants for clearing oil pollution from the beaches.

I am sending my hon. Friend and the hon. Member copies of a circular and technical manual sent to all coastal local authorities on 8th July. Copies are also available in the Library. The circular asks county and county borough councils to make schemes for mutual aid; describes arrangements for help from the Armed Services; and says that, pending legislation, the Department will consider applications for a 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of clearance and provision of equipment.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steps already taken. Will he say what plans he has for an early warning system to be carried out by fast motor boats, helicopters or in other ways, so that local authorities can be warned in sufficient time that oil pollution is about to take place?

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend wants, but an early warning system on the scale which he envisages would involve quite disproportionate expense. We do have an early warning system, and I hope that this will be made even more efficient under the new arrangements which I have proposed in the circular.

While appreciating that the new 50 per cent. grant to be allowed by the Minister will certainly be of help, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, as local authorities are in no way responsible for the unfortunate occurrence of oil pollution on their beaches, that the grant should be for the full 100 per cent. of the cost of clearance?

I have given great attention to the point which the hon. Gentleman raises, because I can understand the attitude of the coastal authorities. I have come to the conclusion that 50 per cent. of the admissible expenditure by the ratepayers and 50 per cent. by the taxpayer is a fair distribution of the burden.

Will the Minister bear in mind the very real worry and concern that many authorities in the South-West have over the transfer of oil from tanker to tanker in Torbay? Is he aware that the result of an accident here could have the most disastrous effects on the South-West beaches?

I appreciate the anxieties to which the hon. Gentleman has rightly called our attention. Our best advice at present is that the danger is minimal, but we are keeping the situation under review, and so are the oil companies concerned.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for the work that he and his Department have done in this area over the last year or two, may I impress upon him that there is a very real problem being faced by the small local authorities in tourist areas through oil pollution? Can he look into the possibility of giving them a little more early warning than they get at present?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I will certainly look at the possibility of improving the early warning system, but I am pretty confident that this is one of the results which will flow from the new proposals we are making to local authorities as to mutual help.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now revised his estimate of the increase in house prices that will take place in 1968.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 9th July.—[Vol. 768, c.43.]

I understand that that reply told us that costs would rise by 1½ per cent. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that an increase in house prices of 1·1 per cent. already in the first quarter of this year plus the effect of another 1 per cent. when the new rates of Selective Employment Tax come in in September will make a much higher estimate possible by the end of the year?

In that last Answer I corrected an estimate of 4½ per cent. to about 3 per cent. I have no evidence at present that new house prices are rising at that rate.

But what evidence is the Minister obtaining and what efforts is he making to find out the facts? Is not he aware that many people consider that house prices will rise by about 10 per cent. this year?

That is a wild estimate. I prefer to stick to the evidence which we have rather than speculate.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of the number of improvement grants to be approved in 1968 as compared with 1967.

One hundred and thirteen thousand grants were approved in England and Wales in 1967, of which nearly 45,000 were approved in the first five months. The corresponding figure for January to May, 1968, was nearly 50,000 but I am not yet in a position to make an estimate for 1968 as a whole.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number in 1967 was very much less than in 1964–65? Does not he think that there is a danger at present that applications will be held back pending the legislation which the Government have in mind? Can anything be done about that to bring the applications forward now? When will the new grants become available under that new legislation?

It is because we were unhappy about the rate at which improvement grants were coming in that we propose this very great new change of the machine. A great many improvements can be done under the existing legislation. What the change does is to extend the costs within which grants are available. For many people it is wise to go ahead now, though some might benefit by waiting to see whether they can get an area grant. I cannot say when the legislation will be introduced, but I hope that it will be soon.

How many of the houses improved are owner-occupied, and how many are tenanted?

If my hon. Friend wants an accurate figure, perhaps he will put down a Question and then I shall give him the latest.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses he estimates will be completed in the private sector in 1968 and 1969.

It is not possible to make precise predictions for the private sector for as far ahead as the hon. Member asks. In the current year, however, I expect that over 200,000 private houses will be built in Great Britain.

Is not it time the Minister encouraged private enterprise to get on with building houses? Does he recall that 218,000 houses were built in the private sector in 1964, and that in 1964 his party promised more building of private houses?

We have already done a great deal to encourage the building of private houses. I shall be only too happy to expatiate on this subject later if I have the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great feeling of satisfaction on this side of the House at the considerable increase in total house building? That is what we are really concerned about.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has for revising the publication, "Your Guide to the Option Mortgage Scheme".

Now that it is no longer necessary to include advice to existing borrowers, it should be possible to simplify the booklet, and my right hon. Friend has put in hand the preparation of a revised version.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but would he get on with the job as quickly as possible and include in the new pamphlet the effect of family allowances as given in the Finance Bill?

The form of the booklet does not involve explaining the details of Inland Revenue legislation, but we shall certainly include a warning that people should look ahead for possible tax changes.

Will it go further and warn people that as a result of the record level of interest rates it will now be very unwise to enter the mortgage option scheme without taking a great deal of advice?

I am sorry if the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to underestimate the value of what has been a great improvement for very many people. All through the existing booklet we emphasised the importance of people considering very carefully before exercising their option.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to raise the maximum Value figure in the London area for houses falling within the 100 per cent. mortgage guarantee scheme.

No, Sir. It is too soon to contemplate any revision.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the figures published by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society for the last quarter of 1967, the average price of a new house in Greater London and the South-East was £5,482 in comparison with an average for the rest of the country of £4,351? Would not he agree that this places Greater London and the South-East in an unfavourable position because the scheme applies only to houses of under £5,000 in value?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about average prices. The scheme is intended to help people of moderate means who normally would not be in the market at average prices or over but would be interested in cheap houses.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has accepted the recommendations in Command Paper No. 3604 concerning the rents of council houses.

The Government have already taken powers in the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, to secure the limitation and phasing of rent increases, and to enable service of notice of increases without notice to quit, and we have commended to local authorities the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes concerning improved arrangements for dealing with complaints from tenants and for consultation with tenants' organisations. The Government will not reach any final conclusions on the other major recommendations of the Board until current consultations with the local authority associations are completed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman giving careful consideration to the recommendation that council rents should ultimately be based on replacement cost?

That matter is one of the points dealt with by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and it is one of the subjects of consultation with tile local authority associations.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the recommendations in the document merely tinker with the problem, and that the only effective way to reduce rents is to achieve a reduction in interest rates? What further plans has he in this connection?

The question of interest rates will be discussed later. In the case of new houses, we have done a great deal to reduce the interest paid by local authorities, but I have not at present any proposals for increasing the subsidy to the existing housing stock.

In reference to the last supplementary question from behind the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that this morning for the first time an advertisement by a building society has appeared offering 8½ per cent. for deposits, a record level in history?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain local authorities, usually Conservative-controlled, have been interpreting the 7s. 6d. as an increase that they can put on every year? Will he make it perfectly clear to the House and the country that that is not the Government's intention? I hope that a circular along those lines will go out.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The powers are limited in duration under the Act, but I have made it clear to local authorities that the 7s. 6d. is a ceiling and is not to be regarded as a norm. I am in correspondence with a large number of local authorities on this subject.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities and representing how many council houses, have to date adopted his proposal of a 7s. 6d. per week increase in rents for each of three successive years; how much above the 3½ per cent. norm of prices and incomes policy this represents; and whether it is his policy that private landlords should now do the same, at 7s. 6d. per week increase per domestic hereditament, for each of three years, in the interests of equity.

I have not proposed any increase. On 3rd May I advised local authorities that I should not normally accept in any one year average increases in standard rents which exceed 7s. 6d. a week; and since then the 47 proposals I have received have all been within this limit. I have emphasised that this is an upper limit and not a norm. A private landlord is entitled to increase a regulated rent up to the fair rent subject to the phasing arrangements I have recently made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now apply himself to answering my Question? What relation is there between the 7s. 6d. per week for each of three consecutive years and the 3½ per cent. norm of the Government under the prices and incomes policy? Secondly, will he advise rent tribunals that private landlords, in equity, should be placed in the same position as councils as landlords?

In the Question on the Order Paper, the hon. Gentleman asked a number of points, one of which related to an increase which he alleged me to have recommended and which I had not recommended. So far as the relationship between the increase and the 3½ per cent. norm on prices and incomes is concerned, I do not think this is a parallel. I do not think that an increase in total income can be compared with an increase in one item of expenditure, however important that is. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Prices and Incomes Board recommended a maximum average increase and not a percentage. On the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will study the guidance I have recently issued about the phasing of increases in the private sector.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify his earlier statement that 7s. 6d. is the ceiling for any increase? Does it mean that this is a ceiling for average increases but that some increases might be allowed of up to 10s.? When will he be able to use some of the powers given to him in the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968?

I repeat that I have advised local authorities that I should not normally accept in any one year average increases in standard rents of more than 7s. 6d. per week. I have also said that I would not in normal circumstances accept individual increases of more than 10s. a week. There are later Questions on the Order Paper about my powers.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence of hardship being caused to council house tenants in consequence of these increases?

I think that any increases must cause some hardship and inconvenience. Our aim is to keep them to the minimum. That is what we are seeking to do through this legislation and the circular I have issued. If the hon. Gentleman has any experience of local authorities operating a rent policy which appears to inflict injustice, I would gladly look into such cases if he brings them to my attention.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the G.L.C., under Tory control, is going right through the 7s. 6d. ceiling by imposing substantial increases in ancillary charges upon council house tenants in G.L.C. flats?

Any increases of that kind must be limited to actual increases in costs. I would rather not become involved in discussion of individual cases. I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind, however, that, as a result of my intervention, the G.L.C. has mitigated its proposed increases very considerably.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have moderated rent increases, or proposed increases, since the issue of Circular 25/68.

Twenty-six local authorities have moderated increases of rent, actual or proposed which had been notified to the Ministry before Circular 25/68 was issued.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the circular is having the desired effect?

I think that the circular is having an effect in two ways. First, it is tending to make local autho- rities now contemplating increases keep them within the limits. Secondly, it has had a profound effect in the case of these 26. In nine cases modifications to rent increases which would have come into effect after the circular are involved and in the other 17 rent reductions to mitigate rent increases which came into effect after the circular are involved, so I think that we are making useful progress.

As the intervention of the Government in the affairs of freely elected local authorities will involve substantial rate increases, will not the Government compensate the ratepayers of these areas for the financial consequences of the Government's own intervention?

I have answered that question before. The answer is "No". We have suggested various other considerations which local authorities should take into account. Local authorities cannot be specifically protected against legislation, any more than can corporations or private individuals.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give an undertaking that there will be no further reduction in the 500,000 a year housing target because of increased activity in improving old houses.

The Government's policy of allotting a greater share of public investment in housing to improvement of older houses was set out in the White Paper "Old Houses into New Homes". I expect new housebuilding to continue at a very high level into the 1970s.

That is not very definite. Does my right hon. Friend agree that housing need is so great that we need 500,000 new houses and 200,000 improvements a year, and would it not be unacceptable to do one at the expense of the other?

Our overall policy was laid down in the White Paper. Local authorities must have some flexibility in the way in which they determine priorities of expenditure. The need for new housing is very great; the need for improvement of old houses is also great. My general aim is to make the greatest contribution each year to the solution of the housing problem which our economic situation permits.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his hon. Friend that the figure of 500,000 was not a target, that it was a pledge, not a lightly given promise, according to the Prime Minister, to build 500,000 houses a year in 1970, no matter what circumstances might arise, that it was a pledge reaffirmed in the House in 1966 and that it has since been abandoned? Will he explain to his hon. Friend that no one would take any notice of a pledge, much less a lightly given promise, on this subject given by Her Majesty's Government?

This must be the seventh or eighth time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made this point. The whole House knows the reasons, following devaluation, why the target of 500,000 had to be abandoned. The fact remains that we have built substantially more houses than right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever built.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, following the publication of the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, and in order to avoid slowing down still further the improvement of these houses, he will include in the subsequent legislation to be introduced the compulsory powers to make property owners install baths, hot water and inside water closets which have been omitted from the White Paper.

It is generally agreed that the existing compulsory powers have not worked well, and the White Paper proposes a policy relying mainly on persuasion, with compulsory purchase as a reserve power. My right hon. Friend will of course be very pleased to consider any suggestions my hon. Friend wishes to make.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Public Health Inspectors Association, a body of practical experts, is very concerned that the White Paper proposes to repeal existing powers rather than to streamline them? As many councils, particularly those now Conservative-controlled, would refuse compulsory purchase, would it not be better to have compulsory purchase and the existing machinery invoked?

The suggestions of the public health inspectors, who were very constructive and helpful, will be considered by my right hon. Friend before legislation is prepared, but the evidence is that attempts to force through improvements against active obstruction have not worked. It has been a long and tedious operation and, in this situation, it is best to go for compulsory purchase.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek powers to control the practice of some local authorities of reducing the sum payable to owner-occupiers upon the compulsory acquisition of their property when they are rehoused in council accommodation.

The basis of compensation is laid down by statute and no person is obliged to accept less than the amount due on that basis: any dispute as to what this amount is in a particular case can be taken to the Lands Tribunal. My right hon. Friend will consider whether he can usefully send out advice to local authorities on this matter when he receives the report of the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which is considering this amongst other questions.

I thank my hon. Friend for the latter part of that Answer. Does he agree that if the private landlord were to exact key money in this way he would very properly face prosecution? Does he consider it right that a person of very moderate means should be deprived of a substantial part of his savings as a fee for the allocation of a council house?

Broadly, I agree with my hon. Friend. However, I ought to point out that councils are not obliged to provide council houses for dispossessed owners if they are satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available privately.

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary have to wait for further information? Has it not become a scandal in some areas already that local authorities continue to engage in this practice, which is quite illegal?

I do not think that it is illegal. The reason for waiting is that my right hon. Friend does not have evidence to show that the practice is widespread. It certainly exists in some areas, but I am sure that this Question and Answer will have discouraged local authorities from it.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date Mr. Cullingworth was appointed to examine ownership and management of housing in new towns; and when his report is expected.

Mr. Cullingworth was appointed in February, 1966. His report will be published towards the end of this year.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the speed of this report, remembering that it is of great importance to those who wish to become owner-occupiers in new towns? Is he not already aware that there is a gross imbalance in new towns and will he go ahead and start preparing his proposals to put right this imbalance?

On the wider issue, my right hon. Friend has already indicated his wish that new towns should move towards a better balance of owner-occupation. A first draft of the Report was submitted in February, but Mr. Cullingworth asked to be allowed to do further work to polish it for publication. It is a very interesting report, well worth waiting for.

Before any action is taken to increase owner-occupation in the new towns, will my hon. Friend take account of the effect which will be produced by selling houses which were built some years ago at a comparatively low cost and putting the burden on the new rents of houses now being built?

My right hon. Friend will take account of the economic and financial implications of all decisions.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he is satisfied as to the manner in which the rent assessment committees in the West Midlands are carrying out their duties under the Rent Act; and if he will make a statement;

Rent assessment committees have before them the rent officers' reports, whether or not the parties appearing before them are professionally represented. In the great majority of cases they see for themselves the properties concerned.

Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the rent officers in the West Midlands recently sent him a long memorandum about the difficulties in the West Midlands? Is he aware that rent assessment committee apparently pay no regard to the level of rents already obtaining in an area, and they do not consult the register of rents when making assessments? Will my hon. Friend now carry out an investigation into the way in which the rent assessment committees in the West Midlands are operating?

It is difficult to look at a particular case in isolation. The figures I gave in the Answer indicate that rent assessment committees in the West Midlands are bringing down the rents, below the rent before registration.

Would the hon. Gentleman look into the practice, in parts of the West Midlands, of not calling the rent officer to give evidence before the rent assessment committee? It always seems a little peculiar that the person who really has the information should not be called to give evidence.

This is rather wide of the Question. We look at this very carefully, and we have discussed it both with the rent officers and the presidents of panels. On balance opinion is against doing it.

asked the Prime Minister what responsibilities the Lord President of the Council has or will have regarding the developments in the National Health Service described in the Ministry of Health's Green Paper.

The scope of my right hon. Friend's present responsibilities in relation to the Ministry of Health have already been announced, Sir, and I have no further information to give the House.

Will the Prime Minister accept that this amalgamation involves a unifying of the system of finance? Is it his intention that the Lord President should deal with the problem mentioned in the Green Paper, the double financing of the Health Service from taxes and health contributions on the one hand and rate support grants on the other?

My right hon. Friend is still going into the whole question of the basis on which the merger should be carried out, and it would be wrong for me to anticipate what his conclusions will be. Certainly all the relevant issues in the Green Paper, which are put forward for discussion and public debate, will be relevant to what he is doing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very practical suggestions for integrating the Health Service contained in the Green Paper have been discussed for the last five years and that, irrespective of whether it is the Lord President or the Minister of Health, it would be a Cabinet decision? Will he say that discussions will not continue for too long before a decision is made?

We deliberately decided that a matter so important, in a sense so human as this, should be published in this form so that there could be free public debate, without the Government having committed themselves to a given solution. The House will have seen the very forward-looking proposals my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is putting before the House and the country.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the foreshadowing of the end of the damaging and divisive tripartite structure in the National Health Service, and we also welcome the Minister of Health's final conversion to the idea of area health boards, as first put forward by the Liberal Party seven years ago?

As I said, this is a Green Paper, not a White Paper, so the hon. Gentleman should not jump to conclusions with such rapidity. I am sure that he will have a very important contribution to make to the public debate on the Green Paper.

May I assure my right hon. Friend that it is particularly appropriate that this Report should come out at a time when we are considering the amalgamation of Ministerial responsibilities? Can we have a final decision on this Green Paper in the fairly near future?

Also relevant to the Green Paper and the merger is the publication of the Seebohm Report. The ultimate decision will also have to take into account the recommendations of the Maud Commission on Local Government.

asked the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from the Greek military régime regarding Her Majesty's Government's policy towards that régime; and what reply he has sent.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given on 8th July by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).—[Vol. 768, c.6–7.]

Would my right hon. Friend appreciate that whatever reaction any remarks of his might have provoked in Greece they have been widely welcomed by democrats in this country and throughout Europe? Secondly, would he make it clear, as the timetable for a restoration of democracy is coming to an end, that we shall soon have to start making moves inside N.A.T.O., in concert with our allies, to expel Greece if there is no restoration of democracy by the end of this year?

In answer to previous Questions by my hon. Friend I referred to the impatience with which everyone would be watching the attitude of the Greek Government to the timetable which they have promised. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Greek Government have now, on timetable, produced a constitution. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on it, but it is a step in the right direction.

Is it not the case that this is not a proper, adequate constitution? Will my right hon. Friend continue to consider the possibility of helping to get Greece expelled from N.A.T.O., bearing in mind that the ostensible reason for N.A.T.O.'s existence is the protection of democracy?

Our attitude to all these questions has been related to the fulfilment of the undertakings given by the Greek Government to get a speedy return to democracy on the basis of the democratic constitution to be approved by the Greek people. Since I last answered Questions on this subject, I think that there has been this step in the right direction.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that there is a real danger, not only in Greece, but in other countries, of indulging the temptation of political condemnation and forgetting about the vital necessity of trade?

I thought that that matter was very satisfactorily dealt with by the answers given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when it was raised by hon. Members opposite two or three weeks ago.

asked the Prime Minister what further measures he proposes for the co-ordination of departmental activities in order to obtain decisions without delay on major development projects such as aluminium smelters.

My right hon. Friends already work very closely together on these matters and no further measures of co-ordination are needed, Sir.

Should not the many factors involved, including the E.F.T.A. considerations, have been examined before the announcement made last year? As this would have spared the areas concerned the anxiety and the confusion caused by repeated postponements of decisions, should not the Prime Minister have resisted the temptation to make the announcement of this project prematurely at his party conference.

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The impatience at the delay should be assuaged in the next day or two when announcements are to be made. Very difficult negotiations with business firms are involved. There had to be a public announcement first to enable any firm which wanted to make an application to do so. These negotiations had to be related to the requirements of E.F.T.A. and of other international obligations, and it was essential in the negotiations to ensure that no financial arrangements were made which involved any question of subsidy. This has inevitably taken a very long time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his imaginative announcement at about this time last year on the provision of aluminium smelters was widely appreciated, particularly in Scotland, and we are glad that it did not take him 13 years to make it?

In common with my hon. Friend, I am disappointed about the time which has been taken, but there have been the most difficult and involved negotiations with individual firms, and, as I say, some of the proposals put forward had to be turned down because of the international obligations involved.

In the context of high energy consumption, can the Prime Minister confirm that, despite the White Paper, the coal industry will provide half the energy requirements of the country in the 1970s?

Yes—the right hon. Gentleman gives me the chance to say that, as is freely acknowledged in theFinancial Times this morning, the doubts thrown on this matter by the misreport-ing of my speech on Saturday were inaccurate. [Interruption.] I am not blaming anyone, but I am happy to say that theFinancial Times, which got it wrong yesterday, no doubt by inadvertence, got it right today once it heard, which hon. Members opposite have not heard, the tape recording of what I said.

asked the Prime Minister what further progress has been made by the Commonwealth Secretary General towards calling a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; and if he will send an official invitation, before the House rises for the Summer adjournment, to all Commonwealth Prime Ministers asking them to attend an early meeting in London.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 18th July to Questions by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling).— [Vol. 768, c.271.]

I am glad to know that a date, even next year, has been found since my Question went on the Order Paper. Would the Prime Minister seek some urgent way of exercising Commonwealth pressure on the problem of Nigeria? As regards Rhodesia, will he again be in a position to tell his Commonwealth colleagues that punitive sanctions will succeed in weeks, not months?

The hon. and learned Gentleman can always be relied upon to denigrate any subject which he touches, including the Commonwealth. I am disappointed that the date of the conference is as late as it is, but we had to reach a date which was acceptable to 25 Commonwealth Governments. We should have preferred it to have been held this autumn. I thought that the question of Nigeria was fully debated by the House yesterday when two very full Statements were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. On Rhodesia, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find some interesting food for study in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council this morning, which proves that all that he and other hon. Members have said has been totally wrong from start to finish.

In future, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that these meetings are held not only in London but in different Commonwealth capitals each year?

Yes. We have tried to ensure that. Indeed, I think that I was the first British Prime Minister to attend a conference in Africa. That was at Lagos in 1966. On the question of the present Conference, we put forward the suggestion of Canada as a suitable location at an early date, but, in the event, the Commonwealth as a whole decided on this date and chose London for this occasion.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has now made for increasing the responsibilities of the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement.

I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers which I gave to Questions on this subject on 25th January.

Will the Prime Minister now fully implement the promises which the Labour Party made in 1964 in its election programme to transfer the Welsh responsibilities of the Ministries of Education, Agriculture and Health to the Welsh Office? Is he aware that, now that the Welsh people are deciding to live as a free nation, which is the message of three by-elections, the Government have a bounden duty to develop a Welsh civil service—[Interruption.]—in readiness for self-government?—[Interruption.]

I missed some of those no doubt well chosen words. On the early part of the supplementary question, as I told the hon. Gentleman before, we are continuously reviewing the position of individual Departments to see whether we can get more devolution consistent with economy and efficiency, but it would not be right to do that if it were contrary to the interests of Wales or involved a big addition to staff and costs.

Would my right hon. Friend take it from hon. Members on this side of the House that what the electors of Caerphilly said to the Government last week was that they wanted more jobs as a priority rather than administrative devolution? Would he therefore ensure that more jobs are provided to replace those in the declining coal industry?

My hon. Friend is aware of the very great priority being given to economic recovery in Wales and, in particular, to the very sweeping new incentives which have been created, particularly in areas of colliery closures. The problem in Wales has been aggravated by the colliery closure programme. A considerable amount of new industry has been steered to Wales, which would not have been possible under the general philosophy of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), but the closure of uneconomic collieries has intensified the problem.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of South Africa to visit Great Britain to discuss matters of mutual concern.

I have no plans to do so, Sir.

But as Britain stands to suffer an immediate loss if the price of gold is increased, what steps do the Government propose to take to secure the co-operation of the South African Government in maintaining the price of gold?

The question about the gold price and the decisions taken in Washington in March were fully outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer after that meeting in Washington. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion, except that the hopes and views which he then expressed have been amply borne out by events since.

But since the effectiveness of sanctions on Rhodesia very largely depends on the co-operation obtained from South Africa, can my right hon. Friend say what attempt has been made to secure this co-operation?

We have been in touch with the South African Government on a number of occasions. Last year, I had talks with the Foreign Minister of South Africa. But, as my hon. Friend knows, the United Nations has laid down procedures for dealing with the question of international sanctions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the communications from Mr. Kosygin and President Johnson on further proposals for disarmament, following the agreement on non-proliferation; and what reply he has sent.

Our views on the Soviet Government's further proposals for disarmament, which we received on 1st July, and on President Johnson's message to the opening Session of the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee on 16th July, were set out in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the debate in the House on 18th July. I have no further information to give the House today.—[Vol. 768, c. 1679–1805.]

Will my right hon. Friend maintain the pressure to have continuous conferences to bring about disarmament, which is the only guarantee for the survival of the world? In view of the dangerous situation which now obtains in Europe, would he consider advocating even more strongly the establishment of a peace and security council for Europe?

With reference to the continuing conferences which my hon. Friend wants to see, there is the conference, again reconvened, in Geneva of the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee. My hon. Friend will have been delighted to see the very important initiative taken by Her Majesty's Government through my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in his proposals concerning bacteriological warfare. With regard to a new security arrangement or security conference for Europe, I have nothing to add to questions I have answered on previous occasions about my talks with Mr. Kosygin.

Will the Prime Minister convey to Mr. Kosygin that it would be helpful to world disarmament if Soviet Russia took its forces out of Czechoslovakia?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said to the House in the debate on foreign affairs last Thursday. But we are, of course, in close touch with Mr. Kosygin on questions of disarmament. We very much welcome the initiative that he took on the day the non-proliferation treaty was signed, and equally, of course, the initiative by President Johnson. We look forward with some hope to the discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union in the light of those two new initiatives.

Does my right hon. Friend think that disarmament is advanced by supplying arms to Nigeria and to Zambia, particularly in the latter case, when neither we nor anybody else is in a position to do anything to help Zambia if she meets the consequences of using those arms?

The question of Nigeria was fully debated yesterday, not for the first time in this House, and that matter was dealt with. As to Zambia, as is made clear in an Answer of mine to a later Question, we made it clear to President Kaunda when he raised the defence question with us that we are prepared to have joint talks with the Zam-bian Government about the equipment which they need. We have made it clear that there is no embargo on defensive arms to Zambia.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us think that what the Foreign Secretary said in the foreign affairs debate about the situation in Czechoslovakia was not up to the importance of these events? Is it not time, so many years after the Yalta partition of Europe, that the peoples of Europe were enabled to unite in peace and freedom?

I have not anything to add to what my right hon. Friend said on this very important, difficult and delicate issue in his speech last week. I am sorry that the hon. Member does not think that my right hon. Friend's speech measured up to the importance of the subject, but from his own standards of what measures up to the importance of the subject I am, perhaps, rather relieved.